Whatever the detail, what is certain is that the PB Tories will denounce it. A genuine shame - I'm a big fan of the idea for all parties. I don't see it as a vote winner - indeed I doubt it will shift a single vote - but it may be good for politics.
Off topic, and since this is Nighthawks, when pbers are occasionally more friendly to each other, I have a request for suggestions.
I'm at a stage in my life when I feel that I have achieved pretty much all that I want to achieve in my chosen career and I fancy branching out in different directions. The skills I'd like tested more are those which would involve me using my deductive abilities, lateral thinking, my ability to explain complex ideas clearly and strategic planning skills.
I've got that far in my thought processes, but I'm now trying to compile a list of possibilities that might fit the bill. So I thought I would crowd-source this part of the problem.
So, any ideas?
Find a group doing augmented reality games....some of them can get quite devious when working with a group it will certainly use most of the above except strategic planning possibly.
Here is a link to a recent one associated with a game called the Secret world detailing all the steps that people solved. These are usually solved as a group effort
May will outline her plans to reform the arrest warrant as she announces to MPs that Britain will press to be allowed to opt out altogether from 98 of 133 EU criminal justice measures. The decision to maintain Britain's involvement with 35 of the measures represents a compromise between the Tories, who wanted to cap the number at 29, and the Liberal Democrats, who had called for the number to be set at 45.
If this was British news I reckon they'd give you some kind of relevant information, like what are they actually planning on opting out of. They wouldn't report, "In the budget today Osborne announed 12 things. This represents a compromise with the Liberal Democrats, who only wanted 8 things, but is lower than the origanal Conservative proposal, which encompassed 18 things, two thigammies and a whatjamacallit".
Off topic, and since this is Nighthawks, when pbers are occasionally more friendly to each other, I have a request for suggestions.
I'm at a stage in my life when I feel that I have achieved pretty much all that I want to achieve in my chosen career and I fancy branching out in different directions. The skills I'd like tested more are those which would involve me using my deductive abilities, lateral thinking, my ability to explain complex ideas clearly and strategic planning skills.
I've got that far in my thought processes, but I'm now trying to compile a list of possibilities that might fit the bill. So I thought I would crowd-source this part of the problem.
So, any ideas?
antifrank. Deductive abilities and lateral thinking are skills you already employ, when betting on politics. These I can relate to and I would simply encourage you to keep on betting. I don't know whether you bet on anything other than politics?
I can't fathom why you want to test your ability to explain complex ideas nor why you want to test your strategic planning skills. Why on earth you would choose to do these things?
I exhort you to abandon these fanciful notions and hone your skills against winning the battle against the "Old Enemy". Set your mind forthwith to deducing the winner of today's 2.30 pm at Pontefract races. And while you are about it, see if you can work out why the first race at Pontefract was historically always run at 2.45 pm up until quite recently?
Is this not the time that the Treasurer of the Labour party takes Ed aside, explains where his children came from (he was clearly unsure at the time that their births were registered) and how the Labour party funds elections?
If trade unions are not allowed to buy votes by using their members' money to pay subscriptions they know nothing about how many bill boards does Ed think he will have at the next election? The man clearly lives in a cloud. But even in the Labour party reality must intrude at some point.
'If trade unions are not allowed to buy votes by using their members' money to pay subscriptions'
Expect a lot of posturing from Red tomorrow,lots of guff about primaries,reducing union influence blah,blah but not enough time to introduce changes before the next election or have new selection process for already selected Unite candidates.
Is this not the time that the Treasurer of the Labour party takes Ed aside, explains where his children came from (he was clearly unsure at the time that their births were registered) and how the Labour party funds elections?
If trade unions are not allowed to buy votes by using their members' money to pay subscriptions they know nothing about how many bill boards does Ed think he will have at the next election? The man clearly lives in a cloud. But even in the Labour party reality must intrude at some point.
Two points. One is that in the absence of paid media advertising, there are limits to how far money goes. In 2005, my constituency had loads of Tory billboards. They had no perceptible effect except to mobilise both sides - the equivalent of the classic Labour loudspekaer car.
Second, there is clearly a financial risk if we piss off unions to the point that they decide we're all the same and they'll sit 2015 out. That's extremely unlikely IMO. If they are supportive they will donate from their political funds. If they aren't, then the reduced membership fees via affiliation won't make a decisive difference.
What I would do as Ed is link this to a low ceiling on donations. The Tory equivalent of Labour resisting opt-in has always been an insistence on a high donation ceiling. There is even a rumour that they'll try to push through opt-in in a surprise amendment next week. But people will see it as unfair if the tories get thewir way on opt-in but can go on mopping up large individual donations. And yes, the ceiling would affect unions too. All parties would need to get by with less. Join the modern world.
From the 1st article TSE has highlighted, McCluskey issues a clear threat. " Only a return to New Labour could split the movement apart." New Labour and the lefties in Unite are two separate parties in all but name.
Kind of ironic when you think of how the Unions are going ever further to the left of the current Labour party, and just as the country moves rightwards on many important issues.
So Miliband is now set to reform ties with the Unions less than two years away from the next GE? Bet that is a job he wished he had put at the top of his urgent to do list 3 years ago upon becoming Labour Leader, always dangerous to try to bite the hand that feeds your party copious amounts of money to fund GE campaigns so near the next one. Two years ago the whole summer recess was dominated by the drip drip effect of the hacking scandal, something tells me that this summer will be all about Labour, candidate selections and the Unions.
Just two questions, will Miliband now try to get everyone around the table to try to thrash out a more favourable an all party agreement on party funding? And if so, will Ed Miliband copy his gimmick where by he took along Hacked off to the cross party talks on legislation of the media by asking Len McCluskey to sit in on any discussions about funding restrictions?
So Miliband is now set to reform ties with the Unions less than two years away from the next GE? Bet that is a job he wished he had put at the top of his urgent to do list 3 years ago upon becoming Labour Leader, always dangerous to try to bite the hand that feeds your party copious amounts of money to fund GE campaigns so near the next one. Two years ago the whole summer recess was dominated by the drip drip effect of the hacking scandal, something tells me that this summer will be all about Labour, candidate selections and the Unions.
Just two questions, will Miliband now try to get everyone around the table to try to thrash out a more favourable an all party agreement on party funding? And if so, will Ed Miliband copy his gimmick where by he took along Hacked off to the cross party talks on legislation of the media by asking Len McCluskey to sit in on any discussions about funding restrictions?
TBH this all looks like a massive irrelevance. In a country where people are highly unimpressed with politicians, and not much engaged with politics, surely one way to engage them even less is to wiffle on for months about the minutae of how parties are funded? I can't see it ending well for anyone (possibly UKIP)
As someone (Tim perhaps) noted the other day- Unions are pretty much Cameron's "Big society" and if he really wanted to be the true heir to blair in triangulation terms he should be encouraging union membership.
So Miliband is now set to reform ties with the Unions less than two years away from the next GE? Bet that is a job he wished he had put at the top of his urgent to do list 3 years ago upon becoming Labour Leader, always dangerous to try to bite the hand that feeds your party copious amounts of money to fund GE campaigns so near the next one. Two years ago the whole summer recess was dominated by the drip drip effect of the hacking scandal, something tells me that this summer will be all about Labour, candidate selections and the Unions.
Just two questions, will Miliband now try to get everyone around the table to try to thrash out a more favourable an all party agreement on party funding? And if so, will Ed Miliband copy his gimmick where by he took along Hacked off to the cross party talks on legislation of the media by asking Len McCluskey to sit in on any discussions about funding restrictions?
TBH this all looks like a massive irrelevance. In a country where people are highly unimpressed with politicians, and not much engaged with politics, surely one way to engage them even less is to wiffle on for months about the minutae of how parties are funded? I can't see it ending well for anyone (possibly UKIP)
As someone (Tim perhaps) noted the other day- Unions are pretty much Cameron's "Big society" and if he really wanted to be the true heir to blair in triangulation terms he should be encouraging union membership.
I think you are right about the irrelevance part when it comes to the cynical way the electorate view the whole political classes. Often wonder if that has now become a key part of the incumbency factor for individual MP's of all parties in recent years. Yes the voters are cynical about the whole political process, but they deem their local MP who appears a hard working soul, and regularly in the local press fighting on the issues that matter as the best of the bunch unless a change of Government is imminent and desired by the majority. As for the idea that Cameron should be encouraging Union membership, I liked the idea floated by the Tories that members should have to 'opt into backing a political party' and that there should be a list of options available instead of the current default Labour setting.
As for the idea that Cameron should be encouraging Union membership, I liked the idea floated by the Tories that members should have to 'opt into backing a political party' and that there should be a list of options available instead of the current default Labour setting.
I would guess that to non-Tories that would just look like union-bashing- and anyway, why should govt be interfering in the internal rules of an organization?
My idea is that participating in a union is being an active member of society (which I think even some tories concede does exist) and is a positive thing. And if many more people did it, then the influence of the minority of Trotskyites or marxists would naturally be diluted (or alternatively all those moderate normal, hardworking families will be converted, and I'll be one of the first with my back against the wall when the revolution comes etc)
and anyway, why should govt be interfering in the internal rules of an organization?
I agree entirely. The govt shouldn't interfere in the internal rules of an organization.
Repeal all the politically correct anti-"discrimination" nonsense for companies, the insider-trading restrictions, elf'n'nsafety bindweed and all of the other pointless red-tape that is holding back our economy. That will balance the non-interference equation fairly and the economy would be much better off.
and anyway, why should govt be interfering in the internal rules of an organization?
I agree entirely. The govt shouldn't interfere in the internal rules of an organization.
Repeal all the politically correct anti-"discrimination" nonsense for companies, the insider-trading restrictions, elf'n'nsafety bindweed and all of the other pointless red-tape that is holding back our economy. That will balance the non-interference equation fairly and the economy would be much better off.
I see you were tickled by my brief donning of a libertarian hat
To an extent I can agree- that govt influence should be at a minumim on companies, unions or any other organization composed of (more or less) private citizens.
not sure why anti-discrimination is nonsense? insider trading laws are presumably intended to support free trade, so can't particularly see a problem with them. elf'n'safety bindweed is mostly caused by the people in charge of implementation rather rules themselves which are largely not too silly and tend to keep people alive on building sites/steelworks etc. The problem I suspect comes where people whose education has failed them (see talk of failure to promote creative thought yesterday) find their comfort level- ticking boxes, and tick their boxes with Stakhanovite zeal
I'm not in business in the UK- what red tape holds you back at the moment? (A genuine question)
Off topic, and since this is Nighthawks, when pbers are occasionally more friendly to each other, I have a request for suggestions.
I'm at a stage in my life when I feel that I have achieved pretty much all that I want to achieve in my chosen career and I fancy branching out in different directions. The skills I'd like tested more are those which would involve me using my deductive abilities, lateral thinking, my ability to explain complex ideas clearly and strategic planning skills.
I've got that far in my thought processes, but I'm now trying to compile a list of possibilities that might fit the bill. So I thought I would crowd-source this part of the problem.
So, any ideas?
Become a trustee of a couple of worthwhile charities?
I can easily put you in touch with the person who runs our Engaging Experiences network (that matches people in your position with interesting charities that can use their particular skillset)
As for the idea that Cameron should be encouraging Union membership, I liked the idea floated by the Tories that members should have to 'opt into backing a political party' and that there should be a list of options available instead of the current default Labour setting.
I would guess that to non-Tories that would just look like union-bashing- and anyway, why should govt be interfering in the internal rules of an organization?
My idea is that participating in a union is being an active member of society (which I think even some tories concede does exist) and is a positive thing. And if many more people did it, then the influence of the minority of Trotskyites or marxists would naturally be diluted (or alternatively all those moderate normal, hardworking families will be converted, and I'll be one of the first with my back against the wall when the revolution comes etc)
Being a member of a union is a good thing - but as others have said the vast majority don't join because they want to be activists or even want a Labour government (IIRC something like 37/38% of Unite members voted Labour in 2010 - more than the general population, to be sure, but not diametrically different).
The question is how to stop the union barons using the weight of all the relatively disinterested members to back their personal campaigns. Requiring an opt in + allowing a choice over where the money goes doesn't seem unreasonable.
(I like the idea of a cap as well - but it should apply to the total donation from the unions if you are not going down the members' choice route).
In a foretaste of how Labour’s opponents intend to exploit the issue, Nick Clegg will offer Mr Miliband the Government’s help today in making his reforms legally binding. But the Labour leader will reject that, saying that it is in unions’ own interests to agree to the changes voluntarily.
The question is how to stop the union barons using the weight of all the relatively disinterested members to back their personal campaigns.
surely its a question for the union members, though? If they are unhappy with the way the leaders behave, they presumably have voting rights to change things? (and correct me if I'm wrong but different unions already have different ways to use politcal funds?)
The question is how to stop the union barons using the weight of all the relatively disinterested members to back their personal campaigns.
surely its a question for the union members, though? If they are unhappy with the way the leaders behave, they presumably have voting rights to change things? (and correct me if I'm wrong but different unions already have different ways to use politcal funds?)
This is an occasion when the private sphere overlaps with the public sphere, and therefore can be appropriately regulated. Thus, for instance, companies are required to get shareholder approval before giving money to a political party - and the political party needs to be specified in the resolution. Why should the union leaders have freedom to spend as they see fit?
I think it is simply wrong that any single interest group has so much influence over, and provides such a high proportion of funding to, a political party.
I was a member of USDAW when I worked at a Tesco DC. The only reason I recall anyone ever saying they joined was for access to legal advice in the event of an accident etc. Ironically the people I know that did have accidents were thoroughly cheesed off with the legal advice as it was invariably to accept the first offer. Most held out and got a higher offer, the ones that accepted were even more annoyed when they discovered that they could have got a higher award by ignoring the advice.
Getting out of the political levy was a different matter entirely, it took two years and only after I threatened legal action, loudly proclaiming to the regional organiser that I was a Thatcherite.
Comments
Three amendments put to a vote today - all massively defeated.
Second and final day of Report Stage on Wednesday.
So far not a single amendment contrary to the Government line has been passed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23234342
Here is a link to a recent one associated with a game called the Secret world detailing all the steps that people solved. These are usually solved as a group effort
http://farbeyondmycapacity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-end-of-end-of-days-how-latest-arg.html
Sky News: Egyptian civil war (possible).
BBC News Channel: Ed Miliband's speech tomorrow.
http://m.guardiannews.com/law/2013/jul/08/britain-european-arrest-warrant-reform If this was British news I reckon they'd give you some kind of relevant information, like what are they actually planning on opting out of. They wouldn't report, "In the budget today Osborne announed 12 things. This represents a compromise with the Liberal Democrats, who only wanted 8 things, but is lower than the origanal Conservative proposal, which encompassed 18 things, two thigammies and a whatjamacallit".
I can't fathom why you want to test your ability to explain complex ideas nor why you want to test your strategic planning skills. Why on earth you would choose to do these things?
I exhort you to abandon these fanciful notions and hone your skills against winning the battle against the "Old Enemy". Set your mind forthwith to deducing the winner of today's 2.30 pm at Pontefract races. And while you are about it, see if you can work out why the first race at Pontefract was historically always run at 2.45 pm up until quite recently?
If trade unions are not allowed to buy votes by using their members' money to pay subscriptions they know nothing about how many bill boards does Ed think he will have at the next election? The man clearly lives in a cloud. But even in the Labour party reality must intrude at some point.
Michael Fabricant used to be chairman of Brighton Pavilion Conservative association.
'If trade unions are not allowed to buy votes by using their members' money to pay subscriptions'
Expect a lot of posturing from Red tomorrow,lots of guff about primaries,reducing union influence blah,blah but not enough time to introduce changes before the next election or have new selection process for already selected Unite candidates.
Second, there is clearly a financial risk if we piss off unions to the point that they decide we're all the same and they'll sit 2015 out. That's extremely unlikely IMO. If they are supportive they will donate from their political funds. If they aren't, then the reduced membership fees via affiliation won't make a decisive difference.
What I would do as Ed is link this to a low ceiling on donations. The Tory equivalent of Labour resisting opt-in has always been an insistence on a high donation ceiling. There is even a rumour that they'll try to push through opt-in in a surprise amendment next week. But people will see it as unfair if the tories get thewir way on opt-in but can go on mopping up large individual donations. And yes, the ceiling would affect unions too. All parties would need to get by with less. Join the modern world.
https://twitter.com/TheDukeOfYork
https://twitter.com/OReillyMiriam
Just two questions, will Miliband now try to get everyone around the table to try to thrash out a more favourable an all party agreement on party funding? And if so, will Ed Miliband copy his gimmick where by he took along Hacked off to the cross party talks on legislation of the media by asking Len McCluskey to sit in on any discussions about funding restrictions?
As someone (Tim perhaps) noted the other day- Unions are pretty much Cameron's "Big society" and if he really wanted to be the true heir to blair in triangulation terms he should be encouraging union membership.
My idea is that participating in a union is being an active member of society (which I think even some tories concede does exist) and is a positive thing. And if many more people did it, then the influence of the minority of Trotskyites or marxists would naturally be diluted (or alternatively all those moderate normal, hardworking families will be converted, and I'll be one of the first with my back against the wall when the revolution comes etc)
Repeal all the politically correct anti-"discrimination" nonsense for companies, the insider-trading restrictions, elf'n'nsafety bindweed and all of the other pointless red-tape that is holding back our economy. That will balance the non-interference equation fairly and the economy would be much better off.
To an extent I can agree- that govt influence should be at a minumim on companies, unions or any other organization composed of (more or less) private citizens.
not sure why anti-discrimination is nonsense?
insider trading laws are presumably intended to support free trade, so can't particularly see a problem with them.
elf'n'safety bindweed is mostly caused by the people in charge of implementation rather rules themselves which are largely not too silly and tend to keep people alive on building sites/steelworks etc. The problem I suspect comes where people whose education has failed them (see talk of failure to promote creative thought yesterday) find their comfort level- ticking boxes, and tick their boxes
with Stakhanovite zeal
I'm not in business in the UK- what red tape holds you back at the moment? (A genuine question)
I can easily put you in touch with the person who runs our Engaging Experiences network (that matches people in your position with interesting charities that can use their particular skillset)
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 8th July - Con 34%, Lab 40%, LD 10%, UKIP 10%; APP -25
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/bq20ecsm1p/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-080713.pdf
The question is how to stop the union barons using the weight of all the relatively disinterested members to back their personal campaigns. Requiring an opt in + allowing a choice over where the money goes doesn't seem unreasonable.
(I like the idea of a cap as well - but it should apply to the total donation from the unions if you are not going down the members' choice route).
...if Len says it's OK.
@LabourList: .@markfergusonuk suggests that Ed M will need at least two conferences to pass rule changes - or a special conference http://labli.st/1dbzuYk
So Labour are going to spend the entire 2 years up to the next election, and beyond, talking about the unions.
Genius
I think it is simply wrong that any single interest group has so much influence over, and provides such a high proportion of funding to, a political party.
The only reason I recall anyone ever saying they joined was for access to legal advice in the event of an accident etc.
Ironically the people I know that did have accidents were thoroughly cheesed off with the legal advice as it was invariably to accept the first offer.
Most held out and got a higher offer, the ones that accepted were even more annoyed when they discovered that they could have got a higher award by ignoring the advice.
Getting out of the political levy was a different matter entirely, it took two years and only after I threatened legal action, loudly proclaiming to the regional organiser that I was a Thatcherite.