Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

that must be an example of how ya think 1% that should have been paid in taxes is acceptable.:rolleyes:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

As stated, donors to the Tory party have no hidden agendas, other than acting as true altruists.


'PRWeek has obtained an email sent to potential donors by CCHQ. The email, sent out on 24 November, asks recipients to 'consider joining one of our donor clubs, which range from £2k up to £50k'. The email explains how the biggest donors can now attend presentations with key party figures, as well as lunches with David Cameron after Prime Minister's Questions.'
Tory donors offered meetings with comms chiefs Steve Hilton and Andy Coulson - PR and Public Relations news - PR Week

:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

Yeah I think all donors should be paying tax in the UK. Including Labour's nom-dom donors such as Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal and Sir Ronald Cohen. The Conservatives have proposed this legislation.

I think donations should be capped at £50,000. I'd like to see lots of small donations to political parties, rather than big chunks by individuals, companies, or trade unions.

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

looking at that realistically it would only favour your party, would it not?:rolleyes:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

Don't forget to mention Lord Laidlow, when discussing non-domiciled donors.

;)


'Lord Laidlaw of Rothiemay, one of the Conservatives' biggest benefactors, who has given around £5m to the party and over recent years has almost single-handedly bankrolled the Scottish Tories, has decided to stop making donations, The Herald has been told.
The revelation about the Monaco-based peer occurred ahead of a bid next week to ban non-domiciled residents from donating to parties in a back-bench amendment to the Political Parties and Elections Bill.'
Top donor Lord Laidlaw to stop bankrolling Conservatives - Herald Scotland

:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

'The Electoral Commission shows that in 2006 the Conservative party received nearly 50 individual donations each over £50,000 including 14 donors giving more than £250,000 each.'

Michael Ashcroft
The deepest of the deep pockets, Lord Ashcroft has given the Conservative party £6.5m. He was a good friend to former leader William Hague but less friendly with Michael Howard. David Cameron has since made him deputy chairman of the party.
Irvine Laidlaw
The 64-year-old is listed in the Sunday Times rich list as the second richest person in Scotland. He and his businesses have given more than £2.5m and loaned a further £2.5m. The Lord was criticised in April of this year for failing to become a UK resident despite being appointed to the House of Lords - an honour normally only afforded to UK residents.

Loenard Steinberg
Made a Tory life peer in 2004, his personal fortune has been estimated at around £108m. In 2006 he donated more than £500,000 to the Conservative party.

Lord Kalms
A fortnight ago this former Tory party treasurer said he was "disillusioned to a substantial degree" with David Cameron and said 'look chum, we need to do some rethinking.' Since he had 'not quite got the party behind him at the moment' and the that the Conservatives were having a 'very bad period'. Calling for a rethink on Europe, social cohesion and grammar schools. Over time he is thought to have given some £6.1m.

Stuart Wheeler
Thought to be one of the Conservative party's largest donors, having given in excess of £5m to the party over time, although he hasn't donated in the last two years. Though he thinks Cameron is the one leader who can win the Conservatives an election, he wants to see the party be tougher on the EU and to pledge tax cuts.

Midlands Industrial Council
Robert Edmiston - who personally lent the Tories £2m before the 2005 general election - and JCB boss Sir Anthony Bamford head up this organisation of businessmen that fund the Conservatives and they donated £400k in 2006. It is thought to have given even larger figures to a group called Constituency Campaigning Services, which supports Tories in key marginal seats.

International Motors Limited
Based in the Midlands this company donated over £2m in March 2006.

IPGL Ltd & RFG
These London-based companies both donated £1m both April 2006.
The Tory party's biggest donors | Politics | guardian.co.uk


Give, give, give, and ne'er a thought about what was in it for themselves.

True altruism.

:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

To once again prove that my own views aren't blinkerd by affilation to party politics, unlike some, this is totally wrong. An utter disgrace.

Revealed: Labour’s cash for influence scandal - Times Online

It should be outlawed for any MP to be paid by lobbyists, and sell their services to the higest bidder, in the hope of gaining influence for the lobbyist's clients.

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

Nobody was trying to suggest anything other than that all major parties have accepted donations of over £50,000. I merely expressed a view that I believe the rules should be changed to prevent it.

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

you do spout some crap, ya only highlighted labours nom-dom donors.:rolleyes:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

If a potential employer tells you what the terms and conditions are when you apply for a job, are they really at fault for paying peanuts and somebody feeding on them :confused:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

whatever your views are on strike action, there is one thing that people fail to realise, and that is the losers in the whole debacle will be the workers.
Firstly they will lose wages.........and ultimately, they may even lose their jobs.
I really feel that strike action is futile.......there is always someone(be that worker, or company) who will step into the breech if this airline goes under.....which it may well do.

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

Strange how the usual suspects crawl out of the woodwork to criticise any views opposed to that of their own! Back in the 1950/60's when I was an apprentice engineer, along with my colleagues, I was encouraged/browbeaten/ whatever, into joining the Amalgamated Engineering Union by my so called elders and betters - whether I liked it or not. When the time came to elect union officials I was confronted with a list of names which meant nothing to me and TOLD by the shop steward that I MUST vote for the person endorsed by the party in other words: Labour. I have never forgotten the experience and have been opposed to union membership of any kind since. So please don't anyone pretend to call me a bigot as I am big enough and sensible enough to have my own opion when it comes to outmoded union practices where it is evident that more and more union members are being led to the slaughter by loudmouthed agitators whose only goal is to fulfil their own political ambitions.

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

Hasn't the law been changed now though, so people can still be members of a union, but opt out of paying the part of the subscription that funds political parties?

I also agree with your point. Membership of a union should be an option, not a forced requirement.

Check-off and political funds

Some trade unions operate political funds. Members of these trade unions are asked to make a contribution to the trade union’s political fund, as part of their regular subscriptions. This is sometimes called the ‘political levy’.

Under the law, trade union members are free to opt out of paying the political levy at any time.

Trade union subscriptions : Directgov - Employment

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

What's strange about it? Surely it's perfectly normal and quite healthy that someone puts a point of view forward and other people disagree with it. It's called democratic debate...or should we all just fall into line and agree with you? :confused:

Re: Unions flexing their muscles again
 

"Back in the 1955 when I was an apprentice electrical engineer, I was told that I had to join the ETU- whether I liked it or not, even though by agreement the company was controlled by the AEU.
So I went along to the Stanley Arms I think it was, paid my dues and then had to listen to these communist speakers spouting a load of rubbish for a couple of hours. I told my mentor and he got me membership of the Association of Supervising Elect Eng - so it was 2 fingers up to the ETU - I was not allowed to partake in any Union activity anyway, as stated in my Certificate of Indenture, so the only reason for me to be a member of the ETU was my contribution to their coffers.
IMHO Unions were good for what they were originally intended, but when they became highly politicised they lost the plot.