Labour isn't Working - Thread 40

[Nuthatch26]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government. 🥀

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5568447-labour-isnt-working-thread-39?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=shareL

I saw this on Facebook. I'm not sure if it's genuine but if it is, it shows how desperate labour are, literally begging for money.

I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. These retrospective hastily thought up laws are very worrying.

Who knows if it's true. But I do believe they're worried as other parties must be.

Agree. Hopefully Burnham will have bigger fish to fry rather markets than pulling out legislation from the HoL to add more restrictions so only Labour can get millions, via unions.

I don't think it will end well if they try to ban these transactions.

Not sure Reform can lose on this one. If it isn't banned they get the money.

If it is they get to play the foul card.

Die hards either way won't change how they vote because of it.

But I think a lot of people sitting on the fence will see it as an underhand method of trying to stop Reform gaining ground.

The UK electorate has a bit of a history of being contrary if politicians try to get too cute with this sort of stuff. They never seem to learn though.

I actually don't think the electorate will care about this, as Reform are so Marmite.

It's been in the legislative pipeline since February, so I don't think it qualifies as 'hastily thought up'. It's the bill which changes the law on voter age as well, amongst other things.

It probably just wasn't overly known about in its entirety until pushed into focus this weekend.

electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/representation-of-the-people-bill/

Rayner’s comments were hastily thought up. I doubt she’ll get the changes now though. It’s in the HoL.

Peers can suggest and then vote on changes to legislation. So let's see what they send back once debated.

Labour are panicking on this. They’ll still want union millions anyway.

What concerns me is that two individuals donated 72 million if the government take them on they have bottomless pockets to cause absolute havoc. They could dig deep into individuals, union hierarchy newspaper owners other media moguls and destroy.

It's actually frightening. A pp mentioned the eye of Mordor which I thought was an accurate analogy. I found it chilling reading the books as a child.

The thing is that what happens now is extreme, but there always have been donations.

Do people really want only the unions to donate millions? Ie only Labour will get that.

It’s stacking the system for them only.

"Non-dom donors: who has given money to which parties? | Party funding | The Guardian" https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/08/non-dom-donors-who-has-given-money-to-which-parties

Jakers go back 11 years they were all swimming in Dosh.

The limit on donations to political parties needs to be much lower, perhaps 50k per annum is reasonable, and limited to individual UK citizens.

I am not a reform voter, but I do think they can claim foul.

As others have pointed out the unions donate millions in return for stricter labour laws to benefit them and jobs as MPs in safe seats being handed out to their officials.

I don’t recall anybody investigating the donations by Lord Ali to Labour, apparently they would have been declared properly but errors made by admin staff … so thats ok then.

RR deserves particular attention. Her clothing donations were put down as office costs. If they were recorded as clothing then she would have been liable for income tax on the value. (HMRC rules are clear on this) … of course nobody investigates.

And let’s not get started on the Russians. Ah but they are UK citizens …. Why no unexplained wealth orders for Lebedev senior and his moron son. Well he throws a good party and gave Osborne a job.

No. But I also don't want the level of donations which Reform has had. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

Agree. The unions also have to be caught by any regulation. We’ve seen so many times that they are propping up a political agenda that goes further than protecting all workers from discrimination. They are one of the last bastions of untrammelled trans rights activism.

What would happen if they had already spent the money by then?
(A friend of mine wondered why the second donor didn’t make it £36,000,001 .. 😂)

I know journalists stalk MN, but loosely borrowing this thread's title is a bit much.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16132155/Labours-not-working-job-vacancies-falling.html

Ah yes Nuthatch is good on this. She chose well!

On that note hope all ok @Nuthatch26haven’t seen you for a bit.

Chris Mason does a good explainer on the potential legislation on political donations here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjn5dl95z13qo

Backdating laws concerns me. It's wide open to abuse IMO. These two billionaires will take it to court if the government try to pull this off. They have deep pockets.

Predictably, the Labour response to this is complete denial. Apparently, the UK is in great shape - or something like that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/0f84b99a6d168249

I agree. I think any regulation should be going forwards. Line in the sand.

It’s basic fairness.

We can have different parties gaining and losing office and vindictively making retrospective laws against their opponents/enemies. What might they do to different sections of society who are not their supporters?

Labour are cynical and craven.

I was a little taken aback by the big donations from crypto billionaires. But that’s far less worrying than the precedent this behaviour will set. It’s also transparent to us all and we can make our own judgement and choices about it. With retrospective legislation, no one knows what is coming for them.