Affiliate membership

HugalHugal Shipmate
I have wanted to start this for a while but have waited because I want to use an example from Brexit and not get it turned into a new Brexit thread.
During the last general election here in the U.K. there were a lot members of groups affiliated to the Labour Party (social clubs etc) who chose Brexit over the party and “leant” their vote to the Conservatives to get Brexit. Some were even interviews on TV having a pint in the Labour social club saying they voted Conservative.
So my question. If you are a member of an affiliate group and you openly go against your the basic principles of the group should you not be thrown out or at least be temporally suspended? My view is that your membership card should be shredded as what is point of being a member and actively acting against it.
«1

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Hugal:. So my question. If you are a member of an affiliate group and you openly go against your the basic principles of the group should you not be thrown out or at least be temporally suspended? My view is that your membership card should be shredded as what is point of being a member and actively acting against it.


    I should ask Jeremy Corbyn, who has spent most of his political life opposing Labour Party policy.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Are you talking about expeling individuals(eg. Joe Bloggs of Bimingham), or groups(eg. the Birmingham Workingmans Club), from the party?

    If it's the former, I'm not sure how you go about policing that. I guess if Joe Bloggs gives a man-on-street interview to a TV reporter and says "Yes, my name is Joe Bloggs and I am a paid-up member of the Labour Party, but I voted Conservative last election because of Brexit", and some Labour official sees that on TV, yeah, the official can put forth a motion to revoke Joe's membership.

    But the number of people who would actually state their voting habits on TV is likely so small, that any purge of quislings would likely end up just being symbolic.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    And if it's the groups you want to punish, I'd say you could dissolve or disaffiliate them, if they formally endorsed the Tories, but I don't know if you should kick out the individual members. For one thing, you don't know if every single member voted the way the group as a whole wanted them to.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Hugal:. So my question. If you are a member of an affiliate group and you openly go against your the basic principles of the group should you not be thrown out or at least be temporally suspended? My view is that your membership card should be shredded as what is point of being a member and actively acting against it.


    I should ask Jeremy Corbyn, who has spent most of his political life opposing Labour Party policy.

    Actually a lot of the time Corbyn was supporting Labour Party policy while a supposedly Labour government was doing the opposite. But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 2
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Hugal:. So my question. If you are a member of an affiliate group and you openly go against your the basic principles of the group should you not be thrown out or at least be temporally suspended? My view is that your membership card should be shredded as what is point of being a member and actively acting against it.


    I should ask Jeremy Corbyn, who has spent most of his political life opposing Labour Party policy.

    Actually a lot of the time Corbyn was supporting Labour Party policy while a supposedly Labour government was doing the opposite. But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.

    Or, just vote Conservative and keep it to yourself. Which is what the vast majority of crossovers do, and there's not a damned thing the party can do about it.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Are you talking about expeling individuals(eg. Joe Bloggs of Bimingham), or groups(eg. the Birmingham Workingmans Club), from the party?

    If it's the former, I'm not sure how you go about policing that. I guess if Joe Bloggs gives a man-on-street interview to a TV reporter and says "Yes, my name is Joe Bloggs and I am a paid-up member of the Labour Party, but I voted Conservative last election because of Brexit", and some Labour official sees that on TV, yeah, the official can put forth a motion to revoke Joe's membership.

    But the number of people who would actually state their voting habits on TV is likely so small, that any purge of quislings would likely end up just being symbolic.

    I did use the word openly, and said that the people I mentioned were seen on TV in a Labour social club saying they voted for the Conservatives. That is different from your regular Labour voter who in the election holds their nose and votes for Conservatives to get Brexit. You are free to vote for who you want.
    Yes as a member of the group if you vote against the group but keep quiet them no one can know. It is between you and your conscious. You may do that because you think the leadership is going the wrong way. However, if you are willing to say on TV that you are going against basic principles, why should you stay?
    This is also relevant because of the coming election in the US. An increasing number number of Republicans are not happy with Trump.
    It is the principle that I wish to discuss.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Arethosemyfeet: Actually a lot of the time Corbyn was supporting Labour Party policy while a supposedly Labour government was doing the opposite. But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.

    Doh! I anticipated that rather standard apparatchik response would come from one quarter or another. God forbid there should be rebels.

    Attitudes towards political parties can seem quite strange, and don't always fit into rule-based norms. In Labour's case, many individuals express a proprietorial view towards it though they are not even formal members, and regard actual members and leaders less as owners than stewards for a wider cultural tradition. From this perspective, the Party from time to time falls into the hands of those who betray its soul, (Corbyn or Blair), so it's the duty of its lay guardians to "send a message to the party" by voting elsewhere. Actual members often think similarly. Expulsion of those found out amongst actual members is often regarded as a sign of greater virtue than loyalty.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.

    Genuine question: are there any affiliate groups for which that isn't the case?

    Trades unions would be the obvious example - it would be iniquitous to throw someone out of Unite because they voted Conservative, because supporting Labour isn't the primary reason for joining a union. Are there any other groups that have (for want of a better reason) dual purpose, such that you could legitimately join for the 'other' reason and pass on the Labour support?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited August 2
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Arethosemyfeet: Actually a lot of the time Corbyn was supporting Labour Party policy while a supposedly Labour government was doing the opposite. But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.

    Doh! I anticipated that rather standard apparatchik response would come from one quarter or another. God forbid there should be rebels.

    Attitudes towards political parties can seem quite strange, and don't always fit into rule-based norms. In Labour's case, many individuals express a proprietorial view towards it though they are not even formal members, and regard actual members and leaders less as owners than stewards for a wider cultural tradition. From this perspective, the Party from time to time falls into the hands of those who betray its soul, (Corbyn or Blair), so it's the duty of its lay guardians to "send a message to the party" by voting elsewhere. Actual members often think similarly. Expulsion of those found out amongst actual members is often regarded as a sign of greater virtue than loyalty.

    OK I see your argument. It is however usual to go through recognised systems within the group to make changes. There are in built ways to do this.
    Corbyn is actually closer in principles to the heart of Labour. Socialist principles in a modern world. New Labour was a lurch to the right. Therefore more floating voters voted for them. This raises something I mentioned. Members where not happy with Labour’s stance on Brexit. So they chose Brexit over the party they supposedly supported. Will Republicans do the same to get rid of Trump?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.

    Genuine question: are there any affiliate groups for which that isn't the case?

    Trades unions would be the obvious example - it would be iniquitous to throw someone out of Unite because they voted Conservative, because supporting Labour isn't the primary reason for joining a union. Are there any other groups that have (for want of a better reason) dual purpose, such that you could legitimately join for the 'other' reason and pass on the Labour support?

    I don't understand how you can be a union member and vote tory, but I don't see it as an expulsion issue. However, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in things like leadership elections, even via an affiliate, if you have endorsed another party.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    re: Republicans and Trump...

    I don't think American voters usually join a political party, in the same way that Brits might join Tory or Labour. There are all sorts of cases of high-profile people from one party(the criterion being how you register for primaries, I believe) endorsing a candidate from another one. Adam Clayton Powell backing Eisenhower being just the example that comes to mind.

    And you can find Confessions Of A Republican on YouTube. Notice the guy never says he's leaving the Republicans, just that he can't support Goldwater.

    (That exact same guy reprised the routine for Clinton in 2016, obviously without the same success. I think the Democrats that year should have spent less time referencing LBJ, and more time imitating him.)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I think in UK terms there are degrees of opposition.

    1. You can be a member of a party, but privately oppose its stand on one or more policy issues.
    2. You can be a member of a party, but publicly oppose its stand on one or more policy issues.
    3. You can be a member of a party, but vote against it on one or more policy issues.
    4. You can be a member of a party, but privately vote against it, or against it being in power.
    5. You can be a member of a party, but publicly vote against it, or against it being in power.
    6. You can be a member of a party, but exhort others to vote against it, or against it being in power.

    Each of these reflects an increasing level of disaffiliation. In relation to private actions there’s not much a party can do, but if you are at 4 you might question your integrity.

    5 and 6 IMO would be good grounds for expulsion.

    2 and 3 are less clear cut. They would certainly be a breach of Cabinet responsibility for a Minister. The whipping system, however, for MPs shows that parties at different times and over different issues are sometimes more, sometimes less able to tolerate dissent. Among the membership I think the party would need to say if any particular issue(s) had sufficient importance to be a membership issue.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    But in any case, the primary goal of the party is to see its candidates elected, and if you oppose that then you need to leave or be thrown out.

    Genuine question: are there any affiliate groups for which that isn't the case?

    Trades unions would be the obvious example - it would be iniquitous to throw someone out of Unite because they voted Conservative, because supporting Labour isn't the primary reason for joining a union. Are there any other groups that have (for want of a better reason) dual purpose, such that you could legitimately join for the 'other' reason and pass on the Labour support?

    I don't understand how you can be a union member and vote tory, but I don't see it as an expulsion issue. However, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in things like leadership elections, even via an affiliate, if you have endorsed another party.

    That seems pretty much unenforceable to me - ISTM that if Labour is going to allow non-members to vote, it just has to accept the risk that some of those non-members will support other parties.

    But I'm still curious whether there are any other groups beyond trades unions that are likely to contain significant numbers of non-supporters.
  • This is why I never joined a union. I don’t like someone else speaking their opinions on my behalf if I’ve not been asked whether or not I agree with them.
  • I thought Labour has lots of affiliates, e.g., Chinese for Labour, Jewish Labour, BAME Labour, LGBT Labour. I don't know how much fidelity is required to the party line.
  • This is why I never joined a union. I don’t like someone else speaking their opinions on my behalf if I’ve not been asked whether or not I agree with them.

    Then again, when I was losing my job, my union sent lawyers to a meeting over severance, and negotiated for me a lump sum, and enhanced pension rights. I was quite glad.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Republicans and Trump...

    I don't think American voters usually join a political party, in the same way that Brits might join Tory or Labour.
    Yes. Reading this thread highlights for me just how differently political affiliation works in the US vs the UK. You don’t “join” a party here like it sounds like happens in the UK. There are no dues, no membership cards, and party “social clubs.” You simply choose, when you register to vote, to register as a member of a recognized party or as unaffiliated/independent. Generally, the only practical implication is that only registered members of a party can seek the nomination of the party for office. (But see Bernie Sanders.). And since registration records are public, you can expect your registration to affect mailings and other campaign communications you might receive.

    A person might join a political group, like College Republicans or Young Democrats, or might choose to become involved in party leadership. But I wouldn’t generally say I’m a “member” of the Democratic Party. I’d say I’m a registered Democrat, or simply that I’m a Democrat. It’s well-understood that for many if not most people, being registered with a party only means that’s where their preferences lie, not that they will always vote for the party. Yellow Dog Democrats and the Republican equivalent are the exception, not the rule.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    A critical variable distinguishing UK from US concepts of 'party membership' is the role played by primaries in the USA.. Indeed, the similarities between UK parties and US parties are very few.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 2
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Yellow Dog Democrats and the Republican equivalent are the exception, not the rule.

    I've always wondered, if the Yellow Dog ran for dogcatcher, would that be a conflict-of-interest?

    Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    (Formating didn't work there. The last reply is mine.)
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    A critical variable distinguishing UK from US concepts of 'party membership' is the role played by primaries in the USA.. Indeed, the similarities between UK parties and US parties are very few.

    Yes, same in Canada, where party membership is much more along UK lines.

    Question for US shipmates: how easy is it to just show up and vote at the main event if you haven't registered? Here in Canada if you can prove identity and eligibility to vote you just can show up on the day and vote. Most people take steps in advance to ensure they end up the lists (usually by checking a box on your tax return that allows the Canada Revenue Agency to share your personal information with Elections Canada) but that's purely administrative and not an eligibility requirement.

    The downside though to not having a general primary system in Canada is the choice of party candidates becomes a rather murky matter of internal party politics without a lot of transparency.
  • I don't understand how you can be a union member and vote tory, but I don't see it as an expulsion issue.

    I have known quite a number of people who have been generally a fan of the individual services that unions offer (legal representation etc.), but not a fan of the large-scale political postures they take. I don't think there's anything inconsistent in that.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Marsupial wrote: »
    Question for US shipmates: how easy is it to just show up and vote at the main event if you haven't registered?
    As with most things election-related in the US, it varies by state. SFAIK, only one US state does not have voter registration.

    In the state where I live, a non-registered voter can go to an early voting site and do “same-day registration”—register and vote at the same time. Same-day registration is not available on Election Day.

    It might be worth noting that you don’t have to register for each election. Once you’re registered, you’re registered, unless your name is removed from the roll of registered voters. Appropriate and inappropriate “purging” of registered voter rolls is a whole ‘nother discussion.

    And @stetson, it might be. But it’s a conflict of interest I’d be willing to live with. :wink:

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Republicans and Trump...

    I don't think American voters usually join a political party, in the same way that Brits might join Tory or Labour.
    Yes. Reading this thread highlights for me just how differently political affiliation works in the US vs the UK. You don’t “join” a party here like it sounds like happens in the UK. There are no dues, no membership cards, and party “social clubs.” You simply choose, when you register to vote, to register as a member of a recognized party or as unaffiliated/independent. Generally, the only practical implication is that only registered members of a party can seek the nomination of the party for office. (But see Bernie Sanders.). And since registration records are public, you can expect your registration to affect mailings and other campaign communications you might receive.

    A person might join a political group, like College Republicans or Young Democrats, or might choose to become involved in party leadership. But I wouldn’t generally say I’m a “member” of the Democratic Party. I’d say I’m a registered Democrat, or simply that I’m a Democrat. It’s well-understood that for many if not most people, being registered with a party only means that’s where their preferences lie, not that they will always vote for the party. Yellow Dog Democrats and the Republican equivalent are the exception, not the rule.

    I didn't realise that, in the UK it currently costs (undiscounted) about £60 a year to join the labour party (payable monthly or yearly), whereas affiliate membership is included in dues for other things, and there was a sort of associate membership offered as a one off for leadership votes - possibly a move in the direction of primaries - that was the reason that Corbyn was able to win, massively expand the party and sort out a lot of Labour's financial problems. Currently Labour has approximately 500,000 voting members in a country with a population of about 65 million.

    The conservative party appears to have dropped its joining cost to £25 a year - it did used to be considerably more than that I think. For perspective, here are some older party figures from the BBC.

    Party membership
    1951 Conservative 2.9 million - Labour 876,000
    1981 Conservative 1.2 million - Labour 277,000
    2001 Conservative 311,000 - Labour 272,000 - Lib Dem 73,000
    2012-13 Conservative 134,000 - Labour 187,000 - Lib Dems - 42,000

    According to wikipedia, in 2018 the conservative party membership was about 124,000.

    It is illegal to ask people their party affiliation when they are voting, or in the process of registering to vote. The votes for party officials, mps etc are all organised by the parties themselves, not by the state.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Hugal wrote: »
    So my question. If you are a member of an affiliate group and you openly go against your the basic principles of the group should you not be thrown out or at least be temporally suspended? My view is that your membership card should be shredded as what is point of being a member and actively acting against it.

    Aren't such things written into groups' rules if they're important enough to the group? Some religious groups shun or cast out members who violate the basic principles. Some bar them from certain forms of participation till they've repented. Others don't have such strict rules, leaving adherence to individual conscience.
  • This has been the shout out by members about people like like Kate Hoey, who seem to openly flout some Labour ideas, although now I expect that the right wing are the hot flavour of the month. And now she's a peer, how about that?
  • I didn't realise that, in the UK it currently costs (undiscounted) about £60 a year to join the labour party (payable monthly or yearly), whereas affiliate membership is included in dues for other things, and there was a sort of associate membership offered as a one off for leadership votes - possibly a move in the direction of primaries - that was the reason that Corbyn was able to win

    I realise this wasn't central to the point you are making, but nevertheless Corbyn would still have won purely on the basis of members votes .
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    This is why I never joined a union. I don’t like someone else speaking their opinions on my behalf if I’ve not been asked whether or not I agree with them.

    Well, our local branch of Unite does a very good job of canvassing its members' opinions on pay, workplace practices, Covid arrangements, etc, and (AFAICT) lobbies as successfully on them as it can given the prevailing anti-union laws.

    On the national level though [rant='on'] it would have been nice if Mr 'Scargill-wannabe' McCluskey had either a.) attempted to canvass his members' opinions on Brexit b.) taken a line on Brexit that reflected his members' opinions (as shown through polling) or c.) asked himself, if he wasn't prepared to do either of those things, whether Brexit was actually a matter for the union at all.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    re: Republicans and Trump...

    I don't think American voters usually join a political party, in the same way that Brits might join Tory or Labour.
    Yes. Reading this thread highlights for me just how differently political affiliation works in the US vs the UK. You don’t “join” a party here like it sounds like happens in the UK. There are no dues, no membership cards, and party “social clubs.” You simply choose, when you register to vote, to register as a member of a recognized party or as unaffiliated/independent. Generally, the only practical implication is that only registered members of a party can seek the nomination of the party for office. (But see Bernie Sanders.). And since registration records are public, you can expect your registration to affect mailings and other campaign communications you might receive.

    A person might join a political group, like College Republicans or Young Democrats, or might choose to become involved in party leadership. But I wouldn’t generally say I’m a “member” of the Democratic Party. I’d say I’m a registered Democrat, or simply that I’m a Democrat. It’s well-understood that for many if not most people, being registered with a party only means that’s where their preferences lie, not that they will always vote for the party. Yellow Dog Democrats and the Republican equivalent are the exception, not the rule.

    I didn't realise that, in the UK it currently costs (undiscounted) about £60 a year to join the labour party (payable monthly or yearly), whereas affiliate membership is included in dues for other things, and there was a sort of associate membership offered as a one off for leadership votes - possibly a move in the direction of primaries - that was the reason that Corbyn was able to win, massively expand the party and sort out a lot of Labour's financial problems. Currently Labour has approximately 500,000 voting members in a country with a population of about 65 million. . . .
    And I didn’t realize much of what you describe. Thanks for the detail.

    For comparison, as of yesterday in the state where I live, there are 7,036,673 registered voters. Of that number:
    • 2,536,382 are registered as Democrats;
    • 2,346,296 are registered as Unaffiliated;
    • 2,106,546 are registered as Republicans;
    • 41,227 are registered as Libertarians;
    • 3,671 are registered with the Constitution Party; and
    • 2,551 are registered as Greens.
    Only a fairly small minority of those registered as Democrats or Republicans will actually be involved in party activities.

    I will admit that I find myself wondering if this significant Pond Difference and the unfamiliarity (on all sides) of systems other than our own contributes to the dynamic that appears in threads where those who identify with a political party—whether they’d describe that in terms like “Labour member” or “registered Republican”—are judged by a sort of guilt by association. I’m not saying that’s the only thing at play, or that it totally misses the mark, but assumptions that everyone does things the way “we” do them can lead to faulty conclusions.

  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    I’m not sure about the UK, but in Canada it’s not uncommon for someone to routinely support one or another political party without necessarily being a member. Which would be close to the registered Democrat or Republican whose only substantial connection to the party is usually voting for them on Election Day.

    That said, we have many fewer party-affiliated votes in Canada than in the US. We vote for a federal MP and a provincial MPP (never as part of the same election) - and that’s all there is in terms of votes for candidates with formal affiliations with a political party. Candidates in municipal elections, which have the longest ballots (mayor, councillor, school board at least), don’t have formal party affiliations in most cities. And we don’t have elected judges or dog-catchers (or anything in between...).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2
    @Marsupial it’s certainly true many habitual U.K. voters never join political parties.

    I am on the electoral register, I get sent a polling card for government elections - I am not asked for my political affiliation to be on the register. I imagine most Bris would be fairly horrified at the idea of that - assuming that it could be drastically misused.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    [
    I will admit that I find myself wondering if this significant Pond Difference and the unfamiliarity (on all sides) of systems other than our own contributes to the dynamic that appears in threads where those who identify with a political party—whether they’d describe that in terms like “Labour member” or “registered Republican”—are judged by a sort of guilt by association. I’m not saying that’s the only thing at play, or that it totally misses the mark, but assumptions that everyone does things the way “we” do them can lead to faulty conclusions.

    To a certain extent I think. In saying I am a party member that implies more active engagement; I pay them, I am involved in decision making about policy and appointments, nominees and candidates and at the last two elections I have spent hours and hours of my time walking around my city knocking on doors or ringing voters.

    It is also worth noting there is no direct vote for the office of prime minister, it is the leader of the largest party that can command parliamentary support. So functionally, the party members choose the prime minister if the incumbent changes without a general election (as in the change between Cameron and May and then between May and Johnson.)

    To become PM Johnson won the support of 51.3% of his MPs, and then 66.4% of the Conservative party members who chose to vote.

    So in our country of 65 million ish, about 140,000 people voted on the prime minister and 92,153 people actually voted for him to be prime minister at the point that he got the job.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45271284 The Tories got more money from dead members than living in 2017 - it makes for a very different dynamic.
  • As a past NDP Riding Association president, I am intimately familiar with these details. Marsupial is quite right, the Canadian system shows its British roots as the two are nearly identical. The only thing is that Canadian party membership participation rates are four times those in the UK. Our population is half the size and the raw numbers are al least double.

    Party membership usually explodes during a leadership contest as signing up members (therefore votes)is the name if the game. Membership usually triples. Most parties have a "core" of 40-60 thousand members each.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited August 2
    that was the reason that Corbyn was able to win, massively expand the party and sort out a lot of Labour's financial problems.

    Worth noting that Corbyn won the election even among the traditional party members. He didn't need the "cheap seats" to carry him to victory, although he had very strong support in that group. (And now I see that @chrisstiles made this point earlier...)
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Aren't such things written into groups' rules if they're important enough to the group?

    I think most political parties have a clause that says you can be thrown out if you publicly support an opposing party in an election.

    If a trade union, on the other hand, could take action against one of its members for publicly supporting a party that wasn't the Labour party, then I think you'd see some rather significant changes in union law.

    (It's my impression that trades unions in the US and trades unions in the UK work in quite different ways, in general, but I'll defer to those with more expertise.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited August 3
    Here, I'd change the "not uncommon" to "usual". We both used belong to the Labor party, but dropped our membership 30 years ago, seeing no real purpose in our continuing to belong. It did not change our voting though.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I am a member of the Canadian NDP and provide the party with monthly financial support. That does not mean that I always agree with the federal and provincial parties' platforms. In the last federal election, I had an election sign on my lawn for a long-time friend who was running for another party. The NDP is still happy to accept my money.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    I am a member of the Canadian NDP and provide the party with monthly financial support. That does not mean that I always agree with the federal and provincial parties' platforms. In the last federal election, I had an election sign on my lawn for a long-time friend who was running for another party. The NDP is still happy to accept my money.

    But as you probably know, the NDP has rules against their members having memberships in other parties. I believe this was originally intended to keep Communists out. Not sure how widely it's applied otherwise.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Yes, and I do not have a membership in any other party. When I was at Western, those of us in the NDP Club resigned our memberships en masse to purchase Liberal memberships to support Chretien against Martin in the leadership race. We all quietly resumed our NDP memberships after the delegates meeting which was one by the Martinites.
  • Rev per MinuteRev per Minute Shipmate Posts: 46
    Hugal wrote: »
    During the last general election here in the U.K. there were a lot members of groups affiliated to the Labour Party (social clubs etc) who chose Brexit over the party and “leant” their vote to the Conservatives to get Brexit. Some were even interviews on TV having a pint in the Labour social club saying they voted Conservative.

    Famously, during the 'Welsh Sundays' (when pubs were shut on Sundays due to pressure from Nonconformist ministers and worshippers) which lasted from 1881 to the 1960s in most cases, many men joined Conservative Clubs in order to drink on a Sunday. They then happily voted Labour in every election, being the sort of places where Labour votes were weighed not counted. The 'Con Clubs' put up with this to get the membership: the members put up with the Tories to get a pint or three before Sunday dinner. Win/win and no expulsions.
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    Most "politically affiliated" social clubs are actually open to anyone who wants to be a member in the UK.

    As far as trade union membership goes, most people in public sector roles like the NHS or teaching are in one, as they want the advocacy if anything goes wrong, or in the inevitable reorganisations.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    Most "politically affiliated" social clubs are actually open to anyone who wants to be a member in the UK.

    As far as trade union membership goes, most people in public sector roles like the NHS or teaching are in one, as they want the advocacy if anything goes wrong, or in the inevitable reorganisations.

    In other words they want solidarity when it suits them.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Most "politically affiliated" social clubs are actually open to anyone who wants to be a member in the UK.

    As far as trade union membership goes, most people in public sector roles like the NHS or teaching are in one, as they want the advocacy if anything goes wrong, or in the inevitable reorganisations.

    In other words they want solidarity when it suits them.

    I don't know how it works elsewhere, but the general rule in Canada is that you pay dues and get the benefit of collective bargaining whether or not you're a union member. So membership vs. nonmembership is really just a question of whether you want any say in what your union does.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    As far as trade union membership goes, most people in public sector roles like the NHS or teaching are in one, as they want the advocacy if anything goes wrong, or in the inevitable reorganisations.
    My wife, as a Deputy Headteacher, always told new staff to join a Union (she didn't mind which) for precisely that reasons. And not all Unions are affiliated to the Labour Party.

  • Marsupial wrote: »
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Most "politically affiliated" social clubs are actually open to anyone who wants to be a member in the UK.

    As far as trade union membership goes, most people in public sector roles like the NHS or teaching are in one, as they want the advocacy if anything goes wrong, or in the inevitable reorganisations.

    In other words they want solidarity when it suits them.

    I don't know how it works elsewhere, but the general rule in Canada is that you pay dues and get the benefit of collective bargaining whether or not you're a union member. So membership vs. nonmembership is really just a question of whether you want any say in what your union does.

    In the UK you get the benefits of collective bargaining (in terms of pay and conditions) if it exists whether you're a member or non-member, and if the latter you don't pay and dues. What you get from being a member is representation in disciplinary matters, and the ability to take industrial action in local disputes. To give an example, my first workplace after qualifying as a teacher there was a financial screw up and we were threatened with the loss of about a quarter of the teaching staff. My union, the NUT, swung into action and balloted for strike action, which we took in escalating amounts over the subsequent weeks. Eventually the local authority stumped up cash to plug most of the gap and there was only one redundancy, someone who we couldn't help because they weren't a union member. Some people who were members, however, refused to take part in the strike action, presumably because they thought they were safe. There are a fair few people in teaching who expect the union to be there for them personally but aren't prepared to step up to protect their colleagues.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    edited August 3
    I see. The right to strike in Canada is limited to those situations where collective bargaining has reached an impasse, which changes the calculus somewhat because it means there will never be a (legal) strike while a collective agreement is in force, and illegal strikes are rare in Canada now. I don't know offhand what the union's remedy would be in a situation like the one you describe.
  • In other words they want solidarity when it suits them.

    I don't think that's a remotely fair characterization. It's perfectly reasonable to be strongly in favour of some things that some unions do, but not in favour of other things that other unions do. It's perfectly reasonable to want to belong to a moderate union which acts in support of its members, but is not run by Leon Trotsky. And if your union takes political positions that you don't agree with, it's perfectly reasonable to look for a union that is a better match.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    I am a member of the Canadian NDP and provide the party with monthly financial support. That does not mean that I always agree with the federal and provincial parties' platforms. In the last federal election, I had an election sign on my lawn for a long-time friend who was running for another party. The NDP is still happy to accept my money.

    But as you probably know, the NDP has rules against their members having memberships in other parties. I believe this was originally intended to keep Communists out. Not sure how widely it's applied otherwise.

    Now that political donations are public in Canada by law, we can plainly see there us and always has been a segment of party mbers who donate to other parties.

    The "anti-Red" provision, No Liberals or Communists, is restricted to significant people like Buzz Hargrove because our has to be approved by the relevant provincial council.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    I am a member of the Canadian NDP and provide the party with monthly financial support. That does not mean that I always agree with the federal and provincial parties' platforms. In the last federal election, I had an election sign on my lawn for a long-time friend who was running for another party. The NDP is still happy to accept my money.

    But as you probably know, the NDP has rules against their members having memberships in other parties. I believe this was originally intended to keep Communists out. Not sure how widely it's applied otherwise.

    Now that political donations are public in Canada by law, we can plainly see there us and always has been a segment of party mbers who donate to other parties.

    The "anti-Red" provision, No Liberals or Communists, is restricted to significant people like Buzz Hargrove because our has to be approved by the relevant provincial council.

    SPK:

    I think you missed a noun after "our" in that last paragraph there.
  • Sorry, meant it, the action has be approved by the relevant provincial council.
Sign In or Register to comment.