"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:24:16 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It was a rhetorical question. If unions, funded by their members, want
to do lobbying of government, that is a matter for them. However,
this does not mean that there are not alternative ways to effect
changes in legislation (for example professional and trade
organisations).

What's the difference?

Lack of all the baggage.

Except that some trade organisations aren't
accountable to their members? CORGI springs to mind - yet has the force of
law behind it. The world has gone mad. 'Replacing' a mutual organisation
with a profit led one backed by the law. This can only make sense to a
true blue Tory.

That would be moneymaking and in competition, as opposed to
moneymaking and a monopoly.

Like the private monopolies created by Thatcher you mean?