You ‘expect’ businesses, associations and individuals to buy policies? Or rather than the word expect might it be (for you) more accurately replaced by either ‘happy to have’ or ‘put up with’? I’m just trying to understand your position.
Neither statement means it is good or right. Keeping a cap on individual donations and on political spending is surely a positive thing - check what many countries already do in order to keep such sleaze out of politics.
My position is of Realism or Pragmatism.
I don’t have a preference for or faith in any of the political parties which means I can criticise all of them.
Look into history and see how aggresively the Miner’s Union used to back and help out the Labour Party. They even bankrolled election campaigns.
Nowadays it’s crypto currencies and individuals.
Rayner’s suggestion of retrospective legislation sounds as cackhanded as Farage’s own resignation as an MP to take on the Establishment when he is part of the Establishment.
Do you not think there is a difference between unions (representing hundreds of thousands, millions of working people) is somewhat more representative of people’s interests than one or two non-UK domiciled individuals? Especially as it was not just the Miners Union that pumped money into the Labour party?
Now unions have made significant donations to Labour. In the last 15 years the largest has been Unite - giving £52 million over those 15 years - or about £3.5m a year. Nowhere near close to the £72m donated to Reform in the space of a couple of days. And Unite represents 1,200,000 members - not just two billionaires.
You never know, we might get £5K each for voting Reform 
That sounds like something Trump said earlier in the week.
That’s the point though surely?
The days of Unions have gone, they’ve been broken as a political force and some might say it’s a good thing when you hear how the likes of Scargill tried to buy the council house he rented in London under Thatcher’s Right To Buy scheme. Feathering. Nest. Own. All spring to mind. No principles to speak of.
Unions are a double edged sword too though …Worker’s Rights or bully boys on picket lines giving strike breakers a drubbing.
Nowadays it’s individuals or conglomerates and cryptocurrency.
Where there is politics there is mucky money.
So of course there is a difference … but I’m just been a pragmatist.
You sound like you’d prefer some kind of monopolies regulatory commision as in business.
I suppose you might mean ‘spread the risk’ if you’re questioning the integrity and morality of those who make the donations so may well dislike a hefty donation on that basis …, as in … has it come from a visionary or a questionable source?
BTW … I think it’s nice that you’re not savaging me. 
I’m not sure what that would look like or how it would work. I’m simply suggesting that limits should be placed on individual political donations and on political party spend, especially during an election. Otherwise we have undue influence by a very small number of people.
By the way, you seem to have forgotten the positive impact unions had on workers pay, working conditions, job security, workers rights, holiday entitlement, maternity rights, etc. These had to be fought for as companies and company owners did not want to offer such things. Just look at work conditions in the US to understand what the UK would have been like without unions.
Tis the politics of envy and nothing more. Had that money been sent in Labour’s direction, it would have been met by Rayner with loud applause 
I hadn’t forgotten … but at some indeterminate point they shifted away from Worker’s Rights into a heavy mob-handed semi-political force that no longer acted on behalf of the working man.
Without knowing offhand just how many businesses closed or jobs were lost due to Trade Unions it’s hard to say what their true economic impact was. They played their part in history as most social movements do.
That is so true … and in the end it’s the voters at a GE who dictate which party takes power not the size of their bank balance.
Perhaps, you can’t know for sure, but it would not be applauded by people who worry about the influence of money in politics. Such large sums shift the intent from support to influence. That is wrong and obviously wrong.
Indeed, nor can we know what businesses were destined to be closed before any heavy handed union action began. Probably more than we are aware.
I would suggest that unions need to be relevant today. The gig economy, excessive use of contract workers and zero hour contracts are good examples of the slip in worker protection. Businesses will find a way of worming out of decent pay, worker protection and paying their share of social charges. And that’s a good reminder - is it not one of Reform UK policies to reduce worker protections? I’m pretty sure that they are keen to let businesses sack and re-hire people with new pay levels…
One would imagine that encouraging peoples to relocate to the uk and settle for low pay, low protection jobs would also suppress pay rises and quality of life. Reform seem to be the only party that overtly wishes to tackle this.
Many studies have shown that incomers do not, overall, reduce wages across the economy. The solution to low pay, low protection jobs is to increase minimum wage, improve employment protection for all workers, make companies pay full social charges for all workers even ones supposedly self-employed at gig work and get rid of zero hour contracts. After all, the UK still needs more people to cover care jobs, hospitality jobs and jobs in agriculture…
I believe The UK hospitality sector has shed up to just under 100, 000 jobs in the last couple of years! Sadly I can’t see the situation improving in the near future 
True, largely down to higher operating costs but also due to reduced demand as the cost of living curbs people’s ability to spend in this sector. However, another problem was the loss of skilled workers after Brexit. This meant restaurants were restricting their opening hours. But as the care sector is growing strongly overall there is still need for more workers.
Yes, I’ve just been briefly looking into that. The figures are really quiet sobering!
And managed to put everybody out of work and send industry and manufacturing to everywhere else except the UK…
Yeah, thanks unions…
The unions and that crank Miliband have made us into a third world country.
Happy to take your word for that.
Do incomers increase wages?
Of course many studies have shown that incomers do not reduce wages, studies also show that incomers are not responsible for a rise in crime, especially sexual and violent crimes.
So are you saying that we need foreign workers for the care industry, jobs in agriculture and hospitality? Have you asked yourself why we need so many foreign workers?
Is it not because all our workers are busy either attending universities or just left with more qualifications than you can shake a stick at…And none of those qualifications are in Care, agriculture or hospitality. If we are short of workers for these low paid jobs, it’s not because we don’t have enough people living here to do them is it…
