Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trojan

Former minister says the UK is becoming a 'one-party state'

Recommended Posts

So you you worked for them,did you own the company?

My company employees dont get a say what i spend my money on.

Its my money not theirs.

Union Leaders are still only employees of the union.

As for the opt out i bet most cant be bothered going through the process

The word "only" says a lot about your attitude to your employees. At least union leaders are elected. Who elected you?  What about the shareholders and customers of the companies that sponsor the Tories?  Shouldn't they get a say in who the company contributes money to?  There is no process, you tick a box to opt out. End of.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "only" says a lot about your attitude to your employees. At least union leaders are elected. Who elected you?  What about the shareholders and customers of the companies that sponsor the Tories?  Shouldn't they get a say in who the company contributes money to?  There is no process, you tick a box to opt out. End of.

My employees are handsomely paid,most earn £250-£300 per day,And none of them are in a union

I built the company,but i'm pretty sure if my employees were to elect someone to run the company as succesfully as it has for the last 30 years,i would be the only choice(if i say so myself) :tongue:

As for shareholders if they dont like a company contributing to the tories dont buy shares in them or sell them.

As for customers WTF. Why should they have a say what a company does with its money.Again if you dont like it dont buy the product or service.

Last time it was polled i think 35-40% of union members didnt vote Socialist/Labour,that percentage probably increased at the last election since the jocks deserted them.

Looking at how many of Labours top donators have said they'll withdraw payments if JC wins it could soon be the "Big Issue" and "Bob-A-Job Week" as their only form of funds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My employees are handsomely paid,most earn £250-£300 per day,And none of them are in a union

I built the company,but i'm pretty sure if my employees were to elect someone to run the company as succesfully as it has for the last 30 years,i would be the only choice(if i say so myself) :tongue:

As for shareholders if they dont like a company contributing to the tories dont buy shares in them or sell them.

As for customers WTF. Why should they have a say what a company does with its money.Again if you dont like it dont buy the product or service.

Last time it was polled i think 35-40% of union members didnt vote Socialist/Labour,that percentage probably increased at the last election since the jocks deserted them.

Looking at how many of Labours top donators have said they'll withdraw payments if JC wins it could soon be the "Big Issue" and "Bob-A-Job Week" as their only form of funds

Modest too!!! :tongue:  Of course many shareholders don't have a choice as to whether they can buy or sell them because they are members of pension funds and it's the pension funds that own the shares.  And of course the directors who authorise payments to the Tory party are to quote you "only" employees.  What's sauce for the goose ought (in a fair society) be sauce for the gander. But it never is with the Tories.  They hate the unions.  Their lackeys in the press portray the union as evil, whereas the reverse is the case.  Most social progress for working people in this country has been gained by trades unions.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you but then neither of us are the Prime Minister, asking people to trust us. As Dr Goebbels said, "tell a big enough lie often enough and it becomes the truth" They did away with their unions too. Look where it got them.

Had quite a chuckle at this , you have tried to loosely link DC to Goebbels , Nazi's and Putin. Who next ? Stalin , Pol pot, how about Kim il Sung ?

Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had quite a chuckle at this , you have tried to loosely link DC to Goebbels , Nazi's and Putin. Who next ? Stalin , Pol pot, how about Kim il Sung ?

If the cap fits


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modest too!!! :tongue:  Of course many shareholders don't have a choice as to whether they can buy or sell them because they are members of pension funds and it's the pension funds that own the shares.  And of course the directors who authorise payments to the Tory party are to quote you "only" employees.  What's sauce for the goose ought (in a fair society) be sauce for the gander. But it never is with the Tories.  They hate the unions.  Their lackeys in the press portray the union as evil, whereas the reverse is the case.  Most social progress for working people in this country has been gained by trades unions.

Sorry

Difference being Directors of companies have to be successful (ie profits) or their ousted

Union leaders dont have to be succesful,in those terms members come automatically as in most cases if you dont join the union chances are you wont get the job.

Us older people remember some of the union leaders from the 70/80/90's who held the country to ransom were we could'nt bury our dead,bins not being emptied,british leyland and the likes.

Scargill.McGahey and Red Robbo all communists in truth made the public distrust unions so its self inflicted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry

Difference being Directors of companies have to be successful (ie profits) or their ousted

Union leaders dont have to be succesful,in those terms members come automatically as in most cases if you dont join the union chances are you wont get the job.

Us older people remember some of the union leaders from the 70/80/90's who held the country to ransom were we could'nt bury our dead,bins not being emptied,british leyland and the likes.

Scargill.McGahey and Red Robbo all communists in truth made the public distrust unions so its self inflicted

Where do you get this stuff, the Beano? I don't think members of this forum come much older than me.  I remember the Grunwick dispute where a union and its members were portrayed as victimising a poor factory owner.  It turns out the reverse was the case, he wanted to hire and fire at will with no reason and wouldn't recognise the union despite the fact that his employees had joined voluntarily.  Scargill may not have been much of a leader, but he was right. The NCB did have a hit list of pits.  And once the strike was over they began closing those pits, including the pits in Notts that had helped keep the lights on. It was the Tory press who said the unions held the country to ransome.  Unions are only as strong as their members.  Same applies to Union leaders.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Edited by Ramite

Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shout: Yeah me too

And yet his new leaders mates with terrorist organisatio

And Cameron isn't?  He's partly responsible tor the shambles in Libya.  And Syria for that matter.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they wouldn't be implemented if they didn't favour the Tories.  The reason they weren't implemented in the last Parliament was because the Lib/Dems wouldn't vote for them.  In other words they are not manadatory.

Government when in power doing what Government most wants to do shocker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/20/tories-unstitching-tapestry-of-democracy?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

 

Far from being “too big for its boots”, as the government would have it, the fundamental problem with the Lords is that it is not a terribly effective check on executives when they do wild, silly or sinister things. Peers have no power over anything budgetary. They were only able to act over tax credits because the government tried to be sneaky and slip the cut through as a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation. Peers do not challenge policy for which a government has a mandate from its election manifesto. And if there is ever a serious confrontation between the two chambers, the government can always wield the sledgehammer of the 1949 Parliament Act that compels the Lords to bow to the will of the Commons.

 
In practice, it is rarely used because the Lords lacks democratic legitimacy, peers know it, and so they usually back down when faced with a government determined to have its own way. Peers have a veto over nothing. All they have is a brake. By obliging ministers to pause, the Lords can stiffen the spine of the Commons and make governments reconsider a policy, which is what happened over tax credits. That is the modest restraint on the executive the Strathclyde gambit would undermine. The government’s reasons for doing so are nakedly partisan. During the many decades when the Tories enjoyed a built-in majority in the Lords, they were entirely comfortable with the powers of peers, especially when they were used to frustrate Labour governments. During the Blair and Brown years, the second chamber inflicted more than 500 defeats on ministers. I am struggling to remember David Cameron and George Osborne calling that a constitutional outrage. It is only because we are in the novel situation of having a Conservative government without a majority in the Lords that they have decided that peers have become too uppity.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Middle class whingeing on behalf of the working class.

 

I am ashamed of how the working class relies on bleeding heart liberals to do this. It does so because it cannot itself mount a coherent assault on the Tories. Instead it places its faith on nonentities like Corbyn, just like the 1980's miners placed their faith in the likes of Scargill.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The LibDems blocked the boundary changes because the Tories wouldn't give them what they wanted on voting reforms.  That piece of political game playing might bite the LibDems on the backside now that they have no input into how the boundaries are to change.

 

 

I know I'm late to the conversation here, but the Lib Dems binned boundary reform after the Conservatives backed out of House of Lords reform. There was a referendum about voting reform and because of its failure in that there was no need for more legislation on the matter. (IMO we do require a more proportional voting system but most people probably aren't bothered by that!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This government are going to curb the House of Lords' power to alter secondary legislation (like the tax credits)  they say the Lords isn't elected and shouldn't be able to do this. Funny that, they never said anything when the Lords altered 500 pieces of legislation by Labour over the years. 

This government are interfering with funding for their opponents through Trades Union legislation and through cutting the Short money that opposition parties rely on.  They are also trying to emasculate the Freedom of Information act, you know the one that exposed MP's expenses fiddling and benefited them when they were in opposition. IN other words they're trying by every means possible to hamstring their opponents. And of course boundary changes will benefit them so they are going to implement them.  In other words they want to stay in forever.  Effectively a one party state.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think Lords could alter secondary legislation just kick it back to HoC as a No vote?. A wider question is why does this government and the previous Labour one use so much secondary legislation knowing it can be passed back. Why not use primary legislation and then use the Parliament act to force it through. Lack of oversite ?


Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think Lords could alter secondary legislation just kick it back to HoC as a No vote?. A wider question is why does this government and the previous Labour one use so much secondary legislation knowing it can be passed back. Why not use primary legislation and then use the Parliament act to force it through. Lack of oversite ?

They're hoping no one will notice. That's why they released 30 controversial announcements on the day Parliament broke up for Christmas.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...