You now seem to be referring to many and various unions, employers and individuals all colluding together to break the law - and not just on the odd occasion but blatantly and persistently, and with nobody doing anything about it nor publicising it. If you have any evidence, supply it to the Daily Mail and they will be happy to write an exposé. On second thoughts, don't bother with the evidence, an allegation will do.
That's quite some allegation, Cranker. You seem to be saying the Trades Unions' accounts, showing the separation of the political fund from general funds, are falsified; that individuals' declared choices are illegally over-ridden; and that political parties accept funds from unions on an illegal, false and fraudulent basis. If that is what you are saying, and if you can substantiate it, you are in a position to destroy the Labour Party and the unions for a generation. So off you go, then. Good luck with that.
Not easy to obtain evidence when you're in the middle of an interview,and one of the panel says,"of course,you'll have to join the Union if you want the job". Or you're at the gate with your hi-viz and safety boots,and a couple of scallys come over and say you won't be here long if you don't join.You either bend over and take it,or tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. And I'm not certain a lifelong member of the NUJ will be that interested,unless it's someone worth putting in the media spotlight. Rules and Laws get broken in every kind of working environment. Dodgy deals are done on a nod and a wink,followed by a crafty backhandereople get bullied out of jobs because their faces don't fit:even MPs fiddle their expenses and...fitting you up for Union membership is almost not worth mentioning in the grand scale of things.
No P, a company/entities accounts all boil down to numbers. If Mr A pays £120 a year including his political funding and Mr B pays £60 (no political funding) the balance sheet at year end will show a payment of £60 to Union X and a balance of £120. This balance of £120 accumulates interest, increasing the balance of Union X therefore their spending power/net worth and hence the availability of funds. It is not direct funding, it is indirect funding. If Mr B did not join the union, did not pay £60/yr the balance sheet at year end would be £60, and therefore less interest accumulation so reducing the availability of funds by another indirect method. So that is why any payment to a union also funding its political payments.
Let's try this once more. In your scenario, Mr A pays £60 into the union's general fund and £60 into the political fund. Mr B pays £60 into the general fund and nil into the political fund, because that is his choice. So at the end of the year, the general fund has received £120 and the political fund has received £60. Each fund receives interest from the bank if it is in credit, or pays interest if in overdraft. During the year the union may (and usually will) spend some money from the general fund on its normal operational expenses. Also it may or may not choose to spend some money from the political fund on political contributions. There is no basis for your assertion that "any payment to a union [is] also funding its political payments" - that is simply not the case.
Incorrect, the net balance at the end of the financial year includes all funds, assets etc. Those numbers increase the credit worthiness of the company, gaining leverage in interest payments. Carry on P, your entertaining.
I didn't just ask how to fund political parties. What I asked was, what means of funding political parties would you not condemn as corrupt? I think the problem is that the word 'corrupt' is thrown around far too freely when it does not really apply. What really is corrupt is accepting secret payments of money in brown paper envelopes in return for secret ministerial favours, in the manner of Jonathan Aitken and Neil Hamilton. For someone to try to make a career for himself, earn a living and pay his bills is not "corrupt", even if he is a politician or a public servant. Likewise for someone to set up a business and try to turn a profit is not "corrupt". For someone to incur travelling and living expenses in the course of their job and claim them back is not "corrupt". For a party to accept openly declared contributions from a union is not "corrupt". For a billionaire to buy up the democratic process and impose his own opinions by outspending everybody - that's corrupt. For a party in government to use its powers to silence, suppress, bankrupt and destroy the opposition - that is the most corrupt of all. Let's try and achieve some reasonable perspective on what is corrupt and what is not, eh?
Personally I'd rather have a govt full of regular, lived in the real world people, dustman, lawyers, doctors, shop workers, coppers, factory workers, brickies, salesman, accountants whatever than trained politicians. The ministers are there for the technical stuff, lets have people with principles, back bone and the ability to stand for what hey say they do. People who chose politics to genuinely make a difference, not because its a career like counting beans
Pmsl reading some of the stuff on this one, I'm checking my wardrobe t see if the lion has killed the witch yet
How about a system where each vote cast in an election is worth a small amount of money from a taxpayer funded pot. The more votes you get the more money you get. This money can then be used to fund the parties next electoral campaign. This would mean that the wealth of supporters or corporate interests is irrelevant. People could also vote for small parties knowing they were helping them to campaign better at the next election instead of feeling that their vote was wasted.
Pete, I think I said that you come across as a condescending arse at times, not that you were an arse per se. Personally, I'd be more upset about the suggestion that I was condescending, but there it is. My view of Trades Unions? They destroyed a great part of the British industrial estate and in doing so, laid waste to a significant part of the North of England. For their role between employee and employer, I think their time has largely passed. Where I think they have an input is in protecting English workers rights against cheaper workers from Europe or Asia, but they seem to ignore those issues. Maybe it's easier to incite class hatred. I don't know. Personally, I find it very difficult to compare the pay and pensions of union leaders with the pay and pensions of the members that provide them. Reminds me of Animal Farm.
Funny old world. If ever there was a need for unions, or someone to stand up for the small man amongst big business especially the private equity type of operations, its now. Shame the unions neither have the brains, the power nor the appetite to do the job properly, just continue fleecing others for their own lives, taking big holidays and nit working for a living
if you think the unions for their role destroyed British industry then your are sorely misguided..........
For my sins, in a round about way, I help to pay Bob Crow's salary and expenses. Oh the shame of it ! Still it could be worse, it could be Len McCluskey !
