Are the UK unions an absolete antiquated dangerous force?

[Denny Crane!]

Undue influence and lobbying is never good. We hear business denounced vociferously for doing so, I've spent a fair bit of time doing it myself but I've never really discussed the unions.

They hold massive influence in government being able to elect Labours Shadow PM and they are the biggest influence on Labour decision making as well as the financiers of the party. This is as dangerous as business in government, if not more so because it isn't condemned it is done openly and in a much bigger way than a secretive attempt to influence the government.

They date back to a time when workers had no protection and conditions were bad. Now workers are protected from abuse with a massive amount of legislation (Human rights, equal pay, Working time directives, employment rights, health and safety and on and on and on) and also workers can use job centers and free advise and consultancy services like ACAS.

Should unions bugger off?

[Jedi1]

They should, like corporations and banks, be cut out of the financing of government game completely.

[Denny Crane!]

They should, like corporations and banks, be cut out of the financing of government game completely.

So how do political parties operate without money do you think?

[Maidel]

So how do political parties operate without money do you think?

The conservative party isnt funded by unions...

I think the entire 'party' system should be paid for out of the government purse. No additional funding - based on the % of the electorate they gained at the last election (therefore everyones vote actualy counts for something).

Unions are frankly, a disgrace in the way they operate - for example, the tube drivers union got a payment for their drivers in agreement for them not striking during the Olympics. Honestly? In any other walk of life thats blackmail.

I have no issues with unions being a NON political force - each company should have a union, or be part of one, if only to protect individual workers and allow them to know their rights and perform advocacy services if required.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

So how do political parties operate without money do you think?

Does it really matter if they don't spend as much on advertising?

If they want funding, they can take it from the pay of their elected members.

[Dr. Croccer]

So how do political parties operate without money do you think?

Equal public funding for all parties. Get rid of this interests bollocks.

[Denny Crane!]

Equal public funding for all parties. Get rid of this interests bollocks.

What if I decided to form a new party would I get funding?

Or perhaps parties only get funding once they've take a seat and are paid on a per seat basis?

[General Brittanicus]

What if I decided to form a new party would I get funding?

Or perhaps parties only get funding once they've take a seat and are paid on a per seat basis?

I dont think funding should be given to every new party, but perhaps something should be done about the cost of setting up a party in the first place - after all it will cost you at least £650 just to register your party and field one candidate.

where as I would outlaw corporate donations and jail the entire management team of any company that broke that rule for life, for treason (and if the comapny is a multi-national for aiding a hostile power i.e the multi-national) As well as the leadership of the party that took the bride, on the same charges. That should obliterate the conservative party and end there destruction of the UK to serve corporate and bank interests.

I didn't say i was in favour of donations to the Conservatives either, but how exactly are the tories destroying the country? And if you'd imprison people for making corporate donations i will ammend my initial plan to anyone going on strike for pointless issues or donating to the labour party will be instantly fired from their job and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Also i hope the bride bit in your post is a typo otherwise that is kind of wierd .

[Claudius Gothicus]

What if I decided to form a new party would I get funding?

-X amount of money for political campaings.

-In order to participate in elections Political Parties must first gather a certain number of registered members in order to reach the elections. The funding of this pre-party stage should be completly off-legislation limits(nothing along the lines of drug or other illegal trades though).

-Once registered as an actual party it starts receiving money from the State and not a single dime from private individuals or companies or unions.

-X amount of money per vote received during the last election.

Or perhaps parties only get funding once they've take a seat and are paid on a per seat basis?

That would be problematic, leading to Big-Tent parties and the like.

[Mangalore]

Undue influence and lobbying is never good. We hear business denounced vociferously for doing so, I've spent a fair bit of time doing it myself but I've never really discussed the unions.

They hold massive influence in government being able to elect Labours Shadow PM and they are the biggest influence on Labour decision making as well as the financiers of the party. This is as dangerous as business in government, if not more so because it isn't condemned it is done openly and in a much bigger way than a secretive attempt to influence the government.

They date back to a time when workers had no protection and conditions were bad. Now workers are protected from abuse with a massive amount of legislation (Human rights, equal pay, Working time directives, employment rights, health and safety and on and on and on) and also workers can use job centers and free advise and consultancy services like ACAS.

Should unions bugger off?

No. Simple reason: Coorporations and industries continue to lobby on the governmental level to get rid of worker's rights or improve their position concerning the job market so unions are one half in a dualistic system that needs to balance each other's interest.
I don't claim however that unions are not facing the same pitfalls as any lobby system and could need reform (though I have no clue what kind of reform might work just as I have no clue how you can properly organize economic lobbies).
You can't prevent large business groups influencing politicians on a large scale so it is better to have an organization on the opposite side taking the other side.

I used to be critical of unions but given a 10 year drop in average wages and overall loss of welfare protection and work right protection and the social unrest it causes, yes unions are an integral part in a system to balance conflicting interests because otherwise things will once again be dealt with in the streets.

It's not just that they represent workers/employees, it is that they channel those interest groups into a predetermined process of negotiation and brokering instead of an uncontrolled outburst of discontent.

The system might work different for different countries though. Because unions are so embeded into large companies they actually have a stake in making good deals that however don't harm the company (in essence trade unions have alwyas made rather modest deals the past decade and overall German wages plummeted). The overall negative of such a system is however that now the unemployed are without a negotiator while the employees and employers broker their deals. For unions new guys are obviously not as high a priority as already existing union members.


I see it as a ying yang situation. If you remove unions over time you'll have the business lobbies overexert their influence forcing pro business policies causing negative backlash. Overall sidelining large parts of a society is what causes social unrest and unions are one part in a complex system channeling conflicting interests.

[mattgoby]

The uk labour part is a center left socialist party, unions are linked with socialism, hence the reason they fund the labour party.

Human rights,

I believe theres a few conservative mp's looking to scrap this.

The conservative party isnt funded by unions...

No the conservative party is funded by the banks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...nancial-sector

The banks which have supposedly ruining this country, of course the conservatives are going to change the banking system, when they themselves are friends with this section of society

[Maidel]

The uk labour part is a center left socialist party,.

HAHA - WHICH labour party.

The labour party under Blair were centre, leaning every so slightly to the right.

Brown was centre left and milliband is well, frankly centre, but knows he owes his place to the unions so hes trying ever so hard to lean very left, and then shooting himself in the foot by decrying union led strikes.

Basically UK politics is - THE CENTRE (conservatives, LAbour and lib dems) and then weirdos and unelectable freaks outside.

No the conservative party is funded by the banks

Which disagrees with my point that they arent funded by the unions how?

[mattgoby]

HAHA - WHICH labour party.

The labour party under Blair were centre, leaning every so slightly to the right.

Brown was centre left and milliband is well, frankly centre, but knows he owes his place to the unions so hes trying ever so hard to lean very left, and then shooting himself in the foot by decrying union led strikes.

Basically UK politics is - THE CENTRE (conservatives, LAbour and lib dems) and then weirdos and unelectable freaks outside.

The conservatives are right wing, look at there policies.
The labour party is a tiny bit to the left, look at their policies.
the lib dems are a tiny bit further to the left, look at their policies.

The reason they are decrying strikes is that to be elected you have to be a populist.

[Maidel]

The conservatives are right wing, look at there policies.
The labour party is a tiny bit to the left, look at their policies.
the lib dems are a tiny bit further to the left, look at their policies.

The reason they are decrying strikes is that to be elected you have to be a populist.

They are nothing compared to where the parties USED to be. On the political scales of say, the 1980s all three parties are fighting over the middle ground.

[Rolling Thunder]

HAHA - WHICH labour party.

The labour party under Blair were centre, leaning every so slightly to the right.

Up here in the North, we call Blair "Thatcher the Second."

[General Brittanicus]

What i don't understand about public sector unions is why they are always going on strike despite the government offering them deals which are better than anything they will find in the private sector. That being said i don't usually notice their stupid protests, but i do find it irritating.

I would personally either ban trade union donations to the Labour party or ban any that broke that rule, as that would hopefully destroy the labour party and stop their big amount of fail infecting the country again.

[mattgoby]

They are nothing compared to where the parties USED to be. On the political scales of say, the 1980s all three parties are fighting over the middle ground.

Not really, there base policies all sit where they used to, hence the conservatives attempts at mass privatization at the moment.

[Maidel]

Not really, there base policies all sit where they used to, hence the conservatives attempts at mass privatization at the moment.

We are going wildly off topic atm - but - what in hell are the conservatives trying to privatise?

[mattgoby]

We are going wildly off topic atm - but - what in hell are the conservatives trying to privatise?

The nhs, the postal system [though this example is slightly different]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...to-competition

[Maidel]

The nhs, the postal system [though this example is slightly different]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...to-competition

Which was started under labour.

NEXT!