Tomorrow (Nov 5th), 270,000 civil servants will be on strike across the UK.
The dispute is over the labour government's plans for huge-scale job cuts - they're planning to cut more jobs in the civil service than Thatcher threatened in the miners' strike 20 years ago.
This is the start of a campaign by the civil service union (PCS) to oppose these job losses.
Its an absolute disgrace that the labour party is attempting to implement such cuts. Its astonishing that labour is still funded by trade union affiliation.
Originally posted by RedmikeWhat a bunch of mugs the unions are, funding the Labour party and clinging on to hopes that there are still some socialists in there somewhere!!
Tomorrow (Nov 5th), 270,000 civil servants will be on strike across the UK.
The dispute is over the labour government's plans for huge-scale job cuts - they're planning to cut more jobs in the civil service than Thatcher threatened in the miners' strike 20 years ago.
This is the start of a campaign by the civil service union (PCS) to oppose these job lo ...[text shortened]... to implement such cuts. Its astonishing that labour is still funded by trade union affiliation.
Originally posted by VargThere are two main reasons they keep funding Labour.
What a bunch of mugs the unions are, funding the Labour party and clinging on to hopes that there are still some socialists in there somewhere!!
1. Solidarity. The whole principle of socialism is solidarity.
2. If they stop funding Labour, then they will have absolutely no power to wield within the party.
I do, however, believe that there's a time to fund and time to stop funding...and that time has come about.
The Unions created Labour to speak for them within the framework of government, if Labour no longer acts as their voice, it is time for them to fund another party.
I do also believe that if ALL the unions withdrew their funding, Labour would be forced to change course to get the unions back on board. It won't work though as long as it's only one or two unions withdrawing the cash.
Originally posted by shavixmirDefinitely,
There are two main reasons they keep funding Labour.
1. Solidarity. The whole principle of socialism is solidarity.
2. If they stop funding Labour, then they will have absolutely no power to wield within the party.
I do, however, believe that there's a time to fund and time to stop funding...and that time has come about.
The Unions created Lab ...[text shortened]... k on board. It won't work though as long as it's only one or two unions withdrawing the cash.
every union seems to be thinking about their own members and as a result, only minor concessions are received. All the unions will have to band together to get a return to what Labour is supposed to represent.
200,000 job losses within the civil services is absolutely staggering. Although, all Bliar has to do is crack a couple of jokes in PMs questions and the world will think he's the best thing since sliced bread again.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorakits about 100,000 job losses.
Definitely,
every union seems to be thinking about their own members and as a result, only minor concessions are received. All the unions will have to band together to get a return to what Labour is supposed to represent.
200,000 job losses within the civil services is absolutely staggering. Although, all Bliar has to do is crack a couple of jokes in PMs questions and the world will think he's the best thing since sliced bread again.
D
In terms of funding other parties, this has already happened to an extent in Scotland.
The RMT - railway workers - donates to the Scottish Socialists, and the FBU - firefighters - recently changed their rules to allow support for other parties as well as labour (SSP, Green & SNP).
There are moves within many other unions to disaffiliate from labour. Part of the problem is that, in England, there's no viable left alternative.