if we are talking about bringing misery down on this country.....remind me which sector of work you are in again Jerry...........
Leaders of things usually are paid more, aren't they? Managing Directors are paid more than workers, Admirals more than sailors, Bishops more than vicars, Professors more than lecturers; and yet you seem to think union leaders should be paid not as leaders but as their members are. So should leaders in all walks of life be paid equally with those they lead, do you think? Or just union leaders uniquely?
Surely condescension is in the eye of the beholder; if you feel condescended to, that says more about you than it does about me. And no, I'm not upset in the slightest.
Not to me in particular Pete. Re the leaders thing, surely the Unions are democratic and the 'leaders' are only there to represent the will of the members not to actually lead, to direct.
It seems to me that people always support politicians and parties out of self interest. Clearly. The point is to have representation of your view, philosophy, values etc etc. That's why you vote for who you vote for. Where is the incoherence in that? As for those who want local politicians, there is no bar on them. Anyone can stand as an independent. If they don't get voted in, it's because they fail to convince enough people to vote for them. No seat is, in theory safe, as no one is elected until the election is held and the electorate can vote for whom they wish. The Labour Party was born of the Union movement, so there is little incoherence of that movement seeing Labour as representative of its voice (in as much as it is now representative of anything). Indeed, it seems to me that the problem with politics now is that it has become marketing politics. It is arse about face. You used to have a philosophy and politics was to turn that into action. Now you look at what might be popular (or what you can get away with) and do that, so as to keep yourselves perpetually in power. Liberals, Tories and Labour are all just different shades of the same thing. None of them seem to stand for anything much. This is surely why the electorate is disaffected. The success of UKIP is surely that it knows what it stands for, even if the realities of implementing what it stands for seem to be somewhat murky.
A bit of the back story Glidd, maybe you missed it in Switzerland. Call for Union Regulator to Investigate Unite for Fraud Unite Officials Could Face Four Fraud Charges Over Falkirk - Guy Fawkes' blog
Yes, I did see some of this. Not a great deal to get excited about really. I mean, what's unusual about fraud? I just don't think it sparks a wider debate on politics.
Ed Milliband and the Labour Party bought and paid for by Red Len McCluskey of Unite Has a certain ring to it ? About half of the PLP are sponsored by Unite. Candidates have been effectively selected by Unite. Yet only 37.5% of Unite members vote for Labour. This is like Militant back in the 80's. It is political dynamite.
Indeed. Although "self interest" doesn't just mean immediate personal financial self interest - as you say it can mean an interest in seeing your views taken into account, often including an element of altruism. The concept of democracy seems to imply that the votes of a large number of ordinary people should count for more than the power of a small number of wealthy or heavily-armed people.
Not really. If you don't like them or what they stand for, don't vote for them. It's that simple. It is good that the funding question has been brought into the open. But people will always fund parties that will supposedly bring them what they want. Of the 62.5% of Unite members who didn't vote Labour, who did they vote for? Or didn't they bother (more likely). Seems to me that the scandal, if there is one, is for the members of Unite. If they feel strongly about it, they should leave the Union. You have to love the "Red Len McCluskey" terminology. It's so 1970s!
This goes beyond mere funding into nepotism, possible criminal behaviour and who controls the Labour Party. Red Ed has distanced himself from Red Len and forced to bite the hand that feeds whilst Red Ken has been assured that the Labour Party will maintain it's union links. The Falkirk incident is under police investigation and who knows where it might end. It is reassuring that in recent polls the young people of the UK are moving away from left wing politics and this incident will hopefully be another nail in the coffin of socialism.
I don't think young people are interested in politics full stop. I think they are interested in X-Box and Facebook.
I agree, students don't seem to be radical anymore, more interested in when the iPhone 6 will be available so they can camp out all night!
The Labour Party is routinely accused politically of being too close to/in the pockets of the unions, especially in the run up to each general election. Recent events have conveniently given Ed Miliband an opportunity to demonstrate very publicly a sharp and conspicuous separation from Unite. It is being represented as an open and bitter row between the party and the union. So convenient and so opportune is this, that I suspect the whole thing must have been cooked up between them for precisely that purpose. And if it wasn't, it should have been.
Interesting how the same events seen from a different perspective can appear so fundamentally different. It is not 'the unions' it is 'a union', Unite, who have been using allegedly illegal activities to get 'their man' selected and elected. And whilst this is specifically in relation to Falkirk it is possibly the tip of the iceberg. Just who are these Unite sponsored MPs accountable to ?
