politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The methods used by the big unions to get Ed Milliband elected in 2010 are why he has to stand up to UNITE now
Mail packs, such as the one featured above from the GMB union to those of its members entitled to vote in Labour’s leadership election, played a pivotal role in EdM’s victory September 2010.
"The consequence is that unless . even if he stands up to big unions like UNITE, and is seen to be doing so in the face of abuses like FALKIRK, he’ll still be accused of being in their pockets which will be very damaging to Labour at GE2015."
Standing up against what appears to be corrupt practices will not address how he got his job in the first place - but none of this would matter much if he had turned out to be a strong leader - and we'd be discussing policy, and whether "X" would work with the voter.
But we aren't, so it does.
As long as Watson remains in-situ, this problem will keep coming up.
Whether this is a good idea or not, time will tell - but like the Welsh decision on organ donation yesterday, its a "good thing" that the different bits of the UK are taking different approaches, so we may all learn from them.
Quite how the Scots have managed to sink a flagship Tory policy, while under Westmister's "Jack boot" however, awaits explanation...
Whether this is a good idea or not, time will tell - but like the Welsh decision on organ donation yesterday, its a "good thing" that the different bits of the UK are taking different approaches, so we may all learn from them.
Not so sure about how benign the housing social experiments are. It's all very well saying that we should enjoy getting popcorn and beer, sitting on the sofa and laughing at the little kiddiwinks' cute attempts at playing "McCountry" - but ultimately England has to hand out pocket money to keep it all going.
"The consequence is that unless . even if he stands up to big unions like UNITE, and is seen to be doing so in the face of abuses like FALKIRK, he’ll still be accused of being in their pockets which will be very damaging to Labour at GE2015."
Standing up against what appears to be corrupt practices will not address how he got his job in the first place - but none of this would matter much if he had turned out to be a strong leader - and we'd be discussing policy, and whether "X" would work with the voter.
But we aren't, so it does.
As long as Watson remains in-situ, this problem will keep coming up.
Labour have a great record of influencing voting outcomes in Scotland by postal ballots. If the web comments are right there is a squad working on the referendum as we speak, collating data, and even offering to "help" fill in the forms as long as one intends to vote for their side. When it crosses into their internal struggles then the web of deceit becomes even more cynical. Scottish labour does not exist, it is merely a brand name with decisions made from London. That is why Watson can have so much say on what should be a local battle between local candidates.
Whether this is a good idea or not, time will tell - but like the Welsh decision on organ donation yesterday, its a "good thing" that the different bits of the UK are taking different approaches, so we may all learn from them.
Not so sure about how benign the housing social experiments are.
All the more reason to find out in 8% of the UK first, rather than 100%.....
On-Topic yes, fake a bit of grumpiness between Ed and [insert Union here], get Labour's BBC friends to hype it up out of all sense of reality or proportion and that's all Ed needs for most low information voters.
They will have forgotten the circumstances surrounding his election because there will have been almost quadruple-figures worth of Eastenders episodes since then and job jobbed.
Well, it was that or new rateable valuations - which also wouldn't have had many fans - and this time it's the Scots doing it to/for themselves...
Yes, the alternative of the rates revaluation would have gone down like a bucket of cold sick too. Every change in taxation no matter how small (see pasties etc) brings out the whining bleating moaning special interest brigades (a growth area the Scots have made their own)
I don't see where you're going with "doing it to/for themselves". Bitter experience has taught us that even after independence it'll still be "a big boy made me do it" or the "evil Westminister jackboot" for the next hundred years anyway.
You make the big mistake to assume that Ed is weak.
Just compare him with Dave who always capitulates to his right wing at the slightest sign of bother.
Dave shouting "weak, weak weak" at EdM is a sign of his own weaknesses.
He's been pathetic ever since he became PM
I
Isn't gay marriage one of the cases where Cameron did not capitulate to his right wing? He forced it through (rightly IMHO) against much criticism from inside his own party?
"This is very tough for him simply because of the sheer scale of UNITE’s financial support for the party but it has to be done.
Quite simply Ed has to bite the hand that feeds him. "
*chortle*
The far right swivel-eyed loons on here might not notice the cognitive dissonance of bleating about 'Red' Ed and Unions while little Ed frantically triangulates on tory cuts and spending but in the real world that sort of further sliding to the right is getting noticed.
They can't have it both ways.
Either little Ed is copying tory policies and thus validating them for the right wingers or Cammie is somehow just as "Red" as Ed since their policies are self-evidently converging.
Not so sure about how benign the housing social experiments are. It's all very well saying that we should enjoy getting popcorn and beer, sitting on the sofa and laughing at the little kiddiwinks' cute attempts at playing "McCountry" - but ultimately England has to hand out pocket money to keep it all going.
Superb satire.
It's like the Daily Mail for toddlers.
As usual the facts are not on the side of the tw+ttish tea party tories.
I have yet to see what the evidence is for Brave Ed. He makes loads of speeches saying nothing, when he does make a policy its either never mentioned again [such as last January when he was all in favour of being tough on cuts and then Len cried and it never made a press release again] or contradicted by Balls as we saw the other day.
I'm not counting here his many non-policies that involve being both for and against something at the same time.
So with many of his own MPs directly sponsored by UNITE - exactly where is he standing up to Len & Co? I'm all ears.
"Unite is Labour’s biggest donor, contributing more than £3million a year. And Unite also used its massive voting power to bludgeon through the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader rather than his Blairite brother David. So don’t hold your breath if you are expecting Ed to bite the hand that feeds him.
But the exposure of McCluskey as the Machiavellian power behind Labour’s throne is a timely reminder to the electorate.
So with many of his own MPs directly sponsored by UNITE - exactly where is he standing up to Len & Co? I'm all ears.
You must have missed the bits where he
- returned Unites cheques - rewrote the leadership election rules to be 1 member 1 vote to prevent a union stitch up - re-ran all the selection campaigns that resulted in Unite candidates
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
Miliband Rules Out Labour Borrowing to Reverse Tory Cuts
Ed Miliband has ruled out any further borrowing to reverse the cuts being made by Chancellor George Osborne should the Labour Party win the next general election in 2015.
"Belief in the power of the state to provide a better future is weakening across Europe. It leaves Labour confused about what their offer might be, and falling into a kind of silence; and gives the Conservatives more options to emerge from their own purdah, and speak of bolder reform."
There is a poll in the Times that accompanies this:
"Meanwhile, the public moves on. YouGov recently conducted a survey in four European countries, presented today in The Times (£). We asked voters if they agreed that their main centre-left party "used to care about people like me"; in Germany 52 per cent agreed, in Britain 51 per cent, in Sweden 49 per cent, and in France 36 per cent.
But in all four countries, the proportions for the same parties caring NOW are considerably lower: Sweden’s Socialists are down 13 per cent; Britain’s Labour Party is down 19 per cent; France's is down 16 per cent, in Germany, the proportion who regard the Social Democrats as caring for people like them has collapsed by more than half, down to 24%."
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Labour has accepted that should it be elected into office in 2015 it will have to work within the fiscal framework recently set out by Osborne because it is being controlled by UNITE. I see. That makes perfect sense!
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
You make the big mistake to assume that Ed is weak.
Just compare him with Dave who always capitulates to his right wing at the slightest sign of bother.
Dave shouting "weak, weak weak" at EdM is a sign of his own weaknesses.
He's been pathetic ever since he became PM
I
It clear to me now that our venerable OGH is suffering from a most severe case of Folicularcamerontosis.
This rare disorder effects mainly elderly and genial LibDems who become unable to impartially analyse the merits of the Prime Minister without pulling their (remaining) hair out !!
It is reported that Mike has refused the only effective treatment - standing outside Bedford Labour Club in orange robes with a tambourine on five successive nights chanting :
"During the twentieth century, progressive parties across Europe based their appeal on two compelling arguments: that they cared for ordinary folk, and they knew how to harness the power of the state to convert care into action.
No longer. A major YouGov study in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden shows that few people still believe either proposition. Millions in all four countries no longer think left-of-centre parties care about them; and most people now reject the notion that governments are any good at solving social problems.
Our figures show how nostalgia is strong but hope is weak. In three of the four countries, half of all voters agree that their main centre-left party ‘used to care about people like me' (Germany 52%, Britain 51%, Sweden 49%)......
However, in all four countries, the proportions who say their main centre-left party ‘cares now about people like me’ are much lower. Sweden’s Socialists have the least bad figures, but they are still 13 points down at 36%. The figure for Britain’s Labour Party is down 19 points, at 32%. In France, the only one of the four countries with a centre-left government, Francois Hollande’s low standing may explain why the figure there is now only 20%. "
Don’t put Ed Miliband in No 10 by default, Tory minister warns
Ed Miliband could become Prime Minister “by default” because natural Tory supporters abstain or defect the UK Independence Party, a Conservative Cabinet minister warns.
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
Golly, touchy much this morning :^ )
Not really. Merely commenting on what will be your reaction once you see what you can't wait to see. To be fair, you are certainly consistent.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
At the moment this story seems barely to figure in the public consciousness. The fact that Labour is controlled and financed by unions is hardly news.
Ed's problem, or potential problem, is that there are factions in Labour who are spoiling for a fight. So we had David Blunkett sticking his oar in yesterday on the Daily Politics and the Union complaining that their new members in Falkirk were being disenfranchised.
The Blairites are concerned that they are losing control of the party. Oddly, this is at a time when Ed seems to have accepted their position on policy. The Union are equally concerned that the position that they are paying for is not being respected.
Where this goes from here may or may not be under Ed's control. If he can persuade the factions that this proxy fight should not be heard in public it will be a damp squib of a story. This is probably still the most likely outcome.
If he can't then there will be evidence of a disunited party which we are always told does not poll well. The problem is that there are enough ex Blairites who are no longer a part of the scene (the grey beards Ed refused to have back) to cause trouble if they want to. And they do.
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
Golly, don't you know that "serial labour voters" are immune to the hilariously inept spin of idiot tory spinners. ;^ )
This is an interesting pen pix of previous Labour top teams
"...Actually, few Labour leaders have been from what used to be called a humble background. Only two Labour prime ministers – Ramsay MacDonald and Jim Callaghan – were working class, and Callaghan was also the first party leader since MacDonald not to have been a university graduate.
The 1945 Labour government, arguably the most effective of all Labour governments – certainly the one which did more than any other to transform Britain – was led by Clement Attlee (Haileybury and Oxford) . (In the Thirties he was generally known as Major Attlee on the strength of his wartime commission.)
There were working-class members of his Cabinet: Herbert Morrison (Peter Mandelson’s grandfather), Ernest Bevin, and Aneurin Bevan, but his three Chancellors of the Exchequer were Hugh Dalton (an Etonian), Sir Stafford Cripps, and Hugh Gaitskell (both Wykehamists), all three Oxonians. Gaitskell succeeded Attlee as leader, and when he died, Harold Wilson beat the working-class George Brown in a leadership election. Wilson liked to reel off the names of Huddersfield Town football teams and declared that he preferred tinned salmon to the fresh or smoked fish, but, the son of a teacher, and himself an Oxford-educated economist who spent the war years as a civil servant, he wasn’t exactly your horny-handed son of toil. His Cabinet incidentally contained more men with first-class degrees from Oxford and Cambridge than any other, and Wilson himself saw nothing wrong in sending his sons to a fee-paying school.
After Wilson came Callaghan and then Michael Foot, son of a successful solicitor and himself a Fleet Street journalist (a favourite of Lord Beaverbrook). Old Footie was certainly a Radical, but more a Hampstead intellectual than a Man of the People. He was followed by Neil Kinnock, the first member of his family to go to university. And after Kinnock came John Smith, a middle-class Scots lawyer, followed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Labour has accepted that should it be elected into office in 2015 it will have to work within the fiscal framework recently set out by Osborne because it is being controlled by UNITE. I see. That makes perfect sense!
Tony Blair was a TGWU sponsored MP, therefore a TGWU puppet. I read PB Toryworld, it's all falling into place now.
Indeed. Any recent observer of McCluskey's contented stance with regards to Labour could only conclude that he has secured everything he wants. I recall that he is particularly happy when Ed speaks out against UNITE-organised strikes. The puppet master is certainly in control.
Perhaps PBers will be kind enough to indulge an old Jacobite as I'm unsure if I've mentioned before that :
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister
I'm not sure predicting that UKIP will win five seats without harming the Tories helps the credibility of your predictions.
I'll put my ARSE predictions against your farming tips any day of the week.
OK then, I'll bet you £500 that if the Tories win over 280 seats then UKIP get one or fewer.
But I doubt you'll put your predictions to the test.
As you well know I have on principal since the inception of PB not wagered with any PBer.
However it's hardly unknown on PB that I follow the advice of my ARSE and do very nicely thank you.
On the substance of Ukip winning a handful of seats whilst the Tories remain the largest party do you believe that the electorate is so homogenous that small parties cannot have minor wins outwith the prospects of the Labour and Conservative ?
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
Golly, touchy much this morning :^ )
Not really. Merely commenting on what will be your reaction once you see what you can't wait to see. To be fair, you are certainly consistent.
If you're so keen to take at pop at me before I've even said something - why don't you defend EdM and tell me all about how brave he is and the policies mentioned by Ms Riddell instead.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
Golly, touchy much this morning :^ )
Not really. Merely commenting on what will be your reaction once you see what you can't wait to see. To be fair, you are certainly consistent.
If you're so keen to take at pop at me before I've even said something - why don't you defend EdM and tell me all about how brave he is and the policies mentioned by Ms Riddell instead.
As I said, I'm all ears.
Golly, you're a bit grumpy this morning ;-)
I think Ed is a poor leader and wish he was not in charge, so why should I defend him? But unlike you I do not hate the Labour party so will not mechanically condemn everything it says, does or is associated with.
It's the comparisons with Militant, the role of UNITE in the leadership election and its extremely influential chequebook re MPs and the Party - these aren't trivial things that can be brushed aside.
Labour being funded by unions is a non-story - but when unions become belligerent the public don't like it - especially so since most unions operate largely in the public sector nowadays. It doesn't matter that the RMT or PCS are unaffiliated - they're in the same boat as the NUT or whomever as far as 99% of the population are concerned.
Perhaps we need to glance back at Militant and see what was going on back then/compare-contrast to now. Len is certainly as far left as they were back then, and now runs the biggest union in the country.
Christine Blower also seems to be cut from the same cloth, but her members aren't so keen on coming out as she is.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
From Mary Riddell's pen - I can't wait to see these...
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
Why do you need to see them before deciding they are crap?
Golly, touchy much this morning :^ )
Not really. Merely commenting on what will be your reaction once you see what you can't wait to see. To be fair, you are certainly consistent.
If you're so keen to take at pop at me before I've even said something - why don't you defend EdM and tell me all about how brave he is and the policies mentioned by Ms Riddell instead.
As I said, I'm all ears.
Golly, you're a bit grumpy this morning ;-)
I think Ed is a poor leader and wish he was not in charge, so why should I defend him? But unlike you I do not hate the Labour party so will not mechanically condemn everything it says, does or is associated with.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
I have spoken out against zero hour contracts on here before. They are an abuse of a dominant market position and they undermine employment law in a way that is completely unacceptable.
The problem is how you can effectively legislate against them without completely undermining freedom of contract and interfering with part time work.
I suggest a starting point should be that rights should accrue on the basis of the hours actually worked over the last 4 or 13 weeks regardless of what the contract says; that those employed for more than, say, a month, will be deemed to have the right to the number of hours worked in that month (or at least a proportion of them) and those that work exclusively for one organisation for a qualifying period should be deemed to be employees of that organisation whether they technically work for an agency or not.
This has been an increasing problem for the best part of 10 years now and it is shameful that the last government did not seek to address the gross unfairness that results. I can only conclude that they were frightened of looking to be in the hands of the unions.
The outcome of the European surveys was foretold by the great George Orwell long ago:
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
You make the big mistake to assume that Ed is weak.
Just compare him with Dave who always capitulates to his right wing at the slightest sign of bother.
Dave shouting "weak, weak weak" at EdM is a sign of his own weaknesses.
He's been pathetic ever since he became PM
I
Most fair minded people would agree that Cameron has done a pretty job at keeping both coalitions on board. For confirmation you only have to ask a right-winger who will say the opposite: that Cameron is far too happy capitulating to the Lib Dems.
Miliband is trying to find his own route down the middle of the road. He's not doing too bad, but stagnant or slipping polls will not help.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
I can't see why bar being short-sighted that any employer would want all staff on zero-hours contracts. I can see it being a useful tool for casual work where its the equivalent of temping but without using an agency. It suits both parties to pick and choose when needed.
But for jobs that are largely 37.5hrs a week and predictable like cleaning or portering etc, it seems very retrograde/builds no loyalty or commitment. And frankly doing largely unskilled jobs requires a feeling of belonging/comeraderie, as the work itself isn't terribly interesting in itself.
I should imagine that rEds legendary "steel" and backbone that we are always hearing about will come to the fore as he smites down this faction within a faction.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
Pauline Jarman, leader of the opposition Plaid Cymru group at RCT, said: “I am extremely concerned to hear of these proposals, which have not been brought before the council. Even Labour councillors I have spoken to don’t know about them.
That said, any Labour council which imposes them should hang its head in shame. Good on LD cabinet minister Vince Cable for seeking to investigate them. No wonder the Tories hate him. Having the LDs in power currently is so much better than having a fully-fedged Tory government
Not surprising, but useful data re male vs female engagement in political discussion.
"Professor James Curran, director of the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre at University of London, carried out the research by interviewing 10,000 people across 10 countries... But from Norway to Colombia, women knew less about politics than men. Prof Curran suggests this is because across the 10 nations, women were only interviewed or cited in 30 per cent of TV news stories.
The UK itself fares worse than Norway, Italy, Greece and Australia in terms of women’s political knowledge. In total, 34 per cent of our hard news stories featured women – above average but still a disappointingly low figure.
“It’s enormously off-putting for women to be looking at the news as always being about men,” Prof Curran tells me. “Politics is projected as a man’s world and that encourages a sense of disconnection,” he adds. The opinion pollster Deborah Mattinson, founder and director of Britain Thinks, isn’t surprised by the research, but agrees it’s worrying.
“Polling in the UK what you find is that on any subject women are much more likely to answer ‘I don’t know’ than express an opinion. That’s not to say women don’t hold views – they live and breathe politics, but they experience it in a different way. They feel much more distant from the game of politics in which they’ve no interest whatsoever,” she suggests.
...Analysis by Women in Journalism of general news stories found that 84 per cent of those quoted or mentioned in lead pieces were men, and 78 per cent of front page articles were written by men.
One thing that can be done is to make it clear that there will be no zero hours contracts in any contracted out public service paid for by the state. This can and should be done without legislation.
But this is not a sufficient remedy in itself. These iniquitous arrangements started with large service companies in the private sector and they are as unfair there (where staff tend to be non unionised and even more vulnerable) than they are in the public sector.
I should imagine that rEds legendary "steel" and backbone that we are always hearing about will come to the fore as he smites down this faction within a faction.
DavidL analyses this well: the reason UNITE is trying to get more sympathetic MPs is that they're unhappy with what they see as an excessively Blairite approach by the two Eds. Quite a lot of non-UNITE members are restless too. That said, there is always some leadership-unions argy-bargy and it quite suits both sides, in precisely the same way that Cameron and Clegg find it helpful to have a public argument at times. It's the job of the unions to represent their members (which is why Bob Crow is a successful union leader: Tube staff do pretty well); it's the job of the Labour leadership to aspire to run the country (the Crow-supported TUSC only gets 1% of the vote). If Falkirk did involve people being signed up without their knowledge that's clearly unacceptable; otherwise, "unions encourage members to join party and hope they will influence it" is hard to get excited about.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night. Someone (Carlotta?) said they look most at the internals to see how opinion is moving, but personally I look at them from day to day as an indication of the nature of the sample. If there's a shift that can't readily be explained (e.g. there's a bounce in concern about health in today's sample) it probably means that the sample is different in make-up - in this case more pro-Labour, yesterday more pro-Tory.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
Pauline Jarman, leader of the opposition Plaid Cymru group at RCT, said: “I am extremely concerned to hear of these proposals, which have not been brought before the council. Even Labour councillors I have spoken to don’t know about them.
That said, any Labour council which imposes them should hang its head in shame. Good on LD cabinet minister Vince Cable for seeking to investigate them. No wonder the Tories hate him. Having the LDs in power currently is so much better than having a fully-fedged Tory government
Is it ? So why are kids getting hit with £9000 uni fees, which LDs caved in on despite their manifesto, but they've agreed to lots of Tory plans ?
Morning all. The Falkirk debacle was a banana skin waiting to trip the Labour leadership up. How much of this is Mr and Mrs Balls (and Gordon Brown) on manoeuvres? In Scotland we have seen Brown and supporters set up a separate Labour-only "save the union" campaign which will play straight into Salmond's hands. This week we have seen Johann Lamont shuffle her front bench and sack arguably the most erudite and likeable person from her front bench, Ken McIntosh (who has consistently kept the Tories out of what was their safest seat because of his likeability).
Does anyone seriously believe Ed Bland will oppose his paymasters, the people who got him elected? He will make a great deal of sound and express fury and it will signify nothing- no change. How many sitting Labour MPs have been endorsed by and receive funding from a big trade union? 100? 150? almost all of them?
Tory MPs may receive funding from businesses as well as individuals but the constitution does not give a vote in any internal election, such as candidate selection to other than individual members. Labour would have to remove the right of trade unions to automatic votes/ representation at any level within the party to break free and I don't see that happening in the lifetime of any contributor to this website.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
If we glance back to expectations say a year ago of Labour's predicted lead at this phase in the cycle - I wonder how many would've predicted a YGov average of 8pts?
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
Piece on R4 about Ofgem calling for a crackdown on electricity theft. Primarily cannabis farms, which is generally done by stealing and bypassing before it gets to the meter. Is Ofgem just howling at the moon? If utility co's could stop it they would.
For the past few days, the debacle in Falkirk West has been the main news story relating to the Labour party. The allegations of entryism by Unite are well known as is Labour’s response: to place the constituency in special measures and bar anyone who joined after 12th March 2012 from voting in the parliamentary selection.
But, new information has emerged that suggests the problems maybe even more serious. The latest allegations centre on a potential breach of the 2006 fraud act and a subsequent attempt to induce those who had complained , to change their testimony before the national party could investigate.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
If we glance back to expectations say a year ago of Labour's predicted lead at this phase in the cycle - I wonder how many would've predicted a YGov average of 8pts?
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
I disagree. Your post seems predicated on the British people being too stupid to recognise that changes had to be made.
I think the situation is so bad that more people have woken up to the need to embrace pain and cut debt. Labour traditionally does well when it has things to offer in terms of spending.
Cupboards bare, everyone knows it. Labour doesn't have an answer other than more of the same. Electoral system still gives labour a big advantage, that's not going away.
"What are elderly parents to do when their children no longer bother to visit? In China, there’s a new answer: sue the kids.
That’s what 77-year-old “Granny Chu,” of Wuxi, China, did in April. On Monday, a court heard her case against her allegedly neglectful daughter and son-in-law, and quickly issued a verdict: an order that the daughter and son-in-law visit on a bimonthly basis, as well as during important holidays.
The timing was impeccable: Also on Monday, China’s long awaited revision to its “Law to Protect the Elderly” was enacted, along with a controversial new provision requiring adult children to visit their parents “often.” The court wasted no time in citing the law as the basis for its decision.
Granny Chu’s is a tale worthy of a guilt-ridden Woody Allen comedy, except that the verdict -- and the law that enabled it - - are designed to address a serious problem in contemporary China: How to financially and “spiritually” (in the words of the new legislation) support an aging population. Of course, major problems meeting the pension and health-care needs of a rapidly aging population are certainly not unique to China..."
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
If we glance back to expectations say a year ago of Labour's predicted lead at this phase in the cycle - I wonder how many would've predicted a YGov average of 8pts?
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov:
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead. Were it not for the continued strength of UKIP, we'd be confident of seeing Cameron remain in Downing Street."
"Quite simply Ed has to bite the hand that feeds him.
This is as important for Labour now as Tony Blair’s ditching of clause four was ahead of GE1997."
I'm not sure. As things stand not being Tory should be enough to get him over the line. There's a minute danger that the Tories could start looking attractive (and they are being helped in this by Ed holding back on unrestrained opposition to everything Gove and Hunt) but it's unlikely.
Attacking the unions and their relationship with Labour isn't really a goer anymore. After years of emasculation few see them as monsters and more than a few see them as a bastion against the fat cat bankers tax avoiders and Tories who are driving living standards into the ground.
Piece on R4 about Ofgem calling for a crackdown on electricity theft. Primarily cannabis farms, which is generally done by stealing and bypassing before it gets to the meter. Is Ofgem just howling at the moon? If utility co's could stop it they would.
Why would they stop it voluntarily if it increases usage and therefore their income? Many unfortunate saps pay the enhanced bill for months before realising.
Whether the utilities can do anything about this depends on the data that they collect. I'm not sure they'll have the data to do this.
Much better is the approach of using infra-red cameras from cars and spotter helicopters / planes - the increased heat shows up particularly well.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
If we glance back to expectations say a year ago of Labour's predicted lead at this phase in the cycle - I wonder how many would've predicted a YGov average of 8pts?
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov:
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead. Were it not for the continued strength of UKIP, we'd be confident of seeing Cameron remain in Downing Street."
I may be looking through rose-tinted spectacles but by comparison with Ed, Kinnock looks good.
In common: A love of long speeches; Kinnock's flowery, Ed's incomprehensible. Differences: Kinnock went after Militant, and knew what he wanted if he became PM, Ed ... ... ...er ......
He may have got his party back but there was a dud leader attached.
I suspect Roger and the Staggers have it right - rEd will rely on the system and the arithmetic to scrape home with a nothing platform. It's indicative of his radical boldness and steel.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
If we glance back to expectations say a year ago of Labour's predicted lead at this phase in the cycle - I wonder how many would've predicted a YGov average of 8pts?
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov:
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead. Were it not for the continued strength of UKIP, we'd be confident of seeing Cameron remain in Downing Street."
Thanks - not just me then ;^ )
Really rather depends on your point of view. Given the scale of the 2010 defeat it's remarkable that Labour are in contention at all. Something the Tories didn't manage 97-01.
I've no idea if 10% is fewer than the fingers of one hand - but the idea of paying someone's dues seems a bit peculiar, and like bribery.
"...It comes as an investigation by The Times reveals further evidence of attempts by Unite to influence process, this time in the target seat of Ilford North.
Britain’s most powerful union wrote to its members in the East London constituency offering to cover the cost of local Labour party membership for the first year. The drive is said to have increased take-up by more than 10 per cent..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3806605.ece
EDIT - just seen this further down the same article
In Ilford North, the union began a push at the start of this year to sign up members before selection for the Westminster candidate in the autumn. Mike Hedges, a Unite organiser who hopes to stand, wrote to 2,000 union members on behalf of Unite offering to pay the first year of their membership. Local sources said that it had resulted in 30 new recruits in a party that has less than 300 members.
How can it increase their income if it's nicked from in front of the meter? As to the infra red signature, aren't a lot of them going smaller scale to get round it. IIRC from a single 1000w light you can nett 0.8kg every 12/13 weeks or so Not often that I agree with Tim, but legalise and tax it.
Piece on R4 about Ofgem calling for a crackdown on electricity theft. Primarily cannabis farms, which is generally done by stealing and bypassing before it gets to the meter. Is Ofgem just howling at the moon? If utility co's could stop it they would.
Why would they stop it voluntarily if it increases usage and therefore their income? Many unfortunate saps pay the enhanced bill for months before realising.
Whether the utilities can do anything about this depends on the data that they collect. I'm not sure they'll have the data to do this.
Much better is the approach of using infra-red cameras from cars and spotter helicopters / planes - the increased heat shows up particularly well.
"Quite simply Ed has to bite the hand that feeds him.
This is as important for Labour now as Tony Blair’s ditching of clause four was ahead of GE1997."
I'm not sure. As things stand not being Tory should be enough to get him over the line. There's a minute danger that the Tories could start looking attractive (and they are being helped in this by Ed holding back on his wholehearted opposition to everything Gove and Hunt) but it's unlikely.
Attacking the unions and their relationship with Labour isn't really a goer anymore. After years of emasculation few see them as monsters and more than a few see them as a bastion against the fat cats capitalist bankers and Tories who are driving living standards into the ground.
What a quaint idea. However unions are increasingly a feature of the public sector where the fat cats are labour placemen giving themselves 20% pay rises and £680k payoffs.
The private sector has fewer unions since they sold out their members in the last decade or so by supporting a government which pushed off-shoring, closing down manufacturing, bankrupting pension schemes and mass immigration. The private sector unions de-contented themselves so lost lots of members but their bosses still managed to push their salaries up.
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead."
Strange comment from SS. If he looked at his own polls two years out from '97 '01 and '05 the opposition party was at least 10% BEHIND! and if I remember that's where they stayed. Where does this precedent come from?
Morning all. The Falkirk debacle was a banana skin waiting to trip the Labour leadership up. How much of this is Mr and Mrs Balls (and Gordon Brown) on manoeuvres? In Scotland we have seen Brown and supporters set up a separate Labour-only "save the union" campaign which will play straight into Salmond's hands. This week we have seen Johann Lamont shuffle her front bench and sack arguably the most erudite and likeable person from her front bench, Ken McIntosh (who has consistently kept the Tories out of what was their safest seat because of his likeability).
Does anyone seriously believe Ed Bland will oppose his paymasters, the people who got him elected? He will make a great deal of sound and express fury and it will signify nothing- no change. How many sitting Labour MPs have been endorsed by and receive funding from a big trade union? 100? 150? almost all of them?
Tory MPs may receive funding from businesses as well as individuals but the constitution does not give a vote in any internal election, such as candidate selection to other than individual members. Labour would have to remove the right of trade unions to automatic votes/ representation at any level within the party to break free and I don't see that happening in the lifetime of any contributor to this website.
I can see that accuing rights on the basis of average hours worked over 13 weeks would run the risk of service companies reducing hours on a regular basis, or hiring and firing regularly to prevent to prevent those rights being accrued.
If Labour want to regain votes that have been leaking to NOTA in its variations then a clear manifesto commitment to ending these abuses would be a vote winner. Even Orange Bookers like me would see the justice of a rule change.
Alternatively, put MPs on zero hours contracts and see how they like it. It would save a bundle on Gordon Browns salary.
I am very nervous about zero-hour contracts; they are far too open to abuse IMHO. Whilst they may suit some people, forcing people onto such contracts is a retrograde step.
The problem with "tough and unpopular" eecisions is that they are, er unpopular. Being seen as taking "tough and unpopular" decisions is probably a vote loser. Not so much a vote for apple pie as a vote for cold gruel.
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
I have spoken out against zero hour contracts on here before. They are an abuse of a dominant market position and they undermine employment law in a way that is completely unacceptable.
The problem is how you can effectively legislate against them without completely undermining freedom of contract and interfering with part time work.
I suggest a starting point should be that rights should accrue on the basis of the hours actually worked over the last 4 or 13 weeks regardless of what the contract says; that those employed for more than, say, a month, will be deemed to have the right to the number of hours worked in that month (or at least a proportion of them) and those that work exclusively for one organisation for a qualifying period should be deemed to be employees of that organisation whether they technically work for an agency or not.
This has been an increasing problem for the best part of 10 years now and it is shameful that the last government did not seek to address the gross unfairness that results. I can only conclude that they were frightened of looking to be in the hands of the unions.
The outcome of the European surveys was foretold by the great George Orwell long ago:
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Seems weird to me that F1 teams were mounting their rear tyres the wrong way around. Apparently this was partly to blame for the failures: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23155008
This falls into the He Would Say That category - but it rather makes the point of how policy-lite Labour is at the same stage in the cycle. Worth reading the whole piece = whoever wrote it has done a very solid job of plain speaking re Labour, the Tories being outnumbered in Parly if the LDs don't agree and the issue of UKIP.
" Five years ago, as shadow work and pensions secretary, I published a Conservative Green Paper that set out the first stage of our plans for welfare reform. It was halfway through the parliament, and the opposition was setting out its alternative vision for Britain. A month later, my opposite number James Purnell, the new secretary of state, pinched most of my plans. That’s politics. Although, he never actually delivered them: that was left for us to do in government.
Roll on the clock. Labour are back in opposition. The Conservatives are in government, albeit in coalition. I’ve been waiting for the opposite to happen. And waiting. And waiting.
The extraordinary thing about Ed Miliband’s Labour is just how little they have said about their vision for Britain. Is it about a hi-tech future? Or more power to the workers? Or “More Europe”? Or what? Despite a few recent speeches, most of us in the Government have little idea what our opposite number stands for. Ask me what Labour’s justice policy is; I haven’t a clue..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10154989/Dont-be-tempted-by-Ukips-nice-Nigel-Farage.html
Just compare him with Dave who always capitulates to his right wing at the slightest sign of bother.
He's been pathetic ever since he became PM
Just like he gave in on gay marriage?
There was a very good interview with Elton John on Radio 4 this morning - it was a very moving reaction to being allowed to get married. He was simply "joyous" and "very grateful to the government" for giving them the chance to get married.
How can it increase their income if it's nicked from in front of the meter? As to the infra red signature, aren't a lot of them going smaller scale to get round it. IIRC from a single 1000w light you can nett 0.8kg every 12/13 weeks or so Not often that I agree with Tim, but legalise and tax it.
Piece on R4 about Ofgem calling for a crackdown on electricity theft. Primarily cannabis farms, which is generally done by stealing and bypassing before it gets to the meter. Is Ofgem just howling at the moon? If utility co's could stop it they would.
Why would they stop it voluntarily if it increases usage and therefore their income? Many unfortunate saps pay the enhanced bill for months before realising.
Whether the utilities can do anything about this depends on the data that they collect. I'm not sure they'll have the data to do this.
Much better is the approach of using infra-red cameras from cars and spotter helicopters / planes - the increased heat shows up particularly well.
"How can it increase their income if it's nicked from in front of the meter?"
Yep, you are right in that circumstance. Others have been arrested for using their own electricity, or stealing neighbours' power after the meter, which increases their bills.
Small scale growing is less efficient and more costly. Do you have any evidence that they are going smaller-scale?
This story simply isn't going to get enough coverage to make or break Ed Miliband, unless Ed Miliband chooses to make it a big story. He won't.
Those who dislike the unions will get very excited and everyone else will be bored. This is an example of Ed Miliband's weaknesses, not a deal-breaker.
Addendum: Labour would be much improved by having a few more horny-handed sons and daughters of toil in Parliament. Union entryism is to be encouraged if it would have that result.
No it's an example of cameron's weakness and eds resoluteness against the hand that feeds, per PB. And don't forget saint Tony was linked to the TGWU so what's new...
This is interesting tho:
As the imbroglio in Falkirk West began to spin out of control earlier this year and the national party began its investigations into allegations of bogus membership applications, Uncut understands that an attempt was then made to persuade the families to change their story and say they had intended to join the party.
Both families were visited by senior members from the Unite faction in the local Labour party before they could be interviewed by the two-person NEC inquiry team, with this in mind.
However, these attempts to interfere with the complainants backfired and in one case, the intervention was angrily rebuffed by the family.
The result is a situation where it seems that the law has likely been broken with an attempt to subvert a national party inquiries.
Seems weird to me that F1 teams were mounting their rear tyres the wrong way around. Apparently this was partly to blame for the failures: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23155008
When I read that, it made utter sense that it would be contributing to the failures for two reasons: 1) The tyres were not designed to be placed the wrong-way around; the internal structure will have been designed for the proper use. 2) The teams were doing this with used tyres; i.e. ones that had already been run the other way around. This would put stresses on the tyre structure one way, and then the other.
This, and the under-pressure running and adverse camber, needs stopping and can be easily done by rule changes. Pirelli have apparently asked for access to real-time tyre pressure data from the teams.
It has been the case for a number of years that if utility co's see an upsurge in individual usage they alert the authorities, hence the nicking from in front of the meter. I don't have any evidence that OGH would appreciate me posting on a public forum but small scale dealers have cottoned on to the increased profits from growing their own supply. I do frequently brush shoulders in bars with some of societies more rogue elements. Anyway off to work now, will check in later.
How can it increase their income if it's nicked from in front of the meter? As to the infra red signature, aren't a lot of them going smaller scale to get round it. IIRC from a single 1000w light you can nett 0.8kg every 12/13 weeks or so Not often that I agree with Tim, but legalise and tax it.
Piece on R4 about Ofgem calling for a crackdown on electricity theft. Primarily cannabis farms, which is generally done by stealing and bypassing before it gets to the meter. Is Ofgem just howling at the moon? If utility co's could stop it they would.
Why would they stop it voluntarily if it increases usage and therefore their income? Many unfortunate saps pay the enhanced bill for months before realising.
Whether the utilities can do anything about this depends on the data that they collect. I'm not sure they'll have the data to do this.
Much better is the approach of using infra-red cameras from cars and spotter helicopters / planes - the increased heat shows up particularly well.
"How can it increase their income if it's nicked from in front of the meter?"
Yep, you are right in that circumstance. Others have been arrested for using their own electricity, or stealing neighbours' power after the meter, which increases their bills.
Small scale growing is less efficient and more costly. Do you have any evidence that they are going smaller-scale?
It is not even going to be noticed by the vast majority of voters. Unites list is much like Camerons A list, a way for a faction to internally influence who gets elected.
If the coalition had followed through on its plan for open primaries we would not be talking about this. The reality is that the self governing oligarchy that runs each of the two main parties does not want to lose its ability to place its chosen few in safe seats.
This story simply isn't going to get enough coverage to make or break Ed Miliband, unless Ed Miliband chooses to make it a big story. He won't.
Those who dislike the unions will get very excited and everyone else will be bored. This is an example of Ed Miliband's weaknesses, not a deal-breaker.
@Carlotta Strange comment from SS. If he looked at his own polls two years out from '97 '01 and '05 the opposition party was at least 10% BEHIND
That would be clever - given YouGov was founded in 2000.......I guess we should file this under "The Lancaster House Agreement of 1977" and the "Zimbabwe elections of 1978"! ;-)
I must be half-asleep. I can't see this is a problem for Miliband.
How many people are aware of how Miliband was elected, apart from us daft anoraks? How many people care?
The tories have no chance of causing him any damage with the claim: 'Miliband in hoc to the unions'. Its what the ordinary Joe thinks anyway (if he thinks about it all).
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night.
A lead bang on the average is hardly news!
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
If we glance back to expectations say a year ago of Labour's predicted lead at this phase in the cycle - I wonder how many would've predicted a YGov average of 8pts?
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov:
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead. Were it not for the continued strength of UKIP, we'd be confident of seeing Cameron remain in Downing Street."
Camerons weak pandering on Europe and immigration has boosted the right and weakened his own chances, played into UKIPs hands
So your hypothesis is that if Cameron had said the same as the LibDems and Labour, UKIP would be weaker?
Comments
Standing up against what appears to be corrupt practices will not address how he got his job in the first place - but none of this would matter much if he had turned out to be a strong leader - and we'd be discussing policy, and whether "X" would work with the voter.
But we aren't, so it does.
As long as Watson remains in-situ, this problem will keep coming up.
"'Right to buy' to be scrapped in Scotland"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23155904
Whether this is a good idea or not, time will tell - but like the Welsh decision on organ donation yesterday, its a "good thing" that the different bits of the UK are taking different approaches, so we may all learn from them.
Quite how the Scots have managed to sink a flagship Tory policy, while under Westmister's "Jack boot" however, awaits explanation...
When it crosses into their internal struggles then the web of deceit becomes even more cynical.
Scottish labour does not exist, it is merely a brand name with decisions made from London. That is why Watson can have so much say on what should be a local battle between local candidates.
They will have forgotten the circumstances surrounding his election because there will have been almost quadruple-figures worth of Eastenders episodes since then and job jobbed.
I like it. Well played.
You make the big mistake to assume that Ed is weak.
Just compare him with Dave who always capitulates to his right wing at the slightest sign of bother.
Dave shouting "weak, weak weak" at EdM is a sign of his own weaknesses.
He's been pathetic ever since he became PM
I
It's gotta hurt when you find you've been sold a pup.
I don't see where you're going with "doing it to/for themselves". Bitter experience has taught us that even after independence it'll still be "a big boy made me do it" or the "evil Westminister jackboot" for the next hundred years anyway.
So far Ed's strong stance against Len consists of the temporary suspension of 1 candidate. Clause 4 it is not.
Quite simply Ed has to bite the hand that feeds him. "
*chortle*
The far right swivel-eyed loons on here might not notice the cognitive dissonance of bleating about 'Red' Ed and Unions while little Ed frantically triangulates on tory cuts and spending but in the real world that sort of further sliding to the right is getting noticed.
They can't have it both ways.
Either little Ed is copying tory policies and thus validating them for the right wingers or Cammie is somehow just as "Red" as Ed since their policies are self-evidently converging.
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister
It's like the Daily Mail for toddlers.
As usual the facts are not on the side of the tw+ttish tea party tories.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
Its leaders are prepared to take tough and unpopular decisions - applies most to:
Conservatives : 45
Labour: 9
Labour voters
Conservatives: 33
Labour : 25
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pqvzpfl0l2/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-270613.pdf
I'm not counting here his many non-policies that involve being both for and against something at the same time.
So with many of his own MPs directly sponsored by UNITE - exactly where is he standing up to Len & Co? I'm all ears.
"Unite is Labour’s biggest donor, contributing more than £3million a year. And Unite also used its massive voting power to bludgeon through the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader rather than his Blairite brother David.
So don’t hold your breath if you are expecting Ed to bite the hand that feeds him.
But the exposure of McCluskey as the Machiavellian power behind Labour’s throne is a timely reminder to the electorate.
Vote Ed . . . and you vote Red."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/4508014/The-Sun-says.html#ixzz2XxUP5LLf
- returned Unites cheques
- rewrote the leadership election rules to be 1 member 1 vote to prevent a union stitch up
- re-ran all the selection campaigns that resulted in Unite candidates
Oh, wait...
I cannot see the arcane machinations of how parties dole out their seats to one party clique or other being of interest to more than 1% of the voters. Those 1% are probably affliated with one or other clique already.
The big unions are now almost exclusively in the public sector, and should concentrate on the real matters of interest to their members. In University Hospitals Leicester the portering, catering and cleaning stafe have all been transferred to Interserve, who want to put them all on "zero hours" contracts. A strike about this casualisation of the ancillary staff would be heavily supported.
The staff care far more about this than whether muppet A or sockpuppet B is the Labour candidate.
LOL
"Belief in the power of the state to provide a better future is weakening across Europe. It leaves Labour confused about what their offer might be, and falling into a kind of silence; and gives the Conservatives more options to emerge from their own purdah, and speak of bolder reform."
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2013/07/from-stephanshaxper.html
There is a poll in the Times that accompanies this:
"Meanwhile, the public moves on. YouGov recently conducted a survey in four European countries, presented today in The Times (£). We asked voters if they agreed that their main centre-left party "used to care about people like me"; in Germany 52 per cent agreed, in Britain 51 per cent, in Sweden 49 per cent, and in France 36 per cent.
But in all four countries, the proportions for the same parties caring NOW are considerably lower: Sweden’s Socialists are down 13 per cent; Britain’s Labour Party is down 19 per cent; France's is down 16 per cent, in Germany, the proportion who regard the Social Democrats as caring for people like them has collapsed by more than half, down to 24%."
While the fruits of his strategic efforts have been carefully guarded, some policies are now complete. A plan to rehabilitate low-level offenders outside prison and close down jails, modelled on the success of an initiative by the American Right, is said to have been rubber-stamped. Final details of Andy Burnham’s integration of health and social care are being worked on, as Labour decides just how much power and money to grant local authorities.
Shadow ministers are still discussing whether to let GPs commission social care as well as medical treatment and whether to give local authorities one pot of funding, to be divided up as they please between services ranging from probation to bin-emptying. If councils save money, they will be allowed – under this plan – to spend it as they choose.
Although these crumbs are merely tasters for a manifesto, Mr Miliband is satisfied that he now has an agreed stash of policies that will form the backbone of a programme for government. Mr Cruddas has decreed that all outstanding work must be submitted to his review by the end of this month, with no extensions for back-sliders, ready for an unveiling of the first ideas at party conference.
This rare disorder effects mainly elderly and genial LibDems who become unable to impartially analyse the merits of the Prime Minister without pulling their (remaining) hair out !!
It is reported that Mike has refused the only effective treatment - standing outside Bedford Labour Club in orange robes with a tambourine on five successive nights chanting :
"Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister"
"During the twentieth century, progressive parties across Europe based their appeal on two compelling arguments: that they cared for ordinary folk, and they knew how to harness the power of the state to convert care into action.
No longer. A major YouGov study in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden shows that few people still believe either proposition. Millions in all four countries no longer think left-of-centre parties care about them; and most people now reject the notion that governments are any good at solving social problems.
Our figures show how nostalgia is strong but hope is weak. In three of the four countries, half of all voters agree that their main centre-left party ‘used to care about people like me' (Germany 52%, Britain 51%, Sweden 49%)......
However, in all four countries, the proportions who say their main centre-left party ‘cares now about people like me’ are much lower. Sweden’s Socialists have the least bad figures, but they are still 13 points down at 36%. The figure for Britain’s Labour Party is down 19 points, at 32%. In France, the only one of the four countries with a centre-left government, Francois Hollande’s low standing may explain why the figure there is now only 20%. "
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/03/crisis-facing-europes-centre-left/
The coalition is reviewing the use of such contracts:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/unions-welcome-government-move-to-review-zero-hours-contracts.21331189
Ed's problem, or potential problem, is that there are factions in Labour who are spoiling for a fight. So we had David Blunkett sticking his oar in yesterday on the Daily Politics and the Union complaining that their new members in Falkirk were being disenfranchised.
The Blairites are concerned that they are losing control of the party. Oddly, this is at a time when Ed seems to have accepted their position on policy. The Union are equally concerned that the position that they are paying for is not being respected.
Where this goes from here may or may not be under Ed's control. If he can persuade the factions that this proxy fight should not be heard in public it will be a damp squib of a story. This is probably still the most likely outcome.
If he can't then there will be evidence of a disunited party which we are always told does not poll well. The problem is that there are enough ex Blairites who are no longer a part of the scene (the grey beards Ed refused to have back) to cause trouble if they want to. And they do.
Golly, don't you know that "serial labour voters" are immune to the hilariously inept spin of idiot tory spinners. ;^ )
"...Actually, few Labour leaders have been from what used to be called a humble background. Only two Labour prime ministers – Ramsay MacDonald and Jim Callaghan – were working class, and Callaghan was also the first party leader since MacDonald not to have been a university graduate.
The 1945 Labour government, arguably the most effective of all Labour governments – certainly the one which did more than any other to transform Britain – was led by Clement Attlee (Haileybury and Oxford) . (In the Thirties he was generally known as Major Attlee on the strength of his wartime commission.)
There were working-class members of his Cabinet: Herbert Morrison (Peter Mandelson’s grandfather), Ernest Bevin, and Aneurin Bevan, but his three Chancellors of the Exchequer were Hugh Dalton (an Etonian), Sir Stafford Cripps, and Hugh Gaitskell (both Wykehamists), all three Oxonians. Gaitskell succeeded Attlee as leader, and when he died, Harold Wilson beat the working-class George Brown in a leadership election. Wilson liked to reel off the names of Huddersfield Town football teams and declared that he preferred tinned salmon to the fresh or smoked fish, but, the son of a teacher, and himself an Oxford-educated economist who spent the war years as a civil servant, he wasn’t exactly your horny-handed son of toil. His Cabinet incidentally contained more men with first-class degrees from Oxford and Cambridge than any other, and Wilson himself saw nothing wrong in sending his sons to a fee-paying school.
After Wilson came Callaghan and then Michael Foot, son of a successful solicitor and himself a Fleet Street journalist (a favourite of Lord Beaverbrook). Old Footie was certainly a Radical, but more a Hampstead intellectual than a Man of the People. He was followed by Neil Kinnock, the first member of his family to go to university. And after Kinnock came John Smith, a middle-class Scots lawyer, followed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
It’s hard to see why Ed Miliband should be thought more out of touch with the working class than most of his predecessors in the job... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100069833/why-do-people-believe-the-old-myth-that-successful-politicians-need-to-be-in-touch-with-the-people/
However it's hardly unknown on PB that I follow the advice of my ARSE and do very nicely thank you.
On the substance of Ukip winning a handful of seats whilst the Tories remain the largest party do you believe that the electorate is so homogenous that small parties cannot have minor wins outwith the prospects of the Labour and Conservative ?
Electoral history tells us otherwise.
As I said, I'm all ears.
To be fair, an LD cabinet minister has called for a review. The Tories give every impression of being very comfortable with zero hours contracts.
No wonder that hospitals are dirty and inefficient when service companies abuse their staff in this way.
I think Ed is a poor leader and wish he was not in charge, so why should I defend him? But unlike you I do not hate the Labour party so will not mechanically condemn everything it says, does or is associated with.
It's the comparisons with Militant, the role of UNITE in the leadership election and its extremely influential chequebook re MPs and the Party - these aren't trivial things that can be brushed aside.
Labour being funded by unions is a non-story - but when unions become belligerent the public don't like it - especially so since most unions operate largely in the public sector nowadays. It doesn't matter that the RMT or PCS are unaffiliated - they're in the same boat as the NUT or whomever as far as 99% of the population are concerned.
Perhaps we need to glance back at Militant and see what was going on back then/compare-contrast to now. Len is certainly as far left as they were back then, and now runs the biggest union in the country.
Christine Blower also seems to be cut from the same cloth, but her members aren't so keen on coming out as she is.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/zero-hours-contract-plan-sparks-4701329
"Perhaps PBers will be kind enough to indulge an old Jacobite as I'm unsure if I've mentioned before that :
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister"
You've morphed into Martin Day. Come back Jack we miss you!
It is a large part of the problem of the welfare trap, the reduction of the advantages of being in work.
Zero hours contracts are just a dodge to circumvent employment rights.
The problem is how you can effectively legislate against them without completely undermining freedom of contract and interfering with part time work.
I suggest a starting point should be that rights should accrue on the basis of the hours actually worked over the last 4 or 13 weeks regardless of what the contract says; that those employed for more than, say, a month, will be deemed to have the right to the number of hours worked in that month (or at least a proportion of them) and those that work exclusively for one organisation for a qualifying period should be deemed to be employees of that organisation whether they technically work for an agency or not.
This has been an increasing problem for the best part of 10 years now and it is shameful that the last government did not seek to address the gross unfairness that results. I can only conclude that they were frightened of looking to be in the hands of the unions.
The outcome of the European surveys was foretold by the great George Orwell long ago:
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Miliband is trying to find his own route down the middle of the road. He's not doing too bad, but stagnant or slipping polls will not help.
But for jobs that are largely 37.5hrs a week and predictable like cleaning or portering etc, it seems very retrograde/builds no loyalty or commitment. And frankly doing largely unskilled jobs requires a feeling of belonging/comeraderie, as the work itself isn't terribly interesting in itself.
The Coalition is so much more fun.
Come over to the dark side Roger, you get to wear a black uniform, cape and helmet and hiss at folk from the Federation of Labour Luvvies
There's plenty of inter galactic travel opportunities - Ask John O who recently ventured as far as distant and exotic Bournemouth.
Alternatively nothing will happen.
That said, any Labour council which imposes them should hang its head in shame. Good on LD cabinet minister Vince Cable for seeking to investigate them. No wonder the Tories hate him. Having the LDs in power currently is so much better than having a fully-fedged Tory government
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10156170/Twenty-years-to-fix-economy.html
"Professor James Curran, director of the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre at University of London, carried out the research by interviewing 10,000 people across 10 countries... But from Norway to Colombia, women knew less about politics than men. Prof Curran suggests this is because across the 10 nations, women were only interviewed or cited in 30 per cent of TV news stories.
The UK itself fares worse than Norway, Italy, Greece and Australia in terms of women’s political knowledge. In total, 34 per cent of our hard news stories featured women – above average but still a disappointingly low figure.
“It’s enormously off-putting for women to be looking at the news as always being about men,” Prof Curran tells me. “Politics is projected as a man’s world and that encourages a sense of disconnection,” he adds. The opinion pollster Deborah Mattinson, founder and director of Britain Thinks, isn’t surprised by the research, but agrees it’s worrying.
“Polling in the UK what you find is that on any subject women are much more likely to answer ‘I don’t know’ than express an opinion. That’s not to say women don’t hold views – they live and breathe politics, but they experience it in a different way. They feel much more distant from the game of politics in which they’ve no interest whatsoever,” she suggests.
...Analysis by Women in Journalism of general news stories found that 84 per cent of those quoted or mentioned in lead pieces were men, and 78 per cent of front page articles were written by men.
...Its own studies have established that although there’s no shortage of women featured as “victims” in news stories – 79 per cent of victims in the media are women – three quarters of “experts” used by the media are men..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10154822/British-women-know-less-about-politics-than-men-but-why.html
But this is not a sufficient remedy in itself. These iniquitous arrangements started with large service companies in the private sector and they are as unfair there (where staff tend to be non unionised and even more vulnerable) than they are in the public sector.
I see Labour back at 40 and an 8-point lead this morning - how strange that the Sun didn't tweet that last night. Someone (Carlotta?) said they look most at the internals to see how opinion is moving, but personally I look at them from day to day as an indication of the nature of the sample. If there's a shift that can't readily be explained (e.g. there's a bounce in concern about health in today's sample) it probably means that the sample is different in make-up - in this case more pro-Labour, yesterday more pro-Tory.
Does anyone seriously believe Ed Bland will oppose his paymasters, the people who got him elected? He will make a great deal of sound and express fury and it will signify nothing- no change. How many sitting Labour MPs have been endorsed by and receive funding from a big trade union? 100? 150? almost all of them?
Tory MPs may receive funding from businesses as well as individuals but the constitution does not give a vote in any internal election, such as candidate selection to other than individual members. Labour would have to remove the right of trade unions to automatic votes/ representation at any level within the party to break free and I don't see that happening in the lifetime of any contributor to this website.
I'd be looking for a couple of 10+ leads over the coming week - otherwise we may be looking at a drift down from the "8 lead" average we've seen over late Spring.
That its in single figures is gobsmacking for mid-term, with George Cuts Osborne as CoE...
Is Ofgem just howling at the moon? If utility co's could stop it they would.
2007: 131,000
2009: 150,000
2012: 200,000
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pressure-grows-on-government-to-outlaw-zero-hours-contracts-as-it-is-revealed-parliament-uses-them-too-8631639.html
I think the situation is so bad that more people have woken up to the need to embrace pain and cut debt. Labour traditionally does well when it has things to offer in terms of spending.
Cupboards bare, everyone knows it. Labour doesn't have an answer other than more of the same. Electoral system still gives labour a big advantage, that's not going away.
"What are elderly parents to do when their children no longer bother to visit? In China, there’s a new answer: sue the kids.
That’s what 77-year-old “Granny Chu,” of Wuxi, China, did in April. On Monday, a court heard her case against her allegedly neglectful daughter and son-in-law, and quickly issued a verdict: an order that the daughter and son-in-law visit on a bimonthly basis, as well as during important holidays.
The timing was impeccable: Also on Monday, China’s long awaited revision to its “Law to Protect the Elderly” was enacted, along with a controversial new provision requiring adult children to visit their parents “often.” The court wasted no time in citing the law as the basis for its decision.
Granny Chu’s is a tale worthy of a guilt-ridden Woody Allen comedy, except that the verdict -- and the law that enabled it - - are designed to address a serious problem in contemporary China: How to financially and “spiritually” (in the words of the new legislation) support an aging population. Of course, major problems meeting the pension and health-care needs of a rapidly aging population are certainly not unique to China..."
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead. Were it not for the continued strength of UKIP, we'd be confident of seeing Cameron remain in Downing Street."
This is as important for Labour now as Tony Blair’s ditching of clause four was ahead of GE1997."
I'm not sure. As things stand not being Tory should be enough to get him over the line. There's a minute danger that the Tories could start looking attractive (and they are being helped in this by Ed holding back on unrestrained opposition to everything Gove and Hunt) but it's unlikely.
Attacking the unions and their relationship with Labour isn't really a goer anymore. After years of emasculation few see them as monsters and more than a few see them as a bastion against the fat cat bankers tax avoiders and Tories who are driving living standards into the ground.
Whether the utilities can do anything about this depends on the data that they collect. I'm not sure they'll have the data to do this.
Much better is the approach of using infra-red cameras from cars and spotter helicopters / planes - the increased heat shows up particularly well.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-go-hitech-to-find-cannabis-farms-26502055.html
I may be looking through rose-tinted spectacles but by comparison with Ed, Kinnock looks good.
In common: A love of long speeches; Kinnock's flowery, Ed's incomprehensible.
Differences: Kinnock went after Militant, and knew what he wanted if he became PM, Ed ... ... ...er ......
He may have got his party back but there was a dud leader attached.
Will it work ?
Swings and roundabouts.
"...It comes as an investigation by The Times reveals further evidence of attempts by Unite to influence process, this time in the target seat of Ilford North.
Britain’s most powerful union wrote to its members in the East London constituency offering to cover the cost of local Labour party membership for the first year. The drive is said to have increased take-up by more than 10 per cent..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3806605.ece
EDIT - just seen this further down the same article
In Ilford North, the union began a push at the start of this year to sign up members before selection for the Westminster candidate in the autumn. Mike Hedges, a Unite organiser who hopes to stand, wrote to 2,000 union members on behalf of Unite offering to pay the first year of their membership. Local sources said that it had resulted in 30 new recruits in a party that has less than 300 members.
IIRC from a single 1000w light you can nett 0.8kg every 12/13 weeks or so
Not often that I agree with Tim, but legalise and tax it.
The private sector has fewer unions since they sold out their members in the last decade or so by supporting a government which pushed off-shoring, closing down manufacturing, bankrupting pension schemes and mass immigration. The private sector unions de-contented themselves so lost lots of members but their bosses still managed to push their salaries up.
"It's extraordinary that at this stage of the electoral cycle, and after years of a pretty miserable economy with further cuts coming, the opposition party should be less than 10 per cent ahead."
Strange comment from SS. If he looked at his own polls two years out from '97 '01 and '05 the opposition party was at least 10% BEHIND! and if I remember that's where they stayed. Where does this precedent come from?
If Labour want to regain votes that have been leaking to NOTA in its variations then a clear manifesto commitment to ending these abuses would be a vote winner. Even Orange Bookers like me would see the justice of a rule change.
Alternatively, put MPs on zero hours contracts and see how they like it. It would save a bundle on Gordon Browns salary.
Seems weird to me that F1 teams were mounting their rear tyres the wrong way around. Apparently this was partly to blame for the failures:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23155008
" Five years ago, as shadow work and pensions secretary, I published a Conservative Green Paper that set out the first stage of our plans for welfare reform. It was halfway through the parliament, and the opposition was setting out its alternative vision for Britain. A month later, my opposite number James Purnell, the new secretary of state, pinched most of my plans. That’s politics. Although, he never actually delivered them: that was left for us to do in government.
Roll on the clock. Labour are back in opposition. The Conservatives are in government, albeit in coalition. I’ve been waiting for the opposite to happen. And waiting. And waiting.
The extraordinary thing about Ed Miliband’s Labour is just how little they have said about their vision for Britain. Is it about a hi-tech future? Or more power to the workers? Or “More Europe”? Or what? Despite a few recent speeches, most of us in the Government have little idea what our opposite number stands for. Ask me what Labour’s justice policy is; I haven’t a clue..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10154989/Dont-be-tempted-by-Ukips-nice-Nigel-Farage.html
Yep, you are right in that circumstance. Others have been arrested for using their own electricity, or stealing neighbours' power after the meter, which increases their bills.
Small scale growing is less efficient and more costly. Do you have any evidence that they are going smaller-scale?
Those who dislike the unions will get very excited and everyone else will be bored. This is an example of Ed Miliband's weaknesses, not a deal-breaker.
This is interesting tho:
As the imbroglio in Falkirk West began to spin out of control earlier this year and the national party began its investigations into allegations of bogus membership applications, Uncut understands that an attempt was then made to persuade the families to change their story and say they had intended to join the party.
Both families were visited by senior members from the Unite faction in the local Labour party before they could be interviewed by the two-person NEC inquiry team, with this in mind.
However, these attempts to interfere with the complainants backfired and in one case, the intervention was angrily rebuffed by the family.
The result is a situation where it seems that the law has likely been broken with an attempt to subvert a national party inquiries.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/07/03/new-allegations-of-fraud-and-interference-with-party-investigations-emerge-from-falkirk-west/
1) The tyres were not designed to be placed the wrong-way around; the internal structure will have been designed for the proper use.
2) The teams were doing this with used tyres; i.e. ones that had already been run the other way around. This would put stresses on the tyre structure one way, and then the other.
This, and the under-pressure running and adverse camber, needs stopping and can be easily done by rule changes. Pirelli have apparently asked for access to real-time tyre pressure data from the teams.
I don't have any evidence that OGH would appreciate me posting on a public forum but small scale dealers have cottoned on to the increased profits from growing their own supply.
I do frequently brush shoulders in bars with some of societies more rogue elements. Anyway off to work now, will check in later.
"Alternatively, put MPs on zero hours contracts and see how they like it. It would save a bundle on Gordon Browns salary."
He was apparently in the HoC last night - his third visit...
If the coalition had followed through on its plan for open primaries we would not be talking about this. The reality is that the self governing oligarchy that runs each of the two main parties does not want to lose its ability to place its chosen few in safe seats.
How many people are aware of how Miliband was elected, apart from us daft anoraks? How many people care?
The tories have no chance of causing him any damage with the claim: 'Miliband in hoc to the unions'. Its what the ordinary Joe thinks anyway (if he thinks about it all).