suited them in the first place for a Cavani deal...
It isnt flowing today.
Is this a clause four moment all over again or is it just Her Majesty's Opposition (do they even realise that's actually their job nowadays?) fighting a spectacularly misdirected battle?
In a historical sense the labour party exists because of and on behalf of the unions. If unions are getting people nominated, good for them.
In a political sense, distancing the party nd its funds from unionism might sound shrewd.
I was very much on favour of removing clause four, simply because it was *******s, never going to happen and a political noose. This is going to drastically change the make up of the party. Not sure i really want it. I always felt the unions kept the party honest, prevented sways too far in one direction.
I suppose its a modern approach, believing that unions are no longer the collective voice of the labour force. Sad though. My grandfather was born one hundred years ago today. He would be purple with rage at this.
He was a bit of a lefty
It'll either lead them to financial ruin, which they arent too far off of at the moment, or into the arms of big funders with much more stringent demands.
They should actually be opposing some of the stuff that the government is trying, at the moment the Lib Dems are effectively the opposition and they are in government too.
Scargill saw to that..
I mean, you're so right wing you keep tripping over the advertising hoardings but I'm not sure the general public necessarily see it like that. Or for that matter have much idea how the unions and the party are intertwined.
Also, you have to remember that Scargill was 30 years ago now. There are people voting now who dont even remember Thatcher as PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote