State funding or trade union funding

I feel it is important to raise this issue, because there is a growing right-wing move to state funding in the party.  As a trade unionist it would only be with my dying breath that I would allow the link  with trade unions and their funding to end.  As the trade unions with the fabian society and the cooperative movement founding this party, OUR PARTY!!, we must not let this happen.



Display: Sort:

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#1)

State funding and party member donations (upto around £5000 a year max.) is the ONLY fair way to fund political parties in the 21 century.

We cannot allow trade unions to bribe us with large cheques even though we know that their values are often out of touch with ours and often contradict New Labour principles.

Nobody doubts that trade unions do good work, but why should they be affiliated to any party? Surely they should work with whoever is the government of the day to ensure that workers always have their rights upheld. The fact that they support Labour probably puts a lot of non-Labour-supporting workers off from ever joining a trade union, which is sad.

This constant failed alignment with trade unions puts us at odds with modern society and probably puts a lot of voters off us. New Labour is just as supportive of businesses as trade unions today, but people widely accept that businesses shouldn't dominate our funding and certainly should not be able to vote in our electoral college - so why should trade unions get privileges? Just because they helped to found the Labour party does not mean they should always have the right to rule over us irrespective of how they act.

History should not be allowed to hold us back. Progress and democracy cannot be stopped and sooner or later, our party will ditch our constitutional links and our funding links with trade unions - and rightly so. Embrace change and embrace the future.

"As a trade unionist it would only be with my dying breath that I would allow the link  with trade unions and their funding to end."

Better get planning that funeral then wiseman!

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#2)

"New Labour is just as supportive of businesses as trade unions today"

Which is something that should be ended. The Conservative Party is by and for business, the Labour Party should be by and for workers.

Luke Akehurst, not someone generally known for his left wing views, wrote a defence of the union link in the Guardian a while ago. It'll probably still be there if anyone wants to look.

Suffice to say that, if the union link is broken, look forward to an end to the Labour Party as we know it.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#3)

I dont want to sound offensive, but it's an incredibly childish view to think that the people in this country are best served by having to choose between one 'pro-business' party and one 'pro-worker party'

I know some may find that kind of certainty comfortable, but it is no way to run a country.

Political parties are no longer, and never will be again, purely class based affairs. This may be uncomfortable for some and challenges old certainties. It requires more from voters than just "Business opresses workers, so I'm Labour".

It's not an either/or thing. A pro-business environment in Britain means higher GDP growth and more money for social spending.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#4)

Have you noticed the declining turnout in elections?

Have you ever thought that it might be caused by both parties saying the same things?

The interests of a business owner trying to make as much money as possible and the interests of an employee trying to earn as much as possible will never be aligned for long.

Business has always had the Conservative Party to put its views forward. If Labour continue to be a sort of Tory Lite while ignoring their core voters, the party will eventually die off, to be replaced in some places by far right, Islamic or revolutionary Marxists.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#5)

Have you noticed the declining turnout in elections?
Have you ever thought that it might be caused by both parties saying the same things?

There's a million and one reasons why turnout has declined. Including...

  • Labour's certainty to win in the last three elections - "why turn out, we know who's going to win"
  • Decline in voter identification with particular political parties (starting in the 70s and continuing throught the 80s - hardly a "both parties are the same era")
  • 'Middle-class-ification' of swathes of the electorate, which compounds the above and leads to a decline in simplistic class-based politics - a driver of turnout in times gone past.
  • Affluency - leading to a lot of people feeling there's not a lot wrong with the country that needs to be fixed
  • Stable economy - leading to a lot of people feeling there's not a lot wrong with the country that need to be fixed.
  • A media that portrays all politicians as crooks.

It's also interesting that you mentioned the far-right further down your post. Yes, many Labour supporters are turning to the BNP due to their concerns over immigration. Would you be happy to see the Labour party move further to the right on immigration?

"The interests of a business owner trying to make as much money as possible and the interests of an employee trying to earn as much as possible will never be aligned for long."

It's nowhere NEAR that simple.
What about "well paid employee works harder"? What about the need for businesses to keep their costs down so it doesn't go under and ALL the staff lose their jobs?
What about, as I said before, businesses driving economic growth that pays for free healthcare and education for the workers?

"If Labour continue to be a sort of Tory Lite while ignoring their core voters, the party will eventually die off, to be replaced in some places by far right, Islamic or revolutionary Marxists."

I don't think we ignore our core voters, we just understand that...

  1. We need more people than just them if we're to avoid losing elections (and where does that leave our core supporters)
  2. We need to govern for everyone, not just poorer people.

As for Islamic parties or revolutionary Marxists - grow up. You need to speak to more people outside of the Labour party if you think that is remotely possible.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#7)

Mmm. Nothing like being patronised by an intellectual pygmy before lunchtime. Nonetheless, apart from my opening sentence, I'll try and keep it civil.

Labour's certainty to win in the last three elections - "why turn out, we know who's going to win"

What about the decline in turnout for local elections?

Your point about the affluence in the expanding middle class is true. This has not, however, been accompanied by an increase in living standards for the bottom 30% economically (those whom the Labour Party was formed to represent).

Compared to other countries, businesses here (under New Labour and Tories) contribute far less to the social security pot through taxation.

People are turning to the BNP not only because of unfounded immigration fears (though that is part of it, obviously, and the Blair-loving Murdoch newspapers in particular have a large role to play) but also because the Conservatives and New Labour have utterly failed to do anything to improve their lives, work, homes and communities. If you genuinely can't see that the same reasons are driving small sections of the electorate to anti-democratic organisations like those I mentioned, then I would suggest that you probably ought to get out and around the country a bit more.

FYI almost none of my friends, acquaintances or colleagues are LP members. 20, 30 or 50 years ago they might have been, but now, like everyone else, they just see more swivel-eyed greasy fast-trackers apeing Tory policies to keep powerful interests and swing voters happy.

The 'big tent' won't last much longer once those inside it realise they have little in common.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#8)

You don't seem to have addressed any of my points at all.

"What about the decline in turnout for local elections?"

Yes. I agree. ONE of my six reasons why turnout has declined (there are loads more) doesn't apply to local elections. However, the other five do. You're point?

"Your point about the affluence in the expanding middle class is true. This has not, however, been accompanied by an increase in living standards for the bottom 30% economically (those whom the Labour Party was formed to represent)."

Are you agreeing that affluence depresses turnout? If so, wouldn't being more left wing and, in your opinion, 'helping' those people more depress turnout more? Doesn't that contradict your argument?

"Compared to other countries, businesses here (under New Labour and Tories) contribute far less to the social security pot through taxation."

How does this relate to turnout?

"People are turning to the BNP not only because of unfounded immigration fears (though that is part of it, obviously, and the Blair-loving Murdoch newspapers in particular have a large role to play) but also because the Conservatives and New Labour have utterly failed to do anything to improve their lives, work, homes and communities. If you genuinely can't see that the same reasons are driving small sections of the electorate to anti-democratic organisations like those I mentioned, then I would suggest that you probably ought to get out and around the country a bit more."

But you're arguing that turnout would increase if Labour was more left wing. It seems odd that you cite evidence that disillusioned Labour voters are turning to more right wing parties? How do you square that with your idea that the working class are longing for a more left wing party to support?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#10)

Yes. I agree. ONE of my six reasons why turnout has declined (there are loads more) doesn't apply to local elections. However, the other five do. You're point?

Dealt with point 1. Agree with points 2 and 6. Points 3, 4 and 5 are more or less the same i.e. a higher proportion of people are middle class (wide definition) and therefore not too affected by the damage inflicted on the lowest 30% over the last 30 years. (That's not to say they couldn't be better off, by the way, just that they haven't suffered too badly.)

How does this relate to turnout?

It doesn't. It was a response to another of your points (check above if you don't remember).

It seems odd that you cite evidence that disillusioned Labour voters are turning to more right wing parties?

Not that odd, if you bear in mind that most BNP voters are in social groups C2, D and E, i.e. traditionally Labour voting groups.

I wasn't arguing that "the working class are longing for a more left wing party to support" as such, rather that if the existing so-called left wing party had done more for them, they wouldn't need to be casting around looking for other people to blame (immigrants or non-Muslims, in the cases of the BNP and the Islamic loons).

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#16)

I just don't understand why people refuse to see the good that this government has done for people at the lower end of the income scale.

What about the minimum wage?
Tax Credits?
Massive investment in schools and hospitals - disproportionately used by lower income families. The money has also disproportionately gone to schools and hospitals in poorer areas.

What is it you guys actually want?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#21)

Investment in schools and hospitals which actually goes into services rather than private companies' pockets through PFI.

A higher minimum wage.

Cheaper (nationalised) public transport.

An economic policy which doesn't see manufacturing jobs being lost at a scary pace and replaced with service industry jobs at minimum wage.

Better protection for workers by making it harder for employers to fire staff and relocate abroad.

How's that for starters?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#26)

"Investment in schools and hospitals which actually goes into services rather than private companies' pockets through PFI."

How else to you propose to pay for big capital projects? Borrowing from Banks? Isn't that still putting money into private companies' pockets?

As for the running the service part - it's just a transer of risk (if done properly).

A higher minimum wage.

I agree, we'd all like that. However, give the government credit - it's raised it well over inflation over the last 10 years.

Cheaper (nationalised) public transport.

Why nationalised? Which public transport?

"An economic policy which doesn't see manufacturing jobs being lost at a scary pace and replaced with service industry jobs at minimum wage."

What do you propose? Protectionism? Subsidising failing industries?

"Better protection for workers by making it harder for employers to fire staff and relocate abroad."

So company X has 100 employees. It can...

Sack 50, relocate that part abroad, keep the company viable and bring in enough money to retain the other 50.

or

Keep all in the UK, face higher costs, go bust, all 100 lose their jobs.

Is there another alternative? What is it?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#29)

  1. Borrowing, yes, but at much lower rates than private companies can borrow. Less profit for the banks, less profit for the PFI specialists, more money for the services.

  2. Buses and trains. At present we subsidies private train companies millions a year for them to pay shareholder dividends with. That's just one way that money could be better spent on services. Publicly run and democratically accountable public transport is not only cheaper but safer, more efficient and more responsive to passenger interests.

  3. Oh it's nice when multi-millionaire company owners have supposedly left wing people to make their arguments for them. Fact is that in the vast majority of cases work is not moved abroad as a way of avoiding bankruptcy but, as in the case of Burberry, so a very profitable firm can make even bigger profits. If it was harder to lay people off in the UK then bosses would have to think much harder before relocating to Asia in order to increase their already lucrative profit margins.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#38)

Column's staring to get a little thin so replied at the bottom of the page (comment #37)

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#32)

And  non means-tested benefits........

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#39)

Starting to come round to that idea myself GrimUpNorth - although I suspect for different reasons.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#69)

e10rifles, you have an incredibly deluded view of the world.

The idea that Labour is for workers only and the Tories are for businesses only is laughable. Only somebody on the extreme left could come up with such lunacy.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#9)

We cannot allow trade unions to bribe us with large cheques even though we know that their values are often out of touch with ours and often contradict New Labour principles.

Can you explain who 'us' and 'ours' are please?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#65)

The Labour party and the policies that the Labour party put forward.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#11)

"We cannot allow trade unions to bribe us with large cheques even though we know that their values are often out of touch with ours and often contradict New Labour principles."

1. I truly wouldn't know where to start,JR, with this astonishingly reactionary  analysis from someone in the Labour Party(why?)  In truth, I just can't be bothered.
2.Yes trade union values  are not yours. Thank God.Long may that be so.
3. New Labour has no principles other than the attainment of power.
4.Let's hope more people with a trade union background like Wiseman continue to be active  in the Party , become MPs, and get rid of the appalling New Labour clique who have almost destroyed  our Party.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#15)

Hey, I'm pretty New Labour and have principles!

And I'm in a union

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#34)

OK, Glass. Accepted. But I read that apalling grovelling piece in yesterday's Guardian by those two chancers  Liam Byrne and Andy Burnham.
All they care about is their careers. They do not have a socialist bone in their  bodies and I am afraid  they are more representative of the  current Labour establishment.I do have time for Hain and Benn  but, in their heart of hearts, neither are New Labour.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#66)

with this astonishingly reactionary analysis

Reactionary? I've always believed these principles. Thank goodness others are starting to as well.

New Labour has no principles other than the attainment of power.

Not only is that reactionary, but it's also stupid.

Yes trade union values are not yours. Thank God.Long may that be so.

Agreed.

get rid of the appalling New Labour clique who have almost destroyed our Party

...by winning three elections in a row for us. As opposed to the likes of Foot and Kinnock who were both hugely successful - winning countless elections for us and both serving unprecendented spells as Prime Minister.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#6)

I don't think you should characterise state funding advocates as right-wingers. I know plenty of people on the left of the party who want it.

Also, I'm on the party's right and oppose state funding (it's my liberalism coming out).

To me, limits on spending are the way to go. It mean that, if the limit was set at the right level, parties would, at any one point, have more offers of donations than they could except (or spend) - meaning that they could be more choosy about who to take money from and avoid being roped into funding-policy reciprocity.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#12)

as i said on a previous thread, i agree with campaign finance reform because trade union funding is just as corrupt, undemocratic and disadvantage the average man or woman. i don't agree with state funding however, i just think there should be a cap on donations; why should state funding be allocated from Labour doners to Cameron's Tories. Donations should be made if you are committed to that paticular party, but they should have a cap on how much can be donated

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#13)

Sorry, how is union funding undemocractic? Unlike private donations, it is all above board, clearly detailed and published by the unions, and voted on by members.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#14)

how are private donations not "above board, clearly detailed and published"?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#17)

Have you missed the whole recent debate about party donors? A scandal which has taken in all three major parties and which, by the way, was not caused by any impropriety in the financial relationship between the trade unions and Labour but personal donations.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#19)

I think you're talking about loans, not donations.

Even if anything is proven in 'Cash for Honours', that doesn't mean that private donations are per se more corrupt that union ones - just that THOSE loans were.

For the record I don't see either as inherently corrupt, a donation is a donation. All things being equal, a donation from an individual or business is no more virtuous than a union one.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#22)

Except that it's quite obvious what unions want for their money, whereas individuals have very difference desires as shown by the current investigation (and loans in this case are just donations by another name).

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#27)

Your assuming that individuals who give money to particular parties generally do so for reasons which are less virtuous than Unions?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#30)

Reading in the papers about all the dodgy types who you would find in Michael Levy's phone book, I'd say yes.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#67)

"Trade union funding is just as corrupt, undemocratic and disadvantages the average man or woman."

Could there be a better sentence to sum up the stench of corruption concerning trade unions and their funding of Labour? I don't think so. Nice to see people on the left with a sense of morality.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#18)

The sad thing about this debate is that those who claim that party funding reform will end the Labour Union link are, by clear inference, stating that the  link is purely a cash cow: something some of the left-wingers who wail about this being an issue of principle should reflect upon.

Luke Akehurst and those on the right who defend the link don't do because they passionately believe that Trade Union barons offer some fabulous insight into the working class (the leaders are about as in touch with their members as Blair is with some of the Trots on this forum): it's because they want the dosh and know that the Unions get only a marginal influence on policy in return.

Both are wrong.  If the left are right the link between Unions and Labour should be able to withstand a cap on donations - and if it can't then another sacred cow of the left has been shown to be little more than the usual gesture politics.  

Equally, let's not have those on the right pretending to give a stuff about Unions' input into the Party when this is solely about them trying to rig the party financing system so that Labour remains able to receive vast donations while the Tories are prevented.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent Labour retaining exactly the same income it gets now - indeed increasing it - from Trade Unionists: all that needs to happen is that individual TU members opt to join or donate to Labour themselves, rather than having their bosses doing it for them.

Indeed, surely from a left-wing perspective, the party would be very much stronger if it had these extra hordes of supposedly red-in-tooth-and-claw trade unionists as paid-up members?

Of course, therein lies the problem: no-one especially wants to join political parties anymore, whether they be trade unionists or anyone else. And even if they did, the myth that trade unionists simply by their membership of such a body are any more or less party political, or even more or less Labour-supporting than ordinary people who don't belong to a union is simply that: a myth.

You're never going to be able to persuade the public that it is reasonable to block large donations to Conservatives while to Labour they're perfectly legitimate (indeed, I suspect there are a few on this forum who'd like the requirement for a ballot before they're permitted to be axed).  There's a simple reason for that: it's a ludicrous  and self-serving argument.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#20)

I agree with a lot of that.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#23)

Two things:

  • members already have to choose to belong to their union's political fund

  • I'm not taking seriously anyone who bandies the word 'Trot' around as an insult without knowing the first thing about the subject's politics

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#28)

Are you a Trot?

just asking...

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#31)

No. Never have been. Just someone who hasn't changed their principles while the leaders of the Labour Party have.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#35)

Me neither.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#40)

:)

Never thought you were GuN.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#41)

Same principles, different way of implementing them.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#68)

Well said petercoe.

Support is building I see.

One party for the workers, one for business? (#24)

The interests of workers and business are largely the same. Yes, workers want more money for less work, and employers want more work for less money, that's typical of any contractual situation, but so what?

The point is, these two creators of wealth have been pitted against one another for centuries by landowners, who collect rents but do precious little for it.

It is time for there to be one party for workers AND business (that wants low income and corporate taxes and high taxes on land values) and a dwindlingly small party for landowners (who couldn't care less about taxes on wealth creation, as long as there are little or no taxes on land values - agricultural landlords being an extreme example of this - no business rates, no inheritance tax and CAP subsidies for good measure).

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#25)

That's not far off the Liberal and Tory parties of the 19th century only with the working class now emancipated in order to vote Liberal. What progress we've made.

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#33)

which was which and where did it go wrong?

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#36)

Liberals for the factory owners and Tories for the landowners.

It went wrong because of increased working class voting rights, increased working class organisation, and thence the creation of the Labour Party by the unions and socialist societies. They had come to a realisation that, although the Liberals were better than the Tories, they didn't represent the interests of employees when they differed from those of the employers.

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#42)

Isn't that analysis tripped up by Disraeli's granting of Trade Union rights?

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#43)

If you think that the Conservative Party ever having enacted pro-worker legislation (often thanks to huge pressure from outside parliament) "trips up" the argument that they are fundamentally anti-worker rights, then yes, it does.

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#44)

I'm just saying that Disraeli did a lot of courtiny of the working class in his time. Even if it was for political expediency/understanding which way the wind was blowing.

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#45)

sorry - "courting"

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#48)


Doesn't trip up the analysis, it's just where Mark's suggestion comes in.  Disraeli tried to convert the Conservative Party into the One Nation Party that Mark refers to: a party that woudl unite the interests of bosses and workers.  It failed, because the interests of bosses and workers only coincide on a moral or philanthropic basis - i.e. bosses have to go against their material interests.

Obviously this is all a little crude and simplistic.  Perhaps we could have another thread on interests.  Of course lots of people's interests coincide all the time (not wanting to pay much tax is a regular one, of course, and some of the benefits that we get from having that interest ignored and paying taxes anyway are also shared interests - the conflicting interests are really about work and economic life, and a rather dull definition of socialism could be to undo that conflict and therefore let us concentrate on our shared interests - as well as letting us continue to fight about all our conflicting interests that haven't got anything to do with class).

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#49)

But Mark was saying that the Tories were the party of landowners, not business.

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#50)

I said that actually, and I was referring to a period slightly earlier in the 19th century when the Tories were the voice of the old establishment while the Liberals represented newly rich bourgeois factory owners. Before Disraeli.

Re: One party for the workers, one for business? (#51)


Of course it's never been this simple.  19th century Liberals represented the interests of the new bourgeois rich, but they also represented the interests of landowners who realised that their interests were best served by harnessing their fate to that of the bourgeoisie.  By the 1880s both parties were having to try and come to terms with universal male suffrage (or something close to it) so both parties looked to ways of winning the working-class vote, the Liberals through a detente with radicalism, and the Tories through Disraeli's one nationism and the Primrose League (as well as an emphasis on patriotism and national traditions - the 'By Jingo' thread of British politics).

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#37)

Borrowing, yes, but at much lower rates than private companies can borrow. Less profit for the banks, less profit for the PFI specialists, more money for the services.

Yes, it's borrowing at a higher rate, but rolled into that is the transfer of risk to the private company - insurance that, if the project goes wrong, the cost fall on the private company.

Of course, this is all tied up with the PFI contract - if you get that wrong by leaving a load of get out clauses or not properly transferring risk, the whole thing goes down the pan. But PFI is not inherently bad.

And yes, I'm going to say it - private sector innovation CAN have a role in improving the way the public sector is run.

So, in my opinion, the extra cost (of which some goes to shareholders) is offset by the transfer of risk and private sector innovation.

Buses and trains. At present we subsidies private train companies millions a year for them to pay shareholder dividends with. That's just one way that money could be better spent on services. Publicly run and democratically accountable public transport is not only cheaper but safer, more efficient and more responsive to passenger interests.

I'm not convinced that renationalising the trains would make them cheaper to run. I do think that they were badly privatised, but still think a better private model would be better than renationalisation. There was a Jenkins article in the Guardian about it a while ago - very interesting.

"Oh it's nice when multi-millionaire company owners have supposedly left wing people to make their arguments for them. Fact is that in the vast majority of cases work is not moved abroad as a way of avoiding bankruptcy but, as in the case of Burberry, so a very profitable firm can make even bigger profits. If it was harder to lay people off in the UK then bosses would have to think much harder before relocating to Asia in order to increase their already lucrative profit margins."

But what happens when Company X's American/European/Japanese rivals, who ARE allowed by their governments to relocate jobs overseas to cut costs, are able to sell their products cheaper and drive British Company X out of the market? What happens to the jobs provided by company X in the UK?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#46)

Good final question, if you hadn't asked it then I would have done.

The ultimate logic of this "no-offshoring" rule must be that all imports have to be banned.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#47)

The trade unions in other countries put the same pressure on their governments and employers to avoid a race to the bottom on wages.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#52)

But there'd always be somewhere with the lowest wages, giving their companies an advantage with which to drive UK companies out of the market - destroyinging ALL of Company X's UK jobs, not just the % that are currently outsourced to overseas.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#53)

But if trade unions are strong throughout the world, when all this work comes into a country, they will push for higher wages (unions are strongest at a time of economic boom). Then someone else takes over as the cheapest labour market.

Globalised capital seeks to make all countries compete to lower wages and, by deregulating, makes this easier and quicker to do.

The response of the unions ought not to be to accept cheaper wages so they can keep their jobs but to show solidarity in the fight for better wages in other countries, and to pressure politicians into laws which make it hard for firms to just ditch jobs and move continents as conditions change.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#54)

And where would the current batch of low waged countries get the money to set up all these industries?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#55)

What do you mean by 'set up these industries'?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#59)

Well, if Company X isn't allowed to outsource its manufacturing jobs (and no other companies throughout the world are either), then those industries which Company X are their like would have set up will not exist in those countries.

Therefore, any industry in those countries will have to be home grown. Where will the money come from to start up those industries/companies?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#57)

"The response of the unions ought not to be to accept cheaper wages so they can keep their jobs but to show solidarity in the fight for better wages in other countries, and to pressure politicians into laws which make it hard for firms to just ditch jobs and move continents as conditions change."

Is this really the role of unions in the 21st century?  

I think that they are moving more towards working with management to develop training schemes and investment to ensure that their workforce competes on the basis of ability rather than cost?  

Similarly, they take an active role in health and safety at work and compliance with legislation.

Unions have moved beyond the "class struggle", which has absolutely no relevance to their members and refering back to the 1970's and 1980's sterotype just holds them back.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#60)

I agree that what you say is Union's primary role today. Although, I wouldn't be so quick to say that they don't have a role in attempting to get the best wage deal possible.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#56)

"And yes, I'm going to say it - private sector innovation CAN have a role in improving the way the public sector is run.

So, in my opinion, the extra cost (of which some goes to shareholders) is offset by the transfer of risk and private sector innovation."

But the flaw in the argument is that this assumes that the civil service can effectively contract with the private sector which is would be funny if its attempts weren't so tragic.  

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#58)

Of course there are examples of terribly contracted PFI. My point was than PFI isn't inherently bad as many on the left seem to think - we need better PFI not an end to PFI.

There are numerous good examples of PFI in local government - especially where it's been done by Labour Councils.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#61)

Sorry, I meant to say earlier trade union funding is just as corrupt and undemocratic as private donations for £ 2,000,000 from entrepeneurs

p.s. sorry for my appaling spelling of entrepeneur

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#70)

Gawd almighty,,,,,howmany times do I have to say this. If it were not for the unions there would not BE a Labour Party.Without  funding from ordinary, working-class activists Labour would  not EXIST. These days, trade unionists have a choice whether they pay  the political levy. In what way is that corrupt, exactly? Offering business people peerages, patronage, social and professional advancement in return for cash IS corrupt. Labour ( ie the Labour Representation Committee in the early 20th century ) was founded to represent the interests of trsade unions and their members.May have strayed a long way since but not for the better IMHO.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#72)

If it were not for the unions there would not BE a Labour Party.Without  funding from ordinary, working-class activists Labour would  not EXIST.

So what do you think would happen. We'd all just forget our beliefs, pack up and leave for other parties just because we weren't funded by unions? What an over-the-top reaction.

I can imagine Gordon Brown saying 'I was really looking forward to being PM, but now we no longer have undemocratic constitutional ties with trade unions, I can't be bothered anymore. Tell all the ministers they're sacked and we're quitting politics. Someone give the keys to Number 10 to Dave Cameron. In fact, without our beloved links to those godly unions, there's no point in living anymore. Who's got a gun?"

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#62)

With regards to PFI:

The cash under PFI is more expensive than government borrowing since th markets are more risk averse than the government and as such require a greater premium above the base rate.

They are most often propped up by large outsourcing contracts for facilities management which you may as well get by just outsourcing. Theoretically you could make savings by outsourcing contracts to massive countries and take the jobs to India (lets say outsourcing back office finance functions) however, for me that is beyond the pail.

However, as far as I can see PFI just allows managers to get their nice shinny building, even though they overpay, and leave the problem for other managers down the line.

With regards to using the private sector for public services the position is much worse.  There is a failure to understand that the funding systems for both the Health and Education sectors are so inaccurate that one can easily cherry pick the areas of greatest profitability and make massive margins (well in excess of 50%). It even comes down to the way in which funding returns are completed and this is something where politicans are so detachted from the management of their sector that they cannot see how they are being ripped off.

This inaccuracy does not matter that much within the public sector because some things are so ridiculously underfunded that it all evens itself out in a comprehensive set of provision.  However, when the private sector gets involved then the super profits are not re-invested but stripped out of the system.  I also find it a bit distateful in Wales where the private companies are always the first to run off to Conservative AMs to bite the hand that feeds them if they don't like something.

If politicians could all just stop sticking dogmatically to the idea that private sector management is better or public sector management is more caring and actually just got down to the idea that we just need better managers and the job of government is to provide theses services then we might actually start to move forward.

 

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#63)

opps I meant massive outsourcing companies, not countries (although they will all end up in India or China so I suppose it ws one of those Freudain slip thingies).

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#64)

To learn further of funding reform, i refer you to 'The West Wing' episode 'Mandatory Minimums'

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#71)

What? Make someone the Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesian?

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#73)

ha ha! no the FEC nominations, the whole issue of 'soft money', campaign finance reform etc.

Re: State funding or trade union funding (#74)

they make an FEC member ambassador to Micronesia so that they can create an FEC vacancy, to reform campaign funding.

also FEC= Federal Election Commission, for those who didn't know