Carswell is a 'smart Tory' now is he? Didn't he invent elected police commissioners? Anyway, I suspect that here he's merely channelling his strange obsession for open primaries.
required reading for those PB tories who have spent the last few days not understanding.
It is a big if, but if Miliband sees this through we will end up with the kind of Labour party I have been waiting all my adult life to see. I think that is very exciting.
Don't get your hopes up sweetie. I'd hate to see you disappointed
I'm not surprised you're in favour of Barons having all the power, you're in favour of Baronets having all the money.
Neither of those.
But don't let the facts stop you.
We can change the facts on the ground. By moving Croydon to the West Midlands
I notice that the PB Tories haven't grasped that Labour is proposing a £10k cap on donations, will the Tories agree to that do you think, they say they want to reduce the power of the union barons
I've been busy in Germany, so haven't looked at the details. Don't have a strong view whether £10K is the right number - sounds quite low - but a flat cap makes sense, provided that the union donations from the political levy are considered a single donation
Then you'll have to vote Labour, because Cameron's dying ageing party dependent on a few millionaire donors won't introduce it.
Miliband is intent on building a mass party and chopping off the power of the union barons. Cameron has a dozen people for kitchen supper and country supper, while his activists leave in their droves.
Of course Cameron could agree to a cap now.
The Tories proposed last year, but Miliband vetoed it (believe, from memory, it was proposed at £50K) - he objected to the principle
'Miliband is intent on building a mass party and chopping off the power of the union barons.'
Dream on,surely you don't believe that crap?
The Tories made a donation cap conditional on Labour introducing an opt in.
Now let's have a donation cap, how can Cameron refuse, he says he wants to take the big money out of politics, it's all in his hands now.
But we all know his dying party relies on a dozen dinner guests, so his bluff will be called.
Yes , and Gordon Brown attacked second jobs for MPs and then cashed in on the corporate lecture circuit as soon as he became a backbench MP. Who cares what Labour leaders say about anything anymore , they have zero credibility.
required reading for those PB tories who have spent the last few days not understanding.
It is a big if, but if Miliband sees this through we will end up with the kind of Labour party I have been waiting all my adult life to see. I think that is very exciting.
Don't get your hopes up sweetie. I'd hate to see you disappointed
I'm not surprised you're in favour of Barons having all the power, you're in favour of Baronets having all the money.
Neither of those.
But don't let the facts stop you.
We can change the facts on the ground. By moving Croydon to the West Midlands
I notice that the PB Tories haven't grasped that Labour is proposing a £10k cap on donations, will the Tories agree to that do you think, they say they want to reduce the power of the union barons
You do appreciate that Labour wants to apply the £10k cap only to one-off union 'gifts'. The 'affiliation fees' aren't to be affected.
'But as well as right in principle, an opt-in system would have political benefits for Labour. It would make it easier to justify exempting union affiliation fees from the £5,000 cap on donations proposed by Miliband on the grounds that they should be treated as an aggregate of individual members' contributions, rather than as one lump sum, removing one of the stumbling blocks to cross-party agreement. As a Labour source told me: "It would allow us to frame the Tories as the party of big money and us as the party of millions of working people.'
So a slight of hand would mean that Labour could avoid the donations cap for a huge chunk of its union booty. Dave will never swallow that of course, and why should he.
required reading for those PB tories who have spent the last few days not understanding.
It is a big if, but if Miliband sees this through we will end up with the kind of Labour party I have been waiting all my adult life to see. I think that is very exciting.
Don't get your hopes up sweetie. I'd hate to see you disappointed
I'm not surprised you're in favour of Barons having all the power, you're in favour of Baronets having all the money.
Neither of those.
But don't let the facts stop you.
We can change the facts on the ground. By moving Croydon to the West Midlands
I notice that the PB Tories haven't grasped that Labour is proposing a £10k cap on donations, will the Tories agree to that do you think, they say they want to reduce the power of the union barons
You do appreciate that Labour wants to apply the £10k cap only to one-off union 'gifts'. The 'affiliation fees' aren't to be affected.
If you want to take the influence of big donations away from politics, cap the spending of the parties. It is the spending that needs to be controlled to bring the donations under control.
To be fair that's all in the Tories hands, Ed is going to offer a donations cap, taking the union political donations above whatever level is agreed out of the equation.
'Yes , and Gordon Brown attacked second jobs for MPs and then cashed in on the corporate lecture circuit as soon as he became a backbench MP.'
Hilarious watching the gullible PB lefties hang on Red's every word,they haven't worked out it's another of Red's blank piece of paper routines,no detail,no timelines and McCluskey's mate in charge.
And we know,whatever happens, it will be presented as a sensational win for Red.
Didn't take long for Red's smoke & mirrors to unravel.
'Here is the explanation in more detail:
'Currently members pay money into their union’s political fund, with a small proportion of this – typically £3 a year – earmarked for Labour as an affiliation fee. The money is paid unless they actively “opt out” and is worth a total £8m a year for the party.
Under the reforms members would for the first time have to “opt in” to pay the affiliation fee, meaning Labour could lose millions of pounds it currently receives directly.
Yet the overall political fund would maintain an “opt-out” system, meaning unions would still receive the same amounts of money – while passing less of it on to Labour.
That means the unions will have extra millions which can be used by unions for policy campaigning and – crucially – for big donations to Labour, for example at election time.
That will make it even more important for Labour MPs to keep the union general secretaries on side; the opposite of what you might have believed.
The reforms which the union leaders fear – to dilute their power over conference votes and leadership elections – were only vaguely hinted at by Miliband.
At present the unions have a half of votes at annual conference and a third of those for leadership contests. Miliband said merely that this would be considered in the Ray Collins review.'
Comments
Not at all.It's a rejection of New Labour in favour of the early 90s period of the party.
'Miliband is intent on building a mass party and chopping off the power of the union barons.'
Dream on,surely you don't believe that crap?
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2013/07/how-the-miliband-reforms-may-given-even-more-power-to-the-unions/
'But as well as right in principle, an opt-in system would have political benefits for Labour. It would make it easier to justify exempting union affiliation fees from the £5,000 cap on donations proposed by Miliband on the grounds that they should be treated as an aggregate of individual members' contributions, rather than as one lump sum, removing one of the stumbling blocks to cross-party agreement. As a Labour source told me: "It would allow us to frame the Tories as the party of big money and us as the party of millions of working people.'
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/why-miliband-should-support-opt-system-trade-union-donations
So a slight of hand would mean that Labour could avoid the donations cap for a huge chunk of its union booty. Dave will never swallow that of course, and why should he.
http://www.redmolotov.com/images/designs/red-ed-tshirt_design.jpg
Free party membership with each purchase.
'Yes , and Gordon Brown attacked second jobs for MPs and then cashed in on the corporate lecture circuit as soon as he became a backbench MP.'
Hilarious watching the gullible PB lefties hang on Red's every word,they haven't worked out it's another of Red's blank piece of paper routines,no detail,no timelines and McCluskey's mate in charge.
And we know,whatever happens, it will be presented as a sensational win for Red.
'Here is the explanation in more detail:
'Currently members pay money into their union’s political fund, with a small proportion of this – typically £3 a year – earmarked for Labour as an affiliation fee. The money is paid unless they actively “opt out” and is worth a total £8m a year for the party.
Under the reforms members would for the first time have to “opt in” to pay the affiliation fee, meaning Labour could lose millions of pounds it currently receives directly.
Yet the overall political fund would maintain an “opt-out” system, meaning unions would still receive the same amounts of money – while passing less of it on to Labour.
That means the unions will have extra millions which can be used by unions for policy campaigning and – crucially – for big donations to Labour, for example at election time.
That will make it even more important for Labour MPs to keep the union general secretaries on side; the opposite of what you might have believed.
The reforms which the union leaders fear – to dilute their power over conference votes and leadership elections – were only vaguely hinted at by Miliband.
At present the unions have a half of votes at annual conference and a third of those for leadership contests. Miliband said merely that this would be considered in the Ray Collins review.'