Union involvement in British politics

[Walsingham]

I don't think I need to repeat that in general I am in favour of unions. They are a sensible way to organise collective action by individuals, and a vital weapon in maintaining social balance. However, according to this story in the right-of-centre paper the Telegraph the union 'Unite' who are behind the recent strike at British Airways

 

- Have contributed 25% of Labour campaign funds since Gordon Brown came to office

- Have significant numbers of members in 90 marginal seats (that is ones which can be expected to swing either way). This is enough to give Labour a comfortable majority at the next election

 

Now, I have been gritting my teeth these last year because I 'knew' I wouldn't have to put up with much more of Brown. He and his collection of third-stringers have destroyed all my support for Labour. They have utterly failed to manage the economic crisis, they have crapped on management of the armed forces, even though we are at war, and have presided over an actual WIDENING of the gap between rich and poor. No matter which way you look at our involvement in Europe or foreign aid and immigration they have arsed it royally. They even plan to abolish the House of Lords and give us proportional representation just when it looks like they might get hammered under the current system.

 

Before this news I was seriously struggling with the revolting notion that i might vote Conservative. They are a party of prune-faced lunatics. I thought I might indulge the moral luxury of having other people vote them in for me. Like getting a plumber to fix the drains. But it looks like unless I - and many others like me - DO vote Tory then we might actuallly face 4 more years of Brown. And I tell you right now that no power on Earth is going to do that to me or to my country.

[Humodour]

They even plan to abolish the House of Lords and give us proportional representation just when it looks like they might get hammered under the current system.

 

If I were a Brit I would swallow me pride and vote them in just one more time if it meant getting this done. ****ing unelected bastards.

 

Mind you, I'm highly skeptical of unicameral legislature, but in this case it seems preferable. I guess ideally the best outcome would be for the House of Lords to be a proportionally elected house of review. The fact that this mirrors the Australian system is pure coincidence I am sure.

[Walsingham]

They even plan to abolish the House of Lords and give us proportional representation just when it looks like they might get hammered under the current system.

 

If I were a Brit I would swallow me pride and vote them in just one more time if it meant getting this done. ****ing unelected bastards.

 

Mind you, I'm highly skeptical of unicameral legislature, but in this case it seems preferable. I guess ideally the best outcome would be for the House of Lords to be a proportionally elected house of review. The fact that this mirrors the Australian system is pure coincidence I am sure.

 

The future of the Lords is a bit off topic, although I think it's interesting to see that's how you look at it.*

 

It was just announced today that military training has been down ONE THIRD this last year. WTF? Seriously. WTF? believe me I know the military budget can't be bottomless, but this is taking the piss, because it's not even just that it's down. The quality of training, as in field training, and live fire is waaay down. But that's before you get into the busines of kit. Brown has never understood the military's contribution, and was always hard on them but he used to be balanced out by a decent team of cabinet ministers plus the PM. Now he has total control it's all out of whack. Don't even get me started on how a Labour government has privatised defence services like housing, catering, and vehicle maintenance. Even Maggie Thatcher didn't consider privatising the ****ing army.

 

It is not OK to go to this poll purely on the basis of political theory. There are some very hard choices before this government which will shape our future, the future of Europe, the future of Afghanistan and by inference Pakistan. I don't know what the answers are for sure. But now is not the time to piss about changing our system of government wholesale when the system is not our main problem. The mere fact that this issue is being raised now in order to polarise their support base (as you've just demonstrated) is characteristic of an administration run by career political animals rather than real people. And it stinks.

 

 

*I don't see any point in having a second set of people chosen by democratic process. We can't find enough good people to begin filling the first one! Plus the observed fact is that the Lords do a very much better job of intelligently approaching legislation than the Commons who have become more like an internet forum <sic> than a place of debate. I'll admit that point is complex in the details but those are the facts if you have even a cursory glance at Hansard. If reform has to come it should be to replace the ecclesiarchs with the top 100 companies and 100 unions and ban private donations to political parties. The only donation should be personal effort and flat rate membership fees.

[Killian Kalthorne]

How about you reverse it. Have the House of Lords be electable with the requirement being they have to be nobility of some sort, with the House of Commons not being elected, but drawn at random by lottery from the common folk to serve 4 to 6 years.

[Moose]

Voting for the conservatives because you don't like the way labour's performed is a bit like buying a different microwave cooker because you don't like the way tv dinners taste.

 

And shame on you wals, you're old enough to know how ****e the tories are, every bit as ****e as labour. The only difference is with Brown you know what you get, where as with Cameron people have this hope he's a gamble. He's really not.

 

Personally I reckon if you're goign to waste yoru vote, waste it on a minority. The only thing you can hope to get out of this election is a sense of superiority in that you voted for a party you genuinely believed in.

[Moose]

Oh and as for Brown, if he loses the election he intends to stay the labour leader, so it's not even like you're voting him off TV, which I'm sure is the only reason a lot of people are even considering voting conservative.

[Tigranes]

the House of Commons not being elected, but drawn at random by lottery from the common folk to serve 4 to 6 years.

 

Dear God, fastest way to ruin a country, ever.

[Gorth]

the House of Commons not being elected, but drawn at random by lottery from the common folk to serve 4 to 6 years.

 

Dear God, fastest way to ruin a country, ever.

Hehe... compulsary parliament service. Just like jury duty. Serve 4 years in parliament or go straight to jail

[Humodour]

Voting for the conservatives because you don't like the way labour's performed is a bit like buying a different microwave cooker because you don't like the way tv dinners taste.

 

And shame on you wals, you're old enough to know how ****e the tories are, every bit as ****e as labour. The only difference is with Brown you know what you get, where as with Cameron people have this hope he's a gamble. He's really not.

 

Personally I reckon if you're goign to waste yoru vote, waste it on a minority. The only thing you can hope to get out of this election is a sense of superiority in that you voted for a party you genuinely believed in.

 

This is twisted logic. If party A royally screws you over continually, you don't keep supporting party A. Simple. You instead support the unknown, party B, in the hopes that it might be better, and mainly so that party A gets a ****ing punch in the face from reality and lifts their game so that you CAN vote them in again in future when party B inevitably becomes a load of bollocks.

[Moose]

When A & B are both equally bollocks you don't vote for either.

[Walsingham]

Mooseman, I DID say I find it hard to believe that I might vote Tory. Nay virtually impossible to believe. But Brown is a swivel-eyed mentalist, and his team of ministers are completely rubbish. Better the devil you don't doesn't always apply.

[Moose]

[Oner]

I've read Unicorn instead of Union.

[Walsingham]

 

Given my own background it would be rather hypocritical and bigoted to presume Cameron can't care.

[Meshugger]

While Labour has been in power long enough for me to remember their failings and winnings, i do have almost no recollection of the Tories. Only slight memories of Maggie having a laugh with Reagan and John Major not doing much at all.

 

Care to enlight me some more?

[Walsingham]

I'm old enough to remember Maggie actually taking my milk - an iconic event which I won't bother to elaborate upon. Suffice to say I didn't start out as posh as I am now.

 

Maggie's problems were fourfold IMO. As usual she took a good thing far too far.

 

1) She broke the unions. The unions had been causing trouble I very barely remember/imagine I remember. Look up the Winter of Discontent which was in itself a good idea taken far too far. The unions didn't need breaking. They needed to stop behaving with the same rapaciousness they formed to combat. In the end we lost our coal and steel, as casualties to her objective (IMO), and saw a big rift open up between the police and local communities which has fed crime ever since.

2) She took an aggressive anti-communist stance on foreign relations that in particular saw us cozying up to Augusto Pinochet and his ilk. Although given how aggressive, and indeed possibly demented Leonid Brezhnev was at the time this again is understandable.

3) She sold off all our sodding North Sea oil because she felt it was philosophically unsound to hang on to it, and it was best given over to big business. Needless to say this was an error. This, coupled with the loss of coal and steel means the Uk is now unworkable on its own.

4) She refused to solidly address the question of Europe. She hoped that Britain would get sick of a loss of sovereignty in time and the issue would be resolved when we did. I believe this was an error. People who think we should have gone in with more enthusiasm also think this was an error.

 

~~

 

However, the real problem with the Tory party is less to do with their MPs than the people who vote Tory, which is the exact opposite problem with the Liberal Democrats.

[Humodour]

When A & B are both equally bollocks you don't vote for either.

 

In a multiparty system, sure.

 

But my conception of Britainia's legal/democratic/political system is that it is ****ed up like America (i.e two party preferred is all that ever matters) Alcohol.

[Humodour]

While Labour has been in power long enough for me to remember their failings and winnings, i do have almost no recollection of the Tories. Only slight memories of Maggie having a laugh with Reagan and John Major not doing much at all.

 

Care to enlight me some more?

 

a) Tories are ****ed up.

b) Labour is even more ****ed up.

 

3) She sold off all our sodding North Sea oil because she felt it was philosophically unsound to hang on to it, and it was best given over to big business. Needless to say this was an error. This, coupled with the loss of coal and steel means the Uk is now unworkable on its own.an the people who vote Tory, which is the exact opposite problem with the Liberal Democrats.

 

Hahahaha Australia doesn't have this problem but you **** ditched us for the EU so ****en sod off bitches! :D

Edited March 17, 2010 by Krezack

[Tigranes]

I'm old enough to remember Maggie actually taking my milk - an iconic event which I won't bother to elaborate upon. Suffice to say I didn't start out as posh as I am now.

 

So, is that, like a euphemism for...

[Gorgon]

No sex please, they're British. More to the point, it's Maggie we are talking about.

[Walsingham]

I'm old enough to remember Maggie actually taking my milk - an iconic event which I won't bother to elaborate upon. Suffice to say I didn't start out as posh as I am now.

 

So, is that, like a euphemism for...

 

Oh ew ew ew ew ew. Why would you even THINK that? Ucaech!

 

And I for one apologise to Australia. If you look at the history of our relationships the Commonwealth have almost unstintingly continued backing us up despite our leaders falling for the gaudy corruption of Europe. We should totally have stuck with you guys.

[Humodour]

And I for one apologise to Australia. If you look at the history of our relationships the Commonwealth have almost unstintingly continued backing us up despite our leaders falling for the gaudy corruption of Europe. We should totally have stuck with you guys.

 

Whilst that comment originated from a drunken haze, yes, there was quite a bit of resentment (now largely subsided) in Australia when the UK ditched the Commonwealth for the EU, but exporters picked up the slack by targetting with South-East Asia, which has turned out to be an economic stroke of genius.

 

I've always wondered: suppose Australia were still part of Britain today, as French Guiana is to France. The timezone difference (12 hours) would be interesting!

[Walsingham]

Australia has its own identity obviously. It's a distinct economy and geography. Never mind the culture. BUt in many ways that's why we should work together.

[Humodour]

Australia has its own identity obviously. It's a distinct economy and geography. Never mind the culture. BUt in many ways that's why we should work together.

 

That's why cricket exists.

[Walsingham]

Anyway, back on topic, I put it to you that ANY organisation which has formed for another purpose and which aims to wield _decisive_ political power is against the spirit of democracy. Aye or nay?