Money go round

[asperity]

http://tinyurl.com/yfb54gz

 

The government (via the DfID) gives the TUC ?millions. The TUC gives the Labour party ?millions in donations. Slightly dodgy or what?

[LymmParent]

Well, not dodgy, no. Cos the TUC can decide that they want to give it to the new breed of militant Tories if they want to, can't they?

[observer]

Think you may find that such symbiotic arrangements arn't new, and that many Councils provide staff time and office facilities for Trade Unions (at your expense), then the same Unions then donate to the Labour Party - sort of re-cycling of taxation!

[asperity]

Well, not dodgy, no. Cos the TUC can decide that they want to give it to the new breed of militant Tories if they want to, can't they?

 

 

Wow did you see that pig fly past then

[asperity]

Think you may find that such symbiotic arrangements arn't new, and that many Councils provide staff time and office facilities for Trade Unions (at your expense), then the same Unions then donate to the Labour Party - sort of re-cycling of taxation!

 

Hardly "recycling" Obs. More outright theft. If people want to give political parties money then that is their right, but it certainly isn't right for the government to give money to the unions so that they can be given it back in the form of a "donation".

[Bazj]

I did a series of jobs a few years ago for Unison. It was fitting out new union offices in various places and in every case, the invoice was settled either by a council cheque or BACS payment

[LymmParent]

Think you may find that such symbiotic arrangements arn't new, and that many Councils provide staff time and office facilities for Trade Unions (at your expense), then the same Unions then donate to the Labour Party - sort of re-cycling of taxation!

 

Hardly "recycling" Obs. More outright theft. If people want to give political parties money then that is their right, but it certainly isn't right for the government to give money to the unions so that they can be given it back in the form of a "donation".

 

That's only true if the funding is conditional upon the donation or vice versa. But that's not the case, is it?

 

Isn't there an obligation on the part of the government - whatever colour - to fund the body that regulates Unions, just as it funds other regulatory bodies? Whereas the TUC donation to the Labour party would happen (and did happen) when they were not in power, because it's a voluntary thing.

 

If the Tories win in May, it goes back to two unrelated transactions, where the Government funds offices and expenses for the TUC and the TUC donates to their choice of party, giving nothing back to the Government.

[asperity]

Think you may find that such symbiotic arrangements arn't new, and that many Councils provide staff time and office facilities for Trade Unions (at your expense), then the same Unions then donate to the Labour Party - sort of re-cycling of taxation!

 

Hardly "recycling" Obs. More outright theft. If people want to give political parties money then that is their right, but it certainly isn't right for the government to give money to the unions so that they can be given it back in the form of a "donation".

 

That's only true if the funding is conditional upon the donation or vice versa. But that's not the case, is it?

 

Isn't there an obligation on the part of the government - whatever colour - to fund the body that regulates Unions, just as it funds other regulatory bodies? Whereas the TUC donation to the Labour party would happen (and did happen) when they were not in power, because it's a voluntary thing.

 

If the Tories win in May, it goes back to two unrelated transactions, where the Government funds offices and expenses for the TUC and the TUC donates to their choice of party, giving nothing back to the Government.

 

 

That might be true if the TUC was a regulatory body, but it isn't. It's a congress of trade unions and, as such, it should be funded by its members not by the tax payer. I'm a member of a union which is a member of the TUC so I'm already paying directly to the TUC without having more money being taken from me involuntarily to indirectly fund a political party through taxation.

[LymmParent]

OK, Asp, I see the distinction there, but isn't the TUC still government funded if/when the Tories are in the chair? If not, then it's a bit naughty.

[observer]

Generally, employers fund the Tory Party out of their profits paid by consumers; employees fund the Labour Party through a political levy that they now have to sign up to. However, as I indicated, the provision of staff time and office facilities by Councils, courtesy of the local tax-payer, saves the Union an expense which they can then donate to the Labour Party.

[asperity]

OK, Asp, I see the distinction there, but isn't the TUC still government funded if/when the Tories are in the chair? If not, then it's a bit naughty.

 

Why is it naughty? Why should unions be government funded?

[LymmParent]

OK, Asp, I see the distinction there, but isn't the TUC still government funded if/when the Tories are in the chair? If not, then it's a bit naughty.

 

Why is it naughty? Why should unions be government funded?

 

You've misread me. I meant if it's not funded when the Tories are in the chair, then the practice of funding it by Labour is indeed a bit naughty.

 

But, whilst Unions shouldn't be funded, neither should power or phone companies. Whereas the Central body for unions should, just as the energy and telecom watchdogs are. Union members should all have a system whereby they can challenge Union conduct, and the TUC provides that mechanism, doesn't it?

[asperity]

Generally, employers fund the Tory Party out of their profits paid by consumers; employees fund the Labour Party through a political levy that they now have to sign up to. However, as I indicated, the provision of staff time and office facilities by Councils, courtesy of the local tax-payer, saves the Union an expense which they can then donate to the Labour Party.

 

I think you're way out of date in your thinking. There are major employers who are Labour supporters and who donate to the party, and there are some unions who support the Tories. What has happened here is taxpayers money that has been diverted by the DfID to the Labour party using the TUC as a path. That's wrong.

[observer]

Errm no; the TUC is an organisation composed of individual member unions, designed to provide a common platform for representation - each Union has it's own rules etc and isn't subject to regulation other than those rules or the law of the land.

[asperity]

What Obs said. The TUC is a Union talking shop not a regulator.

[LymmParent]

Have to honest, I am not terribly well up on exactly what the TUC does, so I'm not arging with you, just asking the questions that occur to me.

 

So, it seems to me that if the TUC serves to regulate the actions of the Unions and protect the individual members, then it should be funded by the Government, out of taxpayers money, to some degree, no matter what party they are. Hence my question. Does the TUC do that, or not? If not, what does it actually do? If anything!

 

And thinking about it now, if Labour give funding and take it back, but the Tories just don't give, then in neither case are we, as taxpayers actually funding the TUC..... see, this is why most politicians are blokes - women just can't be doing with such pointless rubbish.

[observer]

Forget the TUC, it's not a regulatory body, but sometimes acts as an arbitrator in disputes- individual Unions donate to the Labour Party on the basis of a signed permission by individual members to take a portion of their contributions as a political levy. They even sponsor individual MPs; but the old saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune", never seems to have applied to the career politicians.

[asperity]

The TUC does not regulate the unions and is not normally a government funded body. However it transpires that money has been diverted to the TUC via the DfID. This is not money from the Labour Party but from the Treasury. Now, as the TUC funds the Labour Party (the party that it historically founded) that means the taxpayer is funding the Labour Party via the back door so to speak. Which is wrong in anybody's book if you ask me. Should the Tories win the next election and the same arrangement stand then the taxpayer will still be funding the Labour Party. Does that sound proper to you?

[observer]

I'm not arguing with you Asp; I don't know the specifics as to the reasons given for this funding; but there are a host of organisations in receipt of Gov funding, as indeed with local Council funding - set up some kind of voluntary interest group or charity and you can use them as a cash cow.

[LymmParent]

The TUC does not regulate the unions and is not normally a government funded body. However it transpires that money has been diverted to the TUC via the DfID. This is not money from the Labour Party but from the Treasury. Now, as the TUC funds the Labour Party (the party that it historically founded) that means the taxpayer is funding the Labour Party via the back door so to speak. Which is wrong in anybody's book if you ask me. Should the Tories win the next election and the same arrangement stand then the taxpayer will still be funding the Labour Party. Does that sound proper to you?

 

Nope. They are naughty bad people and you are right. Keelhaul them all immediately, Mr Asp!

[asperity]

Sorry keelhauling's off the agenda these days. Elf and Safety would have my guts for garters

[LymmParent]

Sorry keelhauling's off the agenda these days. Elf and Safety would have my guts for garters

 

If the appropriate handrail is in place, might they walk the plank then? Subject to it being made of wood from a sustainable source, appropriate length for ISO standards and with a non-slip surface?

[asperity]

Just so long as they were wearing lifejackets, safety helmets and safety boots, the rescue boat had been manned and launched and, of course, that a full Risk Assessment had been carried out and the appropriate Authorities ashore had been informed and given their assent, in writing in triplicate, before any action was initiated. Not forgetting of course that the persons actually doing the plank walking have to sign waivers in case of plans going, shall we say, not to plan.

[LymmParent]

Make it so, Mr Asperity, warp factor one. Good, HEAVY safety boots please, and lead aprons in case of accidental nuclear emissions.

 

Do we really need them to sign waivers in case they DON'T get eaten by large sharks? That was sort of MY plan....

[Paul Kennedy]

Sorry keelhauling's off the agenda these days. Elf and Safety would have my guts for garters

 

If the appropriate handrail is in place, might they walk the plank then? Subject to it being made of wood from a sustainable source, appropriate length for ISO standards and with a non-slip surface?

 

And with a safety net underneath.