Ah – I misunderstood. Your first paragraph being the case I should point out that didn’t intend to argue that the labour leadership was radical either – just that completely ignoring their pro-union efforts undermined your article completely. I also question your “they tried to seem radical” opinion. Surely the entire basis of new labour was to ensure labour was seen as moderate in all things?

—

As for the rest of your response – you seem to have an internal conflict to overcome.

to show superiority by rising above something means finding an inner strength and confidence that means you care little for how you are percieved. Of course declaring you won’t rise to something because you are better than me – is in itself evidence that you are not superior enough to rise above.

This internal conflict is just as evident when you ignore the large part of my critique that there is inconsistency in disliking both state funded parties and the unequal power within democacy of those with differing wealth, and the idiocy of claiming that people having votes is as undemocratic as it gets. (surely not having votes is, all else being equal, somewhat less democratic).

you ignore those points and attack my braincells – showing you in fact value winning approval and respect of strangers, and undermining the regard held for those you dislike, while sadly aspiring tand failing o be the standard of man who can simply rise above.

and of course you resort to the lowest defence of your self esteem available on blogs. You criticise spelling. (as though those who don’t spell well are inherrantly inferior to those who can spell check)

—

btw

you’ll note now that I have said nothing of rising above. I enjoy putting people in their place and don’t mind who knows it. The fun of politics is that while civil debate can lead to improved understanding, a good argument can raise the spirits.

I wasn’t claiming that my article was radical; I was mentioning some of the policies of Labour pre-1997, in their attempt to seem like a real full-on alternative to the Tories, as they finally mobilised years of discontent to win a huge majority. They tried to seem radical – and my point was that in order to create the socially just Britain we all want to see, it is necessary to go beyond talking a good show and actually pass some radical laws. All the things you mentioned are so much window dressing when compared with the measures I outlined in my first reply on this thread.

And your responses to me reek (for that is the word I think you’re looking for) of baiting – but as I’m so much better than you I’m not going to rise to it.

On the substantive issues which you try to use to paint me as throwing a tantrum because the party doesn’t vote my way, I think you’ll find that there are socialists who have been debating the issue of what should and should not constitute a member of a political party for over a hundred years. This isn’t a new line of argument in response to some tactical defeats within the Labour Party. It might also surprise you to know that I’m 100% against the trade union block vote at Labour Conference and in elections because frankly it’s harmful to the broader unity of the working class.

I’m in favour of every member having a say – I think it would be infinitely more accountable and therefore more democratic if the definition of membership was considerably narrowed from ‘anyone who pays money’ to those who are consistently active within the organs of the Party and voting for policy and leaders was done via a delegate-based conference. If you think my argument is biased because this would favour candidates I like, then I wonder do you also think that the Labour leadership chose OMOV because they knew it would produce candidates they like – especially with the expenditure disparities?

Actually I don’t wonder that because your parting shots about my ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘weak argument’ really just dismiss any such consideration because you evidently can’t find the braincells to work up a proper critique, when you have to resort to name calling. Incidentally, a two word piece of advice – spell check.

Trade Unionism is Democracy….

I wish people wouldn’t engage in such hyperbole, it doesn’t do us any favours.

I’ll go along with “Trade Unions helped our democracy” (I wouldn’t know either way) – they aren’t equivalent to, or the backbone of, democracy.

I agree that trade unionism played a part in the development of modern democracy, but I fail to see how, other than thanking them in history books, it’s relevant today.

“Trade Unionism gives the majority of people, the lowest earners, a full voice in the political debate.”

I don’t quite follow this point. The poorest people in our country are those a) without a job, or b) with a very low paid one, generally economic immigrant doing jobs around or under the minimum wage. Neither of those are unionised, for reasonably obvious reasons. The current unions “benefit”, if that’s the right word, a rather narrow strata of certain jobs and incomes. To say trade unions directly and widely benefit “the lowest earners” seems rather misleading.

The criticisms need addressing, and all sides should be treated equally. I recall somewhere a quote about taxation and representation (maybe someone cares to refresh my memery) which draws the direct link between the two.

With a per vote funding mechanism voters will be fully conscious that they are providing the minimum donation (ie hypothecated taxation) to that cause or collection of causes represented by that individual or party and therefore all decisions can be better respected.

Political funding simply requires the extension of this principle so that it can be applied consistently.

Where the relationship between trade unions and the Labour party fall into difficulty is how to reflect and measure the democratic legitimacy on both sides without negating the other. My feeling is that this can easily be rectified by official decoupling of the link as part of future reform of the House of Lords, so that a council of TUC leaders can express their mandated voices in that place without taking overtly partisan sides.

Nowadays, because of that organisation, people like m’Lord Ashcroft still have huge political weight due to that wealth, but it is now balanced in some part by the collectivised wealth of the working classes.

As for Trade Union excesses, the tyranny of the majority is just as bad as the tyranny of the few but you only have to look to the recent example of Argentina. Where the liquid hard currency was rushed out of the country overnight and the resultant depression used as a hammer against the poor to see why Trade Unionism is needed as a balance against the tyranny of the few.

Trade Unionism gives the majority of people, the lowest earners, a full voice in the political debate. Without the Trade Unions, the tiny minority that is the rich have a democratic weight far in excess of their numbers.

I didn’t say your article appeared radical David, I implied that it appeared petty and self righteous. (that being the mentality the left could do without)

and your response to me wreaks of “its not fair because i don’t get my way”

After all, how else can some one interpret your labelling the public (in this case membership) a ‘formless, disorganised, mass’?

How else can some one interpret your argument that giving members a vote on their leadership ‘as undemocratic as it gets’?

and then finally your attack on state funded parties after claiming in the previous sentance that inbalances in spending power were undemocratic.

As one of those people who works ten hours a day, five days a week (and sometimes more with no overtime pay), I can only conclude your weak argument and obvious hypocricy is born from the fact this is just another “please think I’m clever because I’m blindly negative” merchant.

nope

I think it would be a valuable back-up to the right to a trade union – given that one unionised section of a workforce could then picket to prevent bosses blocking unionisation of colleagues under the employ of contractors. (think nurses supporting hospital cleaners for example)

But I’m not getting into a long argument today.

Matt

I did think the 40p/20p seemed reasonable apart from Phillips’ suggestion that parties with less than two elected representatives to Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, or the European Parliament, would not be eligible for the money.

I don’t know if this is a hangover from Short Money (from 2007 £13,356 for every seat won at the last election plus £26.67 for every 200 votes gained by the party), which parties are entitled to only if they have two or more elected representatives, or one seat and more than 150,000 votes, or what the reasoning is; on the face of it seems rather unfair that Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern, for example, which got its candidate (Richard Taylor) into Parliament with 18,739 votes, would have not been given £7,495 it might otherwise have enjoyed from the 40p per vote, had the rule been in place for 2005, every year until the next general election, or indeed the £15,854 they would otherwise be entitled to now.

Do you ever post anything intelligent ac256? If you’re just going to be sarcastic all the time, there’s no need to bother posting to be honest. The rules policy is clear.

I’m changing the image anyways…

I really don’t think it matters what your personal opinions of property rights, intellectual or otherwise, are. Recently, to pick a couple of examples, this collective blog has gone after Nadine Dorries and how she conducts her online business and Andrew Gilligan’s journalistic integrity.
The only way liberal conspiracy can acquire and maintain a reputation as a serious force is not to indulge in hypocritical bending of the rules. If you want to campaign for your rights online go join a group like ORG

The people of the world should unite against trading with each other?

By introducing a per-vote funding allocation (using the 40p/20p rule suggested by Phillips) complaint 1) is alleviated by the encouragement this provides to parties to campaign positively rather than negatively or tactically, while complaints 2)-4) above can be dealt with by distributing any monies decentrally to the level at which they were gained.

The important point is to distribute any money equally to losers and winners in order to reflect the choice of the voters and to manage the transition from Short Money without providing any unnecessary shocks thereby building confidence in the newly decentralised system.

If we take the H&H by-election as a case study for implementation current rules could be shown to be hugely inadequate by a low turnout. It has been previously discussed how the large number of speculative candidates could easily distract from the active progression of debate by splitting the pro-civil liberties constituency and disrupting any focus for campaigning. As such this would be directly reflected in the funding by the inability of many campaign candidates to recoup the amout spent during the election.

Currently the barrier for losing the £500 deposit is 5% of votes, so the prospect of 26 candidates amounts to a money-spinning exercise for somone! So, even with a simple 40p/vote funding guarantee differential turnout becomes an irrelevance against total votes gained.

Unfortunately I think the critics of popular funding have allowed their assumptions of centralised control to run away with themselves.

Furthermore the complaint that parliamentary expenses are used to support local campaigning efforts is entirely limited to the elected incumbent, so I wonder what thought has been given to the state of local parties where they exist in opposition – especially where in a closely fought election the losers are then forced back out into the wilderness, despite the legitimacy gained from the votes recieved – should these count for nothing?

So, you support the idea of rebuilding the link between funding and the representative function… interesting, now how do you propose to do that without removing the voluntary consideration?

I don’t understand that sentence.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a voucher system or something proportional to the number of votes the party received in the previous election.

workers have a right to protect their terms and conditions: people crossing picket lines is effectively theft because it is directly taking money out of the mouths of workers and their families who aren’t being paid….

This is an interesting sentence because on the one hand we have ‘workers’ picketing and on the other ‘people’ crossing picket lines… what are the latter doing after they cross the picket lines, filing their nails?

And by the way it isn’t theft at all.

If the employers were paying them unfairly, why would anyone cross the picket lines? Why would a worker stop anyone else from taking a job that he or she feels isn’t paying THEM enough. Surely this is a matter of personal choice and if they don’t want to do it, someone else has the right to do it?

I don’t think parties are particularly necessary, rather that they are helpful and we shouldn’t let our frustrations dictate our decisions.

My frustration is born from the claim that they in particular are necessary to the proper functioning of our society. I doubt you support that notion but that is a claim they make every time the topic of party funding returns to the spotlight.

I don’t have any problem at all with the unions funding Labour – indeed I’m surprised they haven’t formed their own party given how unhappy they claim to be, perhaps its because the unions would struggle to build an effective competing brand. Just keep it above board.

I don’t have a problem with rich people funding parties so long as everything is above board and we can say Smith gave the Wotsit party £1m so let’s keep an eye on them.

Problem is of course that they don’t want to keep everything above board.

Political party funding problems are twofold:

1. Party outgoings are more than their incomings (if I recall correctly the only parties who lived within their means in 2005 were Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic & Labour Party, Plaid Cymru, Respect, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Scottish Green Party);

2. Party incomings are a lot lower than they used to be, because their Joe Public supporters are fed up with them and have stopped joining and contributing, and their large donors are fed up with them too.

It bears repeating that Labour party membership has halved since coming to power in 1997. Some of this may be down to, yay, we don’t have to contribute any more, Labour are in power – but I suggest the majority is because Labour have annoyed their supporters.

John Redwood pointed out in December 2006 that

If you persuade every member to give £10 for an election — not a big ask — you can have a £7.5 million campaign from just 750,000 supporters, far fewer than used to belong to the Conservative Party. That’s still more than enough money to annoy voters if you spend it badly.

750,000! Labour can but dream.

I remain to be persuaded that my hard-earned cash should fund those whose ideas I oppose, particularly in sour economic conditions, especially when they are financially incompetent and secretive.

Libertarian volunteerism is all well and good on paper, but that assumes economic conditions never turn sour.

The reality is that the state must somehow ensure a basic/minimum standard, for which it has at its disposal the legitimate use of force to coerce/initiate action. This is what provides for the existence of the BBC, for example, as well as the armed services, emergency services and universal availability of social services etc.

The question that must be faced is how to ensure adequate funding for the provision of service without requiring state intervention.

It’s rise as an issue reflects the failure of the New Labour project, which tried to answer this problem by removing dependance on support from the unions, but instead became subject to the bidding of other vested interests. Can the Conservatives avoid similar questions of integrity while their activity is funded by massive individual injections of cash?

I think the outcome of this debate is some way off yet, as it will be greatly influenced by the fall of the Conservatives (or does the financial impropriety of Cameron/Osbourne/Spelman/Chichester/Dover/Lewis provide sufficient evidence as to the liklihood of this outcome?).

Personally, I’d be for ‘public funding’ over ‘state funding’ if an adequate mechanism could be found and agreed, but here isn’t the time or the place (and nor am I the person) for that.

There are lots of good reasons. Delusion. Providing a pithy yet meaningless quote. Nostalgia for the good old days. Etc.

Luckily enough, at least in the developed world, the unions are reforming a few decades too late. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

As for state-funded unions, so what? We may be on the cusp of state-funded political parties; I don’t see it making a difference to the average person working a ten hour shift on a shop floor, except insofar as their taxes are now doubly funding the overpaid windbags hogging the news.

Jesus. Can we please get rid of state funding for parties, unions, whatever else should be contributed to privately by the interested individual…

@AC256, of course I’m not ‘a big fan of property rights,’ well spotted.