I doubt many members even know that a levy exists. At my Tesco DC it was only a political anorak like me or the shop stewards. And to opt out was a bloody painful process.
I tried to opt out of Student Union membership at uni as I didn't want to be associated or fund some of the more disgusting attitudes of the NUS. Even when they conceded it was technically possible they made it impossible in practice.
I recall some discussion of Welsh education here recently - any advice for me?
My daughter is moving to Bangor [from Edinburgh] as her mother has found a job there, and from what I can tell the local secondary schools are very keen on teaching in Welsh, which is itself a compulsory GCSE subject.
What is it going to be like for an 11 year old with no Welsh to move into that?
They will likely be moving away after three years when the job contract finishes, so I don't know how worthwhile it will be for her to spend so much time in school learning Welsh.
Also, if anyone has experience of good places to stay when I visit her that would be great. I know there's a cottage out in Anglesey that will be vacant soon, but I doubt I can stay there on an ad-hoc basis all that cheaply.
There are two secondary schools in Bangor. The bilingual one is Friars School. Google it and you will find a long prospectus. Also google for the Estyn Report (school inspection done in 2011) for that school - could not find link to it on the school website.
If your daughter is keen on the sciences, you will need to ensure that she can take the individual sciences and not just "science."
You should find causal accommodation in farmhouse B&Bs or in holiday lets without problems outside of summer. It depends on the frequency of your visits. Hope this helps.
Picking a fight to make a point can be a good wheeze for a politician. Tony Blair was of course the master at this.
However, you do need to win the fight. Picking a fight which you then lose, or appearing to pick a fight and then running backwards from it in the form of 'clarifications', is the worst of all worlds, particularly if it looks as though the only reason you started the fight was that you were cornered.
It seems to me that many journalists, and indeed some of our distinguished posters here, are underestimating the risk that Ed's not going to be able to deliver. Firstly he's got to get it past the party structures and his own colleagues. The NEC has a strong union contingent (12 out of 33 members as of right), plus some pretty left-wing elected members like Ken Livingstone, not known for his automatic kow-towing to the party leader. Other senior figures may like the idea in principle, but be rightly concerned about the financial implications and the fact that it throws away a baragaining chip in party-funding negotiations. The unions (or precisely the handful of union barons who run things from smoke-free rooms) are unlikely to play ball. The actual procedure for changing the rules is very unclear, but make take special conferences and will certainly take time. That gives time for opponents to organise themselves. And, as antifrank and others have pointed out, Ed can't change the rules of the unions, which are not even nominally in his control, and yet his proposals appear to require big changes to what the unions do. At the very least this looks a long and messy fight.
But the immediate danger may come as soon as next week. If, on Tuesday, Ed advocates union members having to opt-in, is he really going to vote, on next Monday, against an amendment requiring them to opt-in?
Production likely only to add a small positive to Q2 GDP after this morning's numbers. Manufacturing down on the month and probably will be flat over the quarter. Oil/Gas helping the production numbers for a change on the month, but again will likely be flat over the quarter as it has just bounced of a low.
Trade pretty much same old, same old. Big goods deficit, not quite so big services surplus, balance of trade trending away from the EU, but continues to be flat. Likely little effect on quarterly GDP, but datasheet is corrupted, so no details.
Overall Q2 GDP not quite as perky as could have been, so the "new" predictions at approx 0.4-0.6 looking good.
It seems to me that many journalists, and indeed some of our distinguished posters here, are underestimating the risk that Ed's not going to be able to deliver.
Don't underestimate the Labour party's ambition to win elections. It was hard wired after 1992. You saw it in 2010.
Because of this, the deck is more firmly rigged in Ed's favour than you think. Tories tend not to get that this is not the Labour party of the 1980s. Ed probably already knows that the battle is won and probably already has the agreement of a majority on the NEC etc.
"But the immediate danger may come as soon as next week. If, on Tuesday, Ed advocates union members having to opt-in, is he really going to vote, on next Monday, against an amendment requiring them to opt-in?"
And that is the trap he's fallen straight into - HMG haven't cleared a long planned day of debate for no good reason - its to drop EdM in it, and he's obliging them with gusto.
I find myself wondering if the leaks/grumbling has been timed by those hostile to EdM and Unite's power given the Lobbying Bill is now passing through the HoC - the coincidence seems remarkable.
I really can't quite grasp this - we can't impose our own legal penalties re whole life sentences as they're against the ECHR? What is the point if we can't decide who's too dangerous to lock up indefinitely?
@DPJHodges: Me: "Will those who opt in have a direct relationship with the party". Senior Labour source: "Yes".
And for the PB Tories who don't understand any of this, that is the key. And it's huge.
Add in primaries to this plus the rest of the Arnie Graf agenda and its more than Clause Four, which was a fossil anyway.
So will this all be in place and done and dusted by the 2015 election ? Or a set of lofty ambitions kicked into the long grass after the union wonga has secured an election victory ?
@Jonathan - Maybe, but he's hasn't had much time to prepare the ground.
It's probably not safe to assume this was just thought up on the spot. He may just have brought it forward. "Have a public fight with the unions" is traditional a year to eighteen months before an election. It's probably already printed in the five-year electoral calendar, right after to "accept the government's spending plans".
@Jonathan - Maybe, but he's hasn't had much time to prepare the ground.
It's probably not safe to assume this was just thought up on the spot. He may just have brought it forward. "Have a public fight with the unions" is traditional a year to eighteen months before an election. It's probably already printed in the five-year electoral calendar, right after "accept the government's spending plans".
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
If Labour are now so desperate for Ed to be seen to win against Unions then it is a golden opportunity to get rid of the political levy by making it opt-in. The few weirdos who want to give a Union money so that the Union can give it to labour should be allowed to, so long as they opt-in on a specific form that is separate from anything else and clearly spells out in large font at the top what is being opted in to. Every year. I believe a few of the Unions already do this.
Then let Ed parade himself and his win.
Re - Bamber case. ECHR is little more than a political body. It HAS NOT declared they must be released as that would outrage us and others, but to placate the other side of the political divide on the issue, it has made some headline-catching judgement that requires zero remedial action and zero damages.
It is a pointless judgement, but the legal industry will love it as the taxpayer has just spent millions on lawyers and judges on this pointless judgement. The upper class equivalent of being paid to dig holes and refill them.
It's probably not safe to assume this was just thought up on the spot. He may just have brought it forward. "Have a public fight with the unions" is traditional a year to eighteen months before an election. It's probably already printed in the five-year electoral calendar, right after "accept the government's spending plans".
Given that last Tuesday he wanted to keep Tom Watson in place, on Wednesday he had PMQs lines prepared praising Tom Watson, and on Thursday milispokespersons were briefing that he effectively sacked Tom Watson, it seems a bit unlikely that it was pre-planned.
Edit: Anyway, the line is incoherent. We've been told all week that Falkirk was a little local difficulty in a far-away constituency of which we know little and care less, reprehensible but very much a one-off. So why on earth has he suddenly discovered he needs to overturn a hundred years of Labour Party history?
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
They should set up their own party.
That would be Christmas come early for the good guys. Hot red-on-red action.
It's probably not safe to assume this was just thought up on the spot. He may just have brought it forward. "Have a public fight with the unions" is traditional a year to eighteen months before an election. It's probably already printed in the five-year electoral calendar, right after "accept the government's spending plans".
Given that last Tuesday he wanted to keep Tom Watson in place, on Wednesday he had PMQs lines prepared praising Tom Watson, and on Thursday milispokespersons were briefing that he effectively sacked Tom Watson, it seems a bit unlikely that it was pre-planned.
If he had any sense he would have had a plan in place for the last three years to sack Tom Watson.
I've been in a few unions over my working life. The best was the AEEU, back in the day, when I was a young machine fitter, they were superb at representing us. I didn't know about the political levy then, but I probably wouldn't have bothered to opt out of it.
My current union, the FBU, isn't affiliated to the Labour party, although it sponsors many MPs who are sympathetic to it's aims and give us a voice at the table. I, along with many of my colleagues, opted out of the political levy after the last national strike. It was pretty easy to do, just involved ticking a box on a form. I've found that people tend to join the union for one thing only-protection in case something goes wrong. Not many initially think of the political aspect of the union, so I'd welcome an opt in requirement for the political levy.
I really can't quite grasp this - we can't impose our own legal penalties re whole life sentences as they're against the ECHR? What is the point if we can't decide who's too dangerous to lock up indefinitely?
I think your use of "indefinitely" is telling. The ECtHR has not ruled against an indefinite sentence i.e. one lacking a definite term, but rather the "whole life" provision used by the courts. It just means he'll have to be reviewed after a definite period of years to assess whether he's suitable for release. I haven't read the judgment but I would be surprised if it did not allow the possibility of a very long period before consideration, such as thirty or forty years.
It's probably not safe to assume this was just thought up on the spot. He may just have brought it forward. "Have a public fight with the unions" is traditional a year to eighteen months before an election. It's probably already printed in the five-year electoral calendar, right after "accept the government's spending plans".
Given that last Tuesday he wanted to keep Tom Watson in place, on Wednesday he had PMQs lines prepared praising Tom Watson, and on Thursday milispokespersons were briefing that he effectively sacked Tom Watson, it seems a bit unlikely that it was pre-planned.
And that the row in Falkirk has been all over the Scottish media for two months and all over the English press for a few days before EdM got all emboldened - I think it's a clear case of being forced into it.
Labour under EdM's leadership have had nearly 3yrs of policy-wonking to come up with something - yet it took Cameron mentioning it *too many times* at PMQs to force the issue into the open...
"We are working with other Unions to ensure general agreement around candidates in selections. With some give and take broad agreement has been reached across the main trade unions involved. Regions have been asked for their preferences – and in the main have produced comprehensive proposals – usually following regional discussions with TULO or, Big Four unions.
Future Candidates Programme: Our second Future Candidates Programme took place in February. We now have 30 potential candidates on the programme, and will be inducting a further 20 after Easter. This is a serious long-term training programme, aimed at developing Unite Activists so that they can become candidates for public office.”"
It's probably not safe to assume this was just thought up on the spot. He may just have brought it forward. "Have a public fight with the unions" is traditional a year to eighteen months before an election. It's probably already printed in the five-year electoral calendar, right after "accept the government's spending plans".
Given that last Tuesday he wanted to keep Tom Watson in place, on Wednesday he had PMQs lines prepared praising Tom Watson, and on Thursday milispokespersons were briefing that he effectively sacked Tom Watson, it seems a bit unlikely that it was pre-planned.
Not the Tom Watson bit, the opt-in stuff or whatever it is he's announcing.
I'm not suggesting the whole Falkirk thing was a set-up, just that he probably already had a public union-slapping planned, maybe this one.
Intriguingly, however, Miliband's PPS Jonathan Reynolds has just told Sky News that McCluskey is a "little bit more supportive than that quote might suggest". He had better be right. If Miliband fails to reach agreement with the unions and then recoils from changing the law with the Tories, his epitaph will be "weak".
A real-life murder trial is to be broadcast on television, giving a rare insight into the court system.
The programme was filmed over a period of six weeks at the High Court in Edinburgh last year.
It follows the retrial of Nat Fraser, whose face is shown on screen as the jury returns the verdict against him on the charge of murdering his wife.
The documentary - The Murder Trial - was made by Windfall Films and is to be screened on Channel 4.
It follows the trial from start to finish and features several of the figures involved, providing a rare insight into proceedings in Scottish courts.
Plato, like the mystery surrounding Renee MacRae and her son's disappearance, this case has been a regular feature of the news up here in Scotland for many years now.
Intriguingly, however, Miliband's PPS Jonathan Reynolds has just told Sky News that McCluskey is a "little bit more supportive than that quote might suggest". He had better be right. If Miliband fails to reach agreement with the unions and then recoils from changing the law with the Tories, his epitaph will be "weak".
"The party is briefing that it will not impose the new system through a change in the law, with the expectation being that the unions will introduce it voluntarily"
Intriguingly, however, Miliband's PPS Jonathan Reynolds has just told Sky News that McCluskey is a "little bit more supportive than that quote might suggest". He had better be right. If Miliband fails to reach agreement with the unions and then recoils from changing the law with the Tories, his epitaph will be "weak".
Exactly what is in EdM's proposals for the big unions? Nothing that I can see re their influence re Labour, EdM is asking them to give away power, money and member ownership.
Why would they agree to this when they have him by the nuts?
I would read the small print folks. The political levy isnt real money, it can be varied according to needs (how else does Labour manage to get more money in an election year). So if half of trade union member dont opt in why not just double the levy for those who do. Nobody notices as the overall sub is the same and Labour gets the same amount of money. Sorted.
I would read the small print folks. The political levy isnt real money, it can be varied according to needs (how else does Labour manage to get more money in an election year). So if half of trade union member dont opt in why not just double the levy for those who do. Nobody notices as the overall sub is the same and Labour gets the same amount of money. Sorted.
I'm a bit confused here - if you donate your say £3 to Labour directly - then your union has no discretion re an election year or not.
I would read the small print folks. The political levy isnt real money, it can be varied according to needs (how else does Labour manage to get more money in an election year). So if half of trade union member dont opt in why not just double the levy for those who do. Nobody notices as the overall sub is the same and Labour gets the same amount of money. Sorted.
That's ok, if people freely choose to donate ever more of their money to a political party, there should be no law to stop them.
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
They should set up their own party.
They already did in 1900 - it was called the Labour Representation Committee which became the Labour Party.
Nothing wrong with trade unions backing a political party. But you do need to make sure it is not manipulated by a small clique.
"A key part of our general political strategy involves winning more Unite members to join and become active in the Labour Party. This has been particularly urgent in those constituencies with forthcoming selections. Indeed it is also readily understandable if you want a progressive working class Labour candidate, join and work for one is the simple message. As soon as the boundary review was abandoned, we accelerated our member development programme. Only members joining prior to six-months before the commencement of the CLP selection process are eligible to participate in the process.
We are working with other Unions to ensure general agreement around candidates in selections. With some give and take broad agreement has been reached across the main trade unions involved. Regions have been asked for their preferences – and in the main have produced comprehensive proposals – usually following regional discussions with TULO or, Big Four unions.
Future Candidates Programme: Our second Future Candidates Programme took place in February. We now have 30 potential candidates on the programme, and will be inducting a further 20 after Easter. This is a serious long-term training programme, aimed at developing Unite Activists so that they can become candidates for public office.”
'So will this all be in place and done and dusted by the 2015 election ? Or a set of lofty ambitions kicked into the long grass after the union wonga has secured an election victory ?'
Unfortunately there will not be enough time to do this before the next election or to have further selections where UNITE already have their candidates selected blah,blah,blah.
He'll be finished. But I'd put money on him being more of a leader than the pathetic Cameron kowtowing to his right wing and UKIP.
Yeah, just think of all that kowtowing Cameron has done: pushing for gay marriage, increasing overseas aid, arguing that we should stay in the EU, the Green Investment Bank, and (if you are right) opting back in to the European Arrest Warrant. Clearly he's been panicked into trying to outflank UKIP from the Right.
Whatever Miliband proposes will be a notable improvement on the status quo. No point in arguing that. But he's reacting to events not shaping them and that is so blindingly ovbious to everyone, including, yes, tim. Had he made the speech he is about to give six months ago, out of the blue, he'd be a weather-maker and be the recipient of much kudos (and no little Tory angst).
At best, he may claw some lost ground back. But the overall effect for a bored uninterested electorate is Labour being more seen as a divided party. And as we blues know to our cost for much of this year, the voters aren't greatly enamoured by such self indulgence.
Eric Pickles @EricPickles I did not realise you had to be a T. U. member to be a Labour Cllr. I will now review the rules on declaration of interests for Cllrs
it is hilarious how obvious it is that Labour MPs have been instructed to say that Ed is showing 'strong leadership'. Like sheep they duly follow. It's sort-of impressive, in a creepy way.
it is hilarious how obvious it is that Labour MPs have been instructed to say that Ed is showing 'strong leadership'. Like sheep they duly follow. It's sort-of impressive, in a creepy way.
That would be as opposed to the entirely spontaneous weak, weak, weak line that the Tories are taking!
To opt out of 98 of the 133 EU criminal justice measures would be a great achievement,combined with a revised arrest warrant.
Blair's awesome negotiating skills can be seen in the final paragraph.
'The home secretary will move to qualify her announcement by saying that Britain will push for a new proportionality test for the European arrest warrant to ensure that British citizens cannot be deported to other EU states for relatively minor offences. Ministers cite Polish law which imposes relatively long sentences on minor offences such as bike theft.
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. Oliver Letwin, the prime minister's policy guru, and Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem chief secretary to the Treasury, have been negotiating the deal over the past year.
In her statement to MPs, May will announce that parliament will be given a vote next week on the government's proposals. This is designed to strengthen the hand of ministers who will have to negotiate for up to a year with the rest of the EU for Britain to be allowed to cut back on British involvement with EU criminal justice measures.
Under an agreement negotiated by Tony Blair, Britain has to opt out of all the measures even if it only wants to end British involvement in one of them. Britain will wait until the conclusion of the negotiations with the EU on the 35 measures it hopes to continue to back before exercising the mass opt out'.
@tim - Ah, I see, you mean he's paying lip-service to the right, the diametric opposite of what you said. Much like Tony Blair claiming to be a 'socialist', eh?
@RN - Stop it, I say, stop it, and now! PbTories do not inflict cruel and unusual punishments, particularly on their benefactors. We need to boost tim, not drag him down.
Mr. Nabavi, Labour MPs are definitely far more disciplined. It's a double-edged sword, though. They're more unified, which helps a lot, but they also wave through the craziest nonsense, like Brown becoming leader even though many of them loathed him.
Is there any truth in the rumour that Al-Beeb and the Labour front-bench are about to launch their GE 2015 anthem? The photo from The Independent article suggests it may be true....
7th July 2013: Harriet Harman has rejected claims that candidate selection problems go much wider than Falkirk, the seat at the heart of a row with the Unite union.
9th July 2013: Miliband says Falkirk confirmed people's worst suspicions about politics.
"Labour's general secretary Ray Collins has been forced to deny involvement in the Tory smears website that has sent the government sliding in the polls."
"Mr Collins was accused of attending a meeting, along with then Downing Street aide Damian McBride, at which the planning and organisation of the Red Rag site was discussed."
Still some value in England at 1.92 for the test tomorrow - Trent Bridge is a happy hunting ground for England - won 4 in a row there.
Not laying the draw, TGOHF?
I know it's smaller pickings, but surely much more certain? I'm not convinced Australia are going to be quite the pushover some imagine. I have even backed a 2-2 series score, to modest amounts, as recommended by the other Tower, PfP.
But laying the draw at Trent Bridge is surely tantamount to buying money. Few Test Matches last five days unless the weather intervenes and the outlook for Notingham is sunny. What's more, both sides are stronger in the bowling than the batting and Swann should be in his element on a pitch which is bound to be a little drier and dustier than usual.
The draw has drifted to 4.3 now but I still think it's a bargain lay.
I know it's smaller pickings, but surely much more certain? I'm not convinced Australia are going to be quite the pushover some imagine. I have even backed a 2-2 series score, to modest amounts, as recommended by the other Tower, PfP.
Intereting. Are you not concerned about a hot late-July and an overcast August...?
Spinners to the fore; swinging later? Do the Ozzies have as much movement as the bookies...?
I love the old political maxim, repeated by Peter Kellner this morning, that you should “never let a serious crisis go to waste”.
This is particularly important for opposition leaders because it can often be challenging for them to get any media attention as Cameron found during Gordon’s media honeymoon in 2007. It’s governments that have so much power over the news agenda and then, for 3 months, Brown was making an announcement a day. Dave hardly got a look in and his ratings slumped.
So a benefit to Ed of the Unite row is that he is making the news. The critical thing for Labour is that he comes over in a manner that boosts his position and that is far from certain.
EdM’s proposal to limit MPs outside earnings will poll well and hurt the Tories more. I think that this is wrong but it’s good politics.
Comments
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/10534660.Catford_fox_horror_for_man_on_toilet/?ref=ec
Google it and you will find a long prospectus. Also google for the Estyn Report (school inspection done in 2011) for that school - could not find link to it on the school website.
If your daughter is keen on the sciences, you will need to ensure that she can take the individual sciences and not just "science."
You should find causal accommodation in farmhouse B&Bs or in holiday lets without problems outside of summer. It depends on the frequency of your visits. Hope this helps.
Picking a fight to make a point can be a good wheeze for a politician. Tony Blair was of course the master at this.
However, you do need to win the fight. Picking a fight which you then lose, or appearing to pick a fight and then running backwards from it in the form of 'clarifications', is the worst of all worlds, particularly if it looks as though the only reason you started the fight was that you were cornered.
It seems to me that many journalists, and indeed some of our distinguished posters here, are underestimating the risk that Ed's not going to be able to deliver. Firstly he's got to get it past the party structures and his own colleagues. The NEC has a strong union contingent (12 out of 33 members as of right), plus some pretty left-wing elected members like Ken Livingstone, not known for his automatic kow-towing to the party leader. Other senior figures may like the idea in principle, but be rightly concerned about the financial implications and the fact that it throws away a baragaining chip in party-funding negotiations. The unions (or precisely the handful of union barons who run things from smoke-free rooms) are unlikely to play ball. The actual procedure for changing the rules is very unclear, but make take special conferences and will certainly take time. That gives time for opponents to organise themselves. And, as antifrank and others have pointed out, Ed can't change the rules of the unions, which are not even nominally in his control, and yet his proposals appear to require big changes to what the unions do. At the very least this looks a long and messy fight.
But the immediate danger may come as soon as next week. If, on Tuesday, Ed advocates union members having to opt-in, is he really going to vote, on next Monday, against an amendment requiring them to opt-in?
Trade pretty much same old, same old. Big goods deficit, not quite so big services surplus, balance of trade trending away from the EU, but continues to be flat. Likely little effect on quarterly GDP, but datasheet is corrupted, so no details.
Overall Q2 GDP not quite as perky as could have been, so the "new" predictions at approx 0.4-0.6 looking good.
Because of this, the deck is more firmly rigged in Ed's favour than you think. Tories tend not to get that this is not the Labour party of the 1980s. Ed probably already knows that the battle is won and probably already has the agreement of a majority on the NEC etc.
"But the immediate danger may come as soon as next week. If, on Tuesday, Ed advocates union members having to opt-in, is he really going to vote, on next Monday, against an amendment requiring them to opt-in?"
And that is the trap he's fallen straight into - HMG haven't cleared a long planned day of debate for no good reason - its to drop EdM in it, and he's obliging them with gusto.
I find myself wondering if the leaks/grumbling has been timed by those hostile to EdM and Unite's power given the Lobbying Bill is now passing through the HoC - the coincidence seems remarkable.
Another wonderful day for Europhilia...
"We support a cap in principle, but not this particular way of doing it."
Jason Beattie @JBeattieMirror
In the last 10 years the five biggest unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, CWU and Usdaw) have given £70m to Labour in cash and services
Then let Ed parade himself and his win.
Re - Bamber case. ECHR is little more than a political body. It HAS NOT declared they must be released as that would outrage us and others, but to placate the other side of the political divide on the issue, it has made some headline-catching judgement that requires zero remedial action and zero damages.
It is a pointless judgement, but the legal industry will love it as the taxpayer has just spent millions on lawyers and judges on this pointless judgement. The upper class equivalent of being paid to dig holes and refill them.
Edit: Anyway, the line is incoherent. We've been told all week that Falkirk was a little local difficulty in a far-away constituency of which we know little and care less, reprehensible but very much a one-off. So why on earth has he suddenly discovered he needs to overturn a hundred years of Labour Party history?
My current union, the FBU, isn't affiliated to the Labour party, although it sponsors many MPs who are sympathetic to it's aims and give us a voice at the table. I, along with many of my colleagues, opted out of the political levy after the last national strike. It was pretty easy to do, just involved ticking a box on a form.
I've found that people tend to join the union for one thing only-protection in case something goes wrong. Not many initially think of the political aspect of the union, so I'd welcome an opt in requirement for the political levy.
Labour under EdM's leadership have had nearly 3yrs of policy-wonking to come up with something - yet it took Cameron mentioning it *too many times* at PMQs to force the issue into the open...
http://order-order.com/2013/07/09/new-leaked-unite-briefing-details-plot-to-stitch-up-seats/
"We are working with other Unions to ensure general agreement around candidates in selections. With some give and take broad agreement has been reached across the main trade unions involved. Regions have been asked for their preferences – and in the main have produced comprehensive proposals – usually following regional discussions with TULO or, Big Four unions.
Future Candidates Programme: Our second Future Candidates Programme took place in February. We now have 30 potential candidates on the programme, and will be inducting a further 20 after Easter. This is a serious long-term training programme, aimed at developing Unite Activists so that they can become candidates for public office.”"
I'm not suggesting the whole Falkirk thing was a set-up, just that he probably already had a public union-slapping planned, maybe this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419
Intriguingly, however, Miliband's PPS Jonathan Reynolds has just told Sky News that McCluskey is a "little bit more supportive than that quote might suggest". He had better be right. If Miliband fails to reach agreement with the unions and then recoils from changing the law with the Tories, his epitaph will be "weak".
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/unions-say-no-milibands-funding-plan-what-next
Why would they agree to this when they have him by the nuts?
Lab nailed on maj 2.54
NOM 2.52
What is your point?
Lab nailed on 1.73
Con 2.46
Dont say the thought didnt cross your mind
Nothing wrong with trade unions backing a political party. But you do need to make sure it is not manipulated by a small clique.
http://order-order.com/2013/07/09/new-leaked-unite-briefing-details-plot-to-stitch-up-seats/
"A key part of our general political strategy involves winning more Unite members to join and become active in the Labour Party. This has been particularly urgent in those constituencies with forthcoming selections. Indeed it is also readily understandable if you want a progressive working class Labour candidate, join and work for one is the simple message. As soon as the boundary review was abandoned, we accelerated our member development programme. Only members joining prior to six-months before the commencement of the CLP selection process are eligible to participate in the process.
We are working with other Unions to ensure general agreement around candidates in selections. With some give and take broad agreement has been reached across the main trade unions involved. Regions have been asked for their preferences – and in the main have produced comprehensive proposals – usually following regional discussions with TULO or, Big Four unions.
Future Candidates Programme: Our second Future Candidates Programme took place in February. We now have 30 potential candidates on the programme, and will be inducting a further 20 after Easter. This is a serious long-term training programme, aimed at developing Unite Activists so that they can become candidates for public office.”
'So will this all be in place and done and dusted by the 2015 election ? Or a set of lofty ambitions kicked into the long grass after the union wonga has secured an election victory ?'
Unfortunately there will not be enough time to do this before the next election or to have further selections where UNITE already have their candidates selected blah,blah,blah.
At best, he may claw some lost ground back. But the overall effect for a bored uninterested electorate is Labour being more seen as a divided party. And as we blues know to our cost for much of this year, the voters aren't greatly enamoured by such self indulgence.
ECHR flexes its muscles over UK law again. Sentencing should be up to UK courts and laws decided by directly elected UK politicians.
I did not realise you had to be a T. U. member to be a Labour Cllr. I will now review the rules on declaration of interests for Cllrs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jul/09/ed-miliband-reforming-labour-unions-live
it is hilarious how obvious it is that Labour MPs have been instructed to say that Ed is showing 'strong leadership'. Like sheep they duly follow. It's sort-of impressive, in a creepy way.
Blair's " endorsement " must have made Ed M's blood run cold. Suddenly Ed M's position as leader is looking extremely precarious.
To opt out of 98 of the 133 EU criminal justice measures would be a great achievement,combined with a revised arrest warrant.
Blair's awesome negotiating skills can be seen in the final paragraph.
'The home secretary will move to qualify her announcement by saying that Britain will push for a new proportionality test for the European arrest warrant to ensure that British citizens cannot be deported to other EU states for relatively minor offences. Ministers cite Polish law which imposes relatively long sentences on minor offences such as bike theft.
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. Oliver Letwin, the prime minister's policy guru, and Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem chief secretary to the Treasury, have been negotiating the deal over the past year.
In her statement to MPs, May will announce that parliament will be given a vote next week on the government's proposals. This is designed to strengthen the hand of ministers who will have to negotiate for up to a year with the rest of the EU for Britain to be allowed to cut back on British involvement with EU criminal justice measures.
Under an agreement negotiated by Tony Blair, Britain has to opt out of all the measures even if it only wants to end British involvement in one of them. Britain will wait until the conclusion of the negotiations with the EU on the 35 measures it hopes to continue to back before exercising the mass opt out'.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/07/by-paul-goodman-ed-miliband-displays-what-child-psychiatriasts-call-a-pattern-of-behavior-confronted-with-a-problem-he-can.html
Looking at that, it seems that it was Maggie, not Cameron, who hollowed out the membership numbers of the Conservative Party.
We can't break the embargo on Mili's speech but it is fair to say that 2 pages in I have yet to find a sentence with a verb
o/T
Still some value in England at 1.92 for the test tomorrow - Trent Bridge is a happy hunting ground for England - won 4 in a row there.
"Faiwness !"
Since mid morning he is back on negative Con spin - suggest he is disappointed with what we are about to hear.
I haven't been following the news.
Did someone foul up?
Is there any truth in the rumour that Al-Beeb and the Labour front-bench are about to launch their GE 2015 anthem? The photo from The Independent article suggests it may be true....
9th July 2013: Miliband says Falkirk confirmed people's worst suspicions about politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23217088
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jul/09/ed-miliband-reforming-labour-unions-live
"Labour's general secretary Ray Collins has been forced to deny involvement in the Tory smears website that has sent the government sliding in the polls."
"Mr Collins was accused of attending a meeting, along with then Downing Street aide Damian McBride, at which the planning and organisation of the Red Rag site was discussed."
Nice.
It'll be interesting to see what he considers a second job, and what he does not.
I know it's smaller pickings, but surely much more certain? I'm not convinced Australia are going to be quite the pushover some imagine. I have even backed a 2-2 series score, to modest amounts, as recommended by the other Tower, PfP.
But laying the draw at Trent Bridge is surely tantamount to buying money. Few Test Matches last five days unless the weather intervenes and the outlook for Notingham is sunny. What's more, both sides are stronger in the bowling than the batting and Swann should be in his element on a pitch which is bound to be a little drier and dustier than usual.
The draw has drifted to 4.3 now but I still think it's a bargain lay.
What say you?
'Blimey, Ed going after second jobs for MP's.'
Exactly what his mate Brown did a few years ago ,and guess what, nothing happened.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-face-ban-from-lucrative-second-jobs-875768.html
The verb was delayed because it is in the future conditional tense.
:poor-wee-timmy:
What about the economy?
Spinners to the fore; swinging later? Do the Ozzies have as much movement as the bookies...?
Miliband says his proposals "need to be worked through".
So just musings on possible changes, which would have been fair enough if they hadn't bigged up this speech as something important.
Un
Feckin
Believable...!
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/354513253306617856/photo/1 [Src.: http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/07/09/edm-takes-on-his-paymasters/ ]
:publish-and-be-damned: