The idea that rich kids won't get a head start is nonsense. In my previous job all the banter was around rugby union, which all the rich kids with private education had played, therefore everyone had significant connections. I was a bit left out being a rugby league man but my personality meant I didn't let myself be left out.
All society works in this way, it is always who you know even in things like the unions, charities and the Labour party. They are all stuffed with a left wing elite with a few usurpers.
But if there's a policy that can at least partially redress this without causing significant harm (and I've yet to see any credible argument it would do this), isn't that better than nothing?
That's really the problem with this policy. It does nothing to address the core issue of nepotism but allows the politicians to say "hey, we did it". When it's bullshit.
The worst example is the creation of "Apprenticeships" when what this actually means is "Apprentice Office Juniior" (that's not made up, the Junior PCC who had to resign for tweets actually held this as her role before being Junior PCC.
Last year I did some work for a company where every single one of it's minimum wage call centre staff (around 120 employees) was an "Apprentice" even people in their 40s with years of experience in such drudgery. But the employer got a significant tax break and all they had to do was have a two half day "training" sessions 6 months apart.
The company got a government hand out. The government got an extra 120 Apprentices in the national accounts. The wage drudges got... nothing.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
It's not just about class. It's about those who are on the inside and those on the outside. Too many of us feel on the outside and, frankly, that neither of the two main parties are on our side. I certainly feel that.
Max would have us eat cake. He is happy if a few token peasants are employed to show how fair the system is , gives him and his chums someone to mock and poke fun at.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. Genius.
No, they won't. Speaking purely in terms of journalism I know that editors loathe the useless entitled poshos they get lumbered with, thanks to the system of internships, but economically they are hard to resist.
So make them economically very resistible, by disallowing them, and you will soon see some more working class kids come through.
It's a good thing. Fuck the haute bourgeois carefully guiding their little ones into cushy jobs. Make them compete.
It's actually precisely how Cameron got his job.
Don't forget Miliband's first job was working as an intern for Tony Benn. I bet the job wasn't even advertised.
Any industry that has that level of nepotism or favour towards friends is failing to get the best young people. Hence the fall of the printer press and the rise of Internet news sites.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Or like thinking you can just sell council houses to their tenants and improve neighbourhoods, or thinking you can just sell nationalised industries to shareholders and make them more competitive in the private sector...
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
otoh how do work placements\experience fit in all of this.
My kids schools were always keen for students to do a week or a fortnight working in a company. It was a total hassle to get them placed. If you're now asking they get paid on top for work experience it will work against the schools.
That's just a couple of weeks of specific work experience. The policy is about longer term internships like 3 months to a year where long term parental support is required.
Surely we must already have the legal framework in place to distinguish unpaid work from volunteering? Otherwise somebody could be paid half minimum wage by having half their time be described as "volunteering"
I think that the key phrase here is "contract". These people may not be "employees" they may be "contractors" in which case the business using their services has no business paying them a wage. If they agree a contract then they are an external business and whatever agreement exists between the parties is whatever they agree to.
You just cannot forbid contracts or else you will wipe out industry and commerce in the UK.
A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.
For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.
Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.
We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
Off topic, I do love the tribalism of the MSM newspapers. Just went to Waitrose for lunch.
Telegraph: Sturgeon Offer to Miliband: I'll make you PM Times: Join me or you'll pay, Sturgeon tells Labour Guardian: Miliband tells Sturgeon: I won't do a deal with you Mirror: Tories too Right Wing to win Daily Mail (inside): Red Ed would put a million back on dole, says Cameron
The Sun and the Mirror have become totally hysterical. The Sun are chucking everything at Miliband, they don't seem to have got the memo that the 'destroy Ed' strategy seems to be backfiring.
Best coverage so far IMHO has been the Metro. balanced coverage and decent interviews.
A 4.5% swing across England is pretty meaningless in terms of seats if it's because of Labour picking up excess LD votes and the Tories losing votes to Ukip in safe seats.
For example, in the north east there is a lump of 24% that voted LD but they only have 2 seats up there. Imagine Labour getting most of the votes and maybe one of the seats. The same thing can happen in the west midlands where the Lib Dems got 21% and 2 seats, and the east midlands where they got 21% and ZERO seats, and Yorkshire where they got 23% and 3 seats. Labour could pick up all the votes and seats in these areas, which would add circa 9% to their national vote tally and only 7 seats.
Under UNS, Labour would gain 54 seats from the Conservatives, and 11 from the Lib Dems. The Conservatives would gain 17 from the Lib Dems.
We can assume that incumbents will outperform these figures, however.
According to the (admittedly desperate) LD Voice, the Tories - over performed UNS in 2010 over performed in 2005 under performed in 2001 and massively under performed in 1997. http://www.libdemvoice.org/uniform-national-swing-2010-19644.html In 2010 they got 14 more seats than UNS (despite some calling the campaign and Cameron rubbish). Looking at being optimistic then on the same %age of over performance in seats as 2005 that would be about +18ish seats to be added back to the projected loss. I'm sure the stats and manipulation of mine is quite useless but if you are betting I thought I would try to confuse you... :-)
BTW the once heavily discussed 'unwinding' of the '97 anti tory LD vote does not get a mention these days. Is it still there?? In 1997 they got over 60% more seats than UNS suggested.
I think it's a good starting point, but not a good end point. The bias against the Conservatives in the system reached its apogee in 2001. The Conservatives got a swing of 2% from Labour, enough to win 25 seats from Labour, and to suffer no losses to the Lib Dems under UNS. In fact, they gained six from Labour, and lost five to the Lib Dems.
Since then, the bias against them has gradually unwound, in successive elections.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
So internships in London that are unpaid are open to the less well off? Are you deluded?
They got 30% last time. My modelling had them on 13.5% (even that was only enough to save Yeovil, Brecon, Thornbury, Ceredigion & Bristol West).
The most recent subsamples from Populus are
9% - 6% - 10% - 11% - 14% - 11%
Looks like rcs may be calling this correctly...
Back them in Bristol West at your own risk I reckon.
No chance in bristol west. Anecdotally I know but the former LDs I know there are going back to Blair free Labour or the strong green candidate.
I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs but I live in Thornbury and Yate and we have been bombarded by leaflets from the Tory over the last twelve months. Steve Webb the lib dem is very highly thought of locally from the people I have spoken to and should get back in.
"I had all the others in my prediction as staying with LDs" - which seats are these, please?
Yeovil, Thornbury, Brecon and Ceredigion. I had a laptop crash so I cannot recall all seats precisely but I only had them at around 13 seats nationally.
Thanks. I'm currently at 20, but I've still got them recovering to 10.2% as well.
I thought I was doing the being pessimistic thing when you support a party but I am worried that total obscurity beckons. I have been very surprised at what the Tories have thrown at my seat which I thought would be nailed on hold but I am worried it will be lost, and I am not sure how many lib dems locally even recognize the threat with such a large majority. If you think that in the main they could have lost significant parts of the public sector vote or at least encouraged them to sit on their hands and not vote, then I foresee a very difficult night on May 7th
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector etc....y.
The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
It's disturbing that MaxPB - decent fellow though I am sure he is - can think this is a good policy when in reality it is just cheap politics.
It's good politics AND a good policy.
In case you haven't noticed, social mobility has declined in the last 20 years; rather importantly, it has declined most of all in the jobs where it really matters for the future - media, politics, etc
Part of the reason for this is the loathsome idea of internships. It just means rich kids get a head start.
How can anyone reasonably think this is a good idea? It is not a good idea. Labour have at least had the good sense to address the issue, even if the policy will need some refinement when it is enacted (as happened with other good ideas, like privatisation and right to buy).
The Tories have done zip. The Tories have no bright ideas. It is quite depressing.
The Tories are very clear about where they stand on internships:
I instinctively revolt at the idea of agreeing with you, but yes, that article skewers a key Tory problem: the perception they are in it for themselves and their rich friends is not without merit.
Thatcher would have eagerly banned internships, as they corrupt the market in favour of the rich. Like wealthy families buying commissions in the army and navy of old. Internships are anti-meritocratic. They are old boys networks made visible.
Yet too many modern Cameroon Tories are quite OK with them. Ugh.
There's a similar argument for why so many Tory MPs seem to be very successful/wealthy: you need to have a lot of cash to be able to afford to do it. It can cost between £15-40k to fight even an unsuccessful campaign. And that's without the loss of earnings.
Labour support their candidates much better through the unions. The best reform Cameron could have done with his millions of donations is to make 150 winnable seats sponsored seats. He could then go around looking for the butcher, baker and candlestick maker (or nurses, teachers, shopkeepers, engineers, scientists, farmers and office workers) which would do more than anything to change the face of the Tory party.
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
Surely we must already have the legal framework in place to distinguish unpaid work from volunteering? Otherwise somebody could be paid half minimum wage by having half their time be described as "volunteering"
Did the Metropolitan Police proceed with the policy of requiring all Applicants for the Met Police Service to have done 6 months as a Hobby Bobby? If they did then the public sector would have the largest internship scheme in the UK.
After a week off PB I come back and see that nothing has changed in the polls since last week. However sentiment has changed towards the top party leaders, the public have started to realize that EdM is going to be PM and they don't mind anymore.
Also I pumped the latest welsh, scottish and GB figures in the advanced regional swingometer on ukpollingreport and I get LAB 300 seats, CON 259, LD 18 and SNP 51.
Not a Tory myself, but I agree with the some of the sentiment below - the Cons are at their best and most appealing when they're promoting aspiration and creation of a society in which those who contribute the most and work the hardest receive the greatest reward - as opposed to preserving the privileges of the elite.
Fact is, a lot of people look at Cameron & Osborne and think - "toffs, out for themselves and their rich friends", not "I'm sure they speak for me/ my kids" (see also the best Conservative poster campaign I can remember - the John Major /working class kid from Brixton one).
EdM may still come across as weird, but there's a growing underdog groundswell behind him.
Ed just said Cameron hasn't got the guts to debate him. That's gotta hurt.
which one ?
When your main opponent calls you a coward and he's right!
Playground "chicken" calling as ever.
Cameron is playing clever by refusing to debate, he did the same in Scotland despite all the name calling. It's called fighting on a ground of your own choosing.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
The majority of interns will remain 'posh kids' but under Ed's plan they'll get paid too. And like you say, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience. Genius.
Sure, but majority is fewer than all. So at least some working class kids will have a chance of getting into big businesses and industries.
It should have been a Tory idea. That's what truly worries me. It is classically Thatcherite.
Yes it is. Let's see if the Labour party start by applying to themselves. Nothing to stop them doing it right now.
Otherwise, much as I like the idea as an attempt to deal with a real issue, it will be another case of "Do what I say, not what I do".
Political interns will become 'volunteers' of some kind. In the same way I expect MP's to be allowed to claim any Mansion Taxes against expenses.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
So internships in London that are unpaid are open to the less well off? Are you deluded?
Actually, yes they are. The banks in particular go to great lengths to be as open as possible.
But even if they weren't, what on earth difference does paying the minimum wage make? It's completely bonkers, it will just mean fewer internships, with those that are available STILL going to the more privileged. In fact, if companies have to pay for these youngsters, that makes the less-well-connected even less likely to get them because by definition they'll know less about the world and therefore need more attention from management (which is the number one concern of companies). Why give yourself the hassle of having to mentor someone if you're also having to pay them?
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
What happens if a second election spews out the same result? Belgium?
The idea that rich kids won't get a head start is nonsense. In my previous job all the banter was around rugby union, which all the rich kids with private education had played, therefore everyone had significant connections. I was a bit left out being a rugby league man but my personality meant I didn't let myself be left out.
All society works in this way, it is always who you know even in things like the unions, charities and the Labour party. They are all stuffed with a left wing elite with a few usurpers.
But if there's a policy that can at least partially redress this without causing significant harm (and I've yet to see any credible argument it would do this), isn't that better than nothing?
That's really the problem with this policy. It does nothing to address the core issue of nepotism but allows the politicians to say "hey, we did it". When it's bullshit.
The worst example is the creation of "Apprenticeships" when what this actually means is "Apprentice Office Juniior" (that's not made up, the Junior PCC who had to resign for tweets actually held this as her role before being Junior PCC.
Last year I did some work for a company where every single one of it's minimum wage call centre staff (around 120 employees) was an "Apprentice" even people in their 40s with years of experience in such drudgery. But the employer got a significant tax break and all they had to do was have a two half day "training" sessions 6 months apart.
The company got a government hand out. The government got an extra 120 Apprentices in the national accounts. The wage drudges got... nothing.
One of the ways in which you deal with (or at least try and deal with) nepotism is by making sure that every job is advertised openly in as many different places as possible, that the hirer and applicants have to disclose in advance any family, personal, business relationships, that others must be involved in the interview process, that there are clear objective criteria by which applicants are measured, a proper record is kept and that where there is a potential conflict of interest, someone more senior makes the final decision.
Any sensible organisation would do this already and mine does it even for internships for students from a school in Hackney - as part of an ongoing programme we have to help students who do not have many (if any) advantages at all.
So there are things which can be done. Let's see the Labour party do it in their own organisation. Now. No legislation is needed.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
Yeah, cause, you know, those working class kids seeking "work experience" tend to have £6,000 lying around, allowing them to do a year at the Guardian, unpaid.
Oh, the Guardian - that's different. Of course you have to be very privileged to get a post there, but it's a great investment for the future if you can.
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Ed just said Cameron hasn't got the guts to debate him. That's gotta hurt.
which one ?
When your main opponent calls you a coward and he's right!
Playground "chicken" calling as ever.
Cameron is playing clever by refusing to debate, he did the same in Scotland despite all the name calling. It's called fighting on a ground of your own choosing.
I could swear I've seen Cameron debating him twice on TV already.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
So internships in London that are unpaid are open to the less well off? Are you deluded?
Actually, yes they are. The banks in particular go to great lengths to be as open as possible.
But even if they weren't, what on earth difference does paying the minimum wage make? It's completely bonkers, it will just mean fewer internships, with those that are available STILL going to the more privileged. In fact, if companies have to pay for these youngsters, that makes the less-well-connected even less likely to get them because by definition they'll know less about the world and therefore need more attention from management (which is the number one concern of companies). Why give yourself the hassle of having to mentor someone if you're also having to pay them?
So parents who earn below the national average can afford to house and pay for their child to work in a bank for 6 to 12 months at a £1000 per month. They might be open for everyone to apply, that doesn't mean they are open for everyone to afford. I can tell you right now that we have two interns starting next month, both of them are middle class twats who's parent have done everything for them. With one of them I'm almost certain his mother follows him into the bathroom and wipes his bottom for him. I only sat in on a few interviews but basically all the applicants had to tick a box saying "you can afford to live in London for 6 months being paid only travel and lunch expenses" so the applicants were basically all middle class.
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Or like thinking you can just sell council houses to their tenants and improve neighbourhoods, or thinking you can just sell nationalised industries to shareholders and make them more competitive in the private sector...
Oh, wait. Those silly ideas DID work. Duh.
Simple Simon view of the world
Communism doesn't work. It has been tested to death and one important variable makes it fail. Human nature. Everyone was v equal in USSR. Except communist party driving around in limos. Human nature and the profit motive. I will work hard if I get something out of it, if not then I will do just as much as the worst person.
Good luck with it when the people's republic of Scotland is finally created. I hope you can create a utopia and prove me wrong. A perfect society and Whisky tour would be great
Ed just said Cameron hasn't got the guts to debate him. That's gotta hurt.
which one ?
When your main opponent calls you a coward and he's right!
Playground "chicken" calling as ever.
Cameron is playing clever by refusing to debate, he did the same in Scotland despite all the name calling. It's called fighting on a ground of your own choosing.
I could swear I've seen Cameron debating him twice on TV already.
Perhaps it was the other Miliband.
Well it didn't had much impact apart from making the opposition leaders more confident and the voters more relaxed with them, though the verdict on the last one without Cameron is still open due to a lack of necessary opinion polls.
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Ours are 6 months long. Some are up to a year. I've seen others just 6 weeks long at think tanks and such.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
Yeah, cause, you know, those working class kids seeking "work experience" tend to have £6,000 lying around, allowing them to do a year at the Guardian, unpaid.
Oh, the Guardian - that's different. Of course you have to be very privileged to get a post there, but it's a great investment for the future if you can.
You have to be public-school educated to work at the Guardian. And your first job is moderating out all the comments on Comment is Free pointing out that fact, whenever its journalists witter on about social mobility and evil Tories.
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
otoh how do work placements\experience fit in all of this.
My kids schools were always keen for students to do a week or a fortnight working in a company. It was a total hassle to get them placed. If you're now asking they get paid on top for work experience it will work against the schools.
That's just a couple of weeks of specific work experience. The policy is about longer term internships like 3 months to a year where long term parental support is required.
LOL, all those poor people getting work experience, their parents JSA will keep them in luxury whilst they polish the toffs shoes.
Interestingly, the mincing, middlebrow CBI is all-for-internships, while the right-end-of-the-bell-curve Thatcherite Institute of Directors wants to ban them.
Interesting figures there, showing how small the problem (if there is a problem) actually is:
Data are very patchy but in 2010 the government estimated there were 70,000 interns at any one time and about a fifth were unpaid. Data suggest that unpaid internships are most common in the creative, cultural and media sectors. The National Council for the Training of Journalists said 82 per cent of new journalists had done an internship, 92 per cent of which were unpaid.
Long-term unpaid internships are not common outside the luvvie sectors.
What I think is more important is increasing the number of short (say a couple of weeks) work-experience opportunities. I'm not sure what substantial measures could be taken on that by government, however.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
Been spending the last hour at work thinking about hung parliament permutations #saddo
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
In such circumstances, Labour would be well advised not to vote the Queen's Speech down and change their leader. They could then bring the government down in the autumn. Unless of course Cameron had done a deal with Salmond in the meantime...
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
So internships in London that are unpaid are open to the less well off? Are you deluded?
Actually, yes they are. The banks in particular go to great lengths to be as open as possible.
But even if they weren't, what on earth difference does paying the minimum wage make? It's completely bonkers, it will just mean fewer internships, with those that are available STILL going to the more privileged. In fact, if companies have to pay for these youngsters, that makes the less-well-connected even less likely to get them because by definition they'll know less about the world and therefore need more attention from management (which is the number one concern of companies). Why give yourself the hassle of having to mentor someone if you're also having to pay them?
So parents who earn below the national average can afford to house and pay for their child to work in a bank for 6 to 12 months at a £1000 per month. They might be open for everyone to apply, that doesn't mean they are open for everyone to afford. I can tell you right now that we have two interns starting next month, both of them are middle class twats who's parent have done everything for them. With one of them I'm almost certain his mother follows him into the bathroom and wipes his bottom for him. I only sat in on a few interviews but basically all the applicants had to tick a box saying "you can afford to live in London for 6 months being paid only travel and lunch expenses" so the applicants were basically all middle class.
Are unpaid internships compulsory? Does your company by law have to offer them?
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
Indeed. Much as I hate Labour this is the best policy any party has come up with in this election, in terms of being obvious, fresh, intriguing, easy to enforce, and a good thing.
In which case, why the F didn't the Tories do it? it would have done wonders for their image - pro-mobility, anti-posh, etc.
Lack of brains and original thinking at Tory HQ.
What should be the minimum wage of an unpaid intern then?
£5.30 per hour, have the government subsidise interns from low income/wealth backgrounds. That's about £9.6k per intern. Not exactly the end of the world.
They are adults. Their "income / wealth backgrounds" are all going to be the same.
How old does someone have to get before you stop hating them because of their parents?
Either you have a minimum wage or you don't. Clearly very short placements for "work experience" - as in the school version - should be fine. Otherwise I can't see why minimum wage shouldn't apply. Paying them £3/hr would be unacceptable; £0/hr is worse.
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors - culture, media, TV, politics, and law and finance (to a lesser extent).
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
You're right. The Labour party are trying to address an issue. So let's see them address it in politics by applying it - right away - to their own party.
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors - culture, media, TV, politics, and law and finance (to a lesser extent).
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
This is becoming surreal now, Mr Pot.
Or are you perhaps deliberately fudging the issue as being restricted to a problem with internship when it is actually a problem with nepotism which is not one you feel should be discussed?
Ed just said Cameron hasn't got the guts to debate him. That's gotta hurt.
which one ?
When your main opponent calls you a coward and he's right!
Playground "chicken" calling as ever.
Cameron is playing clever by refusing to debate, he did the same in Scotland despite all the name calling. It's called fighting on a ground of your own choosing.
I could swear I've seen Cameron debating him twice on TV already.
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors - culture, media, TV, politics, and law and finance (to a lesser extent).
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
You're right. The Labour party are trying to address an issue. So let's see them address it in politics by applying it - right away - to their own party.
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
Yes, yes Labour are hypocritical. It has been a running theme of this election campaign. The issue at hand is that at least they have noticed the bloody problem. Just like private rentals. They have acknowledged there is a problem with the market and for that they are getting credit in London. The Tories refuse to even acknowledge there might even be a problem with internships and private landlords. Labour might not have the right solution and they might be utterly hypocritical with many, many policy positions, but they have at least recognised the bloody issue which is more than can be said for the current Tory party. One imagines Major and Thatcher would not be in this position of being painted as a party of the rich supported by the rich.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
You forgot Sarah Smith and pretty much the rest of BBC Scotland.
In my experience B2B journalism remains completely merit based. It's not as glamorous as the mainstream media, but it is very reliant on very good journalists getting very good stories. If anyone has children interested in a career in journalism they could do a lot worse than at least starting off in B2B. There is always a route to transfer into the mainstream via the business and economics pages if you are good enough (a few of my past staffers have done that), and because you already have contacts and the ability to get stories you will be on a relatively decent salary. Alternatively, if you stick with B2B, you will generally end up making more money than you would maybe even on a national. We pay our best people very good money because we know how hard they are to replace.
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors - culture, media, TV, politics, and law and finance (to a lesser extent).
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
You're right. The Labour party are trying to address an issue. So let's see them address it in politics by applying it - right away - to their own party.
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
Yes, yes Labour are hypocritical. It has been a running theme of this election campaign. The issue at hand is that at least they have noticed the bloody problem. Just like private rentals. They have acknowledged there is a problem with the market and for that they are getting credit in London. The Tories refuse to even acknowledge there might even be a problem with internships and private landlords. Labour might not have the right solution and they might be utterly hypocritical with many, many policy positions, but they have at least recognised the bloody issue which is more than can be said for the current Tory party. One imagines Major and Thatcher would not be in this position of being painted as a party of the rich supported by the rich.
Agree wholeheartedly. I've said before that Labour are good at identifying issues. It's their solutions which often bother me.
So Ed's idea is that, as well as having to cope with the disadbvantage of being badly educated, less-privileged children will also not get any opportunity to do work experience and thus to gain a bit more knowledge of the world.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
So internships in London that are unpaid are open to the less well off? Are you deluded?
Actually, yes they are. The banks in particular go to great lengths to be as open as possible.
But even if they weren't, what on earth difference does paying the minimum wage make? It's completely bonkers, it will just mean fewer internships, with those that are available STILL going to the more privileged. In fact, if companies have to pay for these youngsters, that makes the less-well-connected even less likely to get them because by definition they'll know less about the world and therefore need more attention from management (which is the number one concern of companies). Why give yourself the hassle of having to mentor someone if you're also having to pay them?
So parents who earn below the national average can afford to house and pay for their child to work in a bank for 6 to 12 months at a £1000 per month. They might be open for everyone to apply, that doesn't mean they are open for everyone to afford. I can tell you right now that we have two interns starting next month, both of them are middle class twats who's parent have done everything for them. With one of them I'm almost certain his mother follows him into the bathroom and wipes his bottom for him. I only sat in on a few interviews but basically all the applicants had to tick a box saying "you can afford to live in London for 6 months being paid only travel and lunch expenses" so the applicants were basically all middle class.
Are unpaid internships compulsory? Does your company by law have to offer them?
LOL, it is their charitable duty to help the poor , think he will need to go ask his Dad's pal on that one.
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors - culture, media, TV, politics, and law and finance (to a lesser extent).
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
You're right. The Labour party are trying to address an issue. So let's see them address it in politics by applying it - right away - to their own party.
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors snip.
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
You're right. The Labour party are trying to address an issue. So let's see them address it in politics by applying it - right away - to their own party.
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
Yes, yes Labour are hypocritical. It has been a running theme of this election campaign. The issue at hand is that at least they have noticed the bloody problem. Just like private rentals. They have acknowledged there is a problem with the market and for that they are getting credit in London. The Tories refuse to even acknowledge there might even be a problem with internships and private landlords. Labour might not have the right solution and they might be utterly hypocritical with many, many policy positions, but they have at least recognised the bloody issue which is more than can be said for the current Tory party. One imagines Major and Thatcher would not be in this position of being painted as a party of the rich supported by the rich.
I don't want to get all ad hominem on your ass, but if you are of sufficient seniority to sit in on these interviews where you work, you might perhaps be doing more to address the problem than insulting your employees on PB?
off topic - tim's representative on earth, Polly, is making the "less popular with women" argument against baby-eating Conservatives in the Graun.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Estimated there are 20,000 unpaid internships at any one time. Perhaps not a huge number, but they are in the most crucial sectors - culture, media, TV, politics, and law and finance (to a lesser extent).
As a journalist who has seen Fleet Street go from a hard headed meritocracy to a poshos' playground, in my lifetime, I applaud the sentiment behind Labour's proposal. At least they are TRYING.
By contrast, Labour's policy on tuition fees is utterly stupid.
You're right. The Labour party are trying to address an issue. So let's see them address it in politics by applying it - right away - to their own party.
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
The existing system in those industries actually favours left-wing intelligentsia and metropolitan elites more than anyone else. For example, the remarkable broadcast media and arts consensus on immigration and the EU.
Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
If Labour get the most seats, we will not. I agree there is a potential risk of Scotland being disproportionately powerful, but it's not if Labour get the most seats. It's if the Conservatives get the most seats, but the Conservative lead over Labour is smaller than the SNP lead over Lib Dems.
Agree wholeheartedly. I've said before that Labour are good at identifying issues. It's their solutions which often bother me.
My problem is that we have a completely useless Tory party refusing to acknowledge so many problems ordinary people come up against. Whether it is expensive energy prices in 2013, the high cost of rent in cities, or unpaid internships - the Tory party is on the wrong side of the argument every single bloody time. Major and Thatcher would have tackled all of these issues head on because they know what it is like to be a normal person. The current Tory party don't and they just don't see the issues facing so many ordinary people because there are no ordinary people at the top. Ed is not an ordinary person, but his advisers can at least see the issues affecting them which is why they can recognise the problems.
"Yes, yes Labour are hypocritical. It has been a running theme of this election campaign. The issue at hand is that at least they have noticed the bloody problem. Just like private rentals. They have acknowledged there is a problem with the market and for that they are getting credit in London. The Tories refuse to even acknowledge there might even be a problem with internships and private landlords. Labour might not have the right solution and they might be utterly hypocritical with many, many policy positions, but they have at least recognised the bloody issue which is more than can be said for the current Tory party. One imagines Major and Thatcher would not be in this position of being painted as a party of the rich supported by the rich">
Worth also saying that pointing out the hypocrisy is important. It's one reason why voters are so disconnected from the political process. Until parties - including Labour - address this there will be no real improvement.
Just as it's easy to be charitable with other people's money, it's easy to suggest changes for others which don't apply to you or to impose taxes which you don't have to pay or bugger up pensions when you're own are safe.
I would be much more impressed with Labour if they did to themselves what they seek to impose on the rest of us. Notable, for instance, that not one of the Labour supporters on here (to my knowledge - and if I've got this wrong, apologies in advance) - has agreeed that MPs should get the same money purchase schemes as we have with the same upper limit (which is considerably lower than what MPs and many public sector pensions are worth). Nor have they agreed that they should pay council and mansion tax out of their own pockets or claim expenses only according to the same IR rules as apply to the rest of us. Or that they should start now by not having zero hours contracts and advertising jobs widely and not just recruiting from family and friends.
I don't want to get all ad hominem on your ass, but if you are of sufficient seniority to sit in on these interviews where you work, you might perhaps be doing more to address the problem than insulting your employees on PB?
I'm only sitting in to learn the process, no decision making power. I've made my feelings pretty clear to those who did make the decision though.
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
Does anyone have any data on how many of these unpaid internships exist? 50 a year, 50,000 a year?
At my company we take summer interns, but we pay them - around 3/4 of a graduate salary, so £21k a year, pro-rata. In return we expect some useful work to be done, which we don't feel we otherwise could expect.
Anyone who needs the interns to be unpaid won't IMHO pay anything at all for one. They'll just do without, as the work is basically worthless. It's a favour to Polly Toynbee's great niece, and she'll find another way.
Labour will also find a way to dodge its own law. They'll all expense the mansion tax, for example. If I had to guess, I'd say the ruse here will be that they get young Balls or young Umunna to get himself sponsored by a donor. The donor will be someone who'd have donated anyway but a notional amount will be deemed to be an intern sponsorship donation. So no change in fact, except for other people.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
lol, you castrated moron. I thought you were referring to me as some son of Pol Pot, hence "Mr Pot". Now I get it, you think as the successful writer son of a successful writer I can't comment on nepotism blah blah
Has it not occurred to you that this makes me more aware of the problem? I could easily slide into default Cameroon position and urge what is best for me and my daughters: let the rich stay rich, especially in the media.
Yet, no. I want what is best for all my countrymen, bizarre as that may sound. I went to a comprehensive school, and my grandparents were tin miners. I want a country where a tin miner's son could become editor of the Guardian.
That was conceivable in the 60s and 70s, yet it is LESS conceivable now. This upsets me. It is bad. The party that tries to change it will get my support, for that particular proposal, whoever they are.
And now I must pack for London. I'm coming home. Anon.
I'm more than happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.
But the problem remains is that you are supporting a policy which obfuscates the issue in terms of internship when the underlying and actual problem is with nepotism. Internship is merely a very handy method of legitimising the nepotism but without it, there would be little problem finding a new mechanism.
Supporting a policy which does not address nepotism but merely allows politicians to claim they have "acted" by dealing with the smokescreen doesn't help your credibility on the issue.
Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
There is no "English electorate".
It is a United Kingdom where we are Better Together. One of the resources we Pool and Share is our choice of elected representatives.
Dontchaknow.
LOL, they have forgotten the bovine effluent already , already back to sponging Jocks mode. The English Empire is still alive, they have some peasants to trample still.
Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
James Forsyth at the Speccie made the point after last night's debate that it's becoming increasingly clear the only card left that can now 'win' it for the Cons is the Lab-SNP thing scaring English voters - the 'English veer', as he called it.
I think that even if it becomes a big and concerted issue, it won't be enough. Very anecdotally, I was out in the barbers earlier and these days they have the telly on in there. When BBC 1pm News came on and it was the Miliband-Sturgeon stuff the place got talking about how Ed's "a slippery t##t" and how the SNP "hate the English". This is a safe Tory, and of course southern, constituency though so could be playing very different elsewhere.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
The press has been running hysterical headlines about Labour for yonks though. Alot of the readership won't be happy unless Farage is PM though to be honest.
So what will be the difference between volunteers and unpaid interns?
You may like the idea, but in practice it will be another rule change that ends up with perverse results. Like thinking you can just press a button and freeze energy prices.
Banks wouldn't have "volunteers". The bad press wouldn't justify it. Charities already do it anyway, but they are charities. Profit-seeking companies would either get rid of internships or just pay people, I highly doubt they would go down the "volunteer" route, they would just get shat on by the press. "Billion pound companies ask for volunteers" is not a good way of doing business.
Does anyone have any data on how many of these unpaid internships exist? 50 a year, 50,000 a year?
At my company we take summer interns, but we pay them - around 3/4 of a graduate salary, so £21k a year, pro-rata. In return we expect some useful work to be done, which we don't feel we otherwise could expect.
Anyone who needs the interns to be unpaid won't IMHO pay anything at all for one. They'll just do without, as the work is basically worthless. It's a favour to Polly Toynbee's great niece, and she'll find another way.
Labour will also find a way to dodge its own law. They'll all expense the mansion tax, for example. If I had to guess, I'd say the ruse here will be that they get young Balls or young Umunna to get himself sponsored by a donor. The donor will be someone who'd have donated anyway but a notional amount will be deemed to be an intern sponsorship donation. So no change in fact, except for other people.
I think we pay them £250 per month for travel and lunch. They have to find the rest of the money themselves for rent and other living costs. I agree with you though. As I pointed out in a post earlier I have made my feeling very clear to the people in charge. I would much prefer £20k pro-rated for 6 months. We would get better candidates and a higher quality of work. Right now it is just a glorified way of middle class kids getting "6 months in the City" on their CV.
Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
There is no "English electorate".
It is a United Kingdom where we are Better Together. One of the resources we Pool and Share is our choice of elected representatives.
Dontchaknow.
I think it's indubitable that there is a Wales, à Scotland and a Northern Ireland. Thrrefy there is an England as well.
There is a Welsh Electorate for the Welsh Assembly, a Scottish one for Holyrood and a Northern Irish one for Stormont. However without an equivalent representative body, there is no English Electorate.
This is a Westminster election, there is only one electorate - the United Kingdom.
MPs should get the same money purchase schemes as we have with the same upper limit (which is considerably lower than what MPs and many public sector pensions are worth). Nor have they agreed that they should pay council and mansion tax out of their own pockets or claim expenses only according to the same IR rules as apply to the rest of us. Or that they should start now by not having zero hours contracts and advertising jobs widely and not just recruiting from family and friends.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
How many of that list are actually MPs?
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
Should we be going high on turnout? Thinking about the registration process this year - won't it
a) reduce the overall pool by removing people who were unlikely to vote and as the % if off those that can vote - not those that could this should artificially increase the %
b) The act of making people bother to register is likely to make them then vote. So in effect the fact they might not get to vote will make them. Whereas if they didnt have to do anything before they wouldn't have been bothered.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
On the PM after GE market I've taken a slight hedge on that, currently -24 Dave, +54 Ed +133 the field.
I think Ed's policy on ending unpaid internships is a really good one. Too many people from poorer backgrounds are locked out of this sector because parents can't support their children with £1000 per month for rent and living costs while they are in London or another big city for an internship. I think forcing companies to at least pay the 18-21 minimum wage rate for interns would be acceptable, maybe it will lead to fewer interns, but I don't think the current system works. It just means parents with money can ensure their kids get a leg up in industries like finance and law. It literally locks working class kids out of certain industries and perpetuates nepotism. I think a good way to do it would be to subsidise internships so the company can get a rebate of up to a third of wage costs from the government for every kid they take from a lower income family.
And how, pray tell, will this policy discriminate between an "intern" and a "volunteer" ?
It is a meaningless gesture in any case, it will do nothing to stop the core problem of nepotism which is what the internship problem is based on.
Why would the party of Euan Blair, Emily Benn, Will Straw, Dan Hodges, Stephen Kinnock, David Prescott and Joe Dromey want "to stop the core problem of nepotism"?
How many of that list are actually MPs?
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
This is splitting hairs. Both parties are as bad as each other on the nepotism and unpaid internship stuff that's been talked about on here today - I have personal experience regarding the Tories and have friends who've had the same experiences regarding Labour. Some of the things that go on in terms of exploitation of young people in regards to taking advantage of their political fervour and getting them to work 13/14 hour days for no, or next to no money, are appalling. But it's the same for all the parties, here and the world over.
Ed will be pretty safe as leader unless he loses by 20+
People don't blame him for Scotland - and hey in this scenario he would have won if it wasn't for the SNP. Also the campaign has actually made him really popular with Labour members. I don't actually remember having a leader as popular as this in the party since 2002!
Not all bad for tory message from last night,news channels this morning going on miliband/sturgeon join me message to stop the tories.
One of the main points to be remembered from last night was Sturgeon asking Ed to work with him.
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
James Forsyth at the Speccie made the point after last night's debate that it's becoming increasingly clear the only card left that can now 'win' it for the Cons is the Lab-SNP thing scaring English voters - the 'English veer', as he called it.
I think that even if it becomes a big and concerted issue, it won't be enough. Very anecdotally, I was out in the barbers earlier and these days they have the telly on in there. When BBC 1pm News came on and it was the Miliband-Sturgeon stuff the place got talking about how Ed's "a slippery t##t" and how the SNP "hate the English". This is a safe Tory, and of course southern, constituency though so could be playing very different elsewhere.
I see southern education levels of all matters beyond the M25 are still as deep and broad as ever.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
I dunno, I just feel that for a lot of people who don't follow politics closely, it's going to seem like an open/shut case that the party who comes second doesn't have the right to lead the government. Especially since the press will be running hysterical headlines of "LABOUR COUP" at the time.
That's why I think Ed Miliband is so vulnerable if Labour clearly finish second in the seat count. Labour will need to show that they've listened to the public's rejection of their offering, and how better than to sacrifice the leader who led them to what the public would see as defeat and replace him with a less partisan eminence grise in order to lead a government of national progressive unity?
Wouldn't they be better off letting Cameron scrabble on for 6 months, under assault from his backbenches, while they have a proper leadership contest and then force a second election?
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
It's interesting. That would be the surest way possible of losing Scotland forever. Nicola Sturgeon could correctly claim that Labour preferred to let the Conservatives in than to work with the SNP.
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
Should we be going high on turnout? Thinking about the registration process this year - won't it
a) reduce the overall pool by removing people who were unlikely to vote and as the % if off those that can vote - not those that could this should artificially increase the %
b) The act of making people bother to register is likely to make them then vote. So in effect the fact they might not get to vote will make them. Whereas if they didnt have to do anything before they wouldn't have been bothered.
120,000 people registered online yesterday alone!
It's a good point, but I reckon NE Derbyshire turnout is going to be low judging by anecdotal evidence.
Rother Valley, not a single UKIP or Labour poster up.
Kevin Barron romps home and UKIP get one of those "Well we got 8000 vote" type results. Turnout about 50%.
Comments
The worst example is the creation of "Apprenticeships" when what this actually means is "Apprentice Office Juniior" (that's not made up, the Junior PCC who had to resign for tweets actually held this as her role before being Junior PCC.
Last year I did some work for a company where every single one of it's minimum wage call centre staff (around 120 employees) was an "Apprentice" even people in their 40s with years of experience in such drudgery. But the employer got a significant tax break and all they had to do was have a two half day "training" sessions 6 months apart.
The company got a government hand out. The government got an extra 120 Apprentices in the national accounts. The wage drudges got... nothing.
Any industry that has that level of nepotism or favour towards friends is failing to get the best young people. Hence the fall of the printer press and the rise of Internet news sites.
This is supposed to increase social mobility? Really?
You just cannot forbid contracts or else you will wipe out industry and commerce in the UK.
There is a particularly massive declaration at 6:00
568 Thanet South 06:00
Best coverage so far IMHO has been the Metro. balanced coverage and decent interviews.
Since then, the bias against them has gradually unwound, in successive elections.
The real nightmare scenario in terms of forming a new government is if the Tories are the largest party but WELL short of a majority (say, about 280 seats or less). In such a scenario, they wouldn't have the numbers to cobble together a majority since there's so few natural allies for them in parliament, but equally Labour would be seen to have no "moral authority" to lead a government if they are the second party by a distance. In that case I think an immediate second election would be unavoidable, regardless of the obstacles that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act technically pose.
Labour support their candidates much better through the unions. The best reform Cameron could have done with his millions of donations is to make 150 winnable seats sponsored seats. He could then go around looking for the butcher, baker and candlestick maker (or nurses, teachers, shopkeepers, engineers, scientists, farmers and office workers) which would do more than anything to change the face of the Tory party.
However sentiment has changed towards the top party leaders, the public have started to realize that EdM is going to be PM and they don't mind anymore.
Also I pumped the latest welsh, scottish and GB figures in the advanced regional swingometer on ukpollingreport and I get LAB 300 seats, CON 259, LD 18 and SNP 51.
Fact is, a lot of people look at Cameron & Osborne and think - "toffs, out for themselves and their rich friends", not "I'm sure they speak for me/ my kids" (see also the best Conservative poster campaign I can remember - the John Major /working class kid from Brixton one).
EdM may still come across as weird, but there's a growing underdog groundswell behind him.
Cameron is playing clever by refusing to debate, he did the same in Scotland despite all the name calling. It's called fighting on a ground of your own choosing.
But even if they weren't, what on earth difference does paying the minimum wage make? It's completely bonkers, it will just mean fewer internships, with those that are available STILL going to the more privileged. In fact, if companies have to pay for these youngsters, that makes the less-well-connected even less likely to get them because by definition they'll know less about the world and therefore need more attention from management (which is the number one concern of companies). Why give yourself the hassle of having to mentor someone if you're also having to pay them?
Any sensible organisation would do this already and mine does it even for internships for students from a school in Hackney - as part of an ongoing programme we have to help students who do not have many (if any) advantages at all.
So there are things which can be done. Let's see the Labour party do it in their own organisation. Now. No legislation is needed.
Send-my-children-to-private-school-private-schools-are-works-of-the-devil Polly, that is.
on topic - @MaxPB I am genuinely unsure how many long term unpaid internships there are? A year? Really? Perhaps - any info much appreciated.
My initial reaction is that this is not a Thatcherite policy as she preferred not to regulate. My subsequent reaction is that the unintended consequence might be that there will be fewer internships both because of the extra admin and because given a choice for the return, and especially for SMEs, a wage of £9k paid out means a greater cost to the employer.
Perhaps it was the other Miliband.
Coming over here, taking our unpaid jobs.
Good luck with it when the people's republic of Scotland is finally created. I hope you can create a utopia and prove me wrong. A perfect society and Whisky tour would be great
Data are very patchy but in 2010 the government estimated there were 70,000 interns at any one time and about a fifth were unpaid. Data suggest that unpaid internships are most common in the creative, cultural and media sectors. The National Council for the Training of Journalists said 82 per cent of new journalists had done an internship, 92 per cent of which were unpaid.
Long-term unpaid internships are not common outside the luvvie sectors.
What I think is more important is increasing the number of short (say a couple of weeks) work-experience opportunities. I'm not sure what substantial measures could be taken on that by government, however.
I think you are forgetting about the 1923 General Election. Did Ramsay McDonald have "Moral authority" on sub 200 seats ?
In fact I'd argue he had even less in 1931 when he scrambled together 13 whole seats and was the Prime Minister !
Or who could forget when Churchill only "got over the line" with the Ulstermen in 1951.
It isn't a presidential system and just because we've seen the biggest party "win" for the last 50 years doesn't mean it HAS to be the case now.
How old does someone have to get before you stop hating them because of their parents?
I'm sorry to go on about this. But the Labour party is pretty bloody nepotistic. It even appeared to believe in a hereditary leader when it foisted Brown on itself and us. It had brothers competing at the last leadership election. So I'd like to see some action from them not just words.
Otherwise it's just another Augustinian proposal: "Lord, make me chaste. Just not yet."
Or are you perhaps deliberately fudging the issue as being restricted to a problem with internship when it is actually a problem with nepotism which is not one you feel should be discussed?
http://order-order.com/2015/04/17/damian-mcbride-my-201-solution-to-the-three-pipe-problem-that-is-the-next-dpm/#_@/VJO2iBzt8W8LvA
could you link ?
Anyone who thinks that if Labour get the most seats that we won't be governed by Scotland is an idiot, and it won't be lost on the English electorate.
It is a United Kingdom where we are Better Together. One of the resources we Pool and Share is our choice of elected representatives.
Dontchaknow.
Worth also saying that pointing out the hypocrisy is important. It's one reason why voters are so disconnected from the political process. Until parties - including Labour - address this there will be no real improvement.
Just as it's easy to be charitable with other people's money, it's easy to suggest changes for others which don't apply to you or to impose taxes which you don't have to pay or bugger up pensions when you're own are safe.
I would be much more impressed with Labour if they did to themselves what they seek to impose on the rest of us. Notable, for instance, that not one of the Labour supporters on here (to my knowledge - and if I've got this wrong, apologies in advance) - has agreeed that MPs should get the same money purchase schemes as we have with the same upper limit (which is considerably lower than what MPs and many public sector pensions are worth). Nor have they agreed that they should pay council and mansion tax out of their own pockets or claim expenses only according to the same IR rules as apply to the rest of us. Or that they should start now by not having zero hours contracts and advertising jobs widely and not just recruiting from family and friends.
1111 minutes
At my company we take summer interns, but we pay them - around 3/4 of a graduate salary, so £21k a year, pro-rata. In return we expect some useful work to be done, which we don't feel we otherwise could expect.
Anyone who needs the interns to be unpaid won't IMHO pay anything at all for one. They'll just do without, as the work is basically worthless. It's a favour to Polly Toynbee's great niece, and she'll find another way.
Labour will also find a way to dodge its own law. They'll all expense the mansion tax, for example. If I had to guess, I'd say the ruse here will be that they get young Balls or young Umunna to get himself sponsored by a donor. The donor will be someone who'd have donated anyway but a notional amount will be deemed to be an intern sponsorship donation. So no change in fact, except for other people.
BRADFORD CITY FIRE: Accidental cause of tragedy 'not in any doubt', says detective
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/12896258.BRADFORD_CITY_FIRE__Accidental_cause_of_tragedy__not_in_any_doubt___says_detective/
But the problem remains is that you are supporting a policy which obfuscates the issue in terms of internship when the underlying and actual problem is with nepotism. Internship is merely a very handy method of legitimising the nepotism but without it, there would be little problem finding a new mechanism.
Supporting a policy which does not address nepotism but merely allows politicians to claim they have "acted" by dealing with the smokescreen doesn't help your credibility on the issue.
I think that even if it becomes a big and concerted issue, it won't be enough. Very anecdotally, I was out in the barbers earlier and these days they have the telly on in there. When BBC 1pm News came on and it was the Miliband-Sturgeon stuff the place got talking about how Ed's "a slippery t##t" and how the SNP "hate the English". This is a safe Tory, and of course southern, constituency though so could be playing very different elsewhere.
This is a Westminster election, there is only one electorate - the United Kingdom.
MPs should get the same money purchase schemes as we have with the same upper limit (which is considerably lower than what MPs and many public sector pensions are worth). Nor have they agreed that they should pay council and mansion tax out of their own pockets or claim expenses only according to the same IR rules as apply to the rest of us. Or that they should start now by not having zero hours contracts and advertising jobs widely and not just recruiting from family and friends.
Or pay £27000 for their University degrees.....
Compared to the following Tories who followed in their parents' steps:
James Arbuthnot, Richard Benyon, Dominic Grieve, Ben Gummer, Nick Hurd, Bernard Jenkin, Francis Maude, Andrew Mitchell, Mark Pawsey, Laura Sandys, Nicholas Soames, Robin Walker, Bill Wiggin.
Foisting Yvette on us may not lead to a grateful nation.
Should we be going high on turnout? Thinking about the registration process this year - won't it
a) reduce the overall pool by removing people who were unlikely to vote and as the % if off those that can vote - not those that could this should artificially increase the %
b) The act of making people bother to register is likely to make them then vote. So in effect the fact they might not get to vote will make them. Whereas if they didnt have to do anything before they wouldn't have been bothered.
120,000 people registered online yesterday alone!
Not my entire position by any means.
People don't blame him for Scotland - and hey in this scenario he would have won if it wasn't for the SNP. Also the campaign has actually made him really popular with Labour members. I don't actually remember having a leader as popular as this in the party since 2002!
On the other hand, a Conservative minority government would be a grim affair for David Cameron and Labour would probably win in England alone in the circumstances you describe.
A really tough call for Labour there.
Rother Valley, not a single UKIP or Labour poster up.
Kevin Barron romps home and UKIP get one of those "Well we got 8000 vote" type results. Turnout about 50%.