Labour Leadership

[Blah Blah]

There's plenty of evidence Azira. Lobbying and party donations for a start. Corporations fund election campaigns, they make donations to buy off interest groups that lobby in their interests, all things that ordinary people can't compete with. That's how you end up with people like the Koch brothers in America securring the legislation they needed for a controversial pipeline within months, and it taking years on the other hand for Obmama to get through a watered down version of his health reforms.

We see the same thing here. A lowering in Corporation Tax (even though corporations already do everything they can to avoid paying it) whilst low waged working people have their support taken away.

And the trade union bill, which the Tories seem to have conveniently convinced everyone (who hasn't read it) is about strike ballots, is actually about restricting Unions ablity to collect subscriptions and use some of those subscriptions to fund the Labour party. So it's ok for a non dom tax avoiding billionaire to fund the Tory party, but it's not ok for ordinary people to fund the Labour party through their union subscriptions. It's totally hypocritical. Big business can lobby and buy influence, while organisations representing ordinary working people are outlawed for doing the same thing.

Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure Azira. Read the bills themselves (rather than the selctive spin the media uses in 'informing' us). It's all there in the public domain to read, inlcuding who donates what to which party.

[DaveR]

Corporate lobbying/donations = corruption

Union lobbying/donations = "ordinary working people"

Blahblahblah = about as reliable a guide as his/her name would suggest.

And with added condescension:

"There's plenty of evidence Azira..."

"Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure Azira..."

[ratty]

Oink

[Azira]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure

> Azira. Read the bills themselves (rather than the

> selctive spin the media uses in 'informing' us).

> It's all there in the public domain to read,

> inlcuding who donates what to which party.

Wow, nicely patronising there, and a little silly to make such statements on an anonymous forum where you don't know what people do for a living.

Let's assume that I am very well acquainted with parliamentary procedure and read bills on a daily basis - you still don't appear to have show any evidence for your claims. Can you point me to a link or two from a reputable source that of specific examples of this corruption of MPs? Or a break-down of the election funding of all three major parties and how you can trace that towards the introduction of specific examples of legislation during the relevant parliaments?

As there is plenty of evidence, I'm sure that won't be difficult, but you can see how failing to back up your assertions might lead one to think this is a bunch of tribalistic tin foil hat theory.

[JohnL]

Well somebodys out to get Cameron - and it's not just Lord Ashcroft.

Your enemies aren't always in front of you Dave :)

[Blah Blah]

Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning DaveR?

I was simply illustrating the hypocrasy of one party taking donations whilst trying to curb (by law) the ability of another to collect it's donations. It's also worth remembering that the Conservatives raise far more from their city backers than Labour do from all of theirs (including unions) and yes I do think there a difference between an organisation that reppresents workers and an individual who represents himself or his own corporate interests. You may disagree, which is fine, but I'm entitled to my view without insult from you.

Azira, here is an in depth report into the inadequacies that lead to a fine line between lobbying and corruption. It contains many examples of unethical relationships between MPs and corporate interests.

http://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/15-publications/81-corruption-in-the-uk-overview-policy-recommendations/81-corruption-in-the-uk-overview-policy-recommendations

With regards to loans and donations. Political parties are required by law to report every quarter to the electoral commission. Everything you need can be found here.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans

Both are reputable sources as I'm sure you'll agree.

[DaveR]

Take us to the parts where they make findings of corruption.

The proposed legislation re union funding for political parties won't stop anybody from donating to any party they want to.

And you might also want to explain the difference between a trade union that lobbies for higher wages and shorter hours for its (already overpaid) members, and a business that lobbies for changes that will make it easier for it to do business? They're both self-interested. Unless you call one of them 'workers' or "ordinary people" (in which case you end up sounding as credible as Ed Milliband - and we all know what happened to him)

[david_carnell]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you might also want to explain the difference

> between a trade union that lobbies for higher

> wages and shorter hours for its (already overpaid)

> members,

Any evidence for this or just your opinion that every trade union member is over paid?

[miga]

As The Dude would say "that's just your opinion, man"....but, the crux of what DaveR said sounds legit - the concrete examples of corruption are actually quite difficult to establish/procure. Of course Big Business donates to the party that will lower various taxes - that's the environment they want, it's a shared ideology.

[DaveR]

"Any evidence for this or just your opinion that every trade union member is over paid?"

Trade union members are disproportionately employed in the public sector (and becoming more so all the time), and public sector pay is higher than private sector pay (though the gap has narrowed significantly since 2010).

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with unions pushing their members' interests - but they are no different in principle from any other lobbying organisation.

[Ridgley]

We just have to wait and see how this all plays out, either they will overthrow him or he will lead the Labour Party to the next election stranger things have happen.

[Otta]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Any evidence for this or just your opinion that

> every trade union member is over paid?"

>

> Trade union members are disproportionately

> employed in the public sector (and becoming more

> so all the time), and public sector pay is higher

> than private sector pay

In what areas?

You don't see a lot of (if any) social workers (for example) working in the private sector. So I'd say it's a pretty sweeping statement to say public pays higher than private, when a lot of public sector workers don't have the option to work in the private sector.

[Ridgley]

I must admit they are all getting on my last nerves, right-wing left-wing both wing on the same fuckin bird.

[Loz]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I must admit they are all getting on my last

> nerves, right-wing left-wing both wing on the same @#$%& bird.

Welcome to the sensible world of the Centrists.

[DaveR]

"So I'd say it's a pretty sweeping statement to say public pays higher than private, when a lot of public sector workers don't have the option to work in the private sector."

It's not me - it's the Office of National Statistics. In London the premium of public over private is greater than anywhere else - something like 20% amongst lower paid employees.

Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people in the public sector shouldn't be paid decent money, and there's plenty of evidence that lots of workers in health and social care are underpaid in London, which is why there are so many unfilled posts. My problem is with people setting up trade unions as being for 'ordinary people', as a contrast with greedy corporations who don't pay tax, and probably steal people's babies.

[Otta]

Tube drivers aren't ordinary people ;-)

[DaveR]

Agreed. Driverless trains asap.

[Jeremy]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not me - it's the Office of National

> Statistics. In London the premium of public over

> private is greater than anywhere else - something

> like 20% amongst lower paid employees.

Was this calculated by comparing average salaries for equivalent roles and qualifications?

[DaveR]

"Was this calculated by comparing average salaries for equivalent roles and qualifications?"

They're statisticians - I seriously doubt it was as simple as that.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/public-and-private-sector-earnings/march-2014/rpt---march-2014.html#tab-introduction

[Blah Blah]

I think we get to the crux of the matter now. Your problem is with unions DaveR and you're not really interested in a discussion about wealth trying to buy power (which is where I personally started with this). I'm not going to get into a debate with you about unions (any more than I am going to paraphrase a well researched report that you are too lazy to read on lobbying and corruption).

Union membership is not only found in the public sector. There are several unions that represent workers in lines of work that are private sector or freelance jobs.

More than half of people in work do not earn the average wage. And that includes public sector workers. There is a huge difference between them and the millionaires that donate to political parties. Unions campaign for better working conditions and why shouldn't they, when we have a crop of corporations forcing a wage race to the bottom, while we subsidise them with tax credits and top up benefits. Even you should be able to acknowledge that.

[DaveR]

Blahhhhhh, I don't read your report because I know it doesn't say what you claim it does i.e. that corruption is widespread in UK parliamentary politics. I don't have a problem with trade unions, but I challenge your tedious and repetitive attempts to draw a false distinction between they way they lobby and fund their political allies and the similar conduct of other.

The crux of the matter as I see it is your utter blindness as to any world view but your own, one where 'workers' or 'ordinary people' are victimised by big business and corrupt (Tory) MPs. If that weren't bad enough, you're also laughably patronising without, on the face of it, any grounds to claim any particular expertise or insight.

PS - when you say "More than half of people in work do not earn the average wage." it would be helpful to specify whether you are refering to 'mean' or 'median' - otherwise you come across as being mathematically inept as well.

[Blah Blah]

How do you know what a report contains if you don't read it? C'mom! Until you read it you have no idea of what it says or doesn't say. Using your own lazyness to dimiss my view is like a Judge saying he won't listen to any witnesses because he knows what they will say.

The distinction I make between unions and millionaires is in who they represent. I would say that is fairly obvious by my comments. Unions repesent a mass, corporate millionaires, themselves.

I'm finding your tone provocative to be honest. You are not interested in debate and as for being patronising, I think your post above is a perfect example of that. If you can't be bothered reading a report I posted, why on earth should I bother posting links to any other papers.

[DaveR]

To be clear, I'm very familiar with TI and their work. I did ask you to take us to the findings of the report that you rely on, but you haven't as yet.

Unions represent a mass of people who share a common interest that may or may not coincide with my interest, or the wider public interest. That's the point you consistently fail to address.

And it seems to me that you find this provocative precisely because you have a simplistic view of the world that doesn't really equip you to deal with challenge.

NB - if the 'average' income is the median then half of people will earn less and half more - by definition. If it is a mean, then given the typical income distribution there will always be more than half earning less than that sum. In every country, and at all times.

[Blah Blah]

You completely miss the premise of my comments and the thread of discussion they were in reply to. I didn't realise that making a distinction between the lobbying interests of someone like Lord Ashcroft and Unions made me simple. You are a bit of a knob aren't you?

I respect that you have a view that is different to me, but it doesn't make you more clever than anyone. At least I will look at independent reports instead of being lazy and expecting everyone else to do the work for me.

To make it crystal clear for you. My comparison of Lord Ashcroft and the Union Bill was to highlight the hypocracy of any party that protects the tax avoidance of those who donate to it whilst trying to make donations to an opposition party more difficult to administer. That is ALL I was talking about. So I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making any assumptions on my cognitive ability, especially in relation to contexts I was even debating.

[????]

400