May's ultimatum to Russia

[pete75]

If you assume any donation from Russian sources as attempts to gain contact and influence then that's what union money does.

What is your explanation for the astonishing generosity of these Russian oligarchs?

I equate the Russian oligarchs funding to union funding. Isn't that clear from that quote? It's self interest and influence on both sources of funding. Unions and oligarchs are both bad sources of party funding in my opinion. They both distort democracy.

The unions are UK organisations and trying to influence policy in a way which benefit their six million plus membership as well as similar folk who are not members. Russian oligarchs are trying to influence policy in a way which will benefit their own selfish interests. You equate the two - astounding

[reohn2]

Since you ask, the Unions answer to their members, who are British citizens. The Labour Party answers to its members and the electorate, also British citizens. This is called democratic politics. When a small number of wealthy individuals use their offshored wealth to influence our politics things are a bit less acceptable.

Spot on!
Which isn't the same "cesspool" because every union member has a say in their trade union's drection and influence,whether they exercise that right is entirely upto them.
Whereas the Tory party is influenced only by it's individual members,which are far fewer than Labour's and are only really influenced by individual big bucks contributors to the party.

[PH]

IMHO of you take out private donations you should take out union donations too. Let politics separate from outside interests even if those interests claim democracy like unions. Let it be member funded only.

It isn't the unions money that funds the Labour Party, it's the members if that's what they chose. If they do so they become affiliated Labour Party Members. The latest Tory attempt to curb this funding (and any other influence unions have) was the 2016 Trade Union Act, which made it compulsory for union members to opt in/out of the political fund every five years (As opposed to opting out as previously) A union's political fund is the only money that can be used for political funding. Yet funnily there's no corresponding legislation for shareholders of companies donating to the Tories. The relationship between the unions and the Labour Party is clear and open, it is their party, they created it, it is the party of labour, there's a clue in the name.

[Mike Sales]

The other point about democracy in unions. Very well, half the members often bother to vote. At least it's a vote. But they're not the Labour Party. If you put it into a Venn diagram the circles are not superimposed. If a union votes one way doesn't mean the Labour Party votes the same way. Indeed at times the big unions seemed to be at odds with the Labour Party. I bet funding by unions dropped in those times. If that's the case it's purely about union influence. If it's not about influence the same as tory businessmen making donations then what is the difference?

Nationality is problematic but I do not hold that union democratically determined interests (I find it questionable at times due to turnout of members on ballots at times) are the same as Labour democratically determined interests.

The proportion of the electorate that voted for this government is likewise a minority. Nevertheless it claims a mandate for all sorts of policies. If we want to vote for or against a party, or a union officer in the circs. that we are a member, we can. We have no chance to vote for the individual oligarchs or plutocrats who want to influence our government. Their interests are not likely to coincide with those of our population. That is the difference. If the Unions did not fund the Labour party the gap in funding between the parties would be even larger than it already is.
I would welcome a ban on political donations to parties, and government funding instead. I think it would close the funding gap. I note the Tory government has been reducing such funding as does exist,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-quietly-cuts-short-money-funding-to-opposition-parties-a6748696.html

[reohn2]

I equate the Russian oligarchs funding to union funding. Isn't that clear from that quote? It's self interest and influence on both sources of funding.

The huge differrence being the Trade unions founded the Labour party in the face of oppression of the ordinary working wo/man,and work for the good of them.Whereas the Tory party's influence comes from the rich who until the Labour party was formed both them and the Liberals owned the working wo/man and now seek to do the same today by allowing zero hours contracts,and a lack of social housing,seeking to allow the ordinary wo/man to sink deeper in debt by a loaded system,etc,etc.

Unions and oligarchs are both bad sources of party funding in my opinion. They both distort democracy.

That is delusional,for the reasons I give above.

[Ben@Forest]

The relationship between the unions and the Labour Party is clear and open, it is their party, they created it, it is the party of labour, there's a clue in the name.

Though not everyone associated with Labour wants that, Momentum want to tap into a different sort of member:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/momentum-backed-nec-member-christine-shawcroft-labour-should-cut-union-links

Pretty much all the press and political websites are describing what's happening as a (metaphorical) punch-up.

[reohn2]

The relationship between the unions and the Labour Party is clear and open, it is their party, they created it, it is the party of labour, there's a clue in the name.

Though not everyone associated with Labour wants that, Momentum want to tap into a different sort of member:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/momentum-backed-nec-member-christine-shawcroft-labour-should-cut-union-links

Pretty much all the press and political websites are describing what's happening as a (metaphorical) punch-up.

Not everyone in the Tory party wants it to progress along it's current path of rich getting richer at the expense of the poor,and not without reason,so what's your point?
Are political parties not allowed to have factions within them?
Whatever you may think I'd suggest the Labour party has far more unity within it and is far more democratic than the Tory party has ever been.
You may not like the Labour party or what it stands for but that fact remains it's existence is for the good of the many,and not the few at the expense of the many!

[pete75]

Not everyone in the Tory party wants it to progress along it's current path of rich getting richer at the expense of the poor

[Mike Sales]

Are political parties not allowed to have factions within them?

The Tories have been divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics for many years. Remember Major's "[rude word removed]"?
The referendum was Cameron's attempt to resolve the question, but resolved his career instead. Instead it led to our present long term agonies.

Edited to add a question mark and to express my surprise that a word used by our then P.M. and Shakespeare (God stand up for [rude word removed]) should be censored.

[Ben@Forest]

The relationship between the unions and the Labour Party is clear and open, it is their party, they created it, it is the party of labour, there's a clue in the name.

Though not everyone associated with Labour wants that, Momentum want to tap into a different sort of member:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/07/momentum-backed-nec-member-christine-shawcroft-labour-should-cut-union-links

Pretty much all the press and political websites are describing what's happening as a (metaphorical) punch-up.

Not everyone in the Tory party wants it to progress along it's current path of rich getting richer at the expense of the poor,and not without reason,so what's your point?
Are political parties not allowed to have factions within them?
Whatever you may think I'd suggest the Labour party has far more unity within it and is far more democratic than the Tory party has ever been.
You may not like the Labour party or what it stands for but that fact remains it's existence is for the good of the many,and not the few at the expense of the many!

I am interested in politics and know people from a wide range of political beliefs. I have no problem with the Labour Party and what it stands for - that is democracy. You can go back through my posts and you will find I have never insulted Labour voters, I have never called anyone a Re-moaner' and do not question people's' political intelligence. Just as I would always hope people do not refer to the Conservatives as 'scum' or 'evil'.

There is of course political factionalism and the link highlights that. As a party that was built on the trade union movement (and on balance I regard trade unions as an important part of our political system) I am interested that there is a faction which would now like to disassociate itself from it - nothing more.

[661-Pete]

Edited to add a question mark and to express my surprise that a word used by our then P.M. and Shakespeare (God stand up for [rude word removed]) should be censored.

Don't I know it! - and you can't even quote the cast list of a Shakespeare play (e.g. Much Ado About Nothing) without falling foul of the filter:

Benedick, A lord and soldier from Padua; companion of Don Pedro
Beatrice, niece of Leonato
Don Pedro, Prince of Aragon.
Don John, "the [rude word removed] Prince," brother of Don Pedro.
Claudio, of Florence; a count, companion of Don Pedro, friend to Benedick.
Leonato, governor of Messina; Hero's father
Antonio, brother of Leonato.
Balthasar, attendant on Don Pedro, a singer.
Borachio, follower of Don John.
Conrade, follower of Don John.
Innogen, a ghost character in early editions as Leonato's wife
Hero, daughter of Leonato
Margaret, waiting-gentlewoman attendant on Hero.
Ursula, waiting-gentlewoman attendant on Hero.
Dogberry, the constable in charge of Messina's night watch.
Verges, the Headborough, Dogberry's partner
Friar Francis, a priest.
A Sexton, the judge of the trial of Borachio
A Boy, serving Benedick
The Watch, watchmen of Messina
Attendants and Messengers

But my days of complaining about filters are long past. Now I just 'go with the flow' - or work around (when I know it won't cause offence) .

[reohn2]

I am interested in politics and know people from a wide range of political beliefs. I have no problem with the Labour Party and what it stands for - that is democracy. You can go back through my posts and you will find I have never insulted Labour voters, I have never called anyone a Re-moaner' and do not question people's' political intelligence. Just as I would always hope people do not refer to the Conservatives as 'scum' or 'evil'.

There is of course political factionalism and the link highlights that. As a party that was built on the trade union movement (and on balance I regard trade unions as an important part of our political system) I am interested that there is a faction which would now like to disassociate itself from it - nothing more.

Thanks for that

I have certain personal experiences and reasons for referring to the Tory party as evil and scum,which won't change.

[Mike Sales]

I have certain personal experiences and reasons for referring to the Tory party as evil and scum,which won't change.

Nye Bevan called them "lower than vermin". I believe he had his reasons.

[pwa]

I have certain personal experiences and reasons for referring to the Tory party as evil and scum,which won't change.

Nye Bevan called them "lower than vermin". I believe he had his reasons.

If a Tory called another group "vermin" we would be comparing the comment to the Nazis using footage of rats as a metaphor for Jews. Decent people don't call others from a different strand of opinion "vermin" or "lower than vermin". We leave that sort of thing to the far right bigots. So Bevan, for all his considerable achievements, got it wrong there.

I have known good people who are Tories and I have known good people who are Labour. Both exist.

[reohn2]

I have certain personal experiences and reasons for referring to the Tory party as evil and scum,which won't change.

Nye Bevan called them "lower than vermin". I believe he had his reasons.

If a Tory called another group "vermin" we would be comparing the comment to the Nazis using footage of rats as a metaphor for Jews. Decent people don't call others from a different strand of opinion "vermin" or "lower than vermin". We leave that sort of thing to the far right bigots. So Bevan, for all his considerable achievements, got it wrong there.

I have known good people who are Tories and I have known good people who are Labour. Both exist.

It's the party in total I hold such views on not all members therein,as in the Labour party some are deluded and for various reasons.
But the party was founded by and for the landed gentry and is still the same today as it ever was,in the past its been of a more human form but always reverts to its roots,run for the rich for the rich.
If a Tory ever puts his or her arm around you be aware s/he's feeling for a chink in your armour where they can stick the knife.
I'm resolute of that conviction and have good reason to be.