Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB lead amongst Unite members jumps 14 to 26 percent
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB lead amongst Unite members jumps 14 to 26 percent
Like other Ashcroft polls we don’t know the pollster but my guess is that it is YouGov which built up a reasonable size base of union members for its leadership polling in 2007 and 2010.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
FPT: Paper that brought you "Climate scientists say snow will become very rare" prediction now claims they knew all along temperatures would stop rising:
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.
On this topic: "Only 30% said they would contribute to the political fund under an opt-in system"
That seems quite a sizeable minority, to me, especially if they broke strongly for a single other party.
On names for Baby Cambridge.
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.
We have learnt that: (a) Labour enjoys an election winning swing (if replicated throughout the electorate) among Unite members and (b) Unite members have the kind of views / newspaper readership etc. you would expect from any significant subset of the population.
Where is the devastation?
On topic, I don't think the results are very different from what we'd expect. It's always been clear that affiliated unions are not monolithically composed of supporters, and equally that members generally accept that the union leadership needs some discretion in using the political funds (the maintenance of which always gets huge majorities when unions vote on them) in the collective interest.
Miliband is clearly taking two risks in changing from anonymous affiliation of the unwilling to explicit membership: it might lead to a fall in income, and it might distract us from challenging the Government. The first risk is I think more apparent than real - not least, there are several friendly people around who could bankroll the entire campaign on their own if they really wanted to, as is the case for the Tories. It doesn't happen because people don't get rich if they're in the habit of throwing away millions casually, but I don't think we'll be short of a bob or two when it comes to it, one way or another. The second risk is genuine, but taking on a fight in what most people would think is a sensible change is probably good politics on balance.
The upside is that it changes from an obviously artificial arrangement to a more sensible one, and increases the number of named local supporters very substantially, which is a very significant point in these days of falling interest in politics: if I had to choose between 100 new interested members and £1000, I'd take the 100 members like a shot. It also puts the spotlight back on the Tories as the party with the most archaic funding arrangements - ultimately they cannot afford to be seen as a party dependent on a handful of hedge fund speculators.
@PeterWatt123
Results of @LordAshcroft poll of Unite mems not a surprise I guess but implications pretty devastating for Labour. http://bit.ly/1dQP0Jo
I would assume, given his knowledge of party finances, he reckons Labour being bankrupt is more devastating than an encouraging VI poll 2 years out. YMMV
If the political levy from the Big Four isn't automatically assigned to Labour - but is used instead by the B4 to say help during a GE campaign, how does Labour pay for its staff's rations inbetween?
Unite alone has dished up £12m since GE2010. That's a lot to make up in other donations.
Overall, a slight lean to the left on economics and slightly more to the right socially. If they were a party, it would be NOTA but Labour retains the tribal and gut association.
UKIP are up 9 points, the Conservatives down 5, so UKIP gains are only partly explained by the Conservatives. They also appear to have gained from LD.
Con -5, Lab +9, LD -13, UKIP +9, Others +1.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/07/lord-ashcroft-len-is-right-unite-members-are-not-queuing-up-to-join-labour.html
"members generally accept that the union leadership needs some discretion in using the political funds (the maintenance of which always gets huge majorities when unions vote on them) in the collective interest."
But if they aren't aligned to Labour - how does that help in the interim? I'm perplexed at this bit.
Yougov trending towards ICM.
George is imo too short at 11/4. I've laid for a £600 liability. 33/1 on Edward looks like a decent mug punt - Coral allowed me £50.
Good luck to all pb'ers with bets.
"...Discovering the great lie of Action Man, no doubt, was even more traumatic. Even in the dark ages of the early 1990s, is my point, it was possible for a teenage boy to have wholly unrealistic expectations of the female form. My generation was fortunate, however, in that we knew, always, how very worldly we weren’t. Yesterday, David Cameron spoke of his concerns for a new generation, for whom ignorance is not, quite, the problem.
Internet pornography, almost everybody agrees, makes for a poor sex education. Maybe it’s worse than no sex education. For the most part, it must prepare you for the bedroom in the same way that a Jean Claude Van Damme film prepares you for a bar fight, which is to say, not at all. Buffed, stripped, athletic and frequently coercive, none of this stuff is normal. Worse it becomes a new normal, with the sexuality of a generation being shaped by its precursors’ lusty parodies of itself. All that visual experience, in other words, and kids today aren’t expecting hair either. Can anything be done? Well, yes, and the great surprise of Mr Cameron’s speech yesterday about pornography to the NSCPCC was that it was not outright nonsense.
In fact, some of it was pretty good. Normally, when governments set their sights against the new freedoms of the internet, their announcements are like calls on sailors to improve the maritime weather; either cynically uninterested in the technology required, or simply woefully ignorant of the great gulf between policy and practicality. Not this time, though. Mr Cameron knows his porn..."His mistake, however, was in conflating a bunch of issues that ought to have stayed apart. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/hugorifkind/article3822783.ece
Well done to all those who had a crack at the first two, with some excellent answers. Ok a fairly easy one to ease us into a Kay Burley new royal baby fun filled day !!
............................................................
Since AD1000 in what years did the various British monarchies have at least 3 monarchs in the same year.
NOM 2.34
Lab maj 2.7
Edited extra bit to elaborate: Harold, who died at Hastings, William the Conqueror, and, in between them, a short-lived Saxon successor to Harold, Somebody the Aetheling [I forget the name].
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Unite-members-poll-full-tables.pdf
2010 LD voters (excluding don't know) are now:
Con 6%, Lab 44%, LD 32%, UKIP 9%, Green 8%.
We had the old King (John?) and William, and, um, his wife (Anne?) ruled as co-monarchs, not as a monarch and a consort.
I'm not going to venture into the boys' names, but if I were, I would be laying rather than backing. If I were backing any one name, I'd pick Philip (with one l not two).
One practical point - what happens if the baby is given multiple names and the royal couple announce that he is going to be known by his second given name?
Henry VIII died and his son lasted a very short length of time. Not certain, but it may've been less than a year, after which we got a queen. Anyway, if the son lasted a short enough length of time that'd be 3 monarchs.
Edited extra bit: buck up?! This is about two thousand years after the bit of history I like the most!
I'll leave others to mop up your shameful lack of knowledge.
Titters
Current supporters, but did not vote at 2010 election:
Con 9%, Lab 12%, LD 8%, UKIP 20%.
1016 - Athelred, Edmund and Canute
1553 - Edward, Jane (largely nominally) and Mary
Unfortunately, I don't know the Scottish monarchy pre-about 1500 that well but I suspect there may be some there - and with AD1000 as the cut-off, that would also bring in some kings of Ireland, of Man and Lords of the northern Scottish kingdoms, which would be worth checking out.
"Ed Miliband is lucky the summer news – heat, Ashes, baby prince – means there's little appetite for Labour's troubles. The detail of what's going on with his party is passing the public by. He's trying to get back on the front foot by revealing that he will hold a special conference probably next spring to sort out the whole business of Labour's financial relationship with the unions, as the Guardian report. But that's starting to look dicey. Labour can't afford to lose the cash, and already there are mutterings of anxiety from both MPs and trade unionists about what his reform of the affiliation rules means in practical terms. He acted under pressure and in haste, and can now repent at leisure...
Colleagues shouldn't underestimate his resolve though: Mr Miliband wants things to change, he's got Harriet Harman working away at it and he believes a way can be found to modernise the relationship without damaging the party's ability to function. But look at the Ashcroft poll of Unite numbers, which the Sun and the Mail have particularly focused on. It illustrates the glaring gap between party and union leadership, and members who have no idea what is done in their name with their money. The poll finds that only 49 per cent of members would vote for Labour (23 per cent would vote Conservative), only 16 per cent recognised Mr McCluskey – and fully 86 per cent backed the benefit cap, which Mr McCluskey staunchly opposes. Hence The Sun's headline "Union is united … against boss Len". It all amounts to a further reminder that, as Robert Halfon and others have been keen to emphasise, there is no reason why the Conservatives can't become the party of the trade unions..."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100227660/labour-unions-row-summer-brings-no-relief-for-ed-miliband/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100227660/labour-unions-row-summer-brings-no-relief-for-ed-miliband/
Betfair rules are fairly clear - the exact spelling of the first given name.
George is fluctuating wildly on bf - i'm sensing there may be a (partial?) leak. I've rebacked a little at 5/2 and i'm staying out of the market. I'll leave it to the boys with bigger balls.
Not 1141 - looking for 3 different.
1016 and 1553 Correct.
Ummm.
Although recess dates for 2014 have not been announced yet, Easter is late, so he may have little over 12 months before the GE after his Special Conference - as well as running straight into the Euro/Council elections.
Why didn't he start this fight two years ago?
Now onto the more difficult ones. Three by my count and one further that needs to corrected for number !!
As Tim has added another 1,000 laps in the last 16 days, it is time again to assess the state of the runners.
In the Lead -Tim on 6508
The Cheshire ex-farmer has upped his lap rate to ~62 a day in his Unite sponsored red roadster. Is he afraid of being 'rogered' by the chasing gals.
He did fall foul of the marshalls for illegal deviations and suffered a 12 hour drive-through penalty, as well as being admonished by his team manager McBride.
On his Heels
Two fine young fillies: Plato (2874) and Carlotta Vance (2708).
Plato has overtaken CV, whose concentration lapsed, but is not pushing hard enough to catch Tim. His pheromones not to your liking (old red diesel) or are you waiting to be enveloped by the rampant pack as you are still sporting the buff logo?
The Chasing Letharios
AveryLP (2109) and TGOHF (2110) have been fighting wheel to wheel which has delayed their chase of MickPork (2249) and that Screaming Eagle (2211).
Keep your eyes on the gals ahead - faint driver never won any pit dollies.
The UpComing Pack
Erratic progress made by MikeK (1053) in his supercharged Purple speedster - seems the pit team are short of numbers and track experience. Socrates (1,716) fired up and retired again.
Alanbrooke (1802) is keeping to the military medium, whilst SunilP (1585) is on the wrong track (rails). SouthernObserver (1495) seems to be more interested in the others' race than his marque. Charles (1466) tends to drive with a glass of champers in his hand whilst Neil (1458) may prefer a pint.
MorrisD (1682) - spending too much time in the commentators' box with that buxom Suzy? Back in the driver's seat young man.
SeanT (1015) - seems to have stalled in the country - is easily diverted by trackside foreign delights.
AndreaP (1131) is looking for new drivers whilst RichardN (1281) has dropped his cigar and DavidL(1024) has deserted to IndyCar. AntiFrank (1042) is legally trapped at the Hungaroring (going round and round).
The Old Hands
JackW (862) has accelerated away- is it that new young nurse on your lap adjusting your steering? or Mrs JW bought Lamboutin?
MikeS (554) seems to have forgotten that this is right-hand circuit, keeps turning left and finding himself stuck in the gravel and falling back.
NickP (706) is still looking for a seat (drive) - perhaps he will have to resort to ermine.
There will be mild hysteria in Tory circles when the Q2 GDP figures come out on Thursday - but the 2nd half of 2013 looks to be more troublesome economically for the coalition. The fundamentals are not there and rebalancing is now officially dead.
The outcome of the 1st EU competencies review published yesterday is hilarious (Carswell's spectacular whingefest a joy to behold) . Not a surprise to those of us for whom the EU does not cause foaming at the mouth.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hungary-early-discussion.html
Surely a monarch is one whose position is uncontested though. Can Edgar Aethling or Lady Jane Grey really be considered? William killed Harold and from that moment everything changed. Mary never conceded the crown in 1553 and many nobles took her side.
LOL
"Export orders for Britain's service sector, which drives more than three quarters of UK output, increased for 50pc of firms in the second quarter this year – the highest figure since records began in 2007 – according to data compiled by DHL and the British Chambers of Commerce.
The DHL/BCC Trade Confidence Index rose to 118.12 in the quarter, compared with 114.8 in the previous quarter and a long-run average of 100.
The survey of 1,700 businesses also showed that 48pc of exporters said sales increased in the three months to the end of June, compared with 10pc which said they decreased.
More firms expect to hire this year, the survey showed, with 31pc of respondents stating they would employ more staff in 2013."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10196218/Export-orders-boom-for-service-sector-firms.html
@LadPolitics
General Election Seat Lines; Tories click up 2 seats. Lab 310.5 (-2) Con 272.5 (+2) LD 37.5 http://bit.ly/12JIXQC
And Refounding Labour has been ditched - so the Blank Sheet of Paper that Peter Hain was in charge of is in the waste paper basket - and what happened to Mr Cruddas' v2.0?
EdM is increasingly reminding me of Gordon - all Big Picture stuff and no detail, or detail that is dumped immediately it hits rough water or is meaningless Fabian conference wonkery like Predistribution.
@anthonypainter
'Refounding Labour' ditched. Let's hope Lord Collins comes up with something more meaningful. http://labourlist.org/2013/07/miliband-calls-for-special-conference-in-spring-2014-to-discuss-union-link-reforms/ … via @labourlist
Jane Grey is included as she was willed the crown by Edward VI and proclaimed Queen.
@paulwaugh In a rare interview, here's Lynton Crosby on the Lib Dems: "They stand for nothing and believe in everything" < Great line
@LabourList: Only weeks after Falkirk, another selection row is underway http://labli.st/12IJnbd
Two left and the most tricky of all. Clue both cases post date 1500.
http://www.totalpolitics.com/campaigns/23/how-boris-wonthe-lynton-crosby-interview.thtml
The figures from the Office of National Statistics show that more people are in work than ever before and that private sector employment is up 46,000 on the quarter, which more than offsets the 22,000 fall in public sector employment over the same period."
http://www.freshbusinessthinking.com/news.php?NID=18841&Title=Private+sector+employment+hits+new+record+high+#.Ue5ASMu9KK0
I've been concerned about this for a while, it was different when I was growing up where the porn that was available to people my age was more titillation rather than graphic. It was also printed media rather than film, although the 'under the counter' trade at the local video shop came into play after I was over 18.
The preconceptions that young people of both sexes now have as they enter late puberty and start experimenting is worrying. I know that for me, it was quite a while before oral sex even was mentioned and then it was very tentatively approached with a relatively long term partner. These days, it seems to be expected on the first date!
I'm also concerned about body image and the drive to remove every vestige of body hair. This is not natural, and from my understanding, originated as a means of making men and women look younger (prepubescent perhaps?). I may be wrong in that understanding though. Anyway what's wrong with a good amount of hair? It makes discovery more interesting :-)
" Mr Johnson, who resigned as shadow chancellor in 2011, said his successor, Ed Balls, was facing a “tough” task to shake off his links to Gordon Brown.
Mr Balls, who was part of Mr Brown’s Treasury team, has been unfairly but consistently blamed for overspending and contributing to the financial crisis, Mr Johnson, the former home secretary, said. He also warned Ed Miliband not to blame the trade unions for his current difficulties, undermining a fresh attempt by the Labour leader to gain support for efforts to overhaul the party’s links with union members.
Mr Miliband sought to regain the initiative last night after a damaging month of falling poll ratings and allegations of union corruption in the party’s selection of candidates for Parliament.
... In an interview with the parliamentary magazine The House, Mr Johnson warned Mr Miliband that class war was “dead-end” politics as he urged Labour to promote more young MPs.
After the Conservatives lost in 1997, many of the Tory old guard had to spend time out of the limelight before returning to the front bench, he said.
“That’s why people like Michael Howard were kept out of the way. It took a time for them to come back again,” said Mr Johnson.
“To try and turn it round in one five-year Parliament is really tough, and you’re kind of not helped by the same team or loads of the same team being on the frontbench.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10196331/Browns-old-guard-stand-in-way-of-Labour-election-victory-warns-Johnson.html
"Several local party members contacted LabourList saying that they had been sent this email (and in many cases a text too) despite never having provided the candidate with their contact details (the candidate allegedly claims they were using their “personal address book”). More problematically, the email appears to have been sent from a Labour Party email address, complete with an official looking Labour Party footer. The contention amongst many local party members was that the candidate had somehow managed to obtain and use a copy of the local party membership list to contact CLP members before the selection campaign had begun, for the purposes of canvassing support for their campaign."
If he doesn't get them through his special conference he is finished, with only a year before the General Election
Email your bank details and ill send you a score
1689 - James VII, Mary II and William II of Scotland.
In Scotland James was not considered to have effectively abdicated until April 1689 and William and Mary accepted the terms as joint monarchs the following month.
William was II and not III in Scotland as there had only been one previous William Scottish King. Mary was II as in England but for different reasons. In Scotland she followed Mary Queen of Scotland and in England she followed Mary I
.........................
One to find.
The pro-nationalisation (nationalising banks!) and pro-benefit cap findings are the most intriguing to me.
Thanks again to Lord Ashcroft for an interesting poll.
One from the archives: How @Telegraph reported Prince William's birth: pic.twitter.com/lP8POJnkhg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPxkKrOCMAEs8zv.png:large
Other news is available...
It may put him in an excellent position for 2020 if he can pull it off - not so good for 2015.
If Ed truly was "decisive" he'd have tackled this two years ago - as it is he's been bounced into it by a "non-story".
You havent convinced me that it was a stupid decision.
Clue - English monarchy 1509 -1603
When anyone is foundering and uses another posters name in vain - it just underlines that they aren't waving but drowning.
Who could ever forget - I can't - the one held on January 24th 1981 which enacted the 40-30-30 electoral college, and precipitated the departure of Shirley, Roy, Bill and David.
That didn't go so well.
Edward VI, Jane, Mary? 1553?