On 16 May 2015 at 11:52am Paul Newman wrote:
Labour must resume competition for the centre ground to survive, and the leadership candidate making the right noises is (lovely legs) Liz Kendall. She can make her own case as she does, in a thrilling interview with the carnivorous Andrew Neill. ( See link). Sadly she will not lead the Labour Party.
In 1997 a third of then privates sector was unionised, by 2012 only 17% remained with 890000 members lost since 1995. Furthermore the decline is sharpest in young workers who are half as likely to be in a union as the over 50s .This leaves an aging rump dominated by a class-privileged public sector interest group, controlling half the votes at conference.
Paradoxically the fewer people they represent the more powerful the unions are and any union coordinated position is now guaranteed to become Party Policy. So we already know the new leader will be; Len McLuskey.
This subversion of a democratic process that should serve us all must end, and similarly we must support our democratically elected government in its attempt to regain control ,of Public services for the public.
Check it out here »
On 16 May 2015 at 11:56am The Old Mayor wrote:
DILLIGAF !
On 16 May 2015 at 12:03pm Mr PS wrote:
See Mandy on Trade Union abuse of their position in 2010...
On 16 May 2015 at 1:01pm Behind the times , wrote:
Can someone explain the term dilligaf please thanks
On 16 May 2015 at 1:19pm With the times wrote:
Do I look like I give a ....
On 16 May 2015 at 1:40pm Mrs Brown wrote:
I'm allas sayin' it so I am
On 16 May 2015 at 3:06pm Old Mayor does really wrote:
Behind The Times.... I suspect anyone who writes DILLIGAF in capitals with an explanation mark, does really care, but is not expressing what is on his mind, so it's not a very meaningful communication for the other.
On 16 May 2015 at 3:11pm Not now behind the times wrote:
Thanks I am now informed for what it is worth , and I guess it would be appropriate to use it now , rotflmao
On 16 May 2015 at 4:07pm trooper wrote:
I believe the expression is "He who pays the piper calls the tune"
as the Trade Unions are paying the bulk of the Labour Party funding also funding many of the Labour MPs it must be accepted that that Mr McClusky and his cohorts will be instructing any future Labour leader how matters in the nation will be conducted.
If that ever comes to pass GOD help us all.
On 16 May 2015 at 8:20pm Maria Cauliflower wrote:
Vote Tory, get Murdoch and every shyster and Oligarch that ever donated to the party.
On 16 May 2015 at 8:41pm Rupert Murdoch wrote:
Oi... It's been more than a week. Why hasn't the BBC been privatised yet?
On 16 May 2015 at 8:43pm Lynton Crosby wrote:
Me first! I was promised exclusive access to the NHS.
On 17 May 2015 at 1:23am Brother Arthur wrote:
The Tories hate the unions, because unions insist on the workers getting a reasonable share of the proceeds of their graft, a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
Tory bosses prefer a non-unionised workforce so that they can exploit their workforce, keeping them on the minimum wage.
If care workers, for example, were unionised (a) clients would get better care and (b) the carers would be better paid.
Some unions may have abused their influence in the 1970s. Many employers abuse their power today, because of the absence of unions.
On 17 May 2015 at 6:17am wrote:
Oh jesus christ, he's back again shoveling the same faecal matter. Essentially "aany system of funding that supports a left wing party perspective, like he thinks Labour is, should be outlawed.
Party politics should only ever be in the hands of shady anonymous businessmen."
It's getting tiresome now love, give it a rest eh?
On 17 May 2015 at 8:31am bastian wrote:
Newman you are a fool, who appeals to other fools!
spreading the kind of fatuous lies that you spill onto the public is insulting!
On 17 May 2015 at 8:32am Mark wrote:
Will he ever manage to make a comment about a female politico without passing judgement on some aspect of their physical appearance?
On 17 May 2015 at 10:27am King of Sussex wrote:
Just another silly little Benefits Tory spouting rubbish. Ignore him, he might go away. (Again)
On 17 May 2015 at 10:49am Jim Murphy wrote:
I agree with Paul
On 17 May 2015 at 11:19am P.Murphy wrote:
So do I so I do
On 17 May 2015 at 11:34am Passing Judgement wrote:
P.N = Mr.Smallmember
On 17 May 2015 at 11:56am Andy Burnham wrote:
I agree with Len .....
On 17 May 2015 at 12:58pm bastian wrote:
Any one who agrees with Paul (the small) must be very happy to still work an 18 hour day for a pittance pay packet, with no tea breaks, holiday pay, sick pay or time off to deal with funerals etc. Because that is what the unions had to win, from the capitalist bosses of the 1850's, who made their nice little nest eggs out of exploiting the hard labour of their employees. they also used slaves to farm sugar before that was made illiegal, but we don't like to talk about that now do we!
On 17 May 2015 at 5:01pm Paul Newman wrote:
Paul, does actually mean small .Len MclUskey has now outright said that unless he gets the leader he wants he will withdraw funding from the Labour Party.
I have no special objection to the Unions having a political wing but as they have interests directly opposed to everyone else , no-on else will vote for it .
I really think this could be the end of Labour traditional left wing parties are dying across Europe and its hard to see that this one has any useful purpose left.
On 17 May 2015 at 5:21pm Mark wrote:
Could Bastian have called you Paul (the small) just coincidentally? Was he just lucky there? Did you need to go on to explain it to him? Silly old fool.
On 17 May 2015 at 7:22pm Scargill's Wig wrote:
Where's Southover Queen to put us all right, eh?
She said she used to be a union bigwig, didn't she? Let's hear what she has to say when she alights here to lecture us all.
On 17 May 2015 at 8:41pm Zzz.. wrote:
As the Unions donate to labour so big business and wealthy individuals donate to the Tories. Each want their pound of flesh. Its obvious that the parties should not be allowed to accept donations and instead be funded to the necessary level by the state.
On 17 May 2015 at 9:59pm Paul Newman wrote:
Well Zzzzz I think US democracy is vastly more exciting and engaging than ours so I would like to see more money but my point is not about the funding but about he position of a special interest group actually in the Party decision making process .
Its going to finish the Labour Party and its not just me saying that.
On 18 May 2015 at 8:39am Zzz.. wrote:
Is 'exciting' really want you want from democracy. I'd have thought representation, transparency, fairness and lack of corruption would be infinitely preferable qualities. As for the US system it stinks. Its entirely beholden to big business (mainly oil) and rich concerns.
However I do think the diminishing of the Labour Party is a big issue for Britain. And I am now even more convinced of the need to implement a well thought out system of proportional representation.