If Burnham is clever he will want to avoid anything that looks like a coronation. It is clear that the right wing press are in the process of portraying him as the McCluskey candidate - even though, as Henry makes clear, his campaign managers are anything but McCluskey men. So, now that he has the nomination votes he needs he should be encouraging MPs to nominate other contenders. The last thing Labour needs is a non-election. Instead, it should be debating openly and honestly what has gone wrong and how it can be put right. That means Burnham (and Cooper) explaining why Kendall and Creagh (and maybe Hunt) have got it wrong and debating with them. You don't heal deep wounds by pretending they are not there.
I was going to join Labour last week, but decided against doing so until the leadership election had taken place. I want to see what Labour decides, and how the process runs. Right now, I feel very glad I made that decision. The comfort blanket would be a disaster and there is no point in getting involved in a party that prefers that to operating in the real world.
If he really was the McCluskey candidate then the sensible thing to do would be to appoint people on the right as the party (like, say Blair's former flatmate and a noted Blairite) to lead his campaign. Allows him to park his tanks on his opponents home turf and make the claim he is speaking for the whole party. Alternative would be a "core vote" strategy...
That would imply a level of political sophistication and intelligence that it is clear Len McCluskey does not possess. I have no doubt that Burnham is the candidate McCluskey would like to win, but he has not been put up to the leadership by McCluskey and he will not win just because McCluskey supports him. If he wins it will be because he provides the comfort blanket that so many Labour supporters and MPs like to cling to. So, should he win, Unite will not be to blame; the Labour party as a whole will be responsible. There will be no hiding behind Len.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
Actually, the reasons for union member have changed. Rather than dangerous work conditions, for a decent percentage of people, it is that unions can offer you some protection should somebody attempt to sue you or makes claims against you should you work in a public facing role.
I think you will find that is a big motivating factor behind in areas like teaching and health sector. Many teachers still belong to unions, but as shown with strike action over the past 2-3 years, the unions struggle to really get their members on mass to vote. I think one strike was on the basis of less than 25% of the members voting. To me that reinforces that many aren't in the union for some sort of ideology reasons or because the workplace is that horrifically bad, but because it offers something else.
McCluskey' s UNITE have tentacles into 2/3 of Labour's MPs. What Labour need is a Leader able and willing to tackle that. A Neil Kinnock for this time, who can tackle the Militant equivalent today, called UNITE. kinnock used one electoral cycle to remove Militant from the candidates and MPs and then brought Labour into a position of challenging in his 2nd GE. At best Labour can wish for a Kinnock type to tackle Unite but it looks like a 2 election timeframe. McCluskey is 65 in a few weeks, so maybe Labour will get lucky with McCluskey's replacement? Next Unite election is 2018.
The Labour Party rules for electing a Leader have changed. There is no longer an electoral college. The vote of a Labour MP counts the same as an individual labour Party member or a registered supporter. Signing up extra MPs does not give a candidate a disproportionate benefit in the election process.
From 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/unite-union-boss-len-mccluskey-threatens-to-launch-party-to-rival-labour-9231266.html "It is understood that the provisional plan in the event of an election defeat would involve Unite, the country’s biggest union, and the GMB, the third-biggest union, cutting their ties with Labour simultaneously. They would join forces with the RMT rail union – which disaffiliated under the leadership of the late Bob Crow. The combined membership of the three unions is almost 2.1 million."
The Labour Party... well, the clue is in the name. They are always going to be tied vitally to the unions, and those who don't like the unions won't like that, but I think they would struggle to propose an alternative source of funding for a centre-left party in Britain.
If only the Labour Party were 'centre left'... If only the Labour Party could stop weaponising the NHS and could stop accusing its opponents of wanting to destroy it. Will any Labour candidate say that we should take the NHS out of politics?
Harman should put her foot down and cancel the leadership comp. She could take a couple of years of being slapped about at PMQ,s..she has done it before. The Party needs some time to grow into maturity again..the candidates are a joke. The faithful Labour electorate deserve better than this and the country deserve a proper opposition. This is turning into a comp between Brown Owl and the local Cubmaster
As polling day drew nearer, Mr Crosby would treat his colleagues to bursts of what became the unofficial campaign song: One Vision by Queen. He would turn up the volume on the speakers on his computer and blast out the music to the room.
Another innovation – to raise morale – was the “koala of the day”. A senior colleague explained: “Lynton would give a furry koala to someone who had done something particularly brilliant that day.”
So how was your day love...well that bloody Ozzie bloke kept sticking Queen on full blast and then he gave me this sodding cuddly toy for all my hard work.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
Actually, the reasons for union member have changed. Rather than dangerous work conditions, for a decent percentage of people, it is that unions can offer you some protection should somebody attempt to sue you or makes claims against you should you work in a public facing role.
I think you will find that is a big motivating factor behind in areas like teaching and health sector. Many teachers still belong to unions, but as shown with strike action over the past 2-3 years, the unions struggle to really get their members on mass to vote. I think one strike was on the basis of less than 25% of the members voting. To me that reinforces that many aren't in the union for some sort of ideology reasons or because the workplace is that horrifically bad, but because it offers something else.
Indeed, and unions have a very important role to play in representing members on an individual basis when they're in difficulty, particularly if faced with a bullying management. They also have a role to play as experts in their field in the formulation of national policy. The problem comes when they try and mix the two, using their workplace or political power to try to dictate policy.
The Speccie found this old bit of Burnham announcing his 2010 leadership bid: youtu.be/FPftE8Uy8g8 Most of it is the same. Hardly the change candidate!
Actually these days he has become to look less like an android as he has grown older. The knee jerk critics should take note of that. (PS I am not his fan - indeed since all the candidates are equally bad, I am not really interested in the actual outcome. Labourites ought to be terrified of McCluskey.
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
Lolz. I used to bring a funsize family bag of sweets to every meeting I went to with strangers - nothing like confectionery to break the ice and make me more influencial
I also had a permanent open tin of sweeties on my desk - I don't have a sweet tooth so rarely ate one, but it always encouraged more interaction and gossiping.
As polling day drew nearer, Mr Crosby would treat his colleagues to bursts of what became the unofficial campaign song: One Vision by Queen. He would turn up the volume on the speakers on his computer and blast out the music to the room.
Another innovation – to raise morale – was the “koala of the day”. A senior colleague explained: “Lynton would give a furry koala to someone who had done something particularly brilliant that day.”
So how was your day love...well that bloody Ozzie bloke kept sticking Queen on full blast and then he gave me this sodding cuddly toy for all my hard work.
As polling day drew nearer, Mr Crosby would treat his colleagues to bursts of what became the unofficial campaign song: One Vision by Queen. He would turn up the volume on the speakers on his computer and blast out the music to the room.
Another innovation – to raise morale – was the “koala of the day”. A senior colleague explained: “Lynton would give a furry koala to someone who had done something particularly brilliant that day.”
So how was your day love...well that bloody Ozzie bloke kept sticking Queen on full blast and then he gave me this sodding cuddly toy for all my hard work.
Compare and contrast with Labour..... The Funeral March and an "Ed Stone" keyring....
The Labour Party rules for electing a Leader have changed. There is no longer an electoral college. The vote of a Labour MP counts the same as an individual labour Party member or a registered supporter. Signing up extra MPs does not give a candidate a disproportionate benefit in the election process.
It does make it harder for other candidates to get the nominations needed to enter the contest.
But you are right, the entire Labour party will own the result of this leadership election - unlike the last one, which the unions did win. That's what makes this one so significant as an indicator of where the party as a whole is heading.
The Labour Party rules for electing a Leader have changed. There is no longer an electoral college. The vote of a Labour MP counts the same as an individual labour Party member or a registered supporter. Signing up extra MPs does not give a candidate a disproportionate benefit in the election process.
Yes, my mistake, I meant in terms of the electoral nomination process, but my mind went to electoral college.
Corrected now.
Note to self, must not write threads at 2 in the morning.
Labour added 700,000 votes despite losing 300,000 in Scotland.
Most of those were probably in big cities like Liverpool with it's 80% majorities on th back of the LD collapse. A few gains in London simply didn't cut it. Five more years of sound govt., boundary reviews and a shrinkage of the benefits culture is unlikely to help the Labour cause. Especially when you look at the field of potential leaders and their lines of attack.
The irony is that the mass immigration unleashed by Labour has been the most devastating development to effect the standard of living of the British working-class. Keira Hardie et al used to be at the forefront opposing immigration.
The big thing that will potentially distort the Labour leadership election is the fact that over 40% of Labour's members live in London. A real problem for reaching out into areas threatened by UKIP if those members have a different view of the world.
I wonder if it's hit home the threat that UKIP poses (or may pose, depending on how UKIP handles its own internal difficulties). After all, UKIP won only one seat, and that a former Tory one. UKIP may have been responsible for the loss of some seats to the Tories and for the failure to pick up more, but those aren't clearly visible results and those failures could equally be put down to Miliband's leadership. There are plenty of seats where UKIP finished second but relatively few where they were a close second to Labour. It is very easy to dismiss their challenge. By contrast, the threat the SNP poses is far more visible and, given the Holyrood elections in 2016, more immediate, though whether London Labour (by which I do mean the London membership, not shorthand for Labour central), are capable of (1) understanding and (2) addressing the problems in Scotland is another matter again.
UKIP's support seems to be something of a dichotomy (word of the week). In Tory seats there would be the far right and NIMBY vote, but was it further boosted by simple protest and/or labour voters thinking it would be the best way to vote out the Tory. Against this the antiUKIP vote would help tories. But in the North where they were playing up their anti muslim stance they would pick up the bigot vote from the left. The raw UKIP appeal is somewhat incoherent in terms of its positioning. Its now trying to say its more Labour than Labour with Farage hinting (FWIW) that he wants to stand in a Labour seat. 9th time lucky.
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
What's hilarious if so is that the 2012 budget was actually a great budget from a Conservative perspective.
What went wrong, much highlighted, was that it cost us popularity, pastytax etc - and arguably ended "we're all in it together" while cutting top rate tax. What went right from a Conservative PoV is that cutting top rate tax was a good thing - and I say that as a standard rate taxpayer.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
The big thing that will potentially distort the Labour leadership election is the fact that over 40% of Labour's members live in London. A real problem for reaching out into areas threatened by UKIP if those members have a different view of the world.
I wonder if it's hit home the threat that UKIP poses (or may pose, depending on how UKIP handles its own internal difficulties). After all, UKIP won only one seat, and that a former Tory one. UKIP may have been responsible for the loss of some seats to the Tories and for the failure to pick up more, but those aren't clearly visible results and those failures could equally be put down to Miliband's leadership. There are plenty of seats where UKIP finished second but relatively few where they were a close second to Labour. It is very easy to dismiss their challenge. By contrast, the threat the SNP poses is far more visible and, given the Holyrood elections in 2016, more immediate, though whether London Labour (by which I do mean the London membership, not shorthand for Labour central), are capable of (1) understanding and (2) addressing the problems in Scotland is another matter again.
UKIP's support seems to be something of a dichotomy (word of the week). In Tory seats there would be the far right and NIMBY vote, but was it further boosted by simple protest and/or labour voters thinking it would be the best way to vote out the Tory. Against this the antiUKIP vote would help tories. But in the North where they were playing up their anti muslim stance they would pick up the bigot vote from the left. The raw UKIP appeal is somewhat incoherent in terms of its positioning. Its now trying to say its more Labour than Labour with Farage hinting (FWIW) that he wants to stand in a Labour seat. 9th time lucky.
UKIP has done very well among ex-Conservative voters, however it feels like they have hit the roof with them, and there is much more potential in the WWC North for them- which they have only just started tapping in to.
How is having an electoral college 'one man one vote' ?
There's no electoral college any more. An MP's vote is worth no more than anyone else's. Union members can still vote if they register as party supporters, but again, the vote of a union member is worth exactly the same as that of an MP, party member, or registered party supporter (you don't have to be a union member to become a registered supporter).
Thanks - thats what I thought, but the comment I read said that Burnham had the MPs 'college' sewn up.
UKIP's support seems to be something of a dichotomy (word of the week). snip The raw UKIP appeal is somewhat incoherent in terms of its positioning. Its now trying to say its more Labour than Labour with Farage hinting (FWIW) that he wants to stand in a Labour seat. 9th time lucky.
UKIP has done very well among ex-Conservative voters, however it feels like they have hit the roof with them, and there is much more potential in the WWC North for them- which they have only just started tapping in to.
Harman should put her foot down and cancel the leadership comp. She could take a couple of years of being slapped about at PMQ,s..she has done it before. The Party needs some time to grow into maturity again..the candidates are a joke. The faithful Labour electorate deserve better than this and the country deserve a proper opposition. This is turning into a comp between Brown Owl and the local Cubmaster
Well, yes. Can't see Labour going along with it though.
Labour added 700,000 votes despite losing 300,000 in Scotland.
Most of those were probably in big cities like Liverpool with it's 80% majorities on th back of the LD collapse. A few gains in London simply didn't cut it. Five more years of sound govt., boundary reviews and a shrinkage of the benefits culture is unlikely to help the Labour cause. Especially when you look at the field of potential leaders and their lines of attack.
If Osborne is to hit his fiscal targets, the next few rounds of benefit cuts are almost certain to disproportionately affect those in work.
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
What's hilarious if so is that the 2012 budget was actually a great budget from a Conservative perspective.
What went wrong, much highlighted, was that it cost us popularity, pastytax etc - and arguably ended "we're all in it together" while cutting top rate tax. What went right from a Conservative PoV is that cutting top rate tax was a good thing - and I say that as a standard rate taxpayer.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
Well done Osborne.
It also pretty much killed the Thatcher/Cameron big society with its charity and church tax measures.
6 years on, UNITE now have tentacles in 2/3 of Labour's MPs.
What's the definition of "have tentacles in"?
1. Be a member of Unite or 2. Receive Unite money for their office and campaigns or 3. Be backed by Unite when trying to be selected as a PPC.
Hmm, seems a bit meaningless without the scale - some MPs get quite big donations and/or funding for whole members of staff that potentially buy a lot of influence, but you can't tell how far that goes from that definition. For example, for 232 pounds + postage you could "have tentacles" in _every_ Labour MP.
UKIP's appeal is being seen to stand up for people who feel they are ignored and marginalised. It is an identity vote, more than anything else. That identity primarily being English and "small c" conservative. To move into first place in seats UKIP needs to deliver more than that though. If it can develop policies that appeal to traditional Labour voters in traditional Labour seats then it does have a real chance to make significant progress, especially if Labour continues to struggle to connect. However, it will mean a leadership that is essentially right-wing economically and fiscally developing policies for people who are much further to the left on such matters. That may take a while - especially now the Tories are governing alone and setting out economic and fiscal policies that UKIP will have to either support or oppose.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. snip
What's hilarious if so is that the 2012 budget was actually a great budget from a Conservative perspective. snip Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through. Well done Osborne.
The so called 'omnishambles' budget shows us what is wrong with labour's policy of jumping on any passing bandwagon without particularly bothering about the direction of travel. How many times has Miliband been in a Greggs since? Meantime you still pay VAT on a fish and chip take away. From Osborne's point of view he learned the political lesson. Labour ended up simply jumping from one crumby catch phrase and one instant opposition to another.
Andy Burnham on Marr talking up the need for an early EU referendum, he seemed very muddled about what he expected of Cameron before calling the referendum.
Turning to SLAB, the behind the scenes story around Murphy trying to cling to power is very unedifying:
He seems to have spent the last 10 days trying to push water up hill and running around trying to "persuade" everybody to support him. I think there is real risk that Murphy will now try and take as many people down with him as possible, his true character is now shining through. If Jim truly cared about SLAB he should have resigned on 8th May, this death of a thousand cuts approach could well send SLAB below the 20% support level.
Re Mr Murphy and SLAB, there is some betting up for the next SLAB leader - though it is rather odd and not just in having a well-known Twitter enthusiast, Ian Smart, at 100-1.
The point that I noticed at once (as others in the comments [edit] therein on Wings do) is that neither Mr Smart, nor some of the others offered, e.g. one G. Brown, or one D. Alexander, are MPs or MSPs: so if you bet on them you have to assume that someone, presumably Mr Murphy , changes the rules before the election to allow non-MPs or MSPs to stand. And yet if that happens then the field becomes wide open - not least in allowing Mr Murphy himself to do a Farage (previous version) and stand again (especially if nobody else wants to win what might be regarded by them as the booby prize of leading SLAB into another election in the current circs).
As well as determining whether or not EU citizens resident in the UK can vote, the 2 million or so UK citizens living in the EU will no doubt be expecting a vote.
Elsewhere in the MSM Ian Martin is trying to encourage sensible voices within both UKIP and the Eurosceptic Tories to take control of the OUT campaign:
The below the line comments on both these articles make it clear that however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are around running a positive campaign, both will eventually become Project Fear campaigns. The sad thing about this is those older voters who aren't online will be genuinely scared by both sides, as happened in Scotland.
Hmm, seems a bit meaningless without the scale - some MPs get quite big donations and/or funding for whole members of staff that potentially buy a lot of influence, but you can't tell how far that goes from that definition. For example, for 232 pounds + postage you could "have tentacles" in _every_ Labour MP. The (admittedly) Daily Telegraph says ''The proportion of Labour MPs who have links to unions through membership or donations has risen from 84 per cent before the election to 97 per cent now'' ''The number of MPs with links to Unite, the super-union, has risen from around half to 65 per cent,'' ''Labour now has 232 MPs.... Of those, 226 have ties to the unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.'' ''Ties are defined as donations, membership or endorsements in leadership selections.'' And the (doubly admittedly) Daily Mail says (in April) ''The majority of Labour’s candidates picked so far for the 2015 General Election are linked to unions, it emerged yesterday. Of the 42 candidates selected, 23 have union links. Of those, 16 won their candidacies with direct backing from unions while a further seven are union members''
Len McCluskey has warned Unite could disaffiliate from the Labour Party if it does not elect the "correct leader".
The union's general secretary said its multi-million pound funding could be severed unless the party proves it is the "voice of organised labour".
He hit back at Jim Murphy, the former leader of Scottish Labour who resigned with an furious attack on Mr McCluskey as the "kiss of death". "He's hurting at the moment. I wasn't the one that lost Scotland to the SNP," Mr McCluskey said.
It came as Jon Cruddas, who helped write Labour's unsuccessful manifesto, warned the party faced the greatest crisis in its history and suggested it creates an English-only party to win back lost voters.
Hmm, seems a bit meaningless without the scale - some MPs get quite big donations and/or funding for whole members of staff that potentially buy a lot of influence, but you can't tell how far that goes from that definition. For example, for 232 pounds + postage you could "have tentacles" in _every_ Labour MP.
The (admittedly) Daily Telegraph says ''The proportion of Labour MPs who have links to unions through membership or donations has risen from 84 per cent before the election to 97 per cent now'' ''The number of MPs with links to Unite, the super-union, has risen from around half to 65 per cent,'' ''Labour now has 232 MPs.... Of those, 226 have ties to the unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.'' ''Ties are defined as donations, membership or endorsements in leadership selections.'' And the (doubly admittedly) Daily Mail says (in April) ''The majority of Labour’s candidates picked so far for the 2015 General Election are linked to unions, it emerged yesterday. Of the 42 candidates selected, 23 have union links. Of those, 16 won their candidacies with direct backing from unions while a further seven are union members''
I want to know who the 3% of Labour MPs are who Unite won't even send a fiver to. Or did they turn it down?
Also seems a little bit surprising that half the new MPs aren't union members. If I was trying to get selected as a Labour candidate I'd make sure I was in the software engineer's union or whatever - it's likely to help more than it'll hurt.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. snip
Actually, the reasons for union member have changed. Rather than dangerous work conditions, for a decent percentage of people, it is that unions can offer you some protection should somebody attempt to sue you or makes claims against you should you work in a public facing role. snip.
As someone who believes in the so called 'capitalist' principle and in private business and not state ownership, I also recognise the need for trade unions and collective bargaining. The two go together and 'capitalism' does not = exploitation. It benefits from a good well paid efficient workforce and that workforce benefits from the employment prospects and income that capitalism brings. As long as 'private' as in '-isation' and 'enterprise' are dirty words with unions then Labour are in trouble through their association with them.
That front page Times story just confirms who would have been running the country had EDStone been elected and who runs the Labour Party in general. Remember the immortal words when the PLP dared to voice an opinion Len simply said "this is our party not theirs"
The people of this country were forewarned and voted accordingly. As long as they remain in denial of thi simple fact Labour are never going to achieve the majority they need and this newly elected leader will still be seen as the unions stooge.
There is a particular issue now because of the dominance of Unite. Previously, when there were four or five big unions, firstly it was harder to put an individual face to them and secondly, they often disagreed among themselves sufficiently to muddy the story. Now, it's Len's word that goes.
If I were a Tory strategist of a Brownite mentality, I'd be looking for policies that the public back but which will drive the unions into strike action, simply to drive a wedge between the public and Labour, or between the PLP and the unions.
Indeed and this does seem to be about Len. All the Tories need to do over the next few years is create conditions where people lift themselves into better paid jobs and less tax or left people out of tax altogether. It's ensuring that as many of Labours core vote do not want to risk going backwards and remaining part of the core vote. I say backwards because even after 13 years of rule a number of Labour fiefdoms remained as they did when they started if not worse. Anyone would think they wanted to keep them there to blame the baby eaters and shore up the Labour vote.
I think the few Labour MPs who weren't union members are those from professions not covered by affiliated unions. For ex I doubt Keir Starmer was an union member as his previous position was politically restricted.
Hmm, seems a bit meaningless without the scale - some MPs get quite big donations and/or funding for whole members of staff that potentially buy a lot of influence, but you can't tell how far that goes from that definition. For example, for 232 pounds + postage you could "have tentacles" in _every_ Labour MP.
The (admittedly) Daily Telegraph says ''The proportion of Labour MPs who have links to unions through membership or donations has risen from 84 per cent before the election to 97 per cent now'' ''The number of MPs with links to Unite, the super-union, has risen from around half to 65 per cent,'' ''Labour now has 232 MPs.... Of those, 226 have ties to the unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.'' ''Ties are defined as donations, membership or endorsements in leadership selections.'' And the (doubly admittedly) Daily Mail says (in April) ''The majority of Labour’s candidates picked so far for the 2015 General Election are linked to unions, it emerged yesterday. Of the 42 candidates selected, 23 have union links. Of those, 16 won their candidacies with direct backing from unions while a further seven are union members''
I want to know who the 3% of Labour MPs are who Unite won't even send a fiver to. Or did they turn it down?
Also seems a little bit surprising that half the new MPs aren't union members. If I was trying to get selected as a Labour candidate I'd make sure I was in the software engineer's union or whatever - it's likely to help more than it'll hurt.
Hmm, seems a bit meaningless without the scale - some MPs get quite big donations and/or funding for whole members of staff that potentially buy a lot of influence, but you can't tell how far that goes from that definition. For example, for 232 pounds + postage you could "have tentacles" in _every_ Labour MP.
snip'
I want to know who the 3% of Labour MPs are who Unite won't even send a fiver to. Or did they turn it down? Also seems a little bit surprising that half the new MPs aren't union members. If I was trying to get selected as a Labour candidate I'd make sure I was in the software engineer's union or whatever - it's likely to help more than it'll hurt. Those barsteward lawyers are everywhere. Not to mention the 'king poncy history graduates! :-)
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
What's hilarious if so is that the 2012 budget was actually a great budget from a Conservative perspective.
What went wrong, much highlighted, was that it cost us popularity, pastytax etc - and arguably ended "we're all in it together" while cutting top rate tax. What went right from a Conservative PoV is that cutting top rate tax was a good thing - and I say that as a standard rate taxpayer.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
Well done Osborne.
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
Labour added 700,000 votes despite losing 300,000 in Scotland.
Most of those were probably in big cities like Liverpool with it's 80% majorities on th back of the LD collapse. A few gains in London simply didn't cut it. Five more years of sound govt., boundary reviews and a shrinkage of the benefits culture is unlikely to help the Labour cause. Especially when you look at the field of potential leaders and their lines of attack.
If Osborne is to hit his fiscal targets, the next few rounds of benefit cuts are almost certain to disproportionately affect those in work.
I've not seen up to date numbers, but I'd sincerely hope that the focus is on wealthy pensioners, the middle classes (e.g. child benefit) and those in work. The welfare state should prioritise supporting the sick and disabled.
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
What's hilarious if so is that the 2012 budget was actually a great budget from a Conservative perspective.
What went wrong, much highlighted, was that it cost us popularity, pastytax etc - and arguably ended "we're all in it together" while cutting top rate tax. What went right from a Conservative PoV is that cutting top rate tax was a good thing - and I say that as a standard rate taxpayer.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
Well done Osborne.
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
They got more money at 45p though. In effect they did the right thing for the country to get more money rather than the spiteful nasty antics of Brown and Labour that increased it days before they were turfed out of office simply to use it as a weapon.
Tories win GE 2015 despite Labour harping on day and night about tax cuts for millionaires. The electorate agreed with the Tories and that now is the end of that argument. It just is.
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
But this is one many things which will have lost any residual toxicity in 2020. Likewise, to the extent that the "Bedroom Tax" is an issue, it will have turned onto questions about why Labour councils haven't used the central Govt. funding aimed at correcting some of the more egregious anomalies.
Now, there might be a whole raft of new "dog whistles" for Labour to use falling out of future cuts and legislative changes. But with some political nous and adroit footwork, these should be kept to a minimum
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
What's hilarious if so is that the 2012 budget was actually a great budget from a Conservative perspective.
What went wrong, much highlighted, was that it cost us popularity, pastytax etc - and arguably ended "we're all in it together" while cutting top rate tax. What went right from a Conservative PoV is that cutting top rate tax was a good thing - and I say that as a standard rate taxpayer.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
Well done Osborne.
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
They got more money at 45p though. In effect they did the right thing for the country to get more money rather than the spiteful nasty antics of Brown and Labour that increased it days before they were turfed out of office simply to use it as a weapon.
Tories win GE 2015 despite Labour harping on day and night about tax cuts for millionaires. The electorate agreed with the Tories and that now is the end of that argument. It just is.
It is, but only by good fortune. It could easily have been an election-losing move by itself, against a different, better opponent.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky. But as it happens, the risk was run and (just) avoided so as you say, it doesn't matter now.
What's the deadline for flinging one's hat into the ring? I'm wondering if we'll see Tristram Hunt standing, or not.
There is a Wikipedia page. Nominations aren't officially open until June 9th, closing on the 15th.
Osborne's "emergency" budget is on July 8th. I wonder what contentious things he will lob into that which the Labour leadership candidates will have to take clear positions on?
If Osborne is to hit his fiscal targets, the next few rounds of benefit cuts are almost certain to disproportionately affect those in work.
I've not seen up to date numbers, but I'd sincerely hope that the focus is on wealthy pensioners, the middle classes (e.g. child benefit) and those in work. The welfare state should prioritise supporting the sick and disabled.
Hmm... ''You may have to pay a tax charge, known as the ‘High Income Child Benefit Charge’, if you have an individual income over £50,000 and either: you or your partner get Child Benefit someone else gets Child Benefit for a child living with you and they contribute at least an equal amount towards the child’s upkeep It doesn’t matter if the child living with you is not your own child'' (wwwdotgovdotuk) ''Child benefit is no longer available to all parents. Changes to the rules which came into force at the start of 2013 reduced the entitlement of about 1.2 million families.'' (BBC 2014) If you support removing child benefit from the better off then you must support the so called omnishambles budget.
@clairebrig: No one should become an MP unless they have had a proper job says Jeremy Paxman #advconf15
Everyone has different ideas as to what constitutes a proper job, but it's easier to define what isn't. I would simply ban anyone from standing for election as an MP if they are a PPE graduate from Oxford or have been employed as a special adviser.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky.
No. The fiscal benefits mean it was the right move, regardless of political risk. If you think the fiscal effects of policy should be secondary to political advantage you should have voted for Gordo
I agree, but there is still more than one way to skin a cat. I therefore introduce that hoary old canard (and code word) into the conversation - ''Presentation' !!!
Surely you're not suggesting Osborne is a political chancellor?
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Osborne needs to announce the unpopular bits as soon as he can.
While we are talking about dastardly political manoeuvring, I assume the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is not being repealed so that the Conservative government will remain secure even if by-elections whittle the majority away? Is it possible that this constitutional abomination is now a permanent fixture?
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
Ha! So the omnishambles budget turned out to be master strategising. (The thesis is Labour was lulled into a false sense of security by poll leads after Osborne's 2012 budget took aim at Conservative supporters and blew his own foot off.)
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
They got more money at 45p though. In effect they did the right thing for the country to get more money rather than the spiteful nasty antics of Brown and Labour that increased it days before they were turfed out of office simply to use it as a weapon.
Tories win GE 2015 despite Labour harping on day and night about tax cuts for millionaires. The electorate agreed with the Tories and that now is the end of that argument. It just is.
It is, but only by good fortune. It could easily have been an election-losing move by itself, against a different, better opponent.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky. But as it happens, the risk was run and (just) avoided so as you say, it doesn't matter now.
I would suggest this is what separates a good chancellor that works to benefit the country as a whole and is trusted by the electorate to do so even if it costs votes compared to the lunatic Brown and the left who put party and vote gain first and country and people second.
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
They got more money at 45p though. In effect they did the right thing for the country to get more money rather than the spiteful nasty antics of Brown and Labour that increased it days before they were turfed out of office simply to use it as a weapon.
Tories win GE 2015 despite Labour harping on day and night about tax cuts for millionaires. The electorate agreed with the Tories and that now is the end of that argument. It just is.
It is, but only by good fortune. It could easily have been an election-losing move by itself, against a different, better opponent.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky. But as it happens, the risk was run and (just) avoided so as you say, it doesn't matter now.
Except that Labour didn't win, the Conservatives did and importantly 45p tax rate got more tax in and was simply the right thing to do.
Plus now to get back to our historical 40p top rate we just need to cut by 5p this Parliament rather than a full 10p in one go having accepted 50p as the rate for a full prior Parliament.
Surely you're not suggesting Osborne is a political chancellor?
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Osborne needs to announce the unpopular bits as soon as he can.
While we are talking about dastardly political manoeuvring, I assume the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is not being repealed so that the Conservative government will remain secure even if by-elections whittle the majority away? Is it possible that this constitutional abomination is now a permanent fixture?
Wasn't Brown going to call an election in 2007 just because Labour were doing well and he knew the shit was going to hit the proverbial. That was a farce with cars queued behind No 10 to take the idiot to the Palace is what a constitutional abomination looks like
Meanwhile Cameron had the balls to say in 2010 judge us on what we do and I won't have the ability to call elections to my favour.
That's what I call democracy. It's only a personal view though.
@clairebrig: No one should become an MP unless they have had a proper job says Jeremy Paxman #advconf15
Everyone has different ideas as to what constitutes a proper job, but it's easier to define what isn't. I would simply ban anyone from standing for election as an MP if they are a PPE graduate from Oxford or have been employed as a special adviser.
The problem with such rules is that excellent candidates will get caught out. Going to the other extreme is no way of solving the problem.
Another solution that admittedly has problems: a candidate can only stand if they've been a councillor in the constituency for five years. ;-)
@harrylambert1: This stat states too much, but you could spin the past 40yrs by saying—there have been 8 Labour leaders since 1974; only one won an election
@JohnRentoul: Right now it looks like 1 Burnham 2 Kendall 3 Cooper 4 Hunt. Hunt's votes go to Kendall, Cooper's mostly Burnham. New leader needed by 2017.
@harrylambert1: This stat states too much, but you could spin the past 40yrs by saying—there have been 8 Labour leaders since 1974; only one won an election
If you wanted to upset a few more people you could say 8 Labour leaders since 1974, two Labour PM's of which only one stood for and won an election .
Its all very well Harriet Harperson going on about the Labour party sticking it to the Tories in opposition, but I don't recall Labour ever really causing The Coalition Govt many problems in the 2010 Parliament.
Yvette was anonymous, Ed Balls was learning the piano.. I can't really remember all the opposition spokespeople... they were that anonymous or in hiding.
Haazaazz....Cripes....an interview where somebody shuts up Evan Davis...on a more serious note, the second half of the interview, compare what Boris is saying to the kind of wonkish pre-distributional capitalism talk Ed Miliband (or Russell Brand for that matter).
No, it was a crap budget due to the 45% top-rate tax cut, something which gave Labour endless opportunities and whatever the fiscal reasoning looked politically spiteful when cuts were being made at the bottom (whatever the other tax increases at the top).
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
They got more money at 45p though. In effect they did the right thing for the country to get more money rather than the spiteful nasty antics of Brown and Labour that increased it days before they were turfed out of office simply to use it as a weapon.
Tories win GE 2015 despite Labour harping on day and night about tax cuts for millionaires. The electorate agreed with the Tories and that now is the end of that argument. It just is.
It is, but only by good fortune. It could easily have been an election-losing move by itself, against a different, better opponent.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky. But as it happens, the risk was run and (just) avoided so as you say, it doesn't matter now.
Except that Labour didn't win, the Conservatives did and importantly 45p tax rate got more tax in and was simply the right thing to do.
Plus now to get back to our historical 40p top rate we just need to cut by 5p this Parliament rather than a full 10p in one go having accepted 50p as the rate for a full prior Parliament.
I don't think Osborne will dare touch it, given what happened last time.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky.
No.
The fiscal benefits mean it was the right move, regardless of political risk.
If you think the fiscal effects of policy should be secondary to political advantage you should have voted for Gordo
Osborne is heir to Brown. As well as one eye on politics, look out for tinkering in other departments.
Osborne is after all First Secretary of State. However unlike Blair/Brown - to continue the piano player analogy - he and Cameron are singing from the same songsheet.
Comments
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/page/6/
Sadly the comment thread no longer exists, so I can't link directly.
I think you will find that is a big motivating factor behind in areas like teaching and health sector. Many teachers still belong to unions, but as shown with strike action over the past 2-3 years, the unions struggle to really get their members on mass to vote. I think one strike was on the basis of less than 25% of the members voting. To me that reinforces that many aren't in the union for some sort of ideology reasons or because the workplace is that horrifically bad, but because it offers something else.
At best Labour can wish for a Kinnock type to tackle Unite but it looks like a 2 election timeframe. McCluskey is 65 in a few weeks, so maybe Labour will get lucky with McCluskey's replacement? Next Unite election is 2018.
Footballers taking recreational drugs do not appreciate the consequences for their careers and families, says players' union chief Gordon Taylor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32771526
In Gordon Taylor's world is anything ever a footballers fault?
Don't tease, let's see the pun anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/unite-union-boss-len-mccluskey-threatens-to-launch-party-to-rival-labour-9231266.html
"It is understood that the provisional plan in the event of an election defeat would involve Unite, the country’s biggest union, and the GMB, the third-biggest union, cutting their ties with Labour simultaneously. They would join forces with the RMT rail union – which disaffiliated under the leadership of the late Bob Crow. The combined membership of the three unions is almost 2.1 million."
If only the Labour Party could stop weaponising the NHS and could stop accusing its opponents of wanting to destroy it. Will any Labour candidate say that we should take the NHS out of politics?
The Party needs some time to grow into maturity again..the candidates are a joke.
The faithful Labour electorate deserve better than this and the country deserve a proper opposition.
This is turning into a comp between Brown Owl and the local Cubmaster
As polling day drew nearer, Mr Crosby would treat his colleagues to bursts of what became the unofficial campaign song: One Vision by Queen. He would turn up the volume on the speakers on his computer and blast out the music to the room.
Another innovation – to raise morale – was the “koala of the day”. A senior colleague explained: “Lynton would give a furry koala to someone who had done something particularly brilliant that day.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11609570/Secrets-of-the-Tories-election-war-room.html
So how was your day love...well that bloody Ozzie bloke kept sticking Queen on full blast and then he gave me this sodding cuddly toy for all my hard work.
2. Receive Unite money for their office and campaigns or
3. Be backed by Unite when trying to be selected as a PPC.
I also had a permanent open tin of sweeties on my desk - I don't have a sweet tooth so rarely ate one, but it always encouraged more interaction and gossiping.
But you are right, the entire Labour party will own the result of this leadership election - unlike the last one, which the unions did win. That's what makes this one so significant as an indicator of where the party as a whole is heading.
Corrected now.
Note to self, must not write threads at 2 in the morning.
The irony is that the mass immigration unleashed by Labour has been the most devastating development to effect the standard of living of the British working-class. Keira Hardie et al used to be at the forefront opposing immigration.
In Tory seats there would be the far right and NIMBY vote, but was it further boosted by simple protest and/or labour voters thinking it would be the best way to vote out the Tory. Against this the antiUKIP vote would help tories.
But in the North where they were playing up their anti muslim stance they would pick up the bigot vote from the left.
The raw UKIP appeal is somewhat incoherent in terms of its positioning. Its now trying to say its more Labour than Labour with Farage hinting (FWIW) that he wants to stand in a Labour seat. 9th time lucky.
What went wrong, much highlighted, was that it cost us popularity, pastytax etc - and arguably ended "we're all in it together" while cutting top rate tax.
What went right from a Conservative PoV is that cutting top rate tax was a good thing - and I say that as a standard rate taxpayer.
Looking back now in retrospect the pasty tax was a minor controversy over a tax that never happened, we never actually had a collapse in support in the only poll that matters, while we got a controversial tax cut through.
Well done Osborne.
He's at least the third former Balls MP to switch to Burnham instead of Cooper
@hopisen: To put it another way, if labour frontbenchers did TV interviews on who next Gen Sec of Unite should be, would Len feel that their business?
From Osborne's point of view he learned the political lesson. Labour ended up simply jumping from one crumby catch phrase and one instant opposition to another.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-outsider/
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/scottish-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1945272
The point that I noticed at once (as others in the comments [edit] therein on Wings do) is that neither Mr Smart, nor some of the others offered, e.g. one G. Brown, or one D. Alexander, are MPs or MSPs: so if you bet on them you have to assume that someone, presumably Mr Murphy , changes the rules before the election to allow non-MPs or MSPs to stand. And yet if that happens then the field becomes wide open - not least in allowing Mr Murphy himself to do a Farage (previous version) and stand again (especially if nobody else wants to win what might be regarded by them as the booby prize of leading SLAB into another election in the current circs).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084754/Migrants-s-votes-force-stay-EU-PM-urged-ban-one-million-Europeans-voting-Britain-s-referendum.html#ixzz3aNSfDs00
As well as determining whether or not EU citizens resident in the UK can vote, the 2 million or so UK citizens living in the EU will no doubt be expecting a vote.
Elsewhere in the MSM Ian Martin is trying to encourage sensible voices within both UKIP and the Eurosceptic Tories to take control of the OUT campaign:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11610539/Ukips-warring-factions-could-bring-down-the-Eurosceptics.html
The below the line comments on both these articles make it clear that however well intentioned the IN and OUT campaigns are around running a positive campaign, both will eventually become Project Fear campaigns. The sad thing about this is those older voters who aren't online will be genuinely scared by both sides, as happened in Scotland.
The (admittedly) Daily Telegraph says
''The proportion of Labour MPs who have links to unions through membership or donations has risen from 84 per cent before the election to 97 per cent now''
''The number of MPs with links to Unite, the super-union, has risen from around half to 65 per cent,''
''Labour now has 232 MPs.... Of those, 226 have ties to the unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.''
''Ties are defined as donations, membership or endorsements in leadership selections.''
And the (doubly admittedly) Daily Mail says (in April)
''The majority of Labour’s candidates picked so far for the 2015 General Election are linked to unions, it emerged yesterday. Of the 42 candidates selected, 23 have union links. Of those, 16 won their candidacies with direct backing from unions while a further seven are union members''
''The proportion of Labour MPs who have links to unions through membership or donations has risen from 84 per cent before the election to 97 per cent now''
''The number of MPs with links to Unite, the super-union, has risen from around half to 65 per cent,''
''Labour now has 232 MPs.... Of those, 226 have ties to the unions, and 147 to Unite specifically.''
''Ties are defined as donations, membership or endorsements in leadership selections.''
And the (doubly admittedly) Daily Mail says (in April)
''The majority of Labour’s candidates picked so far for the 2015 General Election are linked to unions, it emerged yesterday. Of the 42 candidates selected, 23 have union links. Of those, 16 won their candidacies with direct backing from unions while a further seven are union members''
I want to know who the 3% of Labour MPs are who Unite won't even send a fiver to. Or did they turn it down?
Also seems a little bit surprising that half the new MPs aren't union members. If I was trying to get selected as a Labour candidate I'd make sure I was in the software engineer's union or whatever - it's likely to help more than it'll hurt.
Also seems a little bit surprising that half the new MPs aren't union members. If I was trying to get selected as a Labour candidate I'd make sure I was in the software engineer's union or whatever - it's likely to help more than it'll hurt.
Also seems a little bit surprising that half the new MPs aren't union members. If I was trying to get selected as a Labour candidate I'd make sure I was in the software engineer's union or whatever - it's likely to help more than it'll hurt.
Those barsteward lawyers are everywhere. Not to mention the 'king poncy history graduates! :-)
The time to cut the top rate was once the deficit was somewhere near under control, which wasn't last parliament.
What's the deadline for flinging one's hat into the ring? I'm wondering if we'll see Tristram Hunt standing, or not.
Tories win GE 2015 despite Labour harping on day and night about tax cuts for millionaires. The electorate agreed with the Tories and that now is the end of that argument. It just is.
I maintain that whatever the fiscal benefits, it was the wrong move and excessively politically risky. But as it happens, the risk was run and (just) avoided so as you say, it doesn't matter now.
Osborne's "emergency" budget is on July 8th. I wonder what contentious things he will lob into that which the Labour leadership candidates will have to take clear positions on?
1. It reduces the number of MPs available to nominate someone else, potentially reducing the size of the field, which may be advantageous to some
2. It allows them to identify people they can hold a grudge against or offer favours to if they do make it to leader
''You may have to pay a tax charge, known as the ‘High Income Child Benefit Charge’, if you have an individual income over £50,000 and either:
you or your partner get Child Benefit
someone else gets Child Benefit for a child living with you and they contribute at least an equal amount towards the child’s upkeep
It doesn’t matter if the child living with you is not your own child''
(wwwdotgovdotuk)
''Child benefit is no longer available to all parents. Changes to the rules which came into force at the start of 2013 reduced the entitlement of about 1.2 million families.'' (BBC 2014)
If you support removing child benefit from the better off then you must support the so called omnishambles budget.
The fiscal benefits mean it was the right move, regardless of political risk.
If you think the fiscal effects of policy should be secondary to political advantage you should have voted for Gordo
Err....I mean the action ....not the person ( though TBF could be either in Tristram's case)
Surely you're not suggesting Osborne is a political chancellor?
And he knows it.
While we are talking about dastardly political manoeuvring, I assume the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is not being repealed so that the Conservative government will remain secure even if by-elections whittle the majority away? Is it possible that this constitutional abomination is now a permanent fixture?
I regret that as well. You sound a norml human being.
Plus now to get back to our historical 40p top rate we just need to cut by 5p this Parliament rather than a full 10p in one go having accepted 50p as the rate for a full prior Parliament.
This post sponsored by NewsSense™
Meanwhile Cameron had the balls to say in 2010 judge us on what we do and I won't have the ability to call elections to my favour.
That's what I call democracy. It's only a personal view though.
Another solution that admittedly has problems: a candidate can only stand if they've been a councillor in the constituency for five years. ;-)
Michael Dugher, MP for Barnsley East, who had served as a parliamentary aide to Miliband,...
"It was a great campaign except for in Scotland, England and Wales …”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/16/labour-great-crisis-ever
"It all went really really well..... ......., Up to the point he fell off the stage anyway"
Yvette was anonymous, Ed Balls was learning the piano.. I can't really remember all the opposition spokespeople... they were that anonymous or in hiding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXyI-gwBNU
New Thread
Tax take went up and Tories won an 'un-winnable' General Election with an outright majority...
Yeah, better not do that again