Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EdM takes on his paymasters

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EdM takes on his paymasters

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.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,045
    edited July 2013
    Primus.

    Unleash Hell.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Was that it?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Primus.

    Unleash Hell.

    More like "Welease Way Collins" - onto my blank sheet of union rules.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Mike might wish to recall that poor old Glad was stabbed in the front by his former friend and then died in the arena !!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Poor Maximus. Fictional, and dead.

    Rather splendid film, I thought.

    Not so enamoured of Milibandus Minor, though I must say most of his proposals seem sensible. The lack of detail on timing and a seeming unwillingness to use the law to enforce the changes seems weaselly, and I disagree entirely with banning outside earnings for MPs.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    Dwessed to thwill.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Spartacus against the Spartacists?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,754
    edited July 2013
    Incestuous relationships, backstabbing and battles to the death.

    Sounds like the Labour Party we've all come to know and well know.

    Makes the plot of Gladiator seem tame by comparison
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    Although it's painful to do so, I've read the full text of Ed's speech. Someone has to.

    It is a very odd speech. He lays into his own party: "A politics that was closed. A politics of the machine. A politics that is rightly hated." [He might have added 'A politics which got me elected as leader', but inexplicably he omitted to do so].

    Fair enough, that sounds bad. Something Must Be Done. But, as far as one can tell, he proposes to go into the next election with exactly the same politics. With no timetable for change, no concrete proposals on the table, a report by Ray Collins (oops, involved in setting up Unite in the first place), there's really no substance to it, and certainly no urgency. After the 'Ed slays the dragon' build-up, that's very strange.

    But the main reason the speech reads so oddly is that it is like a speech which a candidate for the leadership might make, laying out changes he'd like to make in the future in the case that he becomes leader. It's almost as though he's conducting an intellectual exercise of what a Labour Party leader might or ought to do, rather than actually doing it.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    McClusky agrees in principle but says it aint gonna happen.
    Tim does not like Shapps.
    Gosh
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    'Len mccluskey saying he agrees 'in principle' with reforms to affiliated membership'

    Of course he does,no detail,no timeline,no mechanism, no change.

    Apart from that Ed was awesome.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    A second good blogpost in a row from Nick Robinson on this subject:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23231442

    "What Ed Miliband is trying to achieve is direct contact with, and the involvement of, a slice of those affiliated members. What he lost in cash from the unions could be replaced with the direct support in terms of time as well as money of those who chose to back the party.

    This would allow him to claim to represent hundreds of thousands of working people whilst claiming that the Tories depended on the cheques of the very rich.

    The issue of whether union affiliation fees should be treated as lots of individual donations or a cheque controlled by union HQs is one of the key reasons why reform of party funding has never been agreed...

    If Labour can change that they might be able to strike a deal with Nick Clegg to reform funding and put the Tories on the spot.

    So, those are the positives. What are the negatives?

    The unions may not agree to do what's necessary - the CWU leader Billy Hayes has already condemned the suggestion as aping a Tory prime minister from the 1920s.

    These reforms could change Labour in the long run but they won't solve its selection problems in the short term (though other reforms the Labour leader is announcing might)

    In summary, the prize is great, but the problems are at least as big."
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    Len McLuskey admires the "boldness of Ed's vision" and considers it to be evidence of "21st Century Politics".

    But UNITE did nothing wrong in Falkirk and he won't support any of the specific proposals. They all need "discussion".

    Time for an holiday, Ed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Unite leader admires Labour leader Unite got elected for announcing an investigation to be held by Unite founder?

    Did I miss anything?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited July 2013
    @Polruan

    FPT: Thanks for the response on MPs second jobs. Seems like the rules would be very messy and thus resemble Swiss cheese.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Ed's speech must have gladdened the hearts of his MP's..lots of discreet phone calls being made probably
  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 221
    Good afternoon all. Interesting speech from Miliband and I think the second job point will grab most attention. Apologies for the length, but I hope it makes sense.

    My initial reaction to the 2nd job proposal is one of caution, born both out of concern about practicalities and of principle. I would not say I am definitely again the idea of a limit on outside earnings, even the banning of them completely; but at this current moment and with limited detail to hand I feel unable to declare to be completely at one with Miliband on this issue.

    Practicalities first. There are issues over how one defines outside interests, a second job and subsequently monitor it. None are likely to be insurmountable but are worth considering further. If there is to be a limit on additional earnings and/or outside activity rather than an outright ban, there are issues over how much time can be spent and income earned. Clearly some jobs take up more time than others, and come with substantially different pay rates.

    In terms of the principles, here my considerations are more varied. First, I am naturally a little wary of fuelling further public criticism of MPs and wonder if this move plays well to the gallery, but will result in us losing other things of use to our wider politics. Don’t get me wrong, a number of MPs are firmly isolated from the concerns of the general public stuck in the Westminster bubble, a number have done very little to garner public trust (expenses, lobbying etc) and this is wrong; yet part of me is always a little wary of wielding the big stick of criticism too far. Why? First, because there are many hard working, honest, committed MPs who get tarred with the same brush; and second, because I worry that by poisoning the well in terms of public perception of our politicians that we will only serve to put off the good, committed people we need in politics, those who don’t want to be accused of being ‘all the same’.

    The next consideration I had was whether a limit on outside income would in some way diminish the diversity (specifically in working terms) of our MPs. Earn approximately £70,000 per year as a MP, albeit with plenty of perks, or earn substantially more in some parts of the both the public and private sector without some of the criticism that comes with the job. I think we can discount this though, as I genuinely feel that the desire to serve is strong enough, that many people will put on hold or abandon financially successful careers to make a difference as a MP. Today MPs can still make an enormous contribution to their local community and country.

    This however connects to Miliband’s point, noted in his speech about serving as MP being a privilege and duty. He is right, but I am not altogether convinced that this position and earning money from a second job are mutually exclusive. It seems a somewhat exclusionary perspective, with little room for nuance. Is an individual’s sense of duty and feeling of being privileged to do a job really undermined by the fact they have another job too? I’m not sure of the logic here.

    My next consideration is over experience. Many people would agree that the problem with our politics is it is too insular. The Westminster bubble talk among themselves and periodically seek to connect with the wider population. Our MPs largely look the same in terms of educational and working background. Is there a danger that placing a limit on second jobs might make this worse? Will we not institutionalise further the notion of the professional politician? Yes an individual can gain ‘real world’ experience prior to becoming a MP and then gain more through engaging with outsiders in say, select committees; but I am not convinced this is a sufficient substitute for what can be called ‘lived experience’ – getting out there and seeing things first hand. Moreover experience, can in certain industries more than others, rapidly become outdated. Doesn’t the second job help keep MPs up-to-date and more connected to communities outside of the Westminster bubble?

    Don’t get me wrong, there are probably MPs for whom their second or even a third job is not pursued for these reasons. Yet, on the one hand I am not sure how we can ever be completely sure of what their true intentions are and more pertinently I am not sure concern about a few, should lead to the banning or heavy restriction of a practice for all. I guess on this issue I am naturally inclined to be sceptical of implementing restrictions. I also completely accept that tackling the Westminster bubble issue goes well beyond whether MPs do second jobs, and is more about how they engage with the public on a day to day basis and so forth. Yet, still restricting outside income, I am not convinced it will ease the bubble problem.

    Ultimately I think I am left with the position that the voters should decide. If they feel their MP is earning too much and working too many hours outside of their MP commitments (here there should be complete transparency of information) they should vote them out of office. If the MPs constituency party is concerned, de-select them. But universal rules, particularly rules designed in the midst of a party leader trying to regain the initiative whilst under pressure, are not something I am naturally inclined to support.

    Ed Miliband has raised the issue, it is worthy of debate, more information is required. But for now, I think caution should be the default reaction to his suggestions. I would appreciate any feedback, as I am genuinely trying to make my mind up on this.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Philip_Thompson

    'Did I miss anything?'

    Yes, Brown said he was going to stop MP's from having second job when he was PM.
    Now Brown as an MP has a second job Ed wants to stop it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    I see the European Court of Human Rights is doing everything it can to push the UK towards an EU exit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    JamesM said:

    Good afternoon all. Interesting speech from Miliband and I think the second job point will grab most attention. Apologies for the length, but I hope it makes sense.

    My initial reaction to the 2nd job proposal is one of caution, born both out of concern about practicalities and of principle. I would not say I am definitely again the idea of a limit on outside earnings, even the banning of them completely; but at this current moment and with limited detail to hand I feel unable to declare to be completely at one with Miliband on this issue.

    Practicalities first. There are issues over how one defines outside interests, a second job and subsequently monitor it. None are likely to be insurmountable but are worth considering further. If there is to be a limit on additional earnings and/or outside activity rather than an outright ban, there are issues over how much time can be spent and income earned. Clearly some jobs take up more time than others, and come with substantially different pay rates.

    In terms of the principles, here my considerations are more varied. First, I am naturally a little wary of fuelling further public criticism of MPs and wonder if this move plays well to the gallery, but will result in us losing other things of use to our wider politics. Don’t get me wrong, a number of MPs are firmly isolated from the concerns of the general public stuck in the Westminster bubble, a number have done very little to garner public trust (expenses, lobbying etc) and this is wrong; yet part of me is always a little wary of wielding the big stick of criticism too far. Why? First, because there are many hard working, honest, committed MPs who get tarred with the same brush; and second, because I worry that by poisoning the well in terms of public perception of our politicians that we will only serve to put off the good, committed people we need in politics, those who don’t want to be accused of being ‘all the same’.

    The next consideration I had was whether a limit on outside income would in some way diminish the diversity (specifically in working terms) of our MPs. Earn approximately £70,000 per year as a MP, albeit with plenty of perks, or earn substantially more in some parts of the both the public and private sector without some of the criticism that comes with the job. I think we can discount this though, as I genuinely feel that the desire to serve is strong enough, that many people will put on hold or abandon financially successful careers to make a difference as a MP. Today MPs can still make an enormous contribution to their local community and country.

    This however connects to Miliband’s point, noted in his speech about serving as MP being a privilege and duty. He is right, but I am not altogether convinced that this position and earning money from a second job are mutually exclusive. It seems a somewhat exclusionary perspective, with little room for nuance. Is an individual’s sense of duty and feeling of being privileged to do a job really undermined by the fact they have another job too? I’m not sure of the logic here.

    My next consideration is over experience. Many people would agree that the problem with our politics is it is too insular. The Westminster bubble talk among themselves and periodically seek to connect with the wider population. Our MPs largely look the same in terms of educational and working background. Is there a danger that placing a limit on second jobs might make this worse? Will we not institutionalise further the notion of the professional politician? Yes an individual can gain ‘real world’ experience prior to becoming a MP and then gain more through engaging with outsiders in say, select committees; but I am not convinced this is a sufficient substitute for what can be called ‘lived experience’ – getting out there and seeing things first hand. Moreover experience, can in certain industries more than others, rapidly become outdated. Doesn’t the second job help keep MPs up-to-date and more connected to communities outside of the Westminster bubble?

    Don’t get me wrong, there are probably MPs for whom their second or even a third job is not pursued for these reasons. Yet, on the one hand I am not sure how we can ever be completely sure of what their true intentions are and more pertinently I am not sure concern about a few, should lead to the banning or heavy restriction of a practice for all. I guess on this issue I am naturally inclined to be sceptical of implementing restrictions. I also completely accept that tackling the Westminster bubble issue goes well beyond whether MPs do second jobs, and is more about how they engage with the public on a day to day basis and so forth. Yet, still restricting outside income, I am not convinced it will ease the bubble problem.

    Ultimately I think I am left with the position that the voters should decide. If they feel their MP is earning too much and working too many hours outside of their MP commitments (here there should be complete transparency of information) they should vote them out of office. If the MPs constituency party is concerned, de-select them. But universal rules, particularly rules designed in the midst of a party leader trying to regain the initiative whilst under pressure, are not something I am naturally inclined to support.

    Ed Miliband has raised the issue, it is worthy of debate, more information is required. But for now, I think caution should be the default reaction to his suggestions. I would appreciate any feedback, as I am genuinely trying to make my mind up on this.

    @jamesM

    Brilliant, nuanced post. Thanks.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    edited July 2013
    Here's how SO, JohnO and I discussed EdM's options last week.
    JohnO said:
    SO - So what does Ed have to DO to regain the inititative and change the narrative (that extends beyond partisan Tories like me) that he is reacting to events and not shaping them?

    For example, at the most extreme, the party could suspend McCluskey's own personal membership: now that would send a signal about who's boss! In 1984 Kinnock not only fired weapons of mass expulsion on Militant but tore into Scargill for good meassure the very next day!

    OK, that's not likely to happen, but merely issuing statements ain't going to cut the mustard, is it?
    Jonathan said:


    Hi JohnO. Interesting question.

    All Ed has to do is to explain clearly what was happening, and what measures he is going to put in place to make sure it is not going to happen again in the Labour party. He should reiterate the Labour party's commitment to broaden selection, and point to its track record using difficult decisions like all women shortlists.

    He should then invite other parties to demonstrate how they make sure groups or individuals cannot influence selections. And perhaps ask the question how the other parties are getting on attracting a broad range of candidates for 2015. A few killer stats out there might make a useful point or two.

    Think EdM pretty much did that today.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Anorak said:

    @Polruan

    FPT: Thanks for the response on MPs second jobs. Seems like the rules would be very messy and thus resemble Swiss cheese.

    In the "full of holes and collapse when exposed to heat" sense? Yeah, probably. The only difference from trying to address similar challenges through the tax code is that it's easier to hold MPs to a "spirit of the rules" standard, so an MP who was receiving partnership income above a specified income threshold would be vilified even if a loophole (or cheesehole) permitted it.

    The biggest problem I'd foresee is that it would lead to much greater pressure (primarily, but not exclusively, from the right) for higher MPs salaries which would be a great outcome for the Tories: even though their MPs are still more likely that Labour MPs to expect a higher salary, they can blame Ed for wanting to pay MPs more.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    @JamesM

    Brevity is the soul of wit.

    There was a suggestion on here the other day that one way to deal with second jobs is to deduct the monies earned from their salaries down to zero, if appropriate. I think that has a lot to commend it. If an MP strongly believes their outside interest (one or two still do the odd shift as GPs for example) helps them do their main job then fine, they can make that choice.

    If they earn more than their salary that is a matter for their constituents.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    john_zims said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    'Did I miss anything?'

    Yes, Brown said he was going to stop MP's from having second job when he was PM.
    Now Brown as an MP has a second job Ed wants to stop it.

    What counts as a job and earnings? Should an MP be able to write a book in his spare time (for which he might get an advance as well as earnings), and should beckbench MPs be able to appear regularly on TV for pay (a la Diane Abbott)?

    This whole thing will be messy to define. Whilst it is a trap for the Tories, it could also snatch many Labour MPs as well if they are not careful.

    An area in much more need of reform is the revolving door between parliament and private industry after an MP (and especially a minister) leaves parliament. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is far too lax IMHO.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,754
    Can I just say, how utterly delighted that OGH has followed my lead from nighthawks last night, and decided to put in classical history references into thread headers.

    It won't be long before OGH is comparing Ed to Hannibal and Dave to Scipio and Caesar.
  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 221
    edited July 2013
    Thanks @Pong. @DavidL perhaps although brevity can also miss nuance and leave an issue not debated fully.

    Reading back through the previous post, it seems the practicalities issue I raise has been noted widely too. This may be another of those occasions when the party politics of an issue somewhat blurs an issue and even constrains full debate over it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    JamesM said:

    Good afternoon all. Interesting speech from Miliband and I think the second job point will grab most attention. Apologies for the length, but I hope it makes sense.

    My initial reaction to the 2nd job proposal is one of caution, born both out of concern about practicalities and of principle. I would not say I am definitely again the idea of a limit on outside earnings, even the banning of them completely; but at this current moment and with limited detail to hand I feel unable to declare to be completely at one with Miliband on this issue.

    Practicalities first. There are issues over how one defines outside interests, a second job and subsequently monitor it. None are likely to be insurmountable but are worth considering further. If there is to be a limit on additional earnings and/or outside activity rather than an outright ban, there are issues over how much time can be spent and income earned. Clearly some jobs take up more time than others, and come with substantially different pay rates.

    In terms of the principles, here my considerations are more varied. First, I am naturally a little wary of fuelling further public criticism of MPs and wonder if this move plays well to the gallery, but will result in us losing other things of use to our wider politics. Don’t get me wrong, a number of MPs are firmly isolated from the concerns of the general public stuck in the Westminster bubble, a number have done very little to garner public trust (expenses, lobbying etc) and this is wrong; yet part of me is always a little wary of wielding the big stick of criticism too far. Why? First, because there are many hard working, honest, committed MPs who get tarred with the same brush; and second, because I worry that by poisoning the well in terms of public perception of our politicians that we will only serve to put off the good, committed people we need in politics, those who don’t want to be accused of being ‘all the same’.

    The next consideration I had was whether a limit on outside income would in some way diminish the diversity (specifically in working terms) of our MPs. Earn approximately £70,000 per year as a MP, albeit with plenty of perks, or earn substantially more in some parts of the both the public and private sector without some of the criticism that comes with the job. I think we can discount this though, as I genuinely feel that the desire to serve is strong enough, that many people will put on hold or abandon financially successful careers to make a difference as a MP. Today MPs can still make an enormous contribution to their local community and country.

    This however connects to Miliband’s point, noted in his speech about serving as MP being a privilege and duty. He is right, but I am not altogether convinced that this position and earning money from a second job are mutually exclusive. It seems a somewhat exclusionary perspective, with little room for nuance. Is an individual’s sense of duty and feeling of being privileged to do a job really undermined by the fact they have another job too? I’m not sure of the logic here.

    My next consideration is over experience. Many people would agree that the problem with our politics is it is too insular. The Westminster bubble talk among themselves and periodically seek to connect with the wider population. Our MPs largely look the same in terms of educational and working background. Is there a danger that placing a limit on second jobs might make this worse? Will we not institutionalise further the notion of the professional politician? Yes an individual can gain ‘real world’ experience prior to becoming a MP and then gain more through engaging with outsiders in say, select committees; but I am not convinced this is a sufficient substitute for what can be called ‘lived experience’ – getting out there and seeing things first hand. Moreover experience, can in certain industries more than others, rapidly become outdated. Doesn’t the second job help keep MPs up-to-date and more connected to communities outside of the Westminster bubble?

    Don’t get me wrong, there are probably MPs for whom their second or even a third job is not pursued for these reasons. Yet, on the one hand I am not sure how we can ever be completely sure of what their true intentions are and more pertinently I am not sure concern about a few, should lead to the banning or heavy restriction of a practice for all. I guess on this issue I am naturally inclined to be sceptical of implementing restrictions. I also completely accept that tackling the Westminster bubble issue goes well beyond whether MPs do second jobs, and is more about how they engage with the public on a day to day basis and so forth. Yet, still restricting outside income, I am not convinced it will ease the bubble problem.

    Ultimately I think I am left with the position that the voters should decide. If they feel their MP is earning too much and working too many hours outside of their MP commitments (here there should be complete transparency of information) they should vote them out of office. If the MPs constituency party is concerned, de-select them. But universal rules, particularly rules designed in the midst of a party leader trying to regain the initiative whilst under pressure, are not something I am naturally inclined to support.

    Ed Miliband has raised the issue, it is worthy of debate, more information is required. But for now, I think caution should be the default reaction to his suggestions. I would appreciate any feedback, as I am genuinely trying to make my mind up on this.

    Excellent post.
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621

    john_zims said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    'Did I miss anything?'

    Yes, Brown said he was going to stop MP's from having second job when he was PM.
    Now Brown as an MP has a second job Ed wants to stop it.

    What counts as a job and earnings? Should an MP be able to write a book in his spare time (for which he might get an advance as well as earnings), and should beckbench MPs be able to appear regularly on TV for pay (a la Diane Abbott)?

    This whole thing will be messy to define. Whilst it is a trap for the Tories, it could also snatch many Labour MPs as well if they are not careful.

    An area in much more need of reform is the revolving door between parliament and private industry after an MP (and especially a minister) leaves parliament. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is far too lax IMHO.
    Private industry? What about 'public', or does that just apply to MPs from 'the political arm of the British people', so that's alright?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888

    john_zims said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    'Did I miss anything?'

    Yes, Brown said he was going to stop MP's from having second job when he was PM.
    Now Brown as an MP has a second job Ed wants to stop it.

    What counts as a job and earnings? Should an MP be able to write a book in his spare time (for which he might get an advance as well as earnings), and should beckbench MPs be able to appear regularly on TV for pay (a la Diane Abbott)?

    This whole thing will be messy to define. Whilst it is a trap for the Tories, it could also snatch many Labour MPs as well if they are not careful.

    An area in much more need of reform is the revolving door between parliament and private industry after an MP (and especially a minister) leaves parliament. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is far too lax IMHO.
    Private industry? What about 'public', or does that just apply to MPs from 'the political arm of the British people', so that's alright?
    A good point.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    An interesting clarification of what Ed really meant, from Len McCluskey:

    When it was put to him that Ed Miliband did not want any individuals to be paying money to Labour through affiliation fees unless they wanted to, McCluskey said he agreed with this in principle. He said that he was making a different point in his Guardian article.

    "That was completely different. I was talking about the difference between opting into a political levy as opposed to opting out. Ed ... made it clear that the political levy would stay as it is. What he’s talking about is those of our members who pay the political levy, he wants them to have a second option, as it were, to see whether they want to opt in to becoming associate members of the Labour party. And it would be on that basis that unions would pay the affiliation ..."


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jul/09/ed-miliband-reforming-labour-unions-live
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2013
    Brogan says rEd has lost control.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100225624/ed-miliband-has-lost-control-of-events-how-can-he-be-sure-that-his-party-will-back-him/

    "He has dressed up what is a political necessity forced on him by weakness in some tosh about Labour's "special responsibility" to foster better politics for the working classes (as if the middle classes or even the filthy rich don't want good politics as well). "

    "The standout announcement, though, is his tilt at MPs' outside earnings "sometimes paying higher salaries than the job of an MP itself". This is classic political chaff, an attempt to get a debate going about the Tories to draw attention away from his own troubles. "

    "Mr Miliband is in a political hole. His speech may gain him some reprieve, but he is not in control of events, and is not strong enough to be sure that his party, let alone its union members, will line up behind him."
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    edited July 2013
    Mr T's latest blog post:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100225411/how-i-should-have-died-just-before-lunch-today/

    "How I should have died just before lunch today"

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100225589/if-ed-miliband-betrays-the-unions-itll-leave-labour-as-just-a-neo-liberal-party-led-by-a-sad-man-with-a-lisp/

    "But Labour needs to confront the mistakes made in its Blairite past as much as it does its Militant tendency.

    That would require genuine leadership, something that Ed has hitherto lacked. For Miliband’s second big problem is himself. He is the Julia Gillard of UK politics – worthy, probably quite nice, but lacking in fibre, unconvincing and fundamentally unlikeable. There’s that strange accent that wanders from region to region in search of words to kill (he is the first man to pronounce the word “year” with three syllables).

    There’s the hair that can’t decide if it’s grey, black or Dalmatian dog. And there’s his odd tendency to lose track of the world mid-sentence and break away from his speech to contemplate some elusive spot in the far distance that the rest of us can’t see. Where does your mind go to in those moments, Ed? I like to imagine it’s he sees monkeys frolicking on swings.

    What his mind does not contemplate is history, for Miliband eschews this with adolescent ego. He lacks care for Labour’s bifurcated philosophical tradition. One half is its working-class protectionism: patriotic, anti-globalisation, populist, “jobs for the boys” etc.

    The other is its socialist romanticism – its endless, often hopeless, quest to banish poverty and end war. The two halves combined produces a British socialism that is less dogmatic than it is spiritual. After the collapse of Marxist economics, the Labour movement’s historic crusade became to civilise capitalism, to foster a society that puts people before profit and encourages the individual to aspire to something more than just making money.

    Ed Miliband seems disconnected from this politics of the heart; he prefers to find comfort in detail and wonkery. You get the impression that he goes home at night and snuggles up to a warm bar chart."
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    "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."

    Little Ed is reacting as usual and he's reacting to tory and Blairite criticisms. That means he's only setting the agenda within the confines of those areas that his Blairite chums want him to react.

    He's talked about Falkirk being a symbol which sort of misses the point that the Brown Blair splits that are swirling around it and Watson's departure were very real. He's hardly going to make those splits vanish by appeasing the Blairites. Like the swivel-eyed loon wing of the tory party they will never be appeased but just keep coming back for more. Unless Ed steps down to make way for brother David they will keep piling on the pressure and the Blairite Hodges of the world will be back to business as usual in a few weeks or less demanding yet more blue labour triangulation on tory policies.

    In an effort to try and balance things little Ed's posturing on limiting MPs outside earnings isn't just a broadside at the tories but quite a few of the extremely lucratively paid Blairites as well. Not least of which is the 'man of peace' himself Tony Blair.

    I somehow doubt that this is the last we are going to hear about all this as Falkirk and Unite are symptoms not the cause. As long as there are such wide splits over which direction the labour party is taking then there are going to be Falkirks and shadow cabinet members resigning and briefing against each other. Voluntary union opt-ins and MPs raking it in from outside jobs notwithstanding.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    OT, on the EU Arrest Warrant thing, does anyone know what the procedure would be to basically stay in but opt out of some specific minor bits? Is it something that can be done by QMV by ministers, or does it take unanimity, or a treaty, or what?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    I didn't think Tim Stanley could get any more ridiculous after touting Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and Michele Bachman as the saviours of the Republican Party but

    "In an effort to try and balance things little Ed's posturing on limiting MPs outside earnings isn't just a broadside at the tories but quite a few of the extremely lucratively paid Blairites as well. Not least of which is the 'man of peace' himself Tony Blair."

    He appears to believe Blair is still an MP.

    seems to know a prat when he sees one.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    I didn't think Tim Stanley could get any more ridiculous after touting Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and Michele Bachman as the saviours of the Republican Party but

    "In an effort to try and balance things little Ed's posturing on limiting MPs outside earnings isn't just a broadside at the tories but quite a few of the extremely lucratively paid Blairites as well. Not least of which is the 'man of peace' himself Tony Blair."

    He appears to believe Blair is still an MP.

    You didn't understand that he's just posturing on MPs earnings or that this is all symbolism?

    No matter.

    You can pretend Watson's quitting had nothing to do with the Blairites all you wish but the Hodges are taking over the asylum in the labour party at the moment and the Hodges are just like the GOP lunatic wing. Out of touch, manna from heaven for the opposing parties and permanently unhappy with their own party and leaders.

  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 993
    Buddha one day, sword wielding gladiator the next. Confused ?
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @edmundintokyo

    Don't think anyone knows,but we are about to find out.

    '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.'
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234
    Andy_JS said:

    I see the European Court of Human Rights is doing everything it can to push the UK towards an EU exit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

    ECHR hands UKIP a firecracker !
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Telegraph News ✔ @TelegraphNews

    The IMF is now predicting UK growth of 0.9% this year, up by 0.3% since its last report in April. More soon.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    I thought Ed was uncharacteristically good today. Linking to MP's second jobs was a masterstroke. An added bonus was Chris Grayling touring the studios reinforcing the Tories reputation as 'hangers and floggers'.

    Though I'm sure Yougov could find a majority for keeping prisoners inside and throwing away the key that doesn't necessarily translate into support for the party advocating it. What's more appealing to UKIPers is just preaching to the choir and when it comes to cruel and unusual punishment Farage will trump anyone.

    But what it does do is reconfirm the Tories as the 'Nasty Party' with wavering ex Lib Dems.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    edited July 2013
    Quite astounding: we think that 15% of girls under 16 get pregnant each year; 26% of people think foreign aid is one of the top 2-3 items government spends most money on; on average we say 24% of people are Muslim, compared with 5% in England and Wales (!!).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930

    OT, on the EU Arrest Warrant thing, does anyone know what the procedure would be to basically stay in but opt out of some specific minor bits? Is it something that can be done by QMV by ministers, or does it take unanimity, or a treaty, or what?

    IANAE but the EAW is based upon a directive which is agreed at EU level and can only be altered there. So we can either opt out of the whole thing or accept the whole thing. We cannot pick and choose. However, many countries in the EU, particularly the Germans, are annoyed about the way that some countries, particularly the Poles, are using the current directive and also want changes. These changes have been the subject of discussions for months. It is very likely that the directive we opt back into will not be the same as the current document.

  • What if an MP derives an income from property rental or somesuch?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    What if an MP derives an income from property rental or somesuch?

    He will be burned at the stake - unless he is renting/sharing an office to UNITE paid for by the taxpayer - then he shall be promoted.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930

    Telegraph News ✔ @TelegraphNews

    The IMF is now predicting UK growth of 0.9% this year, up by 0.3% since its last report in April. More soon.

    0.9%? That is ridiculous. They will have to revise that again by the end of the month. You begin to wonder what the point of all their well paid experts is. Do they not look at any of the forward data?

  • Cool, my mp iirc owns a fair bit of property. Meet the Tory PPC for Hertsmere, Me. Will try and swing a peerage for OGH!
    TGOHF said:

    What if an MP derives an income from property rental or somesuch?

    He will be burned at the stake - unless he is renting/sharing an office to UNITE paid for by the taxpayer - then he shall be promoted.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn)

    4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100

    9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households


    So instead of correcting the false perceptions we get a weak little Ed and the labour party dithering over which welfare policy to triangulate on to appease the Hodges and the Blairites.
    Nothing that posturing on MPs earnings and a union opt-in won't fix then. ;)
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Steve Collins @TradeDesk_Steve

    IMF revises some f'casts ...

    US to 1.7% from 1,9%
    UK to +0.9% from +0.6%
    EZ -0.6% from -0.3%
    Japan 2% (ncrease)
    World 3.1% from 3.3%

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    If people are fick and have crap perceptions I'd be tempted to blame the meedja rather than politicos.

    Will the internet help or hinder ?
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    DavidL said:

    Telegraph News ✔ @TelegraphNews

    The IMF is now predicting UK growth of 0.9% this year, up by 0.3% since its last report in April. More soon.

    0.9%? That is ridiculous. They will have to revise that again by the end of the month. You begin to wonder what the point of all their well paid experts is. Do they not look at any of the forward data?

    IIRC, the q-o-q median forecast is something like 0.5% for Q2, implying the IMF either think that that is overly optimistic, or that the economy may not grow at all in the last two quarters. Have I got that right?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    DavidL said:

    OT, on the EU Arrest Warrant thing, does anyone know what the procedure would be to basically stay in but opt out of some specific minor bits? Is it something that can be done by QMV by ministers, or does it take unanimity, or a treaty, or what?

    IANAE but the EAW is based upon a directive which is agreed at EU level and can only be altered there. So we can either opt out of the whole thing or accept the whole thing. We cannot pick and choose. However, many countries in the EU, particularly the Germans, are annoyed about the way that some countries, particularly the Poles, are using the current directive and also want changes. These changes have been the subject of discussions for months. It is very likely that the directive we opt back into will not be the same as the current document.
    OK, so it's a directive, probably changeable by QMV?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    What if an MP derives an income from property rental or somesuch?

    Don't think that would be relevant - the target here is second jobs, not outside interests. AFAIK any property income would be registrable, with the intention of ensuring that an MP's political decisions aren't driven by their own financial interests (or, more accurately, ensuring that it's visible that this kind of conflict of interest is going on, given the number of MPs from both sides who have disclosed income from private healthcare organisations whilst pushing marketisation of the NHS),

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100

    I think maybe it's people's definition of 'fraud' that varies. I think many people believe that the system itself allows people who shouldn't be claiming (in their view) to get benefits. Depends how they asked the question though.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    tim said:

    @Tykejohnno

    The benefit cap perception is even more ridiculous now

    "The policy was expected to save £275 million a year when the original figure was announced. It now expects to save £110 million."

    Number 8 looks interesting,doesn't it tim.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    @TGOHF

    "If people are fick and have crap perceptions I'd be tempted to blame the meedja rather than politicos."

    I'd congratulate Dave's advertisers. Who'd have thought his 'Broken Britain' message would have worked so well

    (or that he'd have to live with the consequences)
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    US to 1.7% from 1,9%

    That looks interesting as well.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited July 2013
    TGOHF said:

    If people are fick and have crap perceptions I'd be tempted to blame the meedja rather than politicos.

    Will the internet help or hinder ?

    I'd blame the people. They should know better than to believe they read in the legacy media or even worse what politicians tell them.

    Relatedly, S&P are defending themselves in court against investors who believed their ratings, on the grounds that any reasonable person would have known they were full of shit all along:
    http://mobilizer.instapaper.com/m?u=http://bloom.bg/1aRS8aR
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    My office window overlooks the promenade and beach and many holidaymakers are enjoying the sun and a full paddling pool of very happy tiny-ones as well.

    It is also graduation week and many new grads come down to be photographed (with parents et al) against the backdrop of the sea and hills.

    Today one young lady after being photographed in dress, cap and gown, suddenly slipped off the dress and was photographed in micro-bikini, cap and gown and of course high heels. Brightened up a rather technically-complex afternoon.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    @martinbright: Can it be possible that @Ed_Miliband has actually turned the Falkirk fiasco to his advantage?

    Looks like he may have done.
    What happened when Cameron faced a similar crisis?

    He panicked and set up Leveson.
    And cancelled his monthly press conferences.Forever.

    Well played by ed today,we will see in time in this comes back to bite miliband on the arse.

    How long can this keep miliband on the front foot ?

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    @tim - Given that Len McCluskey has said that "Ed ... made it clear that the political levy would stay as it is", I wouldn't count your chickens.

    Is he right, BTW?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,950
    "Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"

    LOL
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930

    DavidL said:

    OT, on the EU Arrest Warrant thing, does anyone know what the procedure would be to basically stay in but opt out of some specific minor bits? Is it something that can be done by QMV by ministers, or does it take unanimity, or a treaty, or what?

    IANAE but the EAW is based upon a directive which is agreed at EU level and can only be altered there. So we can either opt out of the whole thing or accept the whole thing. We cannot pick and choose. However, many countries in the EU, particularly the Germans, are annoyed about the way that some countries, particularly the Poles, are using the current directive and also want changes. These changes have been the subject of discussions for months. It is very likely that the directive we opt back into will not be the same as the current document.
    OK, so it's a directive, probably changeable by QMV?

    DavidL said:

    OT, on the EU Arrest Warrant thing, does anyone know what the procedure would be to basically stay in but opt out of some specific minor bits? Is it something that can be done by QMV by ministers, or does it take unanimity, or a treaty, or what?

    IANAE but the EAW is based upon a directive which is agreed at EU level and can only be altered there. So we can either opt out of the whole thing or accept the whole thing. We cannot pick and choose. However, many countries in the EU, particularly the Germans, are annoyed about the way that some countries, particularly the Poles, are using the current directive and also want changes. These changes have been the subject of discussions for months. It is very likely that the directive we opt back into will not be the same as the current document.
    OK, so it's a directive, probably changeable by QMV?
    That is my understanding. There is more of the legal background here:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_matters/l33167_en.htm#amendingact

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    Grandiose said:

    DavidL said:

    Telegraph News ✔ @TelegraphNews

    The IMF is now predicting UK growth of 0.9% this year, up by 0.3% since its last report in April. More soon.

    0.9%? That is ridiculous. They will have to revise that again by the end of the month. You begin to wonder what the point of all their well paid experts is. Do they not look at any of the forward data?

    IIRC, the q-o-q median forecast is something like 0.5% for Q2, implying the IMF either think that that is overly optimistic, or that the economy may not grow at all in the last two quarters. Have I got that right?
    Not sure to be honest. That sounds right to me but there was a link earlier this week which indicated that if the economy grew 0.5% for each of the remaining quarters it would grow 0.8% for the year. I didn't understand that then. Charles made a brief comment but I didn't understand that either.

    It is a great pity Mrs B is no longer a regular here.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @DavidL - I think they meant 0.5% for all three of the remaining quarters combined, not 0.5% for each of them.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Wow! Well played George! Rowing in the other direction now.

    UK to +0.9% from +0.6%
    EZ -0.6% from -0.3%
  • With regard to second jobs I think the most people's view will be informed by their own income level.

    If you are a teacher earning £35-£40,000 you'll wonder why an MP can't survive happily on £65,000. If you're a GP on £105,000 you'll be amazed that they can get by on so little.

    Anyone on the average wage of c£25,000 will be staggered at the whole debate!
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Anorak said:

    Wow! Well played George! Rowing in the other direction now.

    UK to +0.9% from +0.6%
    EZ -0.6% from -0.3%

    That does look interesting ;-)

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited July 2013
    Alberto Nardelli @AlbertoNardelli

    Only 3 countries among cited, including worryingly emerging economies, see 2013 forecast upgraded: Japan, Canada, UK pic.twitter.com/4QQjrpK9H0

    https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/354603619317870592/photo/1

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Markit Economics @MarkitEconomics

    UK GDP +0.6% in the second quarter - NIESR view

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    edited July 2013

    @DavidL - I think they meant 0.5% for all three of the remaining quarters combined, not 0.5% for each of them.

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean the IMF forecast for Q2, but the median forecast by others.

    http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2013/06/uk-gdp-forecasts-round-up-june-2013/ - Bank of England

    "ING economist James Knightley says: “[W]e should be looking for a positive GDP figure in the region of 0.4 to 0.5% quarter-on-quarter for the second quarter of 2013. Markit reports that latest “data suggest that economic growth will have picked up in the second quarter compared to the 0.3% increase in GDP seen in the first quarter, shaping up to reach 0.5% if June sees sustained growth."

    http://www.poundsterlinglive.com/index.php/breaking-news-articles/178-rbs-forecasting-growth-for-uk-economy-4534534 - RBS

    [Edit: also per Tykejohnno, "UK GDP +0.6% in the second quarter - NIESR view"]

    I wonder what the IMF breakdown is - does it forecast less than say 0.5% growth for Q2, or virtual stagnation for the rest of the year?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Dan Hodges loved rEd's speech.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100225653/today-ed-miliband-showed-that-he-doesnt-want-to-be-labour-leader-he-wants-to-be-prime-minister/

    Blair, Hodges - just needs Jim Murphy to shout hurrah and he's got the set.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    @martinbright: Can it be possible that @Ed_Miliband has actually turned the Falkirk fiasco to his advantage?

    Looks like he may have done.
    What happened when Cameron faced a similar crisis?

    He panicked and set up Leveson.

    With a couple of crucial differences.

    One being the overwhelming public support for a Leveson like response and the other was Clegg recognising that and making it clear he was up for a Leveson style response.

    Not so for this posturing.
    Harriet Harman ‏@HarrietHarman

    Clegg refuses to back us in clampdown on mp's 2nd jobs.
    The why will be interesting as Cleggy was 'helpfully' offering little Ed government backing for the union opt-in.
    Michael Crick ‏@MichaelLCrick

    Nick Clegg mischievously to offer Labour that govt willing to include trade union opt-in reforms in new lobbying bill
    Not a good sign when even the toxic Clegg joins in the 'fun'.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    tim said:

    Growth will be higher than 0.9%.
    Although manufacturing and exporting are performing badly the debt related housing and retail sectors should pick up.

    I love it when you get your retaliation in first ;)

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    The OBR central forecast for 2013 was 0.6% and for 2013-14 0.8% - so it looks like the economy might exceed that; although in this context the borrowing figures haven't been that good. Many more months left though (both ways)!
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Neil said:

    tim said:

    Growth will be higher than 0.9%.
    Although manufacturing and exporting are performing badly the debt related housing and retail sectors should pick up.

    I love it when you get your retaliation in first ;)

    Retaliation ? I thought it was small praise for Osborne ;-)
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    George Eaton @georgeeaton

    Tories would be smart to outflank Miliband by holding new open primaries (as opposed to closed ones). But Cameron fearful of new rebels.

  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    TGOHF said:

    Dan Hodges loved rEd's speech.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100225653/today-ed-miliband-showed-that-he-doesnt-want-to-be-labour-leader-he-wants-to-be-prime-minister/

    Blair, Hodges - just needs Jim Murphy to shout hurrah and he's got the set.

    Now all we need is the ultimate circular self-awareness of "Why me thinking something is good news for Ed Miliband is bad news for Ed Miliband" by D. Hodges.

    It's not a bad article, actually. If Ed plays this one through then he's relying on the gamble that the unions realise that they have to be seen to go along with his proposals: because if the unions are seen to unseat a Labour leader, it will make the Labour party unelectable, thereby destroying the unions' power. Early signs are that it's working, although a fair analysis might be that he's found a way of securing his position at the expense of the continued relevance of the union movement. Which is a bit of a shame, perhaps, because two parties for sale to the highest corporate bidder is probably less healthy that one for sale to union members and the other for sale to corporate bidders.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Growth will be higher than 0.9%.
    Although manufacturing and exporting are performing badly the debt related housing and retail sectors should pick up.

    You forgot the other big debt related sector - govt spending.


  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited July 2013
    Coward you say tim,who did ed get in touch with first to tell that they will be no breaks with the unions(livingstone) why did ed beg Watson not to go,why doesn't ed give the british people a vote on the EU,Why didn't ed want to answer questions on a timetable for his new policies on the unions -

    I could go on ;-)
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Coward you say tim,who did ed get in touch with first to tell that they will be no breaks with the unions(livingstone) why did ed beg Watson not to go,why doesn't ed give the british people a vote on the EU,Why didn't ed want to answer questions on a timetable for his new policies on the unions -

    I could go on ;-)

    Please do :)
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    @Mick

    And the coward Cameron cancelled all monthly press conferences.
    He ran.
    Like he'll try and run from the debates

    Even the toxic Clegg didn't do that though it's all part of his own attempts at a 'masochism strategy' that are as doomed to fail as they always were.

    Running from the debates aren't an option. He would be slaughtered for such obvious cowardice.

    What will happen is that Crosby will use the debates as a focal point to try and get Cammie to spin all his 'Red Ed'' 'unions will eat your children' lines. Because the sad truth for little Ed is that he could wear a Thatcher wig for the next couple of years and adopt every single tory policy for the next election and he will still be hammered by the tory party machine and their tame newspapers for being the next Kinnock and Scargill rolled into one.

    That's why Corsby was hired. To do to little Ed what he did to Ken. Nothing will stop that.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It seems likely to me that at least one set of official statistics (and possibly more than one) at present is seriously awry. If we are to believe what the statistics are telling us at present, productivity is bad and getting worse, yet employment is apparently continuing to increase and economic growth is increasing, all at a time of public sector job losses.

    I suppose it's possible that all of these are true, but it seems inherently unlikely.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,007
    tim said:

    @Mick

    And the coward Cameron cancelled all monthly press conferences.
    He ran.
    Like he'll try and run from the debates

    What sensible bet would you formulate which would reflect your views on the debates?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Anorak said:

    Coward you say tim,who did ed get in touch with first to tell that they will be no breaks with the unions(livingstone) why did ed beg Watson not to go,why doesn't ed give the british people a vote on the EU,Why didn't ed want to answer questions on a timetable for his new policies on the unions -

    I could go on ;-)

    Please do :)
    OK,one more,why doesn't ed mention his mate ,Hollande ,the French President anymore.

    He was going to do wonders for the French economy ;-)

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    Growth will be higher than 0.9%.
    Although manufacturing and exporting are performing badly the debt related housing and retail sectors should pick up.

    You forgot the other big debt related sector - govt spending.


    I thought that went unsaid now, that Osborne spends more than Labour did.
    Imagine the contraction over the Brown years if that was taken away..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,525
    What about income from trust funds? Does that count as extra income?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Is the problem with external income or with external commitments? If the latter, presumably we should be barring MPs from taking up charitable roles as well as paid appointments.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    edited July 2013
    "Not innocent enough".

    What the hell does that mean? I thought in our justice system a person is either guilty or not guilty, (except in Scotland):

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358815/Barry-George-loses-compensation-bid-wrongly-convicted-Jill-Dandos-murder.html
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @tim In 2008 there was the incident with the pigeon.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,082
    Thought that was a tennis racquet in his hand at first sight ...
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Has anyone been able to define Eds leaderhip qualities we were promised would be on display in the speech..secong laugh of the day
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    antifrank said:

    It seems likely to me that at least one set of official statistics (and possibly more than one) at present is seriously awry. If we are to believe what the statistics are telling us at present, productivity is bad and getting worse, yet employment is apparently continuing to increase and economic growth is increasing, all at a time of public sector job losses.

    I suppose it's possible that all of these are true, but it seems inherently unlikely.

    Falling productivity and growing employment is easy to reconcile. Companeis are hiring people instead of investing in plant and machinery because it is cheaper to do - but it's also less efficient.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    @tim In 2008 there was the incident with the pigeon.

    That hit worldwide.

    But PB Tory logic says nothing over the last three years is Osborne's responsibility, while at the same time they castigate Hollande for what has happened to the French economy.
    And of course now they avert their eyes from US deficit reduction after claiming (along with Osborne) that Obama's plan would fail.

    GO has taken us from utter basket case that the ruinous Brown left us as and we are now forecast to have the highest growth of major western nations.

    Not shabby.

    What has your hero Hollande done ? Dithered - rEd style.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Has anyone been able to define Eds leaderhip qualities we were promised would be on display in the speech..secong laugh of the day

    Reactive not pro-active.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    " we are now forecast to have the highest growth of major western nations."

    Laughable, utterly laughable

    But predictable

    "And of course now they avert their eyes from US deficit reduction after claiming (along with Osborne) that Obama's plan would fail."

    I meant European ;)

    We shall all bow down before the mighty Canada.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 9m

    Larry Whitty turned down job of implementing Ed M's reform plan as feared was unworkable & groundwork had not been done.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    There's something compelling about tim when he's in the kind of mode he's in this afternoon. Absolutely nothing will be allowed to shake him off his narrative. Go tim!
This discussion has been closed.