True but a large donation guarantees them lunch with the PM or other key party members. Actually lobbying is the pits and should be banned.
Agreed. My main point was that this talk of businesses being cut out of the equation because of a cap on donations to political parties and that somehow such a cap would mean businesses had no way open to them to make their concerns heard or representation /communication made to the government or opposition was total hogwash.
Even if all political donations were banned there'd still be avenues for businesses etc to communicate their thoughts to political parties and have dialogue.
TBH, it is down to an individual if they want to give money to a party, so I would agree that the norm should be no, with an opt in to donate.
Any system put forward to the public would be immediately branded as unfair if money was taken because you had forgotten to opt out, no matter who it was for.
Agreed. My main point was that this talk of businesses being cut out of the equation because of a cap on donations to political parties and that somehow such a cap would mean businesses had no way open to them to make their concerns heard or representation /communication made to the government or opposition was total hogwash.
Even if all political donations were banned there'd still be avenues for businesses etc to communicate their thoughts to political parties and have dialogue.
They don't even do it themselves...they pay people to do it for them.
That way it's harder to trace the exact source of lobbying and influence.
Take Fred Michell...being paid by Murdoch to lobby for the BSkyB takeover...but of course if their phone logs/diaries etc had been subject to scrutiny Hunt and his hapless SpAd could say "we never met with Murdoch"
No...you were just speaking with his paid mouthpiece ten times a day.
And BTW in the last parliament it was this type of paid lobbyist they were excluding from having to be registered...while the likes of the chairman of a local residents association or the fund raiser for a local hospice would have needed to be registered.
Not a lot of posts about whether implementing the Opt In should be done - anyone disagree with that aspect of it?
Have no view either way...but then that's the point of this type of policy...keep us looking at the fine detail and hope we all miss the bigger picture.
Shareholders of what? I don't think any companies donate to any party, individuals do with their own money. They may be chairman of companies, or own them, but the money is their own.
About 25% of Conservative party funding and 3% of Labour party funding is via donation from Companies. Although the biggest company donor to the Conservatives is JCB research a company worth £27,000 that donates hundreds of thousands to the Conservatives, and which has never filed accounts.
Labour are just as happy to take money from big business and make things happen for them. Provided that it doesn't conflict with the unions and their cash. Cash for Honours suggests that they're happy to take money from rich individuals too. Or more recently, they advised John Mills of JML fame in the most "tax efficient" way to donate to Labour. Nice to see that they're pro-tax avoidance when it suits them
Maybe the could add shareholders having to vote for political donations with the same criteria as the unions voting to strike. Otherwise it will just look like a partisan attack on Labour funding.
Do shareholders currently have to opt-out somewhere? Do most publicly traded companies donate part of their shareholders' dividends to the Conservatives or something?
The two aren't remotely comparable. Shareholders can choose to donate to any political party they want, the rule changes will mean that union members will be forced to decide to donate, rather than them needing to make an effort to opt out. Sensible and a good idea.
There should be a limit of £10,000 in a year and only individuals should be allowed to donate, not unions, companies or charities or any other organisations.
Yes to this and I'd go further and say party donators are also not allowed private meetings with ministers/PM/civil servents nor eligible for an honour. If induvusyals want to donate because they support a parties ideals then fine, but outlaw donations that come becasue the person wants something.
Also the bit about only 2 unions offereing a choice in the OP is wrong, I joined Unite 3 years ago and was clearly asked if I wanted any of my membership fee to go to the Labour Party (I chose no).
Yes to this and I'd go further and say party donators are also not allowed private meetings with ministers/PM/civil servents nor eligible for an honour. If induvusyals want to donate because they support a parties ideals then fine, but outlaw donations that come becasue the person wants something.
How would you know? Maybe the people "want" a pledged tax decrease or an end to benefit cuts.
Also the bit about only 2 unions offereing a choice in the OP is wrong, I joined Unite 3 years ago and was clearly asked if I wanted any of my membership fee to go to the Labour Party (I chose no).
Well if they want to support a parties tax cuts plan or end to benefit cuts then they support that parties ideals and I'd say there is a big difference to supporting what a party plans to do and being able to influence what a party plans to do - thats what needs changing - perhaps like with the union plan all donators have to stipulate what they want their donation spending on and all donations over £100 declared publically.
I joined online, I didn't fill in or see that form and had to either tick a box saying I agreed to a portion of my fee going to the Labour Party or I wanted the union to use it elsewhere.
I have nothing but disgust for this Tory Government over this. it is a threat to out democracy. any political party that trys to starve any political opposition from being a threat are extremely dangerous.
Forget party politics, this is obscene. it will be thrown in there face for decades.
I have nothing but disgust for this Tory Government over this. it is a threat to out democracy. any political party that trys to starve any political opposition from being a threat are extremely dangerous.
Forget party politics, this is obscene. it will be thrown in there face for decades.
Yes, it is truly a threat to democracy that people who want to fund a political party might actually have to make a dedicated effort to fill in a form to do it, instead of having it assumed for them by a union.
Or they might decide to donate it directly to a party rather than getting a union to do it for them (and who will use the donations to get what they want, which is not necessarily what their members want).
A threat it is. How dare the government change the rules so that all parties are placed on a more level playing field in terms of how their donations come in.
Still, it's a refreshing change, Labour just handed taxpayer money to the unions instead under the guise of the "union modernisation project". I wonder if members' donations lobbied for that?
Yes, it is truly a threat to democracy that people who want to fund a political party might actually have to make a dedicated effort to fill in a form to do it, instead of having it assumed for them by a union.
Or they might decide to donate it directly to a party rather than getting a union to do it for them (and who will use the donations to get what they want, which is not necessarily what their members want).
A threat it is. How dare the government change the rules so that all parties are placed on a more level playing field in terms of how their donations come in.
Still, it's a refreshing change, Labour just handed taxpayer money to the unions instead under the guise of the "union modernisation project". I wonder if members' donations lobbied for that?
They can try and dress it up however they want, it's the intention not the method. there intention is to starve there main political opponent of funds. end of story. it's an absolute disgrace. a threat to our democracy. I have never known a more dangerous government. EVER.
They can try and dress it up however they want, it's the intention not the method. there intention is to starve there main political opponent of funds. end of story. it's an absolute disgrace. a threat to our democracy. I have never known a more dangerous government. EVER.
If union members want to donate to Labour, they'll still be able to - they'll just have to tell the union to start taking money rather than telling them to stop. Or they could donate directly and cut the union out all together.
You're laying the rhetoric on thick, there. If there is a loss of revenue, that'll be because people who previously didn't know they could opt out, have not opted in. Sounds fairer to me?
They can try and dress it up however they want, it's the intention not the method. there intention is to starve there main political opponent of funds. end of story. it's an absolute disgrace. a threat to our democracy. I have never known a more dangerous government. EVER.
Labour wanted to do the same to the Conservatives by capping individual donations to parties, taking the big money out of politics as they called which would have cut funding to the Conservative party. And they also wanted to attack the Conservatives pool of MPs by banning MPs from holding paid directorships and consultancies.
If union members want to donate to Labour, they'll still be able to - they'll just have to tell the union to start taking money rather than telling them to stop. Or they could donate directly and cut the union out all together.
You're laying the rhetoric on thick, there. If there is a loss of revenue, that'll be because people who previously didn't know they could opt out, have not opted in. Sounds fairer to me?
No., the main point is they are looking for ways to starve a political opponent of funds. that's whats so important here.
Am not interested in the method they use to implement this, only the intention.
Maybe the could add shareholders having to vote for political donations with the same criteria as the unions voting to strike. Otherwise it will just look like a partisan attack on Labour funding.
The strike part is a red herring but I think significant donations by companies with shareholders ought to be approved by those shareholders. It would be easy to do by including it on the form they send out for the AGM.
I agree with the having to opt-in for union members.
I presume all the lefties on here would be happy for any worker who isn't part of a union or a public sector worker to automatically give money to the Tories.
What's good for one party is good for another.
Poor Len of Unite staying were going back to the 1920s - no wonder you clowns lose elections.
Comments
Agreed. My main point was that this talk of businesses being cut out of the equation because of a cap on donations to political parties and that somehow such a cap would mean businesses had no way open to them to make their concerns heard or representation /communication made to the government or opposition was total hogwash.
Even if all political donations were banned there'd still be avenues for businesses etc to communicate their thoughts to political parties and have dialogue.
Any system put forward to the public would be immediately branded as unfair if money was taken because you had forgotten to opt out, no matter who it was for.
They don't even do it themselves...they pay people to do it for them.
That way it's harder to trace the exact source of lobbying and influence.
Take Fred Michell...being paid by Murdoch to lobby for the BSkyB takeover...but of course if their phone logs/diaries etc had been subject to scrutiny Hunt and his hapless SpAd could say "we never met with Murdoch"
No...you were just speaking with his paid mouthpiece ten times a day.
And BTW in the last parliament it was this type of paid lobbyist they were excluding from having to be registered...while the likes of the chairman of a local residents association or the fund raiser for a local hospice would have needed to be registered.
Have no view either way...but then that's the point of this type of policy...keep us looking at the fine detail and hope we all miss the bigger picture.
Bread and circuses.
It's like a military dictatorship has seized power. Arranging things so they will never be out of power.
And what percentage of donations to Labour?
Don't you remember the whole F1 and tobacco scandal? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/937232.stm
Labour are just as happy to take money from big business and make things happen for them. Provided that it doesn't conflict with the unions and their cash. Cash for Honours suggests that they're happy to take money from rich individuals too. Or more recently, they advised John Mills of JML fame in the most "tax efficient" way to donate to Labour. Nice to see that they're pro-tax avoidance when it suits them
Do shareholders currently have to opt-out somewhere? Do most publicly traded companies donate part of their shareholders' dividends to the Conservatives or something?
The two aren't remotely comparable. Shareholders can choose to donate to any political party they want, the rule changes will mean that union members will be forced to decide to donate, rather than them needing to make an effort to opt out. Sensible and a good idea.
I think the only people who will disagree are those who are reliant upon it. So the unions and any lobbyists that get paid via the "Labour Party fund"
Yes to this and I'd go further and say party donators are also not allowed private meetings with ministers/PM/civil servents nor eligible for an honour. If induvusyals want to donate because they support a parties ideals then fine, but outlaw donations that come becasue the person wants something.
Also the bit about only 2 unions offereing a choice in the OP is wrong, I joined Unite 3 years ago and was clearly asked if I wanted any of my membership fee to go to the Labour Party (I chose no).
How would you know? Maybe the people "want" a pledged tax decrease or an end to benefit cuts.
It's not wrong - they've obviously changed it since then. This is the current membership application form.
That's rather a lot of effort to tell them that you don't want to contribute to the Labour Party
Well if they want to support a parties tax cuts plan or end to benefit cuts then they support that parties ideals and I'd say there is a big difference to supporting what a party plans to do and being able to influence what a party plans to do - thats what needs changing - perhaps like with the union plan all donators have to stipulate what they want their donation spending on and all donations over £100 declared publically.
I joined online, I didn't fill in or see that form and had to either tick a box saying I agreed to a portion of my fee going to the Labour Party or I wanted the union to use it elsewhere.
Forget party politics, this is obscene. it will be thrown in there face for decades.
Yes, it is truly a threat to democracy that people who want to fund a political party might actually have to make a dedicated effort to fill in a form to do it, instead of having it assumed for them by a union.
Or they might decide to donate it directly to a party rather than getting a union to do it for them (and who will use the donations to get what they want, which is not necessarily what their members want).
A threat it is. How dare the government change the rules so that all parties are placed on a more level playing field in terms of how their donations come in.
Still, it's a refreshing change, Labour just handed taxpayer money to the unions instead under the guise of the "union modernisation project". I wonder if members' donations lobbied for that?
If union members want to donate to Labour, they'll still be able to - they'll just have to tell the union to start taking money rather than telling them to stop. Or they could donate directly and cut the union out all together.
You're laying the rhetoric on thick, there. If there is a loss of revenue, that'll be because people who previously didn't know they could opt out, have not opted in. Sounds fairer to me?
Am not interested in the method they use to implement this, only the intention.
The strike part is a red herring but I think significant donations by companies with shareholders ought to be approved by those shareholders. It would be easy to do by including it on the form they send out for the AGM.
I agree with the having to opt-in for union members.
What's good for one party is good for another.
Poor Len of Unite staying were going back to the 1920s - no wonder you clowns lose elections.
Go to Sainsburys then, Lord Sainsbury has handed millions to your beloved Labour.
That's the nice thing about competition.