June 24th, 2011

YouGov: 51% Want Ban On Taxpayer Funded Union Staff

A Taxpayers’ Alliance and YouGov poll shows more than half the country would like to see an end to the controversial practice of public sector union officials being paid while they do union activity instead of working. As the unions don’t have to pay their staff and national organisers, they can spend the money raised through subs on political activity, like funding the Labour Party.

The TPA reckon that at least £67 million is being diverted from frontline services into the pockets of union officials. As Guido has been showing you over the last few months, these officials are up to no good. If the unions want staff they should pay for them out of union subs. Guido isn’t surprised the public are rejecting this absurd loophole.

UPDATE: Given this insight into the public mood, perhaps the Tories own taxpayer funded operation, the Parliamentary Resources Unit, might like to retract their amber warning to MPs over David Morris’ EDM calling for a ban:


144 Comments

  1. 1
    Alex Sarson says:

    Ban all unions, they have no place in modern day society, especially during times like this. They should shut up.

    When these strikes occur, round up the lot of them and sack them. Don’t offer them any second chance. A job in today’s climate is golden, don’t moan about what you get!

    Like

    • 8
      A Nation of Brain Deads, says:

      Only 51%? Is 49% of Britain really that thick?

      Like

      • 16
        David Laws Lib Dem fiddler says:

        I suspect that most teachers do not realise that part of their subscriptions goes to the Labour Party rather than wholly to the union to support its staff or their causes. As with most aspects of life, some people like Pilgrim take advantage and rip the ass out of reasonable time off for union matters.

        Like

      • 21
        Political pundit. says:

        Seems to me that they only polled uniion members to get 51%.
        Or perhaps it was only unions and Labour supporters?
        Would like to see the question to get this ridiculous poll figure.

        Like

      • 30
        Disco Stew says:

        I can’t believe it’s only 51%.Who are the f*@king idiots that think the taxpayer should pay for unionistas? I’m still waiting to bump into someone who will admit they vote for Labour.Honestly,I have given up on the inteligence of the public of this Country.

        Like

      • 39
        Sir William Waad says:

        24% said they didn’t know. Only 26% wanted to go on paying for the Pilgrims. They tended to be Labour voters and to live in the North – surprise, surprise.

        (Yes, I know – 51+24+26 = 101, but tell the TPA and YouGov).

        Like

      • 41
        HenryV says:

        50% of the people you will meet today are below average in some way.

        Like

        • 54
          Mr Average says:

          But if the other 50% are above average, does that mean no one is average?

          Like

        • 90
          Selohesra says:

          Actully it depends what sort of average you use – median yes but mean & mode you cannot draw that conclusion

          Like

          • Sir William Waad says:

            Most of us have an above average number of legs.

            Most people have two legs, but some have one and others none. Nobody has more than two legs. Therefore, the average (mean) number of legs is less than two. Therefore most of us have an above average number of legs.

            Like

          • Rolf Harris says:

            “Nobody has more than two legs.”

            What about Jake the Peg?

            Like

    • 14
      Engineer says:

      Not in favour of banning Unions, as they can do good work in resolving disputes in the complex field of employment law. For example, after five changes in company ownership over about ten years, but still doing the same job in the same workplace, a relative of mine was unable to ascertain which former employer still had legal responsibility for his pension fund. The Union official was the only person with the knowledge to navigate through the complexity of the mess, and was thanked by the latest employer for his constructive input to the matter.

      Where Unions get it wrong is in the belief that they must act as a sort of cross between class warriors and political rabble-rousers. In doing that, they destroy most of the goodwill they earn from the public in looking after individual employees’ interests.

      Like

      • 23
        Political pundit. says:

        Bang on.

        Like

      • 26
        sockpuppet #4 says:

        “was thanked by the latest employer” I take it that means they werent the ones who had to pay out!

        Like

        • 32
          Engineer says:

          Actually, they ended up topping up his pesion fund for him. Given that his is an arcane skill not quickly or readily replaceable without hiring someone on a far higher rate of pay, there may have been an element of enlightened self-interest in the employers generosity.

          Like

      • 38
        Anonymous says:

        Completely agree. The union bashing is silly in many contexts. As a former union rep I can attest to lots of things unions do for members which benefit everyone in the workplace, inlcuding employers.

        Syphoning public money to the chancers in the Labour Party, however, is not on.

        Like

      • 46
        Rascal Puff says:

        The unions look after themselves, thats it. Any romantic thoughts that they are “class warriors, people power etc” is just tosh. You can also chuck the law Society and the BMA into pot…. they ALL just look after themselves and fuck the rest of us.

        Like

      • 51
        bergen says:

        Couldn’t agree more.A workforce is entitled to representation to deal with the personnel department of the employer if large enough.

        The problem is the way that the public sector expect us to pay their full time officials-it makes work for idle hands and rips us off to boot.No wonder it is so hard to enforce efficiency savings in the public sector.We’ve gone through a terrible couple of years in the private sector-paycuts,reduced hours to keep afloat.These people have an incredible sense of entitlement.

        Like

      • 83
        Penfold says:

        RMT needs banning if not eviscaration.

        Like

      • 128
        lola says:

        So, doing me out of a job then? Part of my business does just this sort of tracing.

        Like

    • 15
      Selohesra says:

      Bring on a windfall tax on the unions like Labour did on the privatised utilities. If they have enough money to waste on strike pay and funding Labour this sghould raise quite a bit.

      Like

    • 49
      StrongholdBarricades says:

      There is news of some Union Officials considering striking because their Unions aren’t giving them a pay rise.

      Like

      • 60
        geoff says:

        i can’t even get my head around that one. will the union come out in comradely support?

        Like

      • 79
        COMRADE BOB CROW (ANNUAL SALARY £254,978) says:

        GOOD PLAN. I AM SIK OF BEIN EXPLOYTED N UNDERPAYD BY RITCH FATCATS. IM GOIN ON STRYK.

        Like

    • 74
      geoff says:

      picture bottom right sums up Labour voters for me

      http://order-order.com/2011/06/13/awkward-ed-miliband-moments-ii/

      Like

    • 136
      Politicians are CUNTS says:

      you gonna be first in the slave queue then

      Like

    • 139
      Anonymous says:

      A mature, educated response, ‘they should shut up’. Nobody wants to strike, but people have a right to fair pay for good honest hard work. Very few get rich from working in the public sector. Its good that you are not running this country, although your words sound quite familiar. Get this straight and understand. If they all go on strike the economy will grind to a mind altering stop. Whether you realise it or not, you need them!

      Like

  2. 2
    boulay says:

    surprised it is only 51%. or are the other 49% pilgrims themselves?

    Like

  3. 3
    Engineer says:

    It might be reasonable for employers to allow some leeway if Union officials’ activities relate directly and exclusively to disputes and employment concerns of that firms’ or establishments’ employees. Anything relating to wider political matters should be funded exclusively by the Union, and if the official is given leave of absence to attend to such matters, it should be unpaid.

    Like

    • 7
      Ah! Monika says:

      Rather like giving your executioner time off to buy the rope

      Like

      • 18
        sockpuppet #4 says:

        Surely that is an integral part of his job. A bit like suggesting to a plumber that you won’t be paying for any time that he spends going to buy copper pipes.

        It also sounds like industrial relationships worse than the 1970s if you compare it to that of an executioner and the death row inmate.

        Like

    • 129
      lola says:

      Why? The union represents the ‘worker’. He’s employed by the ‘worker’. What’s that got to do with the employer? I am an employer – I’ll be buggered if I am going to pay for an ‘erbert to lay about just so’s he ‘help’ and employee – I’ve got an HR department to do that. And if I am in ‘dispute’ with an employee – well it’s my business i set the rules. If the employee doesn;t like it he is free to resogn and barter his skills elsewhere.

      Unions are special interest group with the special prvilidge to apply coercion. If I tried to renege on a contract I’d eaither be sued, or if it incolves the State, locked up.

      Like

  4. 4
    Old Tory Bigot says:

    Only 51% ?

    Astonishing!

    Like

    • 5
      vince says:

      The other 49% probably don’t even know what planet they’re on.

      Like

    • 6
      boulay says:

      i suppose there are around 35% of the population who are completely fucking brain-dead and would vote for labour whatever happens so i imagine that they comprise part of the other 49%. where the others come from god only knows….

      Like

  5. 9
    Anonymous says:

    51% is hardly a public rejection. That figure will probably be +/- something, so… it could be a public rejection of not having tax funded unions. I like how Taxpayers Alliance is trying to spin the stat tho… worthy of a gov department!

    Like

  6. 10
    Anonymous says:

    The Taxpayers’ Alliance says…

    Anything their right-wing working-class destroying paymasters tell them to…

    Like

    • 22
      sockpuppet #4 says:

      Tell me … all those bloody statues that went up over the last 5-10 years.
      Did that do great things for the “working classes”

      Like

    • 27
      Engineer says:

      They do give a voice to individual taxpayers’ concerns.

      Think of them as the National Union of Taxpayers. After all, if it’s OK for workers to have a voice, surely it’s OK for ‘them as pays for it all’ to have a voice, too?

      Like

    • 48
      Sir William Waad says:

      Unfortunately, none of our serious political parties has any policy of containing or reducing the level of taxation. It is a surprising thing that nobody questions policies of ever-higher levels of taxation, even from the point of view of ensuring future social provision. (More tax today > less money tomorrow > poorer public services)?

      Of course, it is simpler to label your opponent as ‘right wing’ and shut a mental gate against them than it is to argue why taxation persistently at wartime crisis level is a good thing.

      Like

  7. 11
    Richard says:

    Blimey Alex, if you were pressured into doing two hours a day of unpaid overtime or bullied by your boss, wouldn’t you want a union behind you?

    I don’t have a big problem with public sector union officials not being paid while they do union activity though.

    Like

    • 20
      Ah! Monika says:

      I ( might ) be persuaded to allow a few hours per year paid. Thereafter I would expect meetings to take place off-site, out of hours, as in my day in a room in the local pub.

      Like

    • 35
      Archer Karcher says:

      Both the practices you mention are illegal and with or without a Union, you are able to take an employer to a tribunal and win substantial damages.
      Union’s have achieved what they set out to do and are now delving into areas where they have no legitimacy at all, such as regime change and overall government policy.

      Like

      • 63
        geoff says:

        you don’t need a union to help with a bullying boss. be a man, stand up for yourself! the discipline of the baseball bat.

        Like

  8. 13
    Tell it like it really is says:

    Next You Gov poll:

    1) Should this country withdraw from the EU now?

    2) Should there be an immediate ban on any more immigration to this country?

    3) Should there be an immediate ban on using the “Human Rights Farce” as
    an excuse to continue avoiding justice including deportation of criminals etc?

    These are the most important issues to the majority of legal British people.

    Like

  9. 17
    Fixed says:

    YouGov never asked me about this and I religiously answer all their polls in an effort to get the £50.

    Like

    • 34
      Ah! Monika says:

      I’ve withdrawn from Y-G. Promises promises.
      They also assume that all ‘ voters’ tell the truth when originally asking about political allegiance.

      Like

  10. 19
    The Colonel says:

    I have NEVER been asked anything in a POLL – where do they conduct them? Certainly not in rural Herefordshire!

    Like

  11. 24
    Time 2 CTRL, ALT & DEL says:

    51% – what is the margin of error on this +/- 2%??

    Like

  12. 25
    Jane Pilgrim says:

    Leave us alone!

    Like

    • 31
      Political pundit. says:

      This is victimization of the incompetent and on the criminal duties that the last government fully endorsed – do not know why they are so quiet on this matter now though.

      Like

  13. 33
    Dave says:

    I take a dim view of this

    Like

  14. 42
    Kevin T says:

    Only 51%? I find that surprisingly low. Other than the tribal left, who would support this?

    Like

    • 98
      Cato Street Conspirator says:

      Probably employers who find it more convenient to negotiate with a tame union official than have to deal with the unpredictable workers themselves.

      Like

      • 135
        They're all the same says:

        Yep. This idea people have of Unions sticking it to the bosses is about 30 years out of date. One of reasons union membership is so low is because workers know that union leaders are too busy feathering their own nests and cutting cosy little deals amidst the bonhomie of the negotiating table.

        Like

  15. 43
    Moussa Koussa says:

    I’m a Labour troll who just spends all day making tenuous connections to the Tory party and ending every post with “still the nasty party”.

    Of course, Labour are not a nasty party at all. It was perfectly decent and above board for Labour to do things like mount an attempted smear campaign against opponents, hound Dr K elly and defame him by calling him a Walter Mitty, lie to the public over an illegal invasion, spread rumours about Mo Mowlam in retaliation for getting a standing ovation during Messiah Blair’s speech, smear a disfigured train crash survivor who dared to criticise Labour, and say that 9-11 was a good day to bury bad news.

    Like

    • 67
      The Anti British Broadcasting Co says:

      And here is the Labour Party Shadow Minister for nothing important at all to refute everything horrible you say about the Labour Party.

      Like

    • 76
      Kevin T says:

      I don’t believe you. You’re supposed to be trolling a piece about public finances and you haven’t mentioned the word “bankers” once, let alone “too fast, too deep” or “taking money out of the economy *”.

      * however the fuck you do that

      Like

    • 84
      Moussa Koussa says:

      Errrrrr… you can’t be me because you didn’t start your post with “Errrrrrr” in a strange and childish attempt to appear thoughtful and clever. And you didn’t end with..

      “You ain’t seen me, right?”

      Like

  16. 45
    Thick Brits says:

    Let’s face it the British are thick. Who in their right minds would wade through mud to watch Bono try to sing or queue in the rain to see Murray lose?

    Like

    • 80
      Engineer says:

      Well, not those of us commenting on this blog, obviously. Draw your own conclusions….

      Like

    • 96
      Kevin T says:

      Now now, every country has its retards. The other night I was driven home by a cab drive from the Bahamas. Who the FUCK would move to Britain from the Bahamas???

      Like

    • 109
      Ambassador Xarg from the planet Chromada says:

      There are 600 million facebook users and 175million Twitter users.

      Let’s face it. You humans are thick.

      Like

  17. 50
    Hang The Bastards says:

    This is a fking disgrace…

    When will spinless Dave grown a backbone and deal with this once and for all.

    Can you imagine the uproar if anti-Union Tory Supporters were funded in the same way in the public sector.

    Like

  18. 53
    Anonymous says:

    That’s one of the weirdest statistic I’ve seen.

    It means that 49% of people are either in favour of (or don’t care about) spending tax payers’ money to fund union activities.

    Maybe they asked the wrong people.

    Ask that question down here in the south, and you’d get about 95% of people wanting a ban, with the remaining 5% being the local school/hospital extreme-left-wing union members/leaders.

    It shouldn’t be open to a vote anyway, it should simply be made illegal as it’s a form of blatent/open fraud against the tax payer.

    Like

  19. 55
    Lose, motherfucker! says:

    Has Andy Murray lost yet? Can’t be long now. :-D

    Like

  20. 62
    Gordon Brown says:

    None of you understand how difficult it is to run a country. If you are the Prime Minister, you have to keep potential trouble spots on side. That is why I had to expand the public sector and allow union representatives to be publicly funded. My record speaks for itself; for 10 years I brought and era of prosperity and no more boom and bust to this country. In any case, al these worthy people, vote Labour, to protect their ‘non jobs.’

    Like

  21. 64
    A Canterbury Tale says:

    Like

  22. 65
    MILF Watch says:

    Jo Coburn’s legs on Daily Politics. :-D

    Like

  23. 70
    Far North West constituent says:

    Funding of union officials by taxpayer must stop, it just not fair on the taxpayer.

    Union officials – paid for by the UNION, should be given time to access / debate / meet with bosses in government / quango / local authority for legitimate employment issues, that’s all.

    Like

  24. 72
    Greasy says:

    Zoe Williams on Daily Politics looks like she hasn’t washed her hair in weeks.

    Like

    • 78
      Dog's Breakfast says:

      Crikey she looks like she has just got out of bed after a sleepless night. Even her frock looks like a nightie.

      Like

  25. 77
    F'urk the unions says:

    expose the unions for what they are …out of touch with the real world with a hierarchy that laughingly ‘earns’ enormous sums of money who are looking after their own interests at the expense of their supporters…outdated expensive and not doing the working man any favours whatsoever. Health and Safety do the ‘looking out for’ more.

    Like

  26. 81
    Penfold says:

    Its not just salaries.

    In Richmond upon Thames the Unison union occupies a bijoux and prime location cottage on the Richmond Road, fronting the York House tennis courts.

    How many other properties or office space are union occupied and financied by the tax payers, with business rates subsidised along with ancillary services such as telephones, computers and photo copying.

    Its a scandal.

    No wonder Dave Prentiss was bragging about his £25m strike fund. !!

    Like

  27. 86
    Shubert Dab says:

    I don’t won’t to pay the wages of some wank eyed lefties who organise a strike so my rubbish is not collected

    fuck you Pilgrims

    Like

  28. 87
    Don't fuck with the kitteh says:

    Daily Politics just confirmed Larry The Cat has made his first kill, taking down three mice in Downing St.

    Like

    • 92
      Old Tory Bigot says:

      Yet I notice they have put a bell on his collar.

      Not exactly making the job easy for the little chap are they?

      Perhaps they were the Three Deaf Mice.

      Like

      • 108
        sockpuppet #4 says:

        The older and wiser a cat the less it runs or sneaks, and the more it waits and pounces.

        That might sound like a metaphor, but its just honed cat tactics. I suppose it might describe Tebbit’s current MO.

        Like

    • 97
      Larry the Cat says:

      Done mice, I’m going for the rats next.

      Like

  29. 88
    C Line says:

    Bob Crow puts the C in C UN T

    Like

    • 95
      Bob Crow says:

      oI! iT’s aLL fACher’S folT! uP tHe wORKaz!

      Like

      • 102
        NUT English Teacher says:

        Well done Bob. Your English is at least A-Level standard.

        Like

        • 105
          The ghost of ILEA (Inner London Education Authority, abolished by Thatcher) says:

          Competitive sports are wrong. It produces winners and losers and schools shouldn’t champion that kind of inequality. No one should be a winner. Everyone’s equal.

          Like

  30. 91
    son of selsdonman says:

    Thanks for the reminder. I wrote to my MP asking if he was supporting the EDM – unfortunately he seems to have been too busy – presumably filling out his expenses (he does have his horses to feed after all) to get back and let me know!!!

    Like

  31. 94
    Cato Street Conspirator says:

    ‘As the unions don’t have to pay their staff and national organisers, they can spend the money raised through subs on political activity, like funding the Labour Party.’

    That’s isn’t true Mr Fawkes and if you don’t know that you really should. Here are the facts:

    ‘Some trade unions maintain a political fund. This is a separate account which the trade union can use to provide financial support for a political party. For example, they could donate to a party or particular politician, produce leaflets in support at an election, or support party conference costs…

    ‘If a trade union wishes to start a political fund, its members must vote in favour of creating one. This vote must be conducted by a secret ballot held under rules approved by the Certification Officer. The trade union must allow all its members to vote in the ballot.’

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionmembership/DG_179239

    Like

    • 107
      BaggPuss says:

      ‘If a trade union wishes to start a political fund, its members must vote in favour of creating one.”

      Really? I think you should get out more and see how it’s done in the real world.

      Idiot.

      Like

      • 121
        Cato Street Conspirator says:

        Really? You must tell me sometime about your years of experience as a trade union activist. Meanwhile, read this. It’s based on legislation brought in by the Tories in the 1980s:

        If a trade union’s members vote in favour of creating a political fund, the trade union can maintain the fund for a period of ten years.

        If a trade union wants to continue maintaining the political fund after the end of the ten year period it must hold a further ballot of all its members asking whether they wish the trade union to continue running a political fund. This is sometimes called a ‘review ballot’. The rules for the ballot must be approved by the Certification Officer.

        If your trade union holds a ballot to start a political fund or a review ballot and you think it has broken the rules for the ballot you can complain either to the Certification Officer or the courts.

        A trade union which operates a political fund must have political fund rules. These too have to be approved by the Certification Officer. The trade union’s political fund rules will specify how money is collected for the political fund, and the amount to be paid into the fund by the members who contribute to it.

        A trade union must pay for party political activities from its political fund, and must not use money from its other accounts for this purpose.

        Once a political fund is established, it is up to the trade union to decide, in-line with its rules, how the money is spent.

        Paying into a political fund
        If you contribute to your trade union’s political fund the contribution will usually form a part of your trade union membership subscription. This contribution is sometimes called the ‘political levy’.

        If your employer deducts money from your pay for your trade union subscription (known as ‘check-off’), this money will usually include a political fund contribution if you contribute to it.

        Trade union subscriptions
        Your trade union must have arrangements in place enabling you to find out how much of your trade union subscription is a contribution to the political fund.

        Like

        • 127
          Anonymous says:

          Can you not see the obvious fact that if a trade union has a political fund, that political fund is going to be considerably smaller if they have to pay thousands of salaries that are currently funded by the taxpayer?

          Yet again, attempting to use smoke and mirrors rather than admit the truth.

          Like

  32. 99
    Life means life says:

    That evil fat c unt Levi Bellfield just been handed a whole life sentence by a judge. He’ll never be released. Now, why can’t this be done for every killer and peedo?

    Like

    • 124
      Stan Butler says:

      Now, here is a money saving opportunity.
      Hang the twat.
      Bellfield is 43. If he lives to 70 that is 27 years.
      To keep him alive in prison in about £30k a year.
      I suppose with inflation etc it will be nigh on £1m spent feeding and clothing this animal until he snuffs it.
      Apply this same solution to other convicted murderers and paedophiles etc.
      I assume we can still make rope thick enough to take his dead weight?

      I should be working for the Government, me.

      Like

  33. 101
    Alexandra says:

    The amber warning just means it is neither strictly aligned with Gov policy nor against it.

    Like

  34. 104
    Moussa Koussa says:

    The Wank Payers Alliance… formally known as the Tory Tax Payers alliance. Do they still exist LOL.

    Things must be bad if the Tories are having rolling out the TPA again, along with boll*cks YouGov polls….Yawn

    You aint seen me – right

    Like

    • 110
      Anonymous says:

      Do you really think it’s fair that union members have to pay subs, and then the unions get topped up by the taxpayer paying the salaries of thousands of union reps?

      Forget about what you think about the taxpayers alliance, as it’s nor really relevant to the debate in hand – I know you like using diversionary tactics to try and cover up the fact that you’re too thick to engage in an actual debate, but seriously, how is this fair that the taxpayer helps fund the unions, who in turn fund the Labour party.

      It is illegal in this country for political parties to take funding from the taxpayer – I know that you probably think that should only be enforced when the benefitting party is not Labour, but anyone with half a brain can see this is wrong, and no amount of you attempting to shoot the messenger will change that.

      Like

    • 111
      Tony Blair says:

      Hi Moussa. Thanks for cheerleading on our behalf. Must dash though. Spending the weekend at one of my villas, bought with money I made from the blood of dead Iraqis. Cheerio!

      Like

    • 113
      Ed Balls says:

      “The Wank Payers”

      That sums up Labour’s attitude towards taxpayers perfectly. Well done.

      Like

    • 119
      Engineer says:

      Think of the TPA as the National Union of Taxpayers. Workers have the Unions to give them a voice, so ‘them as pays for it all’ deserve a voice as well, don’t they?

      Like

      • 122
        Cato Street Conspirator says:

        And, although you probably haven’t noticed, union members pay income tax, as well as VAT on what they buy. And they can’t get accountants to fiddle it for them.

        Like

        • 130
          Engineer says:

          Actually, I had noticed, having been in exactly that boat for a couple of decades. By the way, anybody can get an accountant to review their tax affairs if they are willing to pay for it – and it might be cheaper than you think.

          You presumably believe that workers should have access to organisations that will represent their interests, so do you believe that taxpayers should just pay up and not have their interests represented?

          Like

  35. 112
    Anonymous says:

    Forget about the 51% that want it banned – it shouldn’t need a ban. The taxpayer is giving money to union reps that frees up the union’s money for handing over to the Labour party, so indirectly the Labour party is receiving public money to fund it, which is illegal.

    More to the point, who the fuck are the 49% of scumbags that think this policy should continue? If it’s going to continue, then the Tories and the Libdems (and all the smaller parties who have one an election of some kind) should be given some public money as well.

    Like

    • 123
      Cato Street Conspirator says:

      Anonymous – Why don’t you google ‘trade union political funds’ and it may save you from showing yourself up as a moron in future.

      Like

      • 143
        Anonymous says:

        Ultimately, trade unions have money, regardless of where they put it – you can try and truss it up any way you like, but the simple fact is that a trade union political fund is going to suffer if the union responsible for it suddenly starts having to pay rep’s wages itself instead of the taxpayer covering them, it’s going to have less money to put in a political fund.

        You can hide behind as many rules and regulations as you like, you can throw all the insults you like at me, but it doesn’t change the facts, and the facts are that the taxpayer is paying the salaries of thousands of trade union reps, thus saving their unions the expense, which can then be put to work elsewhere, such as in “trade union political funds”.

        The fact that you need to hide behind such a weak argument, supplemented by personal attacks simply proves how wrong the situation is.

        Come on, surely you can do better than that?

        Like

  36. 114
    knowswhathestalkingabout says:

    Surely the amber classification highlights the need to campaign to make a ban on this outrageous practice government policy. We’ve had some supportive words from ministers but no real action. When they do ban full time union organisers being paid for by hard pressed taxpayers, I’m sure it will be given the green light! To do so now would be complacent.

    Like

  37. 115
    It's hard to satirise the left anymore says:

    This is from last year but it’s a hoot if you want a laugh. She actually says competitive sports in schools hark back to empire. No, really, that’s what she says. The left have become a parody of themselves.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/10/competitive-school-sport-physical-education

    Like

  38. 131
    Sir William Waad says:

    Who so best her round
    With dismal Tories
    Do but themselves confound
    Her strength the more is
    There’s no discouragement
    Shall make her once relent
    Her first avowed intent
    To be a Pilgrim.

    (apologies to John Bunyan)

    Like

  39. 133
    They're all the same says:

    So in other words, 1 in 2 people don’t support a ban?

    Still, at least any ban would have more legitimacy than any Lib Dem, Tory or Labour government.

    Like

  40. 140


Seen Elsewhere

Does Europe Really Want Britain to Quit? | Nick Wood
Immigration Nation | Hopi Sen
Tories Choose Anti-Israel Candidate in Rochester | JC
Osborne’s Daycare Obsession is a Time Bomb | Kathy Gyngell
BBC Marr Pinko Trying to Ban the Queen | Speccie
Eric Hobsbawm: Companion of Dishonour | Standpoint
Guido Party Gossip | Iain Dale
Russell Brand Comes Out as 9/11 Truther | Guardian
Health Revolution is Underway | Fraser Nelson
UKIP Gets Professional | Red Box
Kelly Tolhurst Wins Rochester Open Primary | BBC


VOTER-RECALL
Find out more about PLMR


Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann on Cameron’s refusal to pay the £1.7 billion EU bill by December 1st:

“Well, then he’s gonna pay on December 2nd”



Mycroft says:

Have you read the last bit of Animal Farm?

You know where the animals are looking through the Farmhouse window?

My TV screen was that window at lunch-time today.

Be careful, the sudden self-congratulatory tone, the slightly pudgy outline of indulgence and you become exactly what you should despise.

The jolly face of the Quisling Cameron poses for your camera has mesmerised and deceived you, you who were once not so deceived.

You were no firebrand, you were a damp squib in my opinion, sorry.

You need a damned good kick up the ahse!


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,545 other followers