What I’ve come to realise about Keir Starmer….

Perhaps she means that he can see all sides to a situation, not just the most obvious one (which more blinkered observers think is the only side that exists) ?

Anniebach

Cannot agree with power of unions if we returned to
60’s , 70’s 80’s, certainly gave us Thatcher

That's not the same as 'owning' the Labour Party though.

Elegran

Perhaps she means that he can see all sides to a situation, not just the most obvious one (which more blinkered observers think is the only side that exists) ?

Yes, I guess you get a better view from the top of a fence than you do when you stay behind it.

Quote Doodledog Wed 21-Feb-24 15:46:44
Anniebach
Cannot agree with power of unions if we returned to
60’s , 70’s 80’s, certainly gave us Thatcher
That's not the same as 'owning' the Labour Party though.

Certainly controlled the Labour Party

I don't see that control as different from the Tories being controlled by vested interests, except that at least the unions were relatively democratic. Times have moved on from the 60s, 70s and 80s anyway, and unions have very little power nowadays. Vested interests, on the other hand, have not.

No different, I hope we never go back

The seem to have a lot of power Doodledog. Refusing to put offers of increased pay to their members for instance, holding the country to ransom. Labour would be afraid to do anything which might upset the unions. I see them as a far greater threat than any Conservative donor.

GSM I agree with you. The Conservative party has many more private donors than the Labour party has unions supporting it.

These donors vary from year to year and very few are giving the size of donation that unions are giving Labour. The Coonservatives also have a much longer tail of small donors.

The result is that while the Conservatives, obviously need to listen to the voice of business, it has a far wider base, than the union base that Labour depends upon. Labour is also very dependent on a relatively small number of unions who are making very large donations, who invitably they cannot afford to alienate. Lord Ashcroft apart, The Conservatives are not in hock to a small coteries donors, who could not be replaced if they walked away.

Let's be honest...he and most of his ilk are as far removed from the ideals of a party for the underdog...his recent "support " for a certain right-wing Middle Eastern party shocked many into leaving.
A councillor I know refuses to have any more to do with him or his party and is going independent.
Cant say I blame them.
Disgraceful

Time for FullFact on Labour funding.
fullfact.org/news/nadhim-zahawi-labour-rmt-funding/

The decades I spoke of the Unions were very much in control
of Labour Party

Chocolatelovinggran, I hope that gave you a smile 😁, we need things to make us laugh when confronted with such a dismal outlook.

Read the article. It does not cotradict the broad picture I described. Over 90% of labour finance comes from unions. Only 3O% of Conservative funding comes from companies. Most comes from individuals, giving everything from £1 to £millions

Casdon

Time for FullFact on Labour funding.
fullfact.org/news/nadhim-zahawi-labour-rmt-funding/

Thank you, Casdon.

During the 2019 general election campaign, the Labour Party registered donations of £5.4 million, of which just over £5 million came from trade unions. It also received £160,000 from individuals and £200,000 from companies.

By comparison, the Conservative Party registered donations of £19.3 million, of which £13.2 million came from individuals and £5.9 million came from companies. No funding was received from trade unions.

So the Tories get more than double the amount from individuals than Labour get from the unions. If, say, one of those individuals ran a chain of public houses and wanted people to eat there during a pandemic, is it possible that his donations might influence a politician to make very risky, not to say fatal, changes to the legislation of the day? Or if, hypothetically, an individual or company who contributed large sums to the party were to put pressure on the government that influenced the housing market, might that result in a situation in which young people find it all buy impossible to buy homes, and allow landlords to capitalise on the consequent need for rented accommodation?

Here is another article that might interest the open-minded.

What is the issue with workers contributing to a union that fights for their rights and that union making donations to a political party that will also fight for the workers rights ? Why is this seen as a bad thing but individuals who can contribute millions to their preferred party is seen as fine ?

My thoughts exactly, GINMC.

Lord Robens had much to thank the unions for.

Doodledog we were discussing the source of funds not their quantity.

If one party has 40 or 50 big donors it is far less likely to do what one of them wants specifically, because they are on of many and the loss of one big donor is neither here nor there

If you are relient on onlt 2 or 3 big donors, you will work far harder to keep them on board by heeding to their wishes.

As opposed to cosying up to big business and acting in their interest rather than that of the average working person Monica. We all make our choices.

M0nica

Doodledog we were discussing the source of funds not their quantity.

If one party has 40 or 50 big donors it is far less likely to do what one of them wants specifically, because they are on of many and the loss of one big donor is neither here nor there

If you are relient on onlt 2 or 3 big donors, you will work far harder to keep them on board by heeding to their wishes.

Actually, 'we' were discussing Keir Starmer, but the discussion diverged, as discussions do. The quantity of funds is absolutely relevant. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

Also, unions are interested in securing rights for their members, and the money a union has is in direct correlation to the number of people it represents, so any influence they may have will be proportionate to that. A business owner may or may not be interested in the welfare of his/her employees, but is very likely to be interested in profits.

As Casdon suggests, we choose whose interests are important to us when we vote.

The money a union has available for contributing to Labour funds comes from what they have received from their many members - the "widows's mites" from working people who don't grudge the small amounts they have paid toward the furtherance of their welfare. As Doodledog says "the money a union has is in direct correlation to the number of people it represents, so any influence they may have will be proportionate to that. A business owner may or may not be interested in the welfare of his/her employees, but is very likely to be interested in profits." which is why conservatives traditionally are the choice of employers and Labour is the choice of employees. It is also the reason that a Prime Minister, whatever his/her party and funding source, must remember that he/she is leading a nation composed not just of shopkeepers as Napoleon called us, but also of shop assistants, and must consider all sections of the population.

Doodlebug I did not say that the quantity of funds was irrelevant to the discussion taking place. Just irrelevant to the section of it being discussed

My premise is quite simple. If you have two political partys, politics unspecified, donated party funds absolutely even, but one gets all its money from 5 big donors then they are more in hock to doing what those donors want compared with the second party, which has 60 big donors, for the simple reason that the loss of of just one donor to the first party could see a significant proportion of their funds disappear, because the party will not do what they want, while the other party can afford to loose 5 or 6 donors because the party will not do what they want, because the amount of funds they are providing when there are probably another 40 donors giving a lot of money and thousands of smaller donors.

The politics if the party are irrelevant as are the source of their funds. It is the number of direct donors that matter.

The Tory public relations machine is shit stirring again