"Just under half (49%) of Unite members said they would vote Labour in an election tomorrow; 23% would vote Tory. Four in ten thought David Cameron would make the best Prime Minister of the three leaders, putting him just 6 points behind Ed Miliband. Only 42% said the Labour Party was doing a good job of representing the interests of ordinary working people in Britain, while 47% said it was not."
12% saying they'd join Labour directly is a tremendous result for Ed. Across all affiliated unions thats roughly 350,000 people saying they'd become members.
MODERATED
Incidentally, there must be some marketing person who knows the stats precisely, but I would assume that if 12% of people reply they they have an intent to purchase membership, substantially less (say half) will actually follow through with it.
If you give a coupon for "money off next purchase" (free money) you'll be doing well to get 25% of them used - it can be as low as 10%.
It's only free money if you were going to buy the product anyway.
That's why I'm so impressed by the latest Tesco scheme - the Price Match or whatever it's called. Giving you your money back, but in the form of a discount against the next purchase (subject to T&Cs) is a very smart idea. I'd be interested to see the data on how the economics pan out, but I suspect they are very attractive indeed.
Which of the following do you think does a better job of representing you and the things you care about? Ed Miliband: 23 Len McClusky: 16 Neither: 61
And on Len's policies (net agree)
Govt wrong to cut any public spending : 0 Union should campaign against cuts with strikes : -14 Govt should nationalise utilities/transport/banking: +34 Top rate of tax 75p: -18
Tonight's 3% LAB YouGov lead is the smallest since March 2012 - before Osborne's budget
Yes, let us never forget the incompetent Osbrowne's endless ability to f**k everything up.
Yet even despite that we might well start seeing an interesting effect if little Ed's lead keeps shrinking away. The kipper vote was mainly protest and the more polls there are with the tories and labour close together the less appealing and 'safe' a protest vote becomes. If it's a straight up fight between labour and the tories, where it looks possible for the tories to draw level or even overtake labour, then those tory voters who melted away to NF and the kippers might start thinking a tory win is possible and stop flirting with Farage.
It was because the tory polling crashed so hard after Osbrowne's omnishambles that the kipper protest received a bandwagon effect. If there are continuing polls with labour and the tories close then that two horse race under FPTP will likely concentrate voters minds again.
Benedict Brogan @benedictbrogan 38m On FCO #EU audit, @DouglasCarswell lasers in: come the renegotiation, our oppos will think those behind it "clearly don't believe in this"
No shit Sherlock. That was difficult to work out
Just to clarify: this was the FCO's review, not the overall one?
If so, I am not surprised that diplomats want to enhance 'diplomatic influence' at the cost of negative consequences on the home front.
Within the usual up and down movements there is clearly a downward trend for Labour and a convergence in blue vs red VI. Two years out and with the need for Labour to put Redward on telly more in the run up to a GE, I think this smells very strongly of another hung parliament and Con/LD coalition. Not what his party wants - but I expect Dave would be fine if nothing changed after 2015.
And here is where EdM needs to decide where he stands - no wonder a chunk of Labour GE2010 voters are going Kipper here.
The Unite leader has been a fierce opponent of the government’s welfare reforms. Yet 86% of the union’s members agreed that “it is right to introduce a ‘benefit cap’ so no household can claim more than £26,000 a year in benefits”.
"David Cameron’s justification for trying to wrest back powers from Brussels was undermined on Monday after an official Government study concluded that the balance of legal authority between the EU and Westminster is “broadly appropriate”.
Six reports into the “balance of competencies” between the UK and EU in different areas of life all concluded that nothing fundamental needs to change."
I guess that means Dave will be inventing some dividing lines on fringe issues to buy off gullible Euro sceptics yet again.
Two points you've neglected to mention:
Firstly, this report doesn't cover all the EU's activities. It's just the first of 36 reports, each into the EU's impact on different policy areas. Drawing sweeping conclusions is therefore premature.
Secondly, the article does say "But the reports did find some areas of EU legislation which had a negative effect on Britain. The report on health admitted “a large number of concerns were raised about specific pieces of legislation, including the Working Time Directive”, which restricts the hours that doctors can work."
Whether the gains from the EU outweigh these admitted costs is a political question. However, even if they do, there's still scope for the UK to try and reduce these negative effects, and a duty for the UK government to do so - or do you really want to argue that the UK shouldn't try to minimise the negative effects of its policies?
What I'm arguing is that it's basically posturing from Cameron who will recommend a Yes vote in any referendum and is simply going through this procedure to attract the gullible fools who fall for referendum locks, referendum promises, 4am Flounces, Awesome Speeches and Private Members Bills.
In other words, cheap cynicism, which will not convince those not already convinced.
Certainly, Cameron will recommend a Yes vote, if he has a free choice. (If, hypothetically, recommending Yes would lead to a successful leadership challenge, he'll not commit political suicide.)
However, I think Cameron believes he can use the risk of a No vote to wring a few populist concessions out of the EU. He may be being optimistic, but it's not an absurdly unreasonable belief.
I also think that if a referendum is ever called, there's a reasonable chance No could win, even with Cameron campaigning for Yes. For a start, there are plenty of Labour votes who will automatically vote against anything the hated Tories recommend, at least round here, nor will they be impressed if the Labour leader shares a platform with him. In their eyes, that will just make him a class traitor, like they believe Blair was.
I'd be interested in Mr Fox's views on whether or not the WTD has been good or bad for a) junior doctors and b) for patients. Seems to me that the main difficulty is that it was introduced at a time when it was difficult, if not nigh impossible, to increase the absolute number of doctors and anyway the training scheme had been significantly altered. Personally, I think the WTD is generally a good thing.
"MOST Unite members back the Government’s benefit cap — in a bitter blow for the union’s boss Len McCluskey. A poll revealed that 86 per cent support the £26,000-a-year limit — despite Mr McCluskey demanding that Labour scrap it."
"Just one in eight members of Labour’s biggest union backer plans to join the party under Ed Miliband’s plans to reform its relationship with the unions. The striking poll of Unite members published today also reveals that nearly half object to the union having handed over millions in donations to Labour. The findings will come as a huge blow to Mr Miliband because they give further weight to fears that his proposals will have a devastating impact on the party’s finances if they come into force."
"Just under half (49%) of Unite members said they would vote Labour in an election tomorrow; 23% would vote Tory. Four in ten thought David Cameron would make the best Prime Minister of the three leaders, putting him just 6 points behind Ed Miliband. Only 42% said the Labour Party was doing a good job of representing the interests of ordinary working people in Britain, while 47% said it was not."
12% saying they'd join Labour directly is a tremendous result for Ed. Across all affiliated unions thats roughly 350,000 people saying they'd become members.
MODERATED
Incidentally, there must be some marketing person who knows the stats precisely, but I would assume that if 12% of people reply they they have an intent to purchase membership, substantially less (say half) will actually follow through with it.
If you give a coupon for "money off next purchase" (free money) you'll be doing well to get 25% of them used - it can be as low as 10%.
It's only free money if you were going to buy the product anyway.
That's why I'm so impressed by the latest Tesco scheme - the Price Match or whatever it's called. Giving you your money back, but in the form of a discount against the next purchase (subject to T&Cs) is a very smart idea. I'd be interested to see the data on how the economics pan out, but I suspect they are very attractive indeed.
Sainsbury's have been doing it for years!
But I'm not posh enough to shop at Sainsbury's...
Some people advocate using two trolleys -- one for goods where Sainsbury's is cheapest; the other for goods where it is dearer, so qualify for a discount.
Everything is good news for Strong, Ruthless and Decisive EdM - this polling is just a one off - like ICM and now YouGov [I still recall the heady days of Labourites citing YouGov's large double digit lead...]
I thought the Unite poll was meant to be bad for Labour? I'm sure they'll take +9 on GE 2010 and a 7% swing from the Tories in any group any day of the week.
UKIP almost twice as strong as the LibDems among Unite members, and while the Con vote is down, the biggest fall vs 2010 is for the LibDems: (diff vs 2010)
YouGov polled GE2010 union members [not just Unite] and got 38% Labour, 49% Coalition - so Labour has made up some ground, the Kipper increase is interesting stuff.
Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 7m Busy day ahead for Wills and Kate. Got to put little Cambridge down for Eton
You'd have thought Kevin would have learnt by now that you don't *put your son down for Eton* - you have to pass an entrance exam for it.
If nothing else - I now know more about this country's public schools than I ever did - such as extensive livery at Roger's alma mater which Eton doesn't have.
I thought the Unite poll was meant to be bad for Labour? I'm sure they'll take +9 on GE 2010 and a 7% swing from the Tories in any group any day of the week.
What's bad in PB Toryworld bears no relation to anything
It will take me the rest of the day to get over the fact that Unite members buy the same newspapers as everyone else in the country. I thought they all subscribed to the Morning Star.
Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 7m Busy day ahead for Wills and Kate. Got to put little Cambridge down for Eton
You'd have thought Kevin would have learnt by now that you don't *put your son down for Eton* - you have to pass an entrance exam for it.
If nothing else - I now know more about this country's public schools than I ever did - such as extensive livery at Roger's alma mater which Eton doesn't have.
Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 7m Busy day ahead for Wills and Kate. Got to put little Cambridge down for Eton
You'd have thought Kevin would have learnt by now that you don't *put your son down for Eton* - you have to pass an entrance exam for it.
Sad and bitter from Maguire. Quelle surprise.
What I find so surprising and depressing from Kevin is that he's clearly a smart chap but he plays to the gallery like a moron. His blog was like a random class-war rant generator stuffed with cliches and his columns are barely any better - but when he's not being lazy - he makes some very good observations about Labour.
They'd be more credible if they admitted they didn't expect this and don't yet know why it's happening. It's not science to predict what's already happened and claim you saw it coming all along.
I doubt the first Christian name will feature any name of the immediate male family. So not William, Henry, Charles, Edward, Andrew or Philip.
George is presently favourite but there is some informed speculation that the Prince of Wales may take George VII as his regnal name and number and perhaps the couple may wish to avoid confusion.
James has become second favourite and moved in considerably. Alexander next in line. David might be a handy outsider.
What we probably will not see as happened centuries ago is for a female tribute name as one of the other names. Prince Charles Edward Stuart had Maria in his long list of names.
Francis might feature as a subsidiary name as it occurs in both families.
I doubt the first Christian name will feature any name of the immediate male family. So not William, Henry, Charles, Edward, Andrew or Philip.
George is presently favourite but there is some informed speculation that the Prince of Wales may take George VII as his regnal name and number and perhaps the couple may wish to avoid confusion.
James has become second favourite and moved in considerably. Alexander next in line. David might be a handy outsider.
What we probably will not see as happened centuries ago is for a female tribute name as one of the other names. Prince Charles Edward Stuart had Maria in his long list of names.
Francis might feature as a subsidiary name as it occurs in both families.
I thought George VII was stated fact - albeit a while ago - rather than just informed speculation. Agree that it could be a little confusing, although it would be a nice tribute to the Queen (Philip would be nice as well, but too associated with Bloody Mary to work well)
James just isn't going to happen. Sorry JamesW. You've got the numbering confusion and then the relative lack of a successful track record. It's about as likely as the child being christened Stuart.
I can buy the argument on William, Henry and Charles - I'm not sure that Edward or Andrew are too much of an issue. I could see Edward IX being a good name for a King - but it may be thought that Edward VIII tarnished the name for good.
Could Richard make a comeback, or was Richard III terminal for that name as well? Arthur is too loaded, and Louis too French.
I would like to hope that all PBers, regardless of their hue or political persuasion, are wishing Nick Palmer good luck in the Broxtowe Labour selection.
I doubt the first Christian name will feature any name of the immediate male family. So not William, Henry, Charles, Edward, Andrew or Philip.
George is presently favourite but there is some informed speculation that the Prince of Wales may take George VII as his regnal name and number and perhaps the couple may wish to avoid confusion.
James has become second favourite and moved in considerably. Alexander next in line. David might be a handy outsider.
What we probably will not see as happened centuries ago is for a female tribute name as one of the other names. Prince Charles Edward Stuart had Maria in his long list of names.
Francis might feature as a subsidiary name as it occurs in both families.
I thought George VII was stated fact - albeit a while ago - rather than just informed speculation. Agree that it could be a little confusing, although it would be a nice tribute to the Queen (Philip would be nice as well, but too associated with Bloody Mary to work well)
James just isn't going to happen. Sorry JamesW. You've got the numbering confusion and then the relative lack of a successful track record. It's about as likely as the child being christened Stuart.
I can buy the argument on William, Henry and Charles - I'm not sure that Edward or Andrew are too much of an issue. I could see Edward IX being a good name for a King - but it may be thought that Edward VIII tarnished the name for good.
Could Richard make a comeback, or was Richard III terminal for that name as well? Arthur is too loaded, and Louis too French.
I reckon Edward or George are the most likely...
Philip would be nice - as would Arthur (why too loaded?). A Stephen would be good, too.
test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test
Comments
Which of the following do you think does a better job of representing you and the things you care about?
Ed Miliband: 23
Len McClusky: 16
Neither: 61
And on Len's policies (net agree)
Govt wrong to cut any public spending : 0
Union should campaign against cuts with strikes : -14
Govt should nationalise utilities/transport/banking: +34
Top rate of tax 75p: -18
Yet even despite that we might well start seeing an interesting effect if little Ed's lead keeps shrinking away. The kipper vote was mainly protest and the more polls there are with the tories and labour close together the less appealing and 'safe' a protest vote becomes. If it's a straight up fight between labour and the tories, where it looks possible for the tories to draw level or even overtake labour, then those tory voters who melted away to NF and the kippers might start thinking a tory win is possible and stop flirting with Farage.
It was because the tory polling crashed so hard after Osbrowne's omnishambles that the kipper protest received a bandwagon effect. If there are continuing polls with labour and the tories close then that two horse race under FPTP will likely concentrate voters minds again.
If so, I am not surprised that diplomats want to enhance 'diplomatic influence' at the cost of negative consequences on the home front.
The Unite leader has been a fierce opponent of the government’s welfare reforms. Yet 86% of the union’s members agreed that “it is right to introduce a ‘benefit cap’ so no household can claim more than £26,000 a year in benefits”.
"making it compulsory for local councils to provide more gypsy and traveller sites (opposed by 71%)"
How many prosecutions for breaches of the WTD have there been?
Ok he's their number 10 but still he's top of their batting...
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?id=7362;team=2;type=series
Daily Mail: 20
Sun: 19
Mirror: 11
Guardian: 11
Times: 9
Telegraph: 5
Certainly, Cameron will recommend a Yes vote, if he has a free choice. (If, hypothetically, recommending Yes would lead to a successful leadership challenge, he'll not commit political suicide.)
However, I think Cameron believes he can use the risk of a No vote to wring a few populist concessions out of the EU. He may be being optimistic, but it's not an absurdly unreasonable belief.
I also think that if a referendum is ever called, there's a reasonable chance No could win, even with Cameron campaigning for Yes. For a start, there are plenty of Labour votes who will automatically vote against anything the hated Tories recommend, at least round here, nor will they be impressed if the Labour leader shares a platform with him. In their eyes, that will just make him a class traitor, like they believe Blair was.
Benefit Cap: +72 support - UNITE oppose
Voting age 16: -44
Compulsory provision of traveller sites: -42
End right to buy: -10
Seems to me that the main difficulty is that it was introduced at a time when it was difficult, if not nigh impossible, to increase the absolute number of doctors and anyway the training scheme had been significantly altered.
Personally, I think the WTD is generally a good thing.
"MOST Unite members back the Government’s benefit cap — in a bitter blow for the union’s boss Len McCluskey.
A poll revealed that 86 per cent support the £26,000-a-year limit — despite Mr McCluskey demanding that Labour scrap it."
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5028866/Union-is-united-against-boss-Len-86-back-benefit-cap.html#ixzz2ZqhbDAiF
Royal baby name betting ?
F1: early discussion thread is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hungary-early-discussion.html
"Just one in eight members of Labour’s biggest union backer plans to join the party under Ed Miliband’s plans to reform its relationship with the unions.
The striking poll of Unite members published today also reveals that nearly half object to the union having handed over millions in donations to Labour.
The findings will come as a huge blow to Mr Miliband because they give further weight to fears that his proposals will have a devastating impact on the party’s finances if they come into force."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374417/Just-1-8-Unite-members-plans-join-Labour-Party--half-object-handing-unions-millions-Miliband.html#ixzz2ZqiyVF1b
@PeterWatt123
Results of @LordAshcroft poll of Unite mems not a surprise I guess but implications pretty devastating for Labour. http://bit.ly/1dQP0Jo
Oh, wait...
Kevin Maguire @Kevin_Maguire 7m
Busy day ahead for Wills and Kate. Got to put little Cambridge down for Eton
If nothing else - I now know more about this country's public schools than I ever did - such as extensive livery at Roger's alma mater which Eton doesn't have.
Doesn't he live in Mayfair?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/has-global-warming-stopped-no--its-just-on-pause-insist-scientists-and-its-down-to-the-oceans-8726893.html
They'd be more credible if they admitted they didn't expect this and don't yet know why it's happening. It's not science to predict what's already happened and claim you saw it coming all along.
I doubt the first Christian name will feature any name of the immediate male family. So not William, Henry, Charles, Edward, Andrew or Philip.
George is presently favourite but there is some informed speculation that the Prince of Wales may take George VII as his regnal name and number and perhaps the couple may wish to avoid confusion.
James has become second favourite and moved in considerably. Alexander next in line. David might be a handy outsider.
What we probably will not see as happened centuries ago is for a female tribute name as one of the other names. Prince Charles Edward Stuart had Maria in his long list of names.
Francis might feature as a subsidiary name as it occurs in both families.
James just isn't going to happen. Sorry JamesW. You've got the numbering confusion and then the relative lack of a successful track record. It's about as likely as the child being christened Stuart.
I can buy the argument on William, Henry and Charles - I'm not sure that Edward or Andrew are too much of an issue. I could see Edward IX being a good name for a King - but it may be thought that Edward VIII tarnished the name for good.
Could Richard make a comeback, or was Richard III terminal for that name as well? Arthur is too loaded, and Louis too French.
I reckon Edward or George are the most likely...