Labour Corruption?

[Zebedee999]

Labour took donations from the unions pre-election and are now giving pay rises to those same union's members with limited or no negotiations. Is this corruption?

YABU = Not corruption
YANBU = Corruption of sorts

so a ‘fair settlement’ is not corrupt, but a generous settlement’ is? And who decides which is which? At what exact point does the ‘corruption’ kick in? If people don’t like it if a party is affiliated to trades unions and exists for the betterment of working people, then they can choose not to vote for that party. It’s not exactly a secret.

Doesn't mean what the Unions do is right either. Could we actually discuss that without "but the Tories...!!": they're out, and labour are in ,and said they'd be better

Way less bent than when Labour sold out public schools to academies, thus removing responsibility for our local schools from our local authorities. They even sold them to Tory donors (Sir Carpetright). Bent as fuck.

You didn’t read the manifesto, did you? https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-deal-for-working-people/

It’s not a question of whether OP agrees with my opinion, it’s that her post betrays such absolute ignorance of how the processes she is discussing actually work that the only possible conclusions are that she’s being deliberately inflammatory or she hasn’t taken any time to even try and understand what she’s talking about.

Either way, she should be trying to do better. Goady political posturing and deliberate ignorance are both unworthy of public expression.

There's been a little condescension and some suspicion that you have interpreted as bitchy and nasty - but that's inevitably come from the OP either misunderstanding her answers or trying to sneak her original assertion back in.

As for user6584whatever - there's really no way to politely tackle that kind of sheer repetitive ignorance and/or partisan bollox.

it is completely false that the “needs of unions” are in the interests of the country. They are generally opposed- more pay for public sector workers and other benefits needs to come from limited government resources.

You seem to think taxpayers get nothing in return for some reason. If we want functioning public services they have to be paid for.

Have you read the previous comments?Get yourself an education.

Union members ARE taxpayers. And you don’t have to be a member of a union or to contribute to the Labour Party to receive a public sector pay rise. This is such a silly thread. The unions are an intrinsic part of the Labour Party. Literally part of the same organisation. And paying public sector workers is part of the government’s job. Don’t like it? Don’t vote for it.

Couldn't have put it better myself

👏👏👏👏

It's getting desperate here now.

That was the previous Labour government. I wouldn't mind betting that not one of those MPs is still in the government.

Yep. My union has balloted us because we were offered a £1290 (FTE) set rise on all grades.

We were shown what this would take our wages to based on number of hours worked.

Then we could calculate what we'd be on now if our wages had raised with inflation. £5k more than the £1.2k would take me too.

And they are. They've done so much already.

Ds showed me something the other day where the old transport minister admitted the train strikes cost more than the cost of Labours pay offer.

So basically we've paid twice.

IMHO you are not unreasonable. All political parties give power to their cronies. For those who hoped that Labour would be different, be a breath of fresh air were deluding themselves. The proof is already showing; all we can do is to welcome the tax rises, see the pay rises go into the wrong pockets and watch the gold plated pensions of Civil Servants (etc) continue whilst those of us in the workplace and private (stock market) schemes continue to be fleeced.
the only difference is the colour of the tie 🤷‍♀️😞

The Labour party was formed with trade unions in order to represent workers. At the core of their manifesto was workers rights which the Labour party are already improving. The Labour party has always received funding from unions and worked very closely with them.

You ask a question.

It's answered.

People explain why your post indicates you don't understand x y and z.

But your response mainly is to discuss being "triggered"

When you ask such obviously stupid one sided questions it really should t be a shock that you get straight blunt answers.

As my late mum a,ways said "ask a stupid question ....."

There are limited public funds because the economy has been under invested in for 14 years. A lot of the funds the previous government had were siphoned off by rich donors and in contracts awarded to companies that had a connection with the Tories. The unions protect the workers. Train drivers are workers and thanks to them, thousands of people can get to work. Doc tors, nurses and all public sector workers deserve to be paid what they are worth. The NHS needs investment. Here's the thing: the rich Tory donors keep all their money in offshore bank accounts. It just sits there doing nothing for the economy whatsoever. The public sector workers will be using their money to shop, use restaurants, pay bills, pay for holidays in or out of the UK. That money will go straight back into the economy. And so will the taxes they pay. See how it works?

The Unions have always funded the Labour Party. It has always been a conflict of interest for them. I don't know if it is still the case, but they also used to have a big say, through voting rights, in who the leader of the Party was.

@Zebedee999 I am not triggered, I just think you are a troll. ‘Labour corruption’ as a thread title is a bit …….. goady.

12 years of Tory rule have broken the country. Nothing much works anymore.

Long overdue pay rises for public sector workers are somehow corruption? Is that how you see the world?

Tbh 'donations' in my mind are all corruption. Have political parties funded a different way.

YABU and a bit ridiculous @Zebedee999. Do you think the country should have to put up with strikes for the next 5 years because there's a Labour government now?

What do you suggest?

The unions support the workers, the ordinary people who have been downtrodden for years. How is that a conflict of interest? It would be if the party were posh trickle down MPs like the last lot, the rich would be complaining about that. This government is already showing it has our backs, and only the wealthy would have a problem with the unions being part of it.