Come Dine With Me

  Condom 19:08 26 Mar 2012
Locked

Come Dine With Me

If you fancy a lovely meal in the country then "Come dine with me" £5000 will secure you a 4 course meal together with a very nice bottle or two of "House Wine" but unfortunately not "the" House Wine.

£250,000 is of course the premier league and may allow you to talk with me and discuss and perhaps influence my forthcoming plans. Playing at Chequers is not obligatory as many prefer Chess.

  Quickbeam 10:46 28 Mar 2012

"if the employers agreed to double pay and do nothing about safety."

Well that scenario did happen after the 2000 fuel protests were over. The fuel drivers were quite happy to greatly exceed the legal daily and weekly working limits with government approval to quickly resupply the country, and accepted a huge bonus in their pay for that month to do so!

Wanting jam on both sides and having your cake and eating it springs to mind...

  morddwyd 20:50 28 Mar 2012

"If a union member does not wish to support the Labour party, why does he not opt out? "

Because, like me, a lifetime Tory, they can't be bothered.

Blinkered, reprehensible, undemocratic, lazy, uncaring?

Yes, all of these and more, but it is the attitude, or lack of it, of many, I venture to say the vast majority, of union members.

"it won't last many weeks before the ghost of strikes past (aka Scargill), will be haunting their minds."

And so it should, for everything that the much reviled Scargill (who I despised) warned about has come to pass.

  Quickbeam 07:53 29 Mar 2012

King Arthur is still about and kicking. He's recently had a court case against his own union that didn't go all his own way, although he did walk away with a tidy sum from the union that he singlehandedly decimated in the name of workers rights.

Without him the coal industry would have wound down over a 20 year period, with him, he achieved that, also singlehandedly, in a year...

He never quite grasped the fact that from the first shovelful of coal out of a new pit, it was one shovelful nearer to it's exhaustion and ultimate closure.

  natdoor 08:56 29 Mar 2012

fourm member

"The simple truth is that a significant proportion of union members who pay the political levy do not vote Labour." You have supported this with the single case of morddyd who, by his own account, has more money than sense. If you do not have access to details of voters union status, opt-out status and party for which they voted, then your assertion is invalid. And since the money comes from individuals there is no justification whatever in treating thesituation as though the unions are money making concerns and the donations are from the executive, in the way that public companies donate to the Tory party without giving shareholders an opportunity to opt-out. Try abandoning your ingrained prejudice and look at situations logically.

  john bunyan 09:44 29 Mar 2012

natdoor

What was your answer to my post of yesterday at 09.28?

  john bunyan 11:25 29 Mar 2012

badgery

I am against donations to the Tories by companies. If they feel they must do so then shareholers should be balloted in some way such that the political donation total should be allocated to parties in proportion to the will expressed by the shareholders. For this purpose I think Pension funds and hedge funds shoul be non voting. I just think folk should opt in to such things, but not in by default. PS I am not a committed voter for any party.

  natdoor 20:35 29 Mar 2012

john bunyan

The option to donate the political "levy" is tied to the Labour party, as you well know. They were the foundation of the party. If a union member wishes to support another party he is free to opt out and make a donation to whichever party he chooses.

fourm member

The statistics quoted are only based on a survey. their validity is clearly open to question. The electoral vote is secret and one cannot know how people voted. One can ask a few but there is no guarantee that those questioned revealed the truth.

snec

Public funding of political parties has great advantages. Firstly the amount spent on an election campaign can be constrained by limiting the public funding and banning large donations from companies or individuals. Secondly, the power to influence government policy by means of large donations would be removed, resulting in better decision-making on behalf of the population at large. Thirdly, the cost to the individual would be minimal, amounting to less than 50p per year.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Oppo A9 2020 Review

The year's best animated short Hair Love is finally online

Mac Pro 2019 release date, price, features & specs

Cdiscount : la PS4 Pro 1 To + 5 jeux à moins de 400 €