Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time for a level playing field when choosing Labour’s

SystemSystem Posts: 12,685
edited July 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time for a level playing field when choosing Labour’s next leader

Labour’s electoral college for determining its leader is currently divided and weighted into thirds. MPs & MEPs making up one third, party members another & affiliate members (members of trade unions and other socialist societies) the final third.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Only one kind of member, MPs nominate but members decide, seems a lot cleaner than the current thing, doesn't it?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Or members nominate but MPs decide?

    I'm not really sure this is a problem that needs solving. It has become fashionable for both main parties to tinker with the rules after each leadership election.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    I'm not really sure this is a problem that needs solving. It has become fashionable for both main parties to tinker with the rules after each leadership election.

    Well, at best Labour's current thing looks weird from the outside. It simultaneously appears to give power over to the unions while weighting down the votes of actual union members. I'm not saying it's massively high on the voters' list of priorities but it feels like a good thing to clean up while they're in opposition.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    One part of the solution would be to have a distinction between the leader of the Party (as elected by members in whatever arrangement or proportions as may be), and the leader of the Parliamentary group as elected by the Party's MPs. The latter would be the de-facto candidate for Prime Minister.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    The MPs have to live with the leader, it's right that they have an effective veto.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    edited July 2013
    Henry:
    Under a level playing field Westminster insiders would have less of an advantage over those who are better at engaging with members. That would be good news for backers of Andy Burnham, Stella Creasy or Lisa Nandy. Each of whom are available between 20/1 and 25/1. If you think this is the way Labour’s heading, then now would be a good time to back these 3.
    Andy Burnham didn't exactly set the membership alight in the last leadership election, did he? I haven't heard of the others, but in any case you'd very probably be locking your money up until 2016, probably 2021, and maybe even 2026, and those don't really seem like delicious enough odds to justify doing that...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    OT: This year marks the 300th anniversary of the signing of The Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of the Spanish Succession. Signed in the Dutch city of Utrecht by Spain, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Savoy and the Dutch Republic, it wasn't actually one treaty but was a series of documents signed over a period of months.

    Today, the 13th July, is the 300th anniversary of the signing of Article X which relates to Gibraltar.

    “The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”

    We never need an excuse for a party, but this is quite a good one so we'll use it :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,715
    GeoffM said:

    OT: This year marks the 300th anniversary of the signing of The Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of the Spanish Succession. Signed in the Dutch city of Utrecht by Spain, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Savoy and the Dutch Republic, it wasn't actually one treaty but was a series of documents signed over a period of months.

    Today, the 13th July, is the 300th anniversary of the signing of Article X which relates to Gibraltar.

    “The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”

    We never need an excuse for a party, but this is quite a good one so we'll use it :)

    I hope something nice and provocative is going to be beamed onto the Rock to mark the occasion, much like on HMs diamond jubilee.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    GeoffM said:

    OT: This year marks the 300th anniversary of the signing of The Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of the Spanish Succession. Signed in the Dutch city of Utrecht by Spain, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Savoy and the Dutch Republic, it wasn't actually one treaty but was a series of documents signed over a period of months.

    Today, the 13th July, is the 300th anniversary of the signing of Article X which relates to Gibraltar.

    “The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”

    We never need an excuse for a party, but this is quite a good one so we'll use it :)

    Seems pretty clear. What's the basis for the Spanish claim?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Charles said:

    GeoffM said:

    OT: This year marks the 300th anniversary of the signing of The Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of the Spanish Succession. Signed in the Dutch city of Utrecht by Spain, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Savoy and the Dutch Republic, it wasn't actually one treaty but was a series of documents signed over a period of months.

    Today, the 13th July, is the 300th anniversary of the signing of Article X which relates to Gibraltar.

    “The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”

    We never need an excuse for a party, but this is quite a good one so we'll use it :)

    Seems pretty clear. What's the basis for the Spanish claim?
    Per Wikipedia:
    The traditional Spanish position is based on territorial integrity, as per UN Resolution 1514 (XV) (1960) which according to Spain complements and constrains the right to self-determination: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
    If that's right it seems like a very weak claim, unlike the Argentinian claim to the Falklands.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Charles said:

    Seems pretty clear. What's the basis for the Spanish claim?

    Good question, and there's no clear answer. In January 1727, Spain pulled out of the Treaty of Utrecht's provisions relating to Gibraltar claiming that Britain had violated the treaty by extending Gibraltar's fortifications beyond the permitted limits, allowed Jews and Moors to live here (banned under the treaty but we gave sanctuary to refugees), hadn't protected Catholics enough and "harmed" Spain by allowing smuggling.

    Nowadays its simply a land-grab. Rather like the Falklands it is a distraction for domestic troubles and a nationalist drum to bang. Spain cherry-picks the bits of the treaty they can use to be awkward (no explicit definition of sea water area, for example) and ignore the bits which don't suit them.

    They play the "colonial anachronism" card whilst insisting that Ceuta and Melilla, their equivalent overseas territories, somehow aren't the same thing and don't count.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    O/T
    Union boss Bob Crow will seek to exploit Labour wranglings with trade unions by urging the movement to break ties with Ed Miliband and create a party that "speaks for working people". The RMT general secretary will speak at the Durham Miners Gala.

    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-07-13/union-leader-bob-crow-urges-trade-unions-to-break-ties-with-ed-miliband-and-form-new-party/
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    Yes, Henry and I often disagree but I think all of that is right. There is an argument for the PLP to do the shortlisting so that they don't have someone imposed on them who is completely unbearable to them, but I think the final should be one member one vote, full stop. Like like Henry I think it benefits the people he identifies.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    O/T
    Union boss Bob Crow will seek to exploit Labour wranglings with trade unions by urging the movement to break ties with Ed Miliband and create a party that "speaks for working people". The RMT general secretary will speak at the Durham Miners Gala.

    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-07-13/union-leader-bob-crow-urges-trade-unions-to-break-ties-with-ed-miliband-and-form-new-party/

    He's been trying to do this since at least 2007:
    Speaking at the founding conference of the National Shop Stewards Network in July 2007 Crow called for a new party for the working class.[10] This was repeated at the NSSN and Campaign for a New Workers' Party conference in 2008.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Crow#Campaign_for_a_New_Workers.27_Party
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Bless his little cottons
    edmundintokyo said:

    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    O/T
    Union boss Bob Crow will seek to exploit Labour wranglings with trade unions by urging the movement to break ties with Ed Miliband and create a party that "speaks for working people". The RMT general secretary will speak at the Durham Miners Gala.

    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-07-13/union-leader-bob-crow-urges-trade-unions-to-break-ties-with-ed-miliband-and-form-new-party/

    He's been trying to do this since at least 2007:
    Speaking at the founding conference of the National Shop Stewards Network in July 2007 Crow called for a new party for the working class.[10] This was repeated at the NSSN and Campaign for a New Workers' Party conference in 2008.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Crow#Campaign_for_a_New_Workers.27_Party

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,092
    Off-topic:

    Two threads ago, I wrote the following about the 787 fire:

    "Having said all that, it'll be a different cause. One fire on a ?A310? a decade ago was caused by a stewardess leaving a kettle on in the galley ..."

    I'd like to draw people's attention to this soothsaying (and ignore all the other possible mechanisms I mooted). :-)

    If so, relatively good news for Boeing (still bad, but nowhere near as bad as it could be), and easily fixed. I can imagine many people will want to study the fire damage to the plane to learn lessons.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,092
    On-topic:

    Labour will have problems for a few years (probably up to 2015) with every selection and winning candidate being put under the microscope to study if the contest was fair. I also expect more appeals from failed candidates and more arguments. It should be manageable with care.

    As for the leadership: As NP says, PLP selecting candidates, and the membership selecting the winner via OMOV seems a reasonable approach. But the elephant in the room will be the make-up of the membership that gets to vote.

    In addition, the last thing Labour need is another episode of ballot papers being sent out with a candidate's picture on it. Democracy it ain't.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 1,017
    edited July 2013
    Pound to a penny Labour will come up with some convoluted system that keeps the power in the party in the hands of a few.

  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 1,017
    edited July 2013
    Am actually offering odds of 240 -1. But only for 1d!
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Surely many of those who are affiliated members through the Trade Unions will already be card carrying members of the Labour Party?

    I don't really care how the Labour Party elects its leader. I do care that public money is used to fund the unions. Not a penny of public money should be spent on trade unions or subsidising their members. The state doesn't pay me to carry out my duties as a member of the Federation of Small Business or the Institute of Director so why should Trade Union members get paid time off to conduct union duties? Let the unions pay for them.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    If 10% of members of unions which are currently affiliated to Labour become opt-in members that would be absolutely stunning.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    GeoffM said:

    Charles said:

    Seems pretty clear. What's the basis for the Spanish claim?

    Good question, and there's no clear answer. In January 1727, Spain pulled out of the Treaty of Utrecht's provisions relating to Gibraltar claiming that Britain had violated the treaty by extending Gibraltar's fortifications beyond the permitted limits, allowed Jews and Moors to live here (banned under the treaty but we gave sanctuary to refugees), hadn't protected Catholics enough and "harmed" Spain by allowing smuggling.

    Nowadays its simply a land-grab. Rather like the Falklands it is a distraction for domestic troubles and a nationalist drum to bang. Spain cherry-picks the bits of the treaty they can use to be awkward (no explicit definition of sea water area, for example) and ignore the bits which don't suit them.

    They play the "colonial anachronism" card whilst insisting that Ceuta and Melilla, their equivalent overseas territories, somehow aren't the same thing and don't count.

    Melilla and Ceuta are not overseas Spanish territories, they are integral parts of Spain - as Spanish from an administrative sense as any town in Castille. Not that this makes the Spanish stance any less hypocritical.


  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    The problem Labour has is the growing perception that they selected the wrong Miliband. This is going to run and run. It reminds me of the Gordon Brown problem: a leader that just didn't quite cut the mustard. Mind you, the others are such a shambles it may not matter.

    Has politics in Britain ever been so boring?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    tim said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    If 10% of members of unions which are currently affiliated to Labour become opt-in members that would be absolutely stunning.


    That the strategy, but also the risk

    3m people paying £3 per year or 300,000 opt ins contributing the equivalent of £2.50 per month.


    My hunch is that Labour would pretty quickly find other sources of funding that may currently be put off by the formal union links.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    edited July 2013
    Easterross said:

    Surely many of those who are affiliated members through the Trade Unions will already be card carrying members of the Labour Party?

    I don't really care how the Labour Party elects its leader. I do care that public money is used to fund the unions. Not a penny of public money should be spent on trade unions or subsidising their members. The state doesn't pay me to carry out my duties as a member of the Federation of Small Business or the Institute of Director so why should Trade Union members get paid time off to conduct union duties? Let the unions pay for them.

    Tens of billions of pounds of public money is spent each year to subsidise employers who do not pay their employees a wage they can live on.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    edited July 2013
    Ricardohos said:

    The problem Labour has is the growing perception that they selected the wrong Miliband.

    You can't mean they should have picked David Miliband, a politician whose big idea was individual carbon ration cards and whose main contribution to the last Labour government was destabilizing Gordon Brown by always looking as if he was going to run against him, but never actually doing it.

    Is there another Miliband sibling, or are you suggesting Labour should have selected their mum?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    tim said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    tim said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    If 10% of members of unions which are currently affiliated to Labour become opt-in members that would be absolutely stunning.


    That the strategy, but also the risk

    3m people paying £3 per year or 300,000 opt ins contributing the equivalent of £2.50 per month.


    My hunch is that Labour would pretty quickly find other sources of funding that may currently be put off by the formal union links.


    The die is cast now anyway, Miliband can't backtrack.

    Cameron will have to stall as his membership is dwindling and dying leaving him more and more dependent on dinner guests

    Agreed. Miliband has left himself no option but to proceed with this.

    In goading Miliband in the way he did Cameron has probably ended up doing Labour a huge favour. As it changes, the spotlight will fall ever more brightly on the way in which the Tories get their money. I may be wrong, but I think that what polling has been done on this indicates that voters are more sceptical of Tory links to their funders than they are of Labour's union links. As the union links diminish, that scepticism about the Tories is only set to grow I'd have thought.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Not many people really care about how Labour finances itself, what they do care about is the complete lack of policies.Simply opposing everything is not a policy.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,076
    edited July 2013
    "It's time for a level playing field".

    It's an interesting quirk how often we use sporting-particularly cricketing metaphors-in daily conversation.


    'He/she had a long innings....It's just not cricket...they hit him for six or Geoffrey Howe's home made "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain".

    Well yesterday I think we might have got a new one. Like "Quisling" which describes someone treacherous and 'Hoover' vacuum cleaners Broad 's chance at immortality is as the new word for 'cheat'



  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    A lot of wishful thinking from the tag team today. All pie in the sky stuff about how they know what Cameron is going to do...Some Labour policies would be nice to discuss
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2013
    Put it this way why wouldnt you ditch a system that has only given the party one GE winning leader in nearly 40 years ??

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    O/T - and in the context of the three deaths and many injuries completely tasteless, but a Fox TV local affiliate in San Francisco fell for the Asiana pilots names given to them by an intern at the NTSB....first one, Sum Ting Wong:

    http://youtu.be/L1JYHNX8pdo
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    On topic, agree Mr Manson, MPs nominate candidates, then omov seems the best way ahead - the only remaining questions being whether it happens and if so when...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,392
    Being brave here and trying to post on blackberry. The morass that is Labour's leadership process was a compromise between the various interests that dominated the party at the time. Since then the reality is that unions have lost a lot influence, hence their recent actions.

    MPs are given disproportionate influence as they started with 100 per cent. I agree this seems unjustifiable now but it seemed an important quid pro quo at the time.

    Those who don't study history are going to live in it. Or something like that.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    CV That is hilarious..one unemployed intern
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    As opposed to the current CON system which has yet to produce a leader able to secure an overall majority.

    The LAB system has only been in place since 1994 and since then the party has won three of the four general elections it has faced.
    TGOHF said:

    Put it this way why wouldnt you ditch a system that has only given the party one GE winning leader in nearly 40 years ??

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    What policies did the Tories have in July 2008?

    It was only when they started announcing some in early 2010 that their lead collapsed.
    richardDodd said:

    Not many people really care about how Labour finances itself, what they do care about is the complete lack of policies.Simply opposing everything is not a policy.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,332
    Roger said:

    "It's time for a level playing field".

    It's an interesting quirk how often we use sporting-particularly cricketing metaphors-in daily conversation.


    'He/she had a long innings....It's just not cricket...they hit him for six or Geoffrey Howe's home made "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain".

    Well yesterday I think we might have got a new one. Like "Quisling" which describes someone treacherous and 'Hoover' vacuum cleaners Broad 's chance at immortality is as the new word for 'cheat'



    How exactly did broad "cheat"? He played precisely to the rules - or would you say that Agar also cheated by not walking having been stumped or that the whole Australian team cheated by appealing Trott when he was not out?

    Considering the Australian team are famously against walking unless given out and have no issue with broad I find it interesting that you seem to have such a strong view....
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MikeSmithson said:

    As opposed to the current CON system which has yet to produce a leader able to secure an overall majority.

    The LAB system has only been in place since 1994 and since then the party has won three of the four general elections it has faced.


    TGOHF said:

    Put it this way why wouldnt you ditch a system that has only given the party one GE winning leader in nearly 40 years ??

    3 different Con leaders have emerged from GE campaigns as PM in last 40 years. 3-1 against Labour.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Indy poll alert:

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/07/13/poll-alert-33/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    tim said:

    Vince Cable nails Osborne on housing dogma
    .

    Two days after revealing unpopular privatisation the Sage of Twickenham is disobliging about the Tories shocker!
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Cable is absolutely no match for Osborne.Cable is now beginning to act like an old duffer, and he seems to have been in a trance for three years
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    OT, just playing around with Predictious, the new bitcoin-based prediction market. The UI is nice, getting money in and out is quick and painless (if you have bitcoins), hardly any liquidity yet but hopefully it'll get better. Nothing on the UK yet, but they might add something if you ask.

    https://www.predictious.com/politics

    It seems to be pretty much an Intrade clone, hopefully not including the bit about getting sued by the US regulators for unlicensed commodities future trading and everybody losing their money while the founder dies trying to climb Mount Everest.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    For Alan Whicker fans - great photo of him at a press conf in 1955 with Kim Philby who was still at that time claiming not to be the Third Man.

    AW seems to have been with us forever - what an institution.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPC48JSCUAAPJkp.jpg:large

    and a lovely little anecdote from his obit in the Telegraph, him to a tee.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPC7ax9CYAAHTQS.jpg:thumb
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    Vince Cable nails Osborne on housing dogma



    George Osborne is sacrificing homes and jobs because of “Tory dogma” and an obsession with cuts, Vince Cable will say on Saturday.
    The business secretary will accuse cabinet colleague of blocking proposals to free councils to build more houses purely because of rightwing ideology.
    Mr Cable has proposed letting councils pool their borrowing limits so those not using their full allocation can donate it to authorities with housing waiting lists.

    But the plan was blocked by the chancellor, a decision that angered the business secretary. Mr Cable will tell his audience at the Social Liberal Forum in Manchester: “What is stopping them? Frankly, Tory dogma.
    “Even though freeing up this borrowing space would result in tens of thousands more homes being built, and many times more jobs, they would rather start talking about the cuts they want to make, rather than the houses that we should build.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a7cf866-eb06-11e2-bfdb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YuivBtSD


    Absolutely clear now that Osborne's priority is fewer houses and a housing bubble.
    Both for ideological and electoral reasons.

    Total timfoolery.

    Local Governments have built more residential dwellings in the first three years of tthe Coalition government than Labour built in their entire 13 years in office between 1997 and 2010. 
    House Building: Local Government                   
    Permanent dwellings completed                           
    --------------------------------------------------      
    Labour Governments (1997-2001,2001-2005,2005-2010)      
    1997    120                                             
    1998    130                                             
    1999     20                                             
    2000    160                                             
    2001     90                                             
    2002     40                                             
    2003     20                                             
    2004     -                                              
    2005     -                                              
    2006     10                                             
    2007     30                                             
    2008    430                                             
    2009    250                                             
    2010    540                                             
          -----------                                       
    Total       1,840                                       
                -----                                       
    --------------------------------------------------      
    Coalition Government (2010-)                            
    2011  3,090                                             
    2012  1,340*                                            
    2012  1,550**                                           

          -----                                             
    Total       5,980                                       
                -----                                       
    *  Includes figures for England only                    
    ** Forecast figures for England only
    The problem is that council houses only accounted for a tiny proportion of new build completions during Labour's years of misrule: 
    1997-2010: Completion of new dwellings    

    Private Enterprise      2,255,180   86.28%
    Housing Associations      350,750   13.42%
    Local Government            7,870    0.30%
                            ---------         
                            2,613,800
    It is the private sector which accounts for nearly nine in ten of all dwellings constructed. Only private construction companies hold the land, planning permissions, sales capability and financial resources to increase construction rates substantially in the short term.

    What has been constraining house building has been lack of finance supply from the banks and lack of demand from housebuyers. Osborne's housing sector interventions have been targetted specifically at removing these constraints and are delivering what is needed.

    On Mortgage supply:

    First-time buyers are returning to Britain’s housing market, raising hopes for a revival in the residential property sector.

    Mortgages for first-time purchases were 25,100 in May – up 29% on April and 42% on a year earlier, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) said. The number of first-time buyer loans was the highest since the peak of the housing boom in late 2007 and more than three times January 2009’s low of 8,500.

    More first-time buyers are seen as essential for a revival in the UK property market. Prices have risen in recent months but increases have been driven partly by a lack of supply.

    First-time buyers are getting mortgages with smaller deposits as lenders ease stiff lending requirements. May’s 81% loan-to-value ratio was the highest since November 2008.

    And the construction sector is responding to increased demand with the private sector leading the way:

    private enterprise housing starts (seasonally adjusted) were 7% higher in the March quarter 2013 than the previous quarter, whilst starts by housing associations were 1% higher

    The rate of housing completions has continued to escalate during the second quarter in line with increased confidence in the economy and improved credit supply.

    You should note however that both demand and supply remain well below their 2007 peaks:

    seasonally adjusted starts are now 62% above the trough in the March quarter 2009 but 44% below the March quarter 2007 peak; completions are 49% below their March quarter 2007 peak

    There is therefore plenty of slack capacity which can be utilised to ramp up housing construction and sales over the next two years.

    Believing that the solution to the current housing market problems lie in ramping up local government building is pure fantasy.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    I would like a more expansive attitude towards housing policy, but I doubt governments of either colour are really up to that. The best I can hope for, it would seem, is an acceleration only.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    On what basis do you make this assertion?

    The polling shows otherwise.
    richardDodd said:

    Cable is absolutely no match for Osborne.Cable is now beginning to act like an old duffer, and he seems to have been in a trance for three years

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.
    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,092
    Grandiose said:

    I would like a more expansive attitude towards housing policy, but I doubt governments of either colour are really up to that. The best I can hope for, it would seem, is an acceleration only.

    There are many problems with housing policy, and two of the main ones will not be tackled by governments of any stripe:

    1) Buy-to-lets
    2) Second homes

    The latter of these is particularly troublesome in certain areas of countryside.

    There is little point in building increasing numbers of houses, just for the liquidity of the housing market to go down as they go straight into the hands of private landlords.

    There are plenty of ways for these to be tackled, but few are appealing to the electorate. In the meantime, large tracts of countryside die and landlords snap up large numbers of properties in our towns and cities.

    It is like building new roads - the more you build, the greater the traffic levels grow.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    @afneil: Osborne claims he'll get £3bn+ from tax dodgers in Switzerland. Now looks unlikely http://t.co/Ocu0JmBqmO


    Could be zero.
    And Osborne "banked" over £3 Billion in May 2013.

    Yet more timfoolery.

    The tax arrangements with Switzerland work as follows.

    The UK government reaches an agreement with the Swiss Government and/or banks, under which the banks pay the UK a fixed sum of deposit transactions made by UK nationals at Swiss banks. The Swiss banks do not reveal the identity of individual account holders to the UK government. They recover the sums paid to the UK government by applying a fixed rate 'withholding tax' to UK National account holders.

    This arrangement has been the case for many decades and the withholding tax has been set at a level designed to capture a broad equivalent of the income taxes which would be applied had the account been held in a UK bank. The new treaty extends the arrangement to collecting capital gains and other applicable taxes and involves higher rate withholding taxes being applied to a broader range of transactions.

    As an individual account holder, you have the option of allowing the Swiss bank to apply the agreed withholding taxes at pre-agreed rates or to declare the existence of the account and its underlying transactions to HMRC.

    Declaration makes sense when the tax assessed by HMRC would be lower than that collected by the Swiss banks through a withholding tax. This is more likely to apply for capital gains taxes as a tax payer is likely to have offsetting tax losses which may not be shown by transactions within the Swiss bank account.

    This is why the tax take from the Swiss Banks is so difficult to estimate. It is not known how much of the tax due will be paid by direct declaration to HMRC and the proportion which will be collected through withholding taxes. Only the 'withholding tax' receipts will be entered into the National Accounts as a special item. Taxes paid directly to HMRC will not be separately accounted for: they will just increase the HMRC tax takes.

    The overall taxes due to the Exchequer from UK Nationals holding accounts with Swiss Banks is generally well known and calculable. What is not known is the method by which these taxes will be paid.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    tim said:

    Vince Cable nails Osborne on housing dogma
    .

    Two days after revealing unpopular privatisation the Sage of Twickenham is disobliging about the Tories shocker!

    I'm sure smart Tories will agree with Cable's position on housing rather than Osbornes.
    It's very close to Boris' rather than adjacent to the insanity of Osborne's blocking of housebuilding while handing £120k subsidies to people remortgaging £600k houses.

    In the event that a council takes on a lot of debt using someone else's borrowing capacity, but is unable to pay it back who is liable?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    boulay said:

    Roger said:

    "It's time for a level playing field".

    It's an interesting quirk how often we use sporting-particularly cricketing metaphors-in daily conversation.


    'He/she had a long innings....It's just not cricket...they hit him for six or Geoffrey Howe's home made "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain".

    Well yesterday I think we might have got a new one. Like "Quisling" which describes someone treacherous and 'Hoover' vacuum cleaners Broad 's chance at immortality is as the new word for 'cheat'



    How exactly did broad "cheat"? He played precisely to the rules - or would you say that Agar also cheated by not walking having been stumped or that the whole Australian team cheated by appealing Trott when he was not out?

    Considering the Australian team are famously against walking unless given out and have no issue with broad I find it interesting that you seem to have such a strong view....
    I would like those supporting Broad "playing according to the rules" to answer one question:

    Why did he walk today before the umpire even raised his finger ? If he was / you are being consistent he should have waited for the umpire to raise his finger.

    Or, is the most likely answer being that he [they] wait(s) for the umpire's decision when he [they] feels that he/they can get away with it ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2013
    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That's a very rude response.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    @avery

    No point being obsessed with who builds and runs them, housing associations are just as valid, or pension funds getting involved in building for long term rent.

    You're a house price inflation addict, self confessed.

    I accept that Housing Associations are in a better position to build than Local Governments but they still only account for 10-15% of total output. And they are far less prepared to ramp up output than private sector construction companies. They are not builders; they do not hold land with planning permissions; they are not financed or staffed to carry out major building works; their projects will all be subject to long bureaucratic negotiations with governmental bodies.

    So short term growth will not come from this sub-sector. Note that Housing Associations only increased completions by 1% in Q1 2013 compared to 7% by the private sector.

    Only you and a super-annuated former Glaswegian Labour councillor pursuing a whimsical mid-1960s socialist five year planning cycle could fail to see that the engine for growth in house-building is and can only be the private sector.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OGH..If you don't think Labour are in trouble then you have less newsense than newsense himself and that makes you look stupid Their average poll lead is 8..and less than two years out with not one single policy in place except opposing everything..They are in trouble because they will have to U turn massively..
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul
    Hadn't paid attention yday. Alex Salmond running so scared he calls it "independent-lite" & says it'll still be "UK" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23287920 …
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That a very rude response.
    Charles said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That a very rude response.
    But nonetheless correct in its content. It is the Tories who are in the yellow stuff.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    The Aussies need 311 in their final innings.

    Possible but still above the record of 284 for a fourth innings to win at Trent Bridge.
  • YossariansChildYossariansChild Posts: 536
    Roger said:

    "It's time for a level playing field".

    It's an interesting quirk how often we use sporting-particularly cricketing metaphors-in daily conversation.


    'He/she had a long innings....It's just not cricket...they hit him for six or Geoffrey Howe's home made "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain".

    Well yesterday I think we might have got a new one. Like "Quisling" which describes someone treacherous and 'Hoover' vacuum cleaners Broad 's chance at immortality is as the new word for 'cheat'



    Your Prep School sledging is tiresome. Anyway it wouldnt be a "Broad" it would be a "Hurst". Dont tell me he really thought it was over the line. I look forward to you, "The Sun" and others complaining about Broad to campaign for us to return the World Cup of 1966.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    tim said:

    Vince Cable nails Osborne on housing dogma
    .

    Two days after revealing unpopular privatisation the Sage of Twickenham is disobliging about the Tories shocker!

    I'm sure smart Tories will agree with Cable's position on housing rather than Osbornes.
    It's very close to Boris' rather than adjacent to the insanity of Osborne's blocking of housebuilding while handing £120k subsidies to people remortgaging £600k houses.

    In the event that a council takes on a lot of debt using someone else's borrowing capacity, but is unable to pay it back who is liable?
    Of course, it is the borrowing council. Tory councils who are misers when it comes to social biuld so that property prices can be artificially inflated could even make some money by "sellling" their credits for a fee.

    The overall local government limit would not be breached.
  • YossariansChildYossariansChild Posts: 536
    surbiton said:

    boulay said:

    Roger said:

    "It's time for a level playing field".

    It's an interesting quirk how often we use sporting-particularly cricketing metaphors-in daily conversation.


    'He/she had a long innings....It's just not cricket...they hit him for six or Geoffrey Howe's home made "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain".

    Well yesterday I think we might have got a new one. Like "Quisling" which describes someone treacherous and 'Hoover' vacuum cleaners Broad 's chance at immortality is as the new word for 'cheat'



    How exactly did broad "cheat"? He played precisely to the rules - or would you say that Agar also cheated by not walking having been stumped or that the whole Australian team cheated by appealing Trott when he was not out?

    Considering the Australian team are famously against walking unless given out and have no issue with broad I find it interesting that you seem to have such a strong view....
    I would like those supporting Broad "playing according to the rules" to answer one question:

    Why did he walk today before the umpire even raised his finger ? If he was / you are being consistent he should have waited for the umpire to raise his finger.

    Or, is the most likely answer being that he [they] wait(s) for the umpire's decision when he [they] feels that he/they can get away with it ?
    When theres any appeal against you I'd say you just act according to instinct. Your heart is pumping, your head racing, your hopes and dreams lay potentially smashed around you. You may walk to one nik that on another day you would stand your ground.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited July 2013
    Jo Stevens gets Labour nomination in Cardiff Central.
    http://www.jostevens.co.uk/

    She was backed by Unite and endorsed by Tom Watson. So expect a call for an inquiry soon.

    Dan Watkins selected by the Tories in Tooting.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    OGH in ant-Tory rants today. The site is becoming virulently pro - anyone but the Tories!
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I just lurve Labour comlacency..and theres a lot to lurve....................................
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2013
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That a very rude response.
    Charles said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That a very rude response.
    But nonetheless correct in its content. It is the Tories who are in the yellow stuff.
    It's certainly arguable, although based on a snapshot.

    I think Labour's strategic position is weaker than it might be, but that their tactical advantage may be sufficient to get them over the line.

    More importantly the last line of OGH's response was completely unnecessary. You can disagree with someone without being rude
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Today we should also discover Labour candidate in Kingswood. Selections scheduled for tomorrow include Dudley South, Hampstead & Kilburn, Southampton Itchen and Sherwood.

    The Unite running table is
    10 selected
    13 defeated
    18 to go

    In Dudley they support Natacha Millward, in Kingswood Rowenna Hayward, in Sherwood Lachlan Morrison. No-one in Hampstead after Fiona Millar decided not to run.

    In Itchen we all support Avery's choice.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    tim said:

    Vince Cable nails Osborne on housing dogma
    .

    Two days after revealing unpopular privatisation the Sage of Twickenham is disobliging about the Tories shocker!

    I'm sure smart Tories will agree with Cable's position on housing rather than Osbornes.
    It's very close to Boris' rather than adjacent to the insanity of Osborne's blocking of housebuilding while handing £120k subsidies to people remortgaging £600k houses.

    In the event that a council takes on a lot of debt using someone else's borrowing capacity, but is unable to pay it back who is liable?
    Of course, it is the borrowing council. Tory councils who are misers when it comes to social biuld so that property prices can be artificially inflated could even make some money by "sellling" their credits for a fee.

    The overall local government limit would not be breached.
    The overall local government limit is not relevant, because there is not a pooling of resources to repay the debt.

    If you want to abolish limits on council borrowing then make that case. In my opinion there is a very good reason for these limits being in place.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    @Charles
    "More importantly the last line of OGH's response was completely unnecessary. You can disagree with someone without being rude"

    You'd think so - especially from the site host!
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Probably my language went too far but the point remains.

    I'm tired of commenters making assertions of fact when what they are expressing are their personal hopes and aspirations.

    In this case the preface "In my view" to the statement that "Labour are in dire trouble" would have been fine.
    Charles said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That's a very rude response.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited July 2013
    @Tim

    'That the strategy, but also the risk

    3m people paying £3 per year or 300,000 opt ins contributing the equivalent of £2.50 per month.'

    As Livingstone commented on Thursday night,all the evidence is that it's not going to happen.

    London Labour party membership 2001 80,000 members Labour party membership 2011 30,000 members.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited July 2013
    OGH..You are kidding aren't you .. almost all of the Cheshire Farmers posts are statements of fact, even going in to what Cameron and Osborne think..sheesh..but never mind , I still think Labour are in deep trouble because of the opinions I posted..do feel free to disagree.

    And your answer was very weak, how many people on here say at the outset "In my view"?.You could of course make it a rule..that would upset some posters tho.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    MikeSmithson said:

    What policies did the Tories have in July 2008?

    It was only when they started announcing some in early 2010 that their lead collapsed.

    richardDodd said:

    Not many people really care about how Labour finances itself, what they do care about is the complete lack of policies.Simply opposing everything is not a policy.

    Interesting mr Smithson,so when tories announcing they policies in 2010 they lead collapsed,labour start announcing they policies in early 2015,labours lead to collapse (if any lead by then)

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    The 2013 Aussie Ashes squad is useless.

    Factual evidence to support this personal hope and aspiration will follow.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    A comparison to Oz where 75% is being suggested by Rudd of caucus signed in blood to even threaten him as leader now would be interesting. Stalinist democracy. No matter how crap....
    Funny how he suggested changes based on public populism and not membership of party and unions AFTER he got rid of Gillard after undermining her for months if not years.
    Similar issues in Scotland, England and Oz, where Ken MacIntosh (who he?), David Milliband and Gillard would have won a party members vote. But externals, unions and whatever, changed the result.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    @Richardson's

    OGH..You are kidding aren't you .. almost all of the Cheshire Farmers posts are statements of fact, even going in to what Cameron and Osborne think..


    I think you need to replace fact with opinion in the statement above. More to the point when it comes to Tim OGH hears and sees no evil.
  • SchardsSchards Posts: 210
    I'm surprised to see the assertion that Cameron going big on the Labour union woes is going to backfire.

    Anyone who is remotely interested already knows the tories are largely bankrolled by wealthy donors and Labour by the unions. That is alraedy factored in to the price, so to speak. Therefore, be not doing anything, Miliband doesn't risk losing much other than a bit of face at PMQ's and that doesn't cost votes.

    By responding to Cameron's goading, Milaband has backed himself into a corner whereby he has two options - either back down and look incredibly weak (which will cost votes) or lose a huge percentage of funding when Labour are already millions in debt (which causes practical problems and gives the tories an open goal in comparing how Labour run their own finances with how they would run the countries).

    I would imagine Cameron will be heartily satisfied with his work here, even if Labour can put the spotlight on tory donations, it won't be showing the public anything they don't already know and won't cost a single vote. Meanwhile Labour will lose plenty either electorally or financially.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Which is precisely the issue - being all things to everyone is what the LDs used to garner support for decades - when they had to actually choose and deliver - their vote collapsed.

    Labour like the Tories before them have to make public choices very shortly - and it will have an impact on those who are currently projecting their desires onto them instead.
    Tykejohnno said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    What policies did the Tories have in July 2008?

    It was only when they started announcing some in early 2010 that their lead collapsed.

    richardDodd said:

    Not many people really care about how Labour finances itself, what they do care about is the complete lack of policies.Simply opposing everything is not a policy.

    Interesting mr Smithson,so when tories announcing they policies in 2010 they lead collapsed,labour start announcing they policies in early 2015,labours lead to collapse (if any lead by then)

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    In my view .... perchance I may have noted this declaration previously but :

    Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Schards

    Nothing in Miliband's plans show that they would involve losing millions in trade union funding yet. I would like to see some details before drawing that conclusion. The problem with Dave going on about trade unions as if they are evil is that it may not play very well with the millions of trade union members whose votes he needs.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I've just been reading Mr Parris' article in the Times - he advocates match public funding for small party donations - 80%+ of his readers think its a terrible idea and see it as a reward for failure/nationalising the Big Three etc - I must agree.

    "...the Tories ...raised some £13 million last year from only 707 donations; Labour raised some £12 million from 661 donations. What parties raise from the wider party base in voluntary membership subs and small donations is chickenfeed by comparison these days: and the yield is plummeting." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3815599.ece
    Schards said:

    I'm surprised to see the assertion that Cameron going big on the Labour union woes is going to backfire.

    Anyone who is remotely interested already knows the tories are largely bankrolled by wealthy donors and Labour by the unions. That is alraedy factored in to the price, so to speak. Therefore, be not doing anything, Miliband doesn't risk losing much other than a bit of face at PMQ's and that doesn't cost votes.

    By responding to Cameron's goading, Milaband has backed himself into a corner whereby he has two options - either back down and look incredibly weak (which will cost votes) or lose a huge percentage of funding when Labour are already millions in debt (which causes practical problems and gives the tories an open goal in comparing how Labour run their own finances with how they would run the countries).

    I would imagine Cameron will be heartily satisfied with his work here, even if Labour can put the spotlight on tory donations, it won't be showing the public anything they don't already know and won't cost a single vote. Meanwhile Labour will lose plenty either electorally or financially.

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    @Neil

    I've the list of Labour candidates in 10 Southwark wards they selected so far. Are you interested?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    JackW said:

    In my view .... perchance I may have noted this declaration previously but :

    Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister

    I sincerely hope so - and given his leadership ratings, he doesn't have a cat in Hell's chance. Even his own party voters think he's a poor performer. Given he's now 3yrs into the job, he's not making much of an impact as a leader of anything.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited July 2013
    Neil .. As a former long standing member of a Union and a negotiator, I think, in my view ,that most Union members have no illusions about the status of their Unions..and ,in my considered view, some members think their executives are not entirely on the side of the fee paying member..in a political sense of course..in my view.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Andrea

    That would be great thanks - it's always fun to see who's been deselected ;)
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    @Neil

    Sadly it's difficult to get who has been deslected, who has been pushed or who really retired on their own preference.

    But here we go

    Brunswick Park: Cllr Ian Wingfield, Cllr Mark Williams, Radha Burgess
    Camberwell Green: Cllr Dora, Tom Flynn, Kieron Williams
    East Walworth: Cllr Rebecca Lury, Cllr Martin Seaton & Cllr Darren Merrill
    Faraday: Cllr Dan Garfield, Cllr Lorraine Lauder & Paul Fleming
    Livesey: Cllr Richard Livingstone, Cllr Michael Situ & Evelyn Akoto
    Nunhead: Cllr Fiona Colley, Cllr Sunil Chopra, Sandra Rhule
    Peckham: Cllr Barrie Hargrove, Cllr Cleo Soanes & Johnson Situ
    Peckham Rye: Cllr Gavin Edwards, Cllr Victoria Mills, Cllr Renata Hamvas
    The Lane: Cllr Nick Dolezal, Jamille Mohammed, Jasmine Ali
    South Camberwell: Cllr Peter John, Sarah King, Chris Gonde

    At least 2 of the replaced sitting Cllrs are due to deselections: Catherine McDonald in Livesey and Anthea Smith in Nunhead.
    Smith was quoted in the Mail (in an article about Unite stitch ups at council levels, black candidates being rejected in Southwark and Lambeth and Little Dromey being selected in Lewisham) complaning about "People came from outside the borough who have connections to trade unions and MPs and were selected. These are the people who want to become career politicians. Harriet Harman wants equality, but she wants her own brand of equality.’

    The Sandra Rhule selected in her place in Nunhead is black though. Assuming she's the same Sandra Rhule who sat for Brunswick Park before being deselected in 2010.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Given that YouGov found that 49% of member voters put their X on the ballot for LDs and Tories in GE2010 and only 38% for Labour - your experience rings true.
    richardDodd said:

    Neil .. As a former long standing member of a Union and a negotiator, I think, in my view ,that most Union members have no illusions about the status of their Unions..and ,in my considered view, some members think their executives are not entirely on the side of the fee paying member..in a political sense of course..in my view.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @richardDodd

    I'm sure that's your view ;) But I think Dave's mistake it to present the entire trade union movement as the problem when he needs millions of people in the movement to vote Tory. I doubt we'll have figures one way or another but I bet the Tory to Labour swing at the next GE will be higher amongst union members than non union members.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    'The problem with Dave going on about trade unions as if they are evil is that it may not play very well with the millions of trade union members whose votes he needs.'

    Is Dave going on about trade unions though? he's surely going on about a very small select band of trade union leaders.

    Presumably those members of Red Len's union who vote tory don't like Len much either.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Neil said:

    @richardDodd

    I'm sure that's your view ;) But I think Dave's mistake it to present the entire trade union movement as the problem when he needs millions of people in the movement to vote Tory. I doubt we'll have figures one way or another but I bet the Tory to Labour swing at the next GE will be higher amongst union members than non union members.

    But Cameron hasn't done that to union members - he's talking about quite clearly the men who used to live in smoke filled rooms. Anyone who defines themselves as a Trade Unionist is very unlikely to vote Tory in any case.

    Being a member of a union is surely one of the most trivial aspects of one's life unless its your personal greasy pole.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Andrea

    Thanks - it looks like Veronica Ward is stepping down in South Camberwell (I'm sure that isnt a deselection). That was the ward we won a seat in 2006 and not having her running will help there. Dora is safe as expected!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    Neil said:

    @richardDodd

    I'm sure that's your view ;) But I think Dave's mistake it to present the entire trade union movement as the problem when he needs millions of people in the movement to vote Tory. I doubt we'll have figures one way or another but I bet the Tory to Labour swing at the next GE will be higher amongst union members than non union members.

    To be fair to Cameron, he is not "presenting the entire trade union movement as the problem".

    What he is objecting to is the involuntary (or at least default) confiscation of salary by Unions from their members for the purpose of funding a political party selected by the Union and not the member.

    Such action is legimately objectionable regardless of one's political views.

    I believe it is even weakly opposed by the current weak leader of the weak Labour party.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Source?

    The latest Ipsos-MORI "Satisfied/Dissatisfied" ratings have Dave at a net minus 24% Ed at minus 21%

    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=88&view=wide#2013

    The ComRes favourability ratings have Dave and Ed level.

    Tonight we should see Survation favourability numbers - the firm has switched to this model.

    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    In my view .... perchance I may have noted this declaration previously but :

    Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister

    I sincerely hope so - and given his leadership ratings, he doesn't have a cat in Hell's chance. Even his own party voters think he's a poor performer. Given he's now 3yrs into the job, he's not making much of an impact as a leader of anything.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @taffys

    I disagree, I think Cameron's constant attempts to link Labour to the trade unions (shock! who knew?) is based on the implicit premise that trade unions are something bad that you dont want to be linked to.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    In my view .... perchance I may have noted this declaration previously but :

    Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister

    I sincerely hope so - and given his leadership ratings, he doesn't have a cat in Hell's chance. Even his own party voters think he's a poor performer. Given he's now 3yrs into the job, he's not making much of an impact as a leader of anything.
    Well quite .... I'm not too sure why there'll all bothering with all this pre election nonsense let alone a campaign when they might avail themselves of my ARSE and save themselves all the heartache and a few quid .... and the enduring appreciation of a long suffering public !!

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited July 2013
    Neil.as a steward in my union I was aware of how many members opted out of the political levy, in my view, it was well over 70% in those days, including me.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    You mean like when people post such nonsense as "Cameron always gives in to his right wing"?
    Like on gay marriage or foreign aid?
    MikeSmithson said:

    I'm tired of commenters making assertions of fact when what they are expressing are their personal hopes and aspirations.

    Charles said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    In what way are Labour in dire trouble as you assert?

    It's the Tories that seem to be losing council by-elections every week

    It's the Tories who have been most affected by the rise of UKIP

    It's the Tories who are seeing a huge decline in activists as seen by polling this week

    If you want to make staements back them up with facts

    You just make yourself you stupid.

    richardDodd said:

    What have Tory policies or not in 2008 got to do with anything.Labour are in dire trouble and they need to get on the case very quickly..All they are seen to do is oppose every Coalition policy ..so many in fact that there can be very few they can produve without doing major U turns.

    That's a very rude response.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,388

    "I'm tired of commenters making assertions of fact when what they are expressing are their personal hopes and aspirations."

    Hooray, let's hear for the grumpy and pedantic old gits (I is one so I can say that).

    This site is a discussion place for opinion, and linking to some other similarly-deluded loon doesn't alter that.

    I believe EdM is a dud but I suspect he may sneak a small majority. I believe tim thinks EdM is a dud too, but he will never say so. And I've no idea what Cameron or Osborne are planning, but I suspect that calling it planning might be an exaggeration. And anyone who claims that they know the intention of politicians, or ends a sentence with "fact" or "end of" is daft. or believes that the readers are.

    Shuffles off to rant at the local bystanders,
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    @Neil

    The disappearing names (so far) seem to be Norma Gibbs, Emmanuel Oyewole, Kevin Ahem, Abdul Mohamed, Anthea Smith, Cat McDonald, Chris Brown (confirmed he didn't re -apply. He was elected in a by-election in 2011), Keadean Rhoden, Veronica Ward and Mark Glover.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AveryLP said:


    What he is objecting to is the involuntary confiscation of salary by Unions from their members for the purpose of funding a political party.

    The rules of every trade union's political fund must be put to a ballot of all members, Avery. Recent results have been showing c. 90% + yes votes. For those who are outvoted in these ballots and unhappy with the rules of the fund there is always the option to opt out.

    But more importantly my point is that wider than the spat over funding Cameron and his top team are managing to give the impression that it is the wider trade union movement that is a problem. I do not think this is great politics.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025