politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another way of looking at how the parties are doing – how succ

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another way of looking at how the parties are doing – how successful they are at fundraising

LAB pushed into 3rd place in the Q4 2016 party donation totals from @ElectoralCommUK . UKIP got just £33k. CON top pic.twitter.com/k6ufeXHbVj

Read the full story here

PClipp

First. And very interesting that the Lib Dems are starting to catch up with the Tories in terms of funding. I had a feeling that the business community would go off the Conservatives, once they saw what a mess Mrs May is making of the economy. Very fortunate that there is an alternative party with experience of being in government recently, and making a success of it.

FF43

There's something screwy with the SNP figures. They are an extremely well funded party. How do they come last after the English "Democrats"?

AlastairMeeks

So if UKIP have no money, are getting rid of their only MP and their MEPs disappear in 2019, what's left of the party?

felix

PClipp said:

First. And very interesting that the Lib Dems are starting to catch up with the Tories in terms of funding. I had a feeling that the business community would go off the Conservatives, once they saw what a mess Mrs May is making of the economy. Very fortunate that there is an alternative party with experience of being in government recently, and making a success of it.

I see the LDs are still troughing it in from the taxpayer

Jason

PClipp said:

First. And very interesting that the Lib Dems are starting to catch up with the Tories in terms of funding. I had a feeling that the business community would go off the Conservatives, once they saw what a mess Mrs May is making of the economy. Very fortunate that there is an alternative party with experience of being in government recently, and making a success of it.

More likely Remain donors than what you suggest about the economy.

Pulpstar

FF43 said:

There's something screwy with the SNP figures. They are an extremely well funded party. How do they come last after the English "Democrats"?

Yes. The SNP figure is errm "interesting"

MarqueeMark

PClipp said:

First. And very interesting that the Lib Dems are starting to catch up with the Tories in terms of funding. I had a feeling that the business community would go off the Conservatives, once they saw what a mess Mrs May is making of the economy. Very fortunate that there is an alternative party with experience of being in government recently, and making a success of it.

How much of the funds raised by the LibDems do you get paid to write this guff? Just curious....

felix

Jason said:

PClipp said:

First. And very interesting that the Lib Dems are starting to catch up with the Tories in terms of funding. I had a feeling that the business community would go off the Conservatives, once they saw what a mess Mrs May is making of the economy. Very fortunate that there is an alternative party with experience of being in government recently, and making a success of it.

More likely Remain donors than what you suggest about the economy.

Quite - and obviously with a lot more money than sense given that Brexit is a done deal. Still lost causes and the LDs are nothing new - PR anyone?

AlastairMeeks

MarqueeMark said:

PClipp said:

First. And very interesting that the Lib Dems are starting to catch up with the Tories in terms of funding. I had a feeling that the business community would go off the Conservatives, once they saw what a mess Mrs May is making of the economy. Very fortunate that there is an alternative party with experience of being in government recently, and making a success of it.

How much of the funds raised by the LibDems do you get paid to write this guff? Just curious....

Be careful. I used the words "vapid bilge" in a similar context and I've never heard the end of it.

MarqueeMark

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

TheScreamingEagles

Sleazy broken Labour, UKIP, and the SNP on the slide.

So UKIP want to kick out their only MP, that'll help with the funding problems.

Charles

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

Pulpstar

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

They did get that largish cheque from the lottery winning nats a while back.
Perhaps that is tiding them over for a long while ?

AlastairMeeks

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

isam

AlastairMeeks said:

So if UKIP have no money, are getting rid of their only MP and their MEPs disappear in 2019, what's left of the party?

I agree they are in bad shape, but Arron Banks donated £7.5m to leave.eu instead last year, which amounts to the same thing

isam

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/837307760865918976

TheScreamingEagles

I'd also not get too concerned by the low SNP figures.

They had a Scottish Parliament campaign and a referendum to finance, one year after a general election campaign, donor fatigue might be an issue.

Theuniondivvie

FF43 said:

There's something screwy with the SNP figures. They are an extremely well funded party. How do they come last after the English "Democrats"?

It's donations over £1,500. I've never donated that amount or anything close to a political party, and don't know anyone who has.

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

I think the Trump campaign are being hoisted by their own petard.

Sessions could have avoided this mess by being clear and disclosing his meetings.

Now at best he looks shifty, at worst...

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sleazy broken Labour, UKIP, and the SNP on the slide.

So UKIP want to kick out their only MP, that'll help with the funding problems.

Can only assume that what pass for sane heads in UKIP have actually prevailed and so Carswell stays.

For now. Doesn't exactly make for a happy house though.

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

I think the Trump campaign are being hoisted by their own petard.

Sessions could have avoided this mess by being clear and disclosing his meetings.

Now at best he looks shifty, at worst...

It's a hatchet job. He was asked a question and he answered it. If he was asked for a list of all meetings he had had I am sure he would have disclosed it.

Bojabob

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

MarqueeMark

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

Legal defence funds?

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sleazy broken Labour, UKIP, and the SNP on the slide.

So UKIP want to kick out their only MP, that'll help with the funding problems.

Can only assume that what pass for sane heads in UKIP have actually prevailed and so Carswell stays.

For now. Doesn't exactly make for a happy house though.

I've got a very clickbaitish insightful piece coming up on that subject this weekend.

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

I think the Trump campaign are being hoisted by their own petard.

Sessions could have avoided this mess by being clear and disclosing his meetings.

Now at best he looks shifty, at worst...

It's a hatchet job. He was asked a question and he answered it. If he was asked for a list of all meetings he had had I am sure he would have disclosed it.

If it was a hatchet job, then he wouldn't have offered to recuse himself.

SimonStClare

The difference between the amount of private v public funding received by political parties is surely down to 'short money' and which the party in power is not entitled to?

Bojabob

The SNP figures on here are 100% wrong. That figure is the equivalent of one day's donation by a Scottish–American magnate. I suspect there is a misplaced decimal place in Mike's chart.

TheScreamingEagles

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

Indyref 2?

AlastairMeeks

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

Indyref 2?

Or some pressure group that can act as an outrider for that. I'd be looking for campaign groups called things like "Scotland for Scotland".

OldKingCole

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

Theuniondivvie

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

'tis true.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/levelling-the-field#/

AlsoIndigo

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

The interview in question is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC_Ea3jgANo

The bit we are all arguing about is from 3:25 onwards on that video.

He is going to to have to paddle pretty damn hard to sell that as a misunderstanding.

felix

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Yes - i thought it seemed very high too

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, my fellow dystopian worker-slaves.

Small margin, but a nice morale booster for the yellows.

Bojabob

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

I don't know how old you are OKC but if you are 65+ pensioners ride free!

rkrkrk

AlsoIndigo said:

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

The interview in question is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC_Ea3jgANo

The bit we are all arguing about is from 3:25 onwards on that video.

He is going to to have to paddle pretty damn hard to sell that as a misunderstanding.

The striking thing is... He didn't really need to go there. Franken wasn't really asking about him - but he brought himself into the question and then said something untrue.

Pulpstar

A couple of pieces on why we're brexiting.

https://brexit853.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/freedom-of-movement-isnt-the-problem-it-is-the-way-the-uk-fails-to-control-it/

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/10/25/british-politicians-are-clearly-misreading-eu-provisions-regarding-freedom-of-movement/

Failing to simply count people in and out certainly gives the impression of a gov't that has 'lost control'.

OldKingCole

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sleazy broken Labour, UKIP, and the SNP on the slide.

So UKIP want to kick out their only MP, that'll help with the funding problems.

‘Cut', ‘nose' and ‘face' come to mind

MarkHopkins

Bojabob said:

The SNP figures on here are 100% wrong. That figure is the equivalent of one day's donation by a Scottish–American magnate. I suspect there is a misplaced decimal place in Mike's chart.

Those are Electoral Commission charts.

Bojabob

Theuniondivvie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

'tis true.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/levelling-the-field#/

JK Rowling has now switched sides though I believe?

Cynosarges

Interesting to see that (in percentage terms) the SNP is more dependent on the taxpayer than even Labour.

OldKingCole

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

I don't know how old you are OKC but if you are 65+ pensioners ride free!

Irony/sarcasm doesn’t often work in print, does it!

AlsoIndigo

Bojabob said:

The SNP figures on here are 100% wrong. That figure is the equivalent of one day's donation by a Scottish–American magnate. I suspect there is a misplaced decimal place in Mike's chart.

Although it is worth checking the small print. Donations under 7500 to the central party are not included, so you could have thousands of 20 quid donations by direct debit, and thousands more dropped in the collecting tin, and not show a single pound.

DavidL

Barely worth bribing, are they?

SimonStClare

The Green party lost deposit contingency fund is looking a tad shaky, don’t think they can afford too many more Labour by–elections…

TheScreamingEagles

AlsoIndigo said:

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

The interview in question is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC_Ea3jgANo

The bit we are all arguing about is from 3:25 onwards on that video.

He is going to to have to paddle pretty damn hard to sell that as a misunderstanding.

Thank you for that link.

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

I think the Trump campaign are being hoisted by their own petard.

Sessions could have avoided this mess by being clear and disclosing his meetings.

Now at best he looks shifty, at worst...

It's a hatchet job. He was asked a question and he answered it. If he was asked for a list of all meetings he had had I am sure he would have disclosed it.

If it was a hatchet job, then he wouldn't have offered to recuse himself.

You can't draw that conclusion. He may have decided a tactical retreat is best.

Theuniondivvie

Bojabob said:

Theuniondivvie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

'tis true.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/levelling-the-field#/

JK Rowling has now switched sides though I believe?

Hmm, not seen any real evidence of that. She's very anti Brexit & Trump but I think she still holds to the Union as the primary cradle of progress and stability, current events notwithstanding.

AlastairMeeks

This:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27228971

would give a powerful incentive for getting some well-funded campaign groups going now.

Bojabob

Theuniondivvie said:

Bojabob said:

Theuniondivvie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

And the SNP got £4,165 in donations. Really? I wouldn't want to perpetuate the myth of Scotsmen having deep pockets and short arms, but that is an extraordinary number.

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that the money that the SNP would otherwise be collecting is presumably being diverted elsewhere.

'tis true.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/levelling-the-field#/

JK Rowling has now switched sides though I believe?

Hmm, not seen any real evidence of that. She's very anti Brexit & Trump but I think she still holds to the Union as the primary cradle of progress and stability, current events notwithstanding.

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Bojabob

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

I don't know how old you are OKC but if you are 65+ pensioners ride free!

Irony/sarcasm doesn’t often work in print, does it!

Oh whoops. Sorry

AlsoIndigo

rkrkrk said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Charles said:

FPT

TheScreamingEagles said:

At his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Sessions was asked by Democratic Senator Al Franken what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, the Post reported.

"I’m not aware of any of those activities," Sessions responded, according to the Post.

He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-disclose-russia-contacts-report-170302041900080.html

That's clearly linking "being called a surrogate" to "communications with the Russians".

The interview in question is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC_Ea3jgANo

The bit we are all arguing about is from 3:25 onwards on that video.

He is going to to have to paddle pretty damn hard to sell that as a misunderstanding.

The striking thing is... He didn't really need to go there. Franken wasn't really asking about him - but he brought himself into the question and then said something untrue.

Even stranger, Al Franken is a comic from SNL, Jeff Sessions is a J.D, former US Attorney for Alabama, former US District Court Judge - you would think he would know when to keep his mouth shut.

Bojabob

AlsoIndigo said:

Bojabob said:

The SNP figures on here are 100% wrong. That figure is the equivalent of one day's donation by a Scottish–American magnate. I suspect there is a misplaced decimal place in Mike's chart.

Although it is worth checking the small print. Donations under 7500 to the central party are not included, so you could have thousands of 20 quid donations by direct debit, and thousands more dropped in the collecting tin, and not show a single pound.

Yes, thanks for the clarification. That's important to know.

Theuniondivvie

AlastairMeeks said:

This:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27228971

would give a powerful incentive for getting some well-funded campaign groups going now.

Scotland in Union are already going, employing an ex SLabber as chairman for £50k p.a. for 1.5 days a week of work; they seem to have access to substantial funds already.

http://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/

Bojabob

David Tennant has switched sides to Scots Indy however.

JK Rowling can't be far from making the leap.

AlastairMeeks

Theuniondivvie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27228971

would give a powerful incentive for getting some well-funded campaign groups going now.

Scotland in Union are already going, employing an ex SLabber as chairman for £50k for 1.5 days a week of work; they seem to have access to substantial funds already.

http://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/

Oh I'm certainly not suggesting that this will be limited to one side or the other.

williamglenn

Theuniondivvie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27228971

would give a powerful incentive for getting some well-funded campaign groups going now.

Scotland in Union are already going, employing an ex SLabber as chairman for £50k for 1.5 days a week of work; they seem to have access to substantial funds already.

http://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/

The European Union I presume?

AlastairMeeks

Bojabob said:

David Tennant has switched sides to Scots Indy however.

JK Rowling can't be far from making the leap.

Lulu's hanging by a thread.

OldKingCole

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

I don't know how old you are OKC but if you are 65+ pensioners ride free!

Irony/sarcasm doesn’t often work in print, does it!

Oh whoops. Sorry

No worries.
I’ve been using a bus pass for nearly 14 years now, and TBH find it very useful. Unless I’m going somewhere the bus doesn’t, or where there’s a triangular route involving two buses I now don’t often use a car. And there’s a route directly from about 200m away directly to both the local hospital and the county cricket ground. Which, given the parking issues at both, is a blessing.

OldKingCole

AlastairMeeks said:

Bojabob said:

David Tennant has switched sides to Scots Indy however.

JK Rowling can't be far from making the leap.

Lulu's hanging by a thread.

Like a puppet on a string? Or was that someone else?

AlsoIndigo

OldKingCole said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Bojabob said:

David Tennant has switched sides to Scots Indy however.

JK Rowling can't be far from making the leap.

Lulu's hanging by a thread.

Like a puppet on a string? Or was that someone else?

Sandie Shaw. Eurovision 1967 I believe.

EDIT: Eurovision winner. quarante-sept point.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Bojabob, that just seems inexplicable to me.

The vote was only two and a half years ago. The only major change since is the EU vote. Power flows to the EU centre. In UK devolution, it's flowed away from the centre to Holyrood.

If you want independence, then a desire for the EU over the UK just seems bonkers to me. I know lots of Yes types don't care about joining the EU, but it sounds like most are in favour.

Bojabob

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

I don't know how old you are OKC but if you are 65+ pensioners ride free!

Irony/sarcasm doesn’t often work in print, does it!

Oh whoops. Sorry

No worries.
I’ve been using a bus pass for nearly 14 years now, and TBH find it very useful. Unless I’m going somewhere the bus doesn’t, or where there’s a triangular route involving two buses I now don’t often use a car. And there’s a route directly from about 200m away directly to both the local hospital and the county cricket ground. Which, given the parking issues at both, is a blessing.

Spending one's retirement watching the noble game is indeed a blessing, OKC.

david_herdson

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

It's not - and rightly so.

OldKingCole

AlsoIndigo said:

OldKingCole said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Bojabob said:

David Tennant has switched sides to Scots Indy however.

JK Rowling can't be far from making the leap.

Lulu's hanging by a thread.

Like a puppet on a string? Or was that someone else?

Sandie Shaw. Eurovision 1967 I believe.

EDIT: Eurovision winner.

Ah, thanks!

david_herdson

SimonStClare said:

The Green party lost deposit contingency fund is looking a tad shaky, don’t think they can afford too many more Labour by–elections…

They stand a fighting chance in Gorton. I think it'll be the first ever by-election that the Greens have gone into in second place.

FF43

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

Tissue_Price

This is a splendid piece from Atul Hatwal on the Labour leadership, thinking just like a political punter should:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/03/02/how-labours-potential-leadership-candidates-measure-up-against-member-priorities/#more-21396

DavidL

david_herdson said:

SimonStClare said:

The Green party lost deposit contingency fund is looking a tad shaky, don’t think they can afford too many more Labour by–elections…

They stand a fighting chance in Gorton. I think it'll be the first ever by-election that the Greens have gone into in second place.

They won't come out that way. The next generation of students seem to have forgiven (or are just ignorant) the Lib Dems for you know what. Their vote collapsed in 2015 and can bounce back a long way on this factor alone. Not that they will get close to Labour of course.

williamglenn

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Bojabob, that just seems inexplicable to me.

The vote was only two and a half years ago. The only major change since is the EU vote. Power flows to the EU centre. In UK devolution, it's flowed away from the centre to Holyrood.

If you want independence, then a desire for the EU over the UK just seems bonkers to me. I know lots of Yes types don't care about joining the EU, but it sounds like most are in favour.

The fact that people like you find it bonkers one of the main reasons why Scottish independence is becoming inevitable. Being a sovereign member of a confederation is very different constitutionally from being a devolved region of a unitary state.

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

This:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27228971

would give a powerful incentive for getting some well-funded campaign groups going now.

Scotland in Union are already going, employing an ex SLabber as chairman for £50k for 1.5 days a week of work; they seem to have access to substantial funds already.

http://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/

The European Union I presume?

Well, in a round about way..

AlsoIndigo

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

Apparently around a third of SNP voters are Leave voters which gives her something of a tactical problem.

Bojabob

david_herdson said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

It's not - and rightly so.

It's saved lots of time in London with people faffing around with change. You can get a card and charge it up or – better – just pay contactless. It's coming!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Herdson, don't go into Leeds much, but when I do I pay the bus fare in cash.

Don't have a mobile, so I'd be less than impressed if I needed apps or other such bullshit just to travel by bus.

I'm not against technological progress. E-books (especially old, free ones) are great, and the use of Wikipedia and other sources have made researching things a lot easier.

But not everything is best served by trying to make it electronic. Voting is one such example, and making payment electronic-only is something I'm also dead against.

NickPalmer

I don't think the figures include membership fees, which has been the main driver enabling Labour to sort out its finances, and which currently certanily dwarf the LibDem and I think the Tory revenue. The figures here are for separate, explicit donations above the threshold level.

FF43

AlsoIndigo said:

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

Apparently around a third of SNP voters are Leave voters which gives her something of a tactical problem.

Not really. Independence for Scotland is the key issue for them.

Extra bit: the passionate Remainers in Scotland are to be found in the entrails of Scottish Labour. The Scottish WWC have moved to the SNP

Morris_Dancer

F1: not much running today on the artificially wet track.

williamglenn

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

It's notable that the people who switched to Brexit on the basis that Dave's Deal didn't meet their expectations for reforming the EU are so silent about the pressing need for much deeper constitutional reform of the UK if we want to have any hope of preserving the union. Instead they seem to have brought into the '100% of sovereignty must lie in Westminster' argument wholesale.

AlsoIndigo

NickPalmer said:

I don't think the figures include membership fees, which has been the main driver enabling Labour to sort out its finances, and which currently certanily dwarf the LibDem and I think the Tory revenue. The figures here are for separate, explicit donations above the threshold level.

In effect if you are essentially a grassroots based organisation your accounts are going to be very simple. You can take any number of donations from ordinary people of the couple of hundred, or even a thousand quid, and not have to account for it. If on the other hand you get your money from a few big donors, people will rightly want to know who they are.

OldKingCole

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

OldKingCole said:

Bojabob said:

@MorrisDancer FPT

You are pushing against the tide. Cash is already banned in several places – as you would know if you had ever been to London (try catching a bus and paying with cash!). It may be the same in Leeds, I don't know?

Does one have to pay on buses? I must be getting even older, and forgetful!

I don't know how old you are OKC but if you are 65+ pensioners ride free!

Irony/sarcasm doesn’t often work in print, does it!

Oh whoops. Sorry

No worries.
I’ve been using a bus pass for nearly 14 years now, and TBH find it very useful. Unless I’m going somewhere the bus doesn’t, or where there’s a triangular route involving two buses I now don’t often use a car. And there’s a route directly from about 200m away directly to both the local hospital and the county cricket ground. Which, given the parking issues at both, is a blessing.

Spending one's retirement watching the noble game is indeed a blessing, OKC.

Yup, season starts in about a month. Not sure when our local club starts theirs, but that’s walking distance.

Bojabob

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Herdson, don't go into Leeds much, but when I do I pay the bus fare in cash.

Don't have a mobile, so I'd be less than impressed if I needed apps or other such bullshit just to travel by bus.

I'm not against technological progress. E-books (especially old, free ones) are great, and the use of Wikipedia and other sources have made researching things a lot easier.

But not everything is best served by trying to make it electronic. Voting is one such example, and making payment electronic-only is something I'm also dead against.

You don;t need an app or a phone to pay for buses (or tubes), although you can use ApplePay if you so choose. You just tap your debit card on the reader. It's far better than a cash-based system which wastes lots of time with people faffing around with change and causes bottlenecks at ticket machines.

Thankfully those days are behind us here. You will see the light soon enough.

Bojabob

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Bojabob, that just seems inexplicable to me.

The vote was only two and a half years ago. The only major change since is the EU vote. Power flows to the EU centre. In UK devolution, it's flowed away from the centre to Holyrood.

If you want independence, then a desire for the EU over the UK just seems bonkers to me. I know lots of Yes types don't care about joining the EU, but it sounds like most are in favour.

The fact that people like you find it bonkers one of the main reasons why Scottish independence is becoming inevitable. Being a sovereign member of a confederation is very different constitutionally from being a devolved region of a unitary state.

Yes, well put.

AlsoIndigo

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

It's notable that the people who switched to Brexit on the basis that Dave's Deal didn't meet their expectations for reforming the EU are so silent about the pressing need for much deeper constitutional reform of the UK if we want to have any hope of preserving the union. Instead they seem to have brought into the '100% of sovereignty must lie in Westminster' argument wholesale.

Not true. They just don't want to the sort of idiotic vandalism that people like Blair thought was a good idea. I would support a proper federal UK, with a UK federal parliament, and devolved assemblies including one for England.

Charles

AlsoIndigo said:

OldKingCole said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Bojabob said:

David Tennant has switched sides to Scots Indy however.

JK Rowling can't be far from making the leap.

Lulu's hanging by a thread.

Like a puppet on a string? Or was that someone else?

Sandie Shaw. Eurovision 1967 I believe.

EDIT: Eurovision winner. quarante-sept point.

One of the better spoofs I saw was the relationship between the Tories and the LibDems set to the tune of "I didn't promise you a rose garden" by Sandie Shaw

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, yes, but the UK has been devolving ever more power to Scotland over the last two decades, during which time the EU has been taking ever more power from its member states.

And that's without considering the eurozone. Do Scots want to join the euro? It's a funny sort of independence that involves handing Frankfurt control of your monetary policy.

Sturgeon bleats about losing single market access, but the (non-Scottish) UK single market is worth four times more to Scotland. It's like complaining you've lost a toe, and prescribing cutting your foot off as the answer.

Charles

NickPalmer said:

I don't think the figures include membership fees, which has been the main driver enabling Labour to sort out its finances, and which currently certanily dwarf the LibDem and I think the Tory revenue. The figures here are for separate, explicit donations above the threshold level.

Were all those three-quidders worth it though, Nick?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Indigo, indeed. An English Parliament would answer the West Lothian Question without disadvantaging any part of the UK.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

SimonStClare said:

The Green party lost deposit contingency fund is looking a tad shaky, don’t think they can afford too many more Labour by–elections…

They stand a fighting chance in Gorton. I think it'll be the first ever by-election that the Greens have gone into in second place.

They won't come out that way. The next generation of students seem to have forgiven (or are just ignorant) the Lib Dems for you know what. Their vote collapsed in 2015 and can bounce back a long way on this factor alone. Not that they will get close to Labour of course.

My recently graduated grandchildren are much less exercised about their loan situations than might be expected. One of them now teaches what Mr Llama and I call VIth formers and tells them not to worry about it. It’s paid off slowly and only starts being paid, for most people, a couple of years after graduating.
And no, neither their parents nor myself gave them massive handouts.

Charles

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

It's notable that the people who switched to Brexit on the basis that Dave's Deal didn't meet their expectations for reforming the EU are so silent about the pressing need for much deeper constitutional reform of the UK if we want to have any hope of preserving the union. Instead they seem to have brought into the '100% of sovereignty must lie in Westminster' argument wholesale.

Because - at least on here - it end up in a sterile debate with the Nats.

But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.

OldKingCole

Charles said:

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

It's notable that the people who switched to Brexit on the basis that Dave's Deal didn't meet their expectations for reforming the EU are so silent about the pressing need for much deeper constitutional reform of the UK if we want to have any hope of preserving the union. Instead they seem to have brought into the '100% of sovereignty must lie in Westminster' argument wholesale.

Because - at least on here - it end up in a sterile debate with the Nats.

But if someone were to come up with a well thought through plan for a federal UK, I'd be supportive (even, probably to @Morris_Dancer 's disgust) supporting the re-creation of Wessex, Mercia, London, East Anglia and Northumbria as states.

Well thought through plan = wall round Yorkshire?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Charles, English Parliament.

Carving England into pieces is not acceptable.

BudG

Tissue_Price said:

This is a splendid piece from Atul Hatwal on the Labour leadership, thinking just like a political punter should:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/03/02/how-labours-potential-leadership-candidates-measure-up-against-member-priorities/#more-21396

Excellent article.. thank you.

AlsoIndigo

FF43 said:

AlsoIndigo said:

FF43 said:

Bojabob said:

Actually google tells me that she is actually saying that Brexit will lead to Scots Indy rather than she supports that outcome. Might be persuadable though!

Which is why there is a serious risk of the next referendum going for independence. Not that the case for it has improved - the opposite actually - but because there will be very few people arguing for the Union. The Conservatives will, but they only make up a quarter of the electorate even with their recent surge.

As someone who supports both unions for essentially the same reason, it sucks.

Apparently around a third of SNP voters are Leave voters which gives her something of a tactical problem.

Not really. Independence for Scotland is the key issue for them.

Extra bit: the passionate Remainers in Scotland are to be found in the entrails of Scottish Labour. The Scottish WWC have moved to the SNP

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/shift-scottish-independence-yougov-nicola-sturgeon-balancing-act

The movement among this group has been offset by a much larger swing among those who voted yes to independence in 2014 but then voted to leave the EU last year. Despite only making up 14% of Scottish voters, 43% of these leave/yes voters have since abandoned their pro-independence position, with 28% now saying they would vote to stay in the union.

Bojabob

Tissue_Price said:

This is a splendid piece from Atul Hatwal on the Labour leadership, thinking just like a political punter should:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/03/02/how-labours-potential-leadership-candidates-measure-up-against-member-priorities/#more-21396

Thanks for posting @TissuePrice That is an absolutely brilliant piece by Hatwal and is required reading for ALL PBers and punters. Possibly worth a threader @TSE @MikeSmithson?

AlastairMeeks

Tissue_Price said:

This is a splendid piece from Atul Hatwal on the Labour leadership, thinking just like a political punter should:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/03/02/how-labours-potential-leadership-candidates-measure-up-against-member-priorities/#more-21396

Very good in terms of how to look at the problem, I'm less convinced by the conclusions (though Heidi Alexander would be a better than par outcome for me).

Morris_Dancer

Incidentally, there's a free short story by me, up here:
http://www.kraxon.com/desert-prey/

Bojabob

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, yes, but the UK has been devolving ever more power to Scotland over the last two decades, during which time the EU has been taking ever more power from its member states.

And that's without considering the eurozone. Do Scots want to join the euro? It's a funny sort of independence that involves handing Frankfurt control of your monetary policy.

Sturgeon bleats about losing single market access, but the (non-Scottish) UK single market is worth four times more to Scotland. It's like complaining you've lost a toe, and prescribing cutting your foot off as the answer.

You are making the classic error of assuming ceteris paribus after the event. The very act of Scotland entering the EU will fundamentally and swiftly change the game vis a vis its balance of payments.

Theuniondivvie

Marvellous to see these federalists and supporters of an English parliament staggering blinking into the sunlight, even if they seem to think someone else is going to hand these outcomes to them on a plate.
My only advice would be not to hold your breath.

Dixie

NickPalmer said:

I don't think the figures include membership fees, which has been the main driver enabling Labour to sort out its finances, and which currently certanily dwarf the LibDem and I think the Tory revenue. The figures here are for separate, explicit donations above the threshold level.

Yes, I agree. You can't account for every penny, as it would cost more than the money you get. And a local party must exist because there is a personal relationship with the members and politicians and money is raised and spent locally on things like rent or meeting rooms etc. None/not all of that gets audited at central level.

Certainly within the Tories, all central money stays there. We then pay them a fee, a % for deigning to be a local association. We raise our own cash to pay for staff, leaflets etc. Don't think it gets counted nationally. Unless you know different.

Anorak

On topic: that's a rather misleading bar chart (in the finest LD tradition!), as one should really add the Labour and Co-op values together, as I think they're effectively one party*. That restores them to second place. Just.

* Happy to be corrected by a Kremlinologist.