politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now is the time to tackle party funding reform

SystemSystem Posts: 12,143
edited July 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now is the time to tackle party funding reform

July 2013 may well come to be seen as the turning point in this parliament.  The economy looks to have decisively turned the corner.  We only hear talk of triple-dip recessions in the context of no longer talking about triple-dip recessions.  Employment is rising, unemployment is falling, growth is accelerating and confidence is returning.  One would expect that to feed through to the key bat…

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Yes. £1 for every vote at the previous general election. This would act as an incentive to political parties to drag as many of us into the polling station. Greens, BNP, even UKIP can bebefit from this.

    And, First !
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    If under the present uncapped arrangements the major parties are always so strapped for cash that they are both permanently up to their knees in sleaze, how is a GE campaign meant to be affordable under a capping arrangement?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Yes. £1 for every vote at the previous general election. This would act as an incentive to political parties to drag as many of us into the polling station. Greens, BNP, even UKIP can bebefit from this.

    And, First !

    Why should the taxpayer pay for private organisations that are seeking power?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Yes. £1 for every vote at the previous general election. This would act as an incentive to political parties to drag as many of us into the polling station. Greens, BNP, even UKIP can bebefit from this.

    And, First !

    Why should the taxpayer pay for private organisations that are seeking power?
    Taxpayer pays for many political things ! I think this "subsidy" results in a lot of hot air in Britain. Many countries in the world have these subsidies. Even, the pro free market USA !

    It is better than some flunky paying millions. Do you think he is paying without some self interest ?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    surbiton said:

    Taxpayer pays for many political things !

    Doesn't mean that they should carry on doing so, or should find other areas to spend even more.
    surbiton said:


    It is better than some flunky paying millions. Do you think he is paying without some self interest ?

    Yes yes yes, rich people give money to the eeevil Tories to keep the bbq stacked with dead babies, but unions give money for no reason at all because they are so cuddly and nice. We know the drill by now.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Yes. £1 for every vote at the previous general election. This would act as an incentive to political parties to drag as many of us into the polling station. Greens, BNP, even UKIP can bebefit from this.

    And, First !

    Why should the taxpayer pay for private organisations that are seeking power?
    Taxpayer pays for many political things ! I think this "subsidy" results in a lot of hot air in Britain. Many countries in the world have these subsidies. Even, the pro free market USA !

    It is better than some flunky paying millions. Do you think he is paying without some self interest ?
    Paying based on past votes entrenches privilege and establishment parties.

    I am not a supporter of UKIP, but they would be severely - and unjustly - disadvantaged under a past vote weighted payment system.

    Far better to simply cap donations at a low level - say £10,000, but I could be persuaded by any lowish amount - and ban any "political" spending by non-registered parties during a period (let's say 6 months) running up to a general election.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Charles said:

    and ban any "political" spending by non-registered parties during a period (let's say 6 months) running up to a general election.

    Do you see the rise of US style PACs as inevitable or something we can prevent? I assume from your comment above that you see such prevention as desirable?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    GeoffM said:

    Charles said:

    and ban any "political" spending by non-registered parties during a period (let's say 6 months) running up to a general election.

    Do you see the rise of US style PACs as inevitable or something we can prevent? I assume from your comment above that you see such prevention as desirable?

    They only exist in the US because the courts decided that a previous ban was an infringement of free speech. It would need careful definition, but I would have thought it could be done.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The "non story" that just won't go away:

    "Falkirk vote-rigging inquiry could hang over Labour for months"

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/falkirk-vote-rigging-inquiry-could-hang-over-labour-for-months.21710607
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Charles said:

    They only exist in the US because the courts decided that a previous ban was an infringement of free speech. It would need careful definition, but I would have thought it could be done.

    I remember Citizens United overturning parts of McCain-Feingold in 2010, although the first PAC came after Taft-Hartley back in the 40's.

    It's not only General Elections; the EU referendum is a good example of where spending is going to be an issue. Formal and informal, transparent and opaque groups spending money on targeted campaigns and sponsoring individuals are likely to be a growing part of our democracy in the next decade.

    We should look to decide what we want to happen and legislate in advance of events now rather than firefight later.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,371
    If we have a system, then we should have a system that is as simple and transparent as possible. The more complex the system, the more edge cases and loopholes that the parties will be able to exploit.

    Each party will be looking to add little clauses and details that will allow them to get those few extra pounds, or prevent their competitors from getting them. This is the problem that has dogged the funding issue for so long.

    We should look at the American system, decide that $2.6 billion dollars for an election campaign is not democracy, and do the polar opposite.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    JosiasJessop said:

    We should look at the American system, decide that $2.6 billion dollars for an election campaign is not democracy, and do the polar opposite.

    Whatever else is said on this thread today, that sentence there is going to stand out as key and sage advice.

    The first attempt at legislation in the US was the Tillman Act in 1907 which banned corporations donating to campaigns. The fact is that from that well intended start it only took 100 years to hit the $2.6 billion dollar campaign you refer to.

    David Herdson has written a typically neutral and informative header. I fear though that the genie in the bottle is much larger and more potent than he concludes. If the US is anything to go by, this could shape UK politics for decades in unintended ways too.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,371
    The Times will rue the day ...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23474404
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    For me there is really only one thing that I would object to extremely strongly and that's State funded parties. It's essentially nationalising politics and is a self-serving end in itself.

    If a party cannot drum up enough supporters willing to pay for its activities = then it clearly isn't doing its job or isn't popular enough to deserve being propped up, just like any failing business. It also supports the status quo giving established parties a guaranteed income base that newcomers like UKIP would never have had.

    Re donations - I'd be happy with a cap of £25k. It's big enough to be substantial for a personal donor, but small enough to remove much chance of major influence.

    How small parties get off the ground is the biggest challenge. Without Jimmy Goldsmith bankrolling the Referendum Party - we'd never have pre-UKIP, and without Stewart Wheeler we wouldn't have UKIP still alive now.

    Perhaps smaller parties up to a certain number of councillors could be exempt from the rules?

    And of course there is Short Money to take into the mix.

    One thing Mr Herdson has really hit on is that whoever is doing the negotiating - they'll need to be sharp as a tack.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    No to state funding. At a time of cuts, politicians can get stuffed if they think they can dip their hands still further into the public purse.

    If political parties can't raise enough money because they simply aren't popular enough, then like any other organisation they need to learn to cut their cloth according to their means.

    The question of caps on donations is subordinate to these two vital points. Any cap should be set relatively high, because the vice you're seeking to stop is the buying of influence, so you shouldn't set an arbitrarily low cap. Perhaps it should be set at the level of an MP's salary.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    A couple of other thoughts re stunts that have been pulled/could be pulled are:

    - people or businesses giving v cheap loans/loans that aren't really loans shouldn't be allowed, its been abused as we all know

    - breaking one big cheque into 650 little ones by turning LCP/CCP/LDCP into mini-orgs as an administrative smokescreen

    - allowing donation equivalents over the threshold via pro-bono work to hide interns etc. Parties could easily get large businesses to hand over staff to do their party work for *free*

    - ditto product in kind like advertising or leaflets given over the threshold

    It's not beyond the wit of the parties to come up with a laundry list of tricks that they've all used/come a cropper over - without the playing field being fair, it won't work. And its in their best interests to have as many genuine donating members as possible.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    GeoffM said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    We should look at the American system, decide that $2.6 billion dollars for an election campaign is not democracy, and do the polar opposite.

    Whatever else is said on this thread today, that sentence there is going to stand out as key and sage advice.

    The first attempt at legislation in the US was the Tillman Act in 1907 which banned corporations donating to campaigns. The fact is that from that well intended start it only took 100 years to hit the $2.6 billion dollar campaign you refer to.

    David Herdson has written a typically neutral and informative header. I fear though that the genie in the bottle is much larger and more potent than he concludes. If the US is anything to go by, this could shape UK politics for decades in unintended ways too.
    To be fair to the Americans, they have a specific challenge that - especially in national campaigns - it simply isn't physically possible for the Presidential candidates to visit each of the states a relevant number of times (even with the focus on the swing states).

    As a result they are forced to depend on the media markets but, lacking a requirement for TV stations to screen a certain number of political ads, the candidates are forced to buy the spots at vast cost. Barack Obama, for instance, spent $68m on TV ads in Florida alone.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/whos-buying-ads/

    The UK will never have that problem: fundamentally, we are the size of Oregon.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Plato said:

    A couple of other thoughts re stunts that have been pulled/could be pulled are:

    - people or businesses giving v cheap loans/loans that aren't really loans shouldn't be allowed, its been abused as we all know

    - breaking one big cheque into 650 little ones by turning LCP/CCP/LDCP into mini-orgs as an administrative smokescreen

    - allowing donation equivalents over the threshold via pro-bono work to hide interns etc. Parties could easily get large businesses to hand over staff to do their party work for *free*

    - ditto product in kind like advertising or leaflets given over the threshold

    It's not beyond the wit of the parties to come up with a laundry list of tricks that they've all used/come a cropper over - without the playing field being fair, it won't work. And its in their best interests to have as many genuine donating members as possible.

    It's called "soft money" and it's already pretty effectively regulated in the City. Shouldn't be difficult to amend as needed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Night all.

    Play nice.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,371
    Perhaps we should tackle this another way. I'm fairly happy with the level of declared spending by the parties - £31.5 million (1) split between all the parties at the 2010 GE does not seem too egregious. The parties need to employ staff and get the message out to the country.

    So a different solution may be to limit the total funding that parties can get. For instance, put a cap of £4 million a quarter per party. Conjoined party tickets (e.g. Labour/CoOp and Conservative / Unionist for some elections) are not allowed.

    How they raise the money is up to them, but it is subject to the same rules as at present, or perhaps slightly tightened. For extra devilry, make the spending limit increases in line with the state pension. ;-)

    All spending needs to be declared, and include at least minimum-wage pay for all staff and commercial rates for services.

    (1): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/parties-spend-31-million-at-uk-general-election
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    antifrank said:

    No to state funding. At a time of cuts, politicians can get stuffed if they think they can dip their hands still further into the public purse.

    If political parties can't raise enough money because they simply aren't popular enough, then like any other organisation they need to learn to cut their cloth according to their means.

    The question of caps on donations is subordinate to these two vital points. Any cap should be set relatively high, because the vice you're seeking to stop is the buying of influence, so you shouldn't set an arbitrarily low cap. Perhaps it should be set at the level of an MP's salary.

    @antifrank @plato

    I agree.No to state funding and no to Short Money as well.
    The charities are very good at getting income using a DD of £2.50 per month - political parties can do the same.

    Also local party branches are often quite difficult to locate - almost as if those in charge do not want any newcomers to wake up their cosy set-up. In my constituency I know where the LD and PC are - the Cons are like a private club and have not been able to find Labour or UKIP. Where my MEP is based I haven't a clue.

    Also, no to a cap on donations - you can give as much as you like to a political party or set up your own, but the public still has to vote for them/you. But make all donations personal and not corporate/union. The only exception might be donations from a party local branch but that opens loopholes.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    David Herdson: - "... political parties should ideally be mass-membership movements with many contributors..."

    Political parties are mass-membership movements when they are any good. They decline when they are crap. Eg. look at Scotland:

    Con, Lab, LD = declining membership, and SLDs probably well below 50 members per constituency.

    SNP = growing membership, and largest party in the country in terms of membership.

    Draw your own conclusions.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If the Parties devised a funding model from a This Is What Good Looks Like starting point, that would heartening. I suspect however that they'll begin from - We Must Protect The Status Quo instead.

    That creates a load of messy nit-picking that fails to address the basic fact that large donors dominate all the parties and that's hiding the fundamental problem of falling memberships/lack of engagement.

    EdM getting union members to join Labour directly is one way to address it - but its just shuffling the same people about from paying a DD one way to paying another.

    Until the parties actually do a Kipper and recruit real new members not recycling old ones, the spiral will continue downwards. When orgs like the NTrust or RSPB have millions of members - but political parties are bobbing around a 10th of that or less, it shows that voters do care about single issues and will pay for the priviledge - but politics has lost their faith and interest.
    JosiasJessop said:

    Perhaps we should tackle this another way. I'm fairly happy with the level of declared spending by the parties - £31.5 million (1) split between all the parties at the 2010 GE does not seem too egregious. The parties need to employ staff and get the message out to the country.

    So a different solution may be to limit the total funding that parties can get. For instance, put a cap of £4 million a quarter per party. Conjoined party tickets (e.g. Labour/CoOp and Conservative / Unionist for some elections) are not allowed.

    How they raise the money is up to them, but it is subject to the same rules as at present, or perhaps slightly tightened. For extra devilry, make the spending limit increases in line with the state pension. ;-)

    All spending needs to be declared, and include at least minimum-wage pay for all staff and commercial rates for services.

    (1): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/parties-spend-31-million-at-uk-general-election

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    OT This social housing stat has really surprised me - its huge. It'll give evidence to those who feel disadvantaged by immigration

    "Nearly half a million immigrants have been given taxpayer-funded homes over the past decade.

    The revelation comes as the number of families on the waiting list for social housing hits a record 1.8million. Most are British born.

    New figures reveal 469,843 of the 4million migrants who arrived in the UK between 2001 and 2011 were given council homes Around 1.2million foreigners now live in social housing – one in eight of the total. In London the figure is thought to be as high as one in five...

    According to the census, 105,506 of the immigrants who found social housing after 2001 were from Eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004, most of them Poles. In the mid-2000s, Whitehall officials estimated that the cost to taxpayers of maintaining a single social housing unit was £620 a year.

    Assuming each unit is occupied by four people, that would put the housing costs of post-2001 migrants at between £5billion and £8billion. Sir Andrew Green, of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: ‘The figures serve to underline the huge costs of mass immigration – costs often ignored by the immigration lobby.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379478/Revealed-How-500-000-immigrants-given-social-housing-decade-number-families-waiting-list-hits-record-high.html#ixzz2aE1pjlAm
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Plato

    " When orgs like the NTrust or RSPB have millions of members - but political parties are bobbing around a 10th of that or less, it shows that voters do care about single issues and will pay for the priviledge - but politics has lost their faith and interest. "

    One of the reasons for this may be that so many MPs now do not come from the locality of their constituency but are parachuted in by the Party chiefs as they will toe their line - or the constituency is used as a career base for a rising star.

    As a child, I remember our MP who was always visible locally and my father giving his annual subs to the agent who came round to collect them and so knew the supporters personally. Much of those connections have been lost and parties need to revive them to reconnect with the electorate.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT Hugh Grant, the blonde lawyer and Hacked Off’s cosy links to a ruthless law firm whose investigators illegally invaded people’s privacy

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379632/Hugh-Grant-blonde-lawyer-Hacked-Off-s-cosy-links-ruthless-law-firm-investigators-illegally-invaded-people-s-privacy.html#ixzz2aE5Nh2Jr
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Financier said:

    @Plato

    " When orgs like the NTrust or RSPB have millions of members - but political parties are bobbing around a 10th of that or less, it shows that voters do care about single issues and will pay for the priviledge - but politics has lost their faith and interest. "

    One of the reasons for this may be that so many MPs now do not come from the locality of their constituency but are parachuted in by the Party chiefs as they will toe their line - or the constituency is used as a career base for a rising star.

    As a child, I remember our MP who was always visible locally and my father giving his annual subs to the agent who came round to collect them and so knew the supporters personally. Much of those connections have been lost and parties need to revive them to reconnect with the electorate.

    A very interesting concept Financier. I could imagine the monthly subs collection being combined with an opportunity to collect views on local issues and publish the results every 6 months with a statement on what the MP is doing to address these issues. This does give the contributors an advantage over the non elected parties but that's should encourage people to switch - if the MP can demonstrate success on resolving local concerns.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Iain @Iain_33
    Populus poll: Con 32% (232 -74) Lab 39% (368 +110) LD 11% (25 -32) UKIP 10% (0) Green 3% (0 -1) SNP/PC 4% (7 -2) BNP 1% (0) Other 0% (0 -1)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013
    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Financier said:

    OT Hugh Grant, the blonde lawyer and Hacked Off’s cosy links to a ruthless law firm whose investigators illegally invaded people’s privacy

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379632/Hugh-Grant-blonde-lawyer-Hacked-Off-s-cosy-links-ruthless-law-firm-investigators-illegally-invaded-people-s-privacy.html#ixzz2aE5Nh2Jr
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    MODERATOR SAYS


    COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT ARE NOT BEING ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Plato said:

    Iain @Iain_33
    Populus poll: Con 32% (232 -74) Lab 39% (368 +110) LD 11% (25 -32) UKIP 10% (0) Green 3% (0 -1) SNP/PC 4% (7 -2) BNP 1% (0) Other 0% (0 -1)

    It is highly unlikely that SNP/PC would lose 2 seats if they got 4% of the vote. They won 9 seats on 2.3% of the vote in 2010.

    In other words you are saying that SNP/PC will lose 22% of their MPs by increasing their vote by 74%. Arithmetically possible, but profoundly unlikely in practice.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If you've got Times access - Brookes is very good on Wonga and CoE

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00435/Brookes_27_435614a.jpg
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Financier said:

    When orgs like the NTrust or RSPB have millions of members

    That's the US angle I'm wary of. Whilst I agree with @Charles that the US President visiting all 50 states on a regular basis is impractical so tv spending is required (even more so for Obama who thought there were 57) that's not the biggest concern for me.

    The NRA is one of hundreds of high profile lobby groups who assess candidates at a State level and smaller. Their support and money swing races.

    @Financier references the NTrust. I became very disillusioned with their political stance on hunting and dropped my membership. But what would the implications have been of them, say, endorsing or even funding candidates? Okay, okay, I bet that was a bad specific example for some reason and I only picked them because they took a non-neutral political stance. But the general point applies.

    You're going to have to be very careful how any new rules shape up, otherwise you'll get PACs sponsoring individuals with cash or in kind and bypassing the party structure altogether.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,602
    Single issue organisations don't really have all that much to do with politics. The whole point of politics is to make choices between competing priorities and ideas. When you campaign on a single issue , you don't have to worry about that. So It's a lot easier.

    But someone somewhere will still have to make that choice.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    antifrank said:

    No to state funding. At a time of cuts, politicians can get stuffed if they think they can dip their hands still further into the public purse.

    If political parties can't raise enough money because they simply aren't popular enough, then like any other organisation they need to learn to cut their cloth according to their means.

    The question of caps on donations is subordinate to these two vital points. Any cap should be set relatively high, because the vice you're seeking to stop is the buying of influence, so you shouldn't set an arbitrarily low cap. Perhaps it should be set at the level of an MP's salary.

    Spot on.

    No to state funding.

    Political parties need to learn to cut their cloth according to their means.

    And politicians can get stuffed.


  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    So Populus last 4 polls:

    Con/Lab/LD/UKIP
    32/39/11/10
    32/39/12/9
    31/39/12/10
    31/38/13/10
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Financier said:

    So Populus last 4 polls:

    Con/Lab/LD/UKIP
    32/39/11/10
    32/39/12/9
    31/39/12/10
    31/38/13/10

    They've created a convincing baseline for online polling - I hope it continues to be less bouncy than YGov.

    How it compares with their phone polling is the rub - they were pretty good there IIRC.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT - for Zimbabwe election watchers.

    One of our worst slum landlords , he built a monstrous mansion in Sussex and had a rival murdered. Now the Mail can reveal Nicholas Van Hoogstraten's astonishing new life

    Nicholas Van Hoogstraten is flourishing under Mugabe’s murderous regime
    He has become Zimbabwe’s biggest landowner
    British exile owns two sprawling homes with tennis courts


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379698/Mugabes-British-henchman-One-worst-slum-landlords--built-monstrous-mansion-Sussex-rival-murdered-Now-Mail-reveal-Nicholas-Van-Hoogstratens-astonishing-new-life.html#ixzz2aEBCkGSt
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,735
    Good morning, everyone.

    I quite agree with those against state funding.

    In other news, Mercedes look to be in trouble on long run pace, about 0.8s per lap slower than Red Bull, and it's probably going to be hotter on race day (which will hit the Silver Arrows most of all):
    http://www.espn.co.uk/hungary/motorsport/story/118175.html
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    His pile is up the road from me and I once spied it - its enormous and has its own massive mausoleum. A decade ago, there was a TV doc about it and he was very Bond Villan in his manner, icy cold and quietly threatening, whilst stick thin in a £3k suit.

    The presenter was put her in place many times if she tried to ask anything the teeniest bit impertinent. I wouldn't want to be in her shoes in a million years.

    Wish they'd repeat it - I'm amazed he agreed to it at all. I got the impression he felt those around him were insects.
    Financier said:

    OT - for Zimbabwe election watchers.

    One of our worst slum landlords , he built a monstrous mansion in Sussex and had a rival murdered. Now the Mail can reveal Nicholas Van Hoogstraten's astonishing new life

    Nicholas Van Hoogstraten is flourishing under Mugabe’s murderous regime
    He has become Zimbabwe’s biggest landowner
    British exile owns two sprawling homes with tennis courts


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379698/Mugabes-British-henchman-One-worst-slum-landlords--built-monstrous-mansion-Sussex-rival-murdered-Now-Mail-reveal-Nicholas-Van-Hoogstratens-astonishing-new-life.html#ixzz2aEBCkGSt
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT
    More than 100 ‘outstanding’ schools have been downgraded since Ofsted introduced tough new rules about quality of teaching last year.

    Schools were previously able to achieve the top ranking even if lessons weren’t of the highest standard.

    This was changed last September to introduce more rigour to the classroom.

    Some 91 were downgraded to good, 18 were told they needed to improve and two were given the lowest rating of inadequate.

    In August last year, 21 per cent of all schools in England were ‘outstanding’ overall – 4,442 in total. Of these, 24 per cent had ‘good’ teaching.

    Based on the performance of the schools inspected so far, more than 750 face being downgraded.

    Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘There is no way any school should be classed outstanding unless they have outstanding teaching, so I totally agree with it.’

    Outstanding schools are not subject to regular inspections, although inspectors can be sent in if there are concerns about exam results or major changes, such as the addition of a sixth form.

    Good schools are checked at least every five years.

    They are inspected in four categories – achievement, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety of pupils, leadership and management.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2379731/More-100-outstanding-schools-downgraded-Ofsted-brought-tough-new-rules-quality-teaching.html#ixzz2aECEGY00
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    'Falkirk vote-rigging inquiry could hang over Labour for months'
    An inquiry into allegations of vote-rigging in Falkirk could hang over Labour for months, even running into to the party's annual conference, it has emerged.

    Although police have said they will not launch a probe, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is conducting an inquiry into whether data protection laws were broken, an offence that can carry a fine of £500,000.

    The investigation is expected to last "months, not weeks", according to a spokesman for the ICO.

    ... Party leader Ed Miliband said earlier this month that an internal Labour report had shown "people were being signed up as members of the Labour Party without their knowledge".

    ... A spokesman for the ICO said he could not say when its inquiry would conclude, but added that in general investigations by the office took months rather than weeks.

    The probe began a few weeks ago, before the Conservative party referred the Falkirk allegations for investigation.

    A source said a proactive decision had been made to look at the claims.
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/falkirk-vote-rigging-inquiry-could-hang-over-labour-for-months.21710607

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Re Mr Van Hoogstraten- embedding didn't work - try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW_2kY0fvU
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    JackW said:

    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!

    Given that you say that you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE, why should we pay any more attention to your guesses than anyone else's guesses?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Plato wrote :

    ".... a £3k suit ...."

    Tsk .... how vulgar. Much like a second hand car salesman whose won the lottery !!

    My last suit .... no it wasn't a demob one !! .... a country one with two pairs of trousers and different waistcoats rushed me for about 800 guineas and still gives good service !!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!

    Given that you say that you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE, why should we pay any more attention to your guesses than anyone else's guesses?
    You are free to ignore my ARSE at your will .... although from your recent history I'd guess it will grab your attention.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    JackW said:

    @Plato wrote :

    ".... a £3k suit ...."

    Tsk .... how vulgar. Much like a second hand car salesman whose won the lottery !!

    My last suit .... no it wasn't a demob one !! .... a country one with two pairs of trousers and different waistcoats rushed me for about 800 guineas and still gives good service !!

    A relative of my ex suddenly became very *successful* and appallingly snobby/nouveau rich - we assumed he'd won the Pools but he claimed it was all his own efforts.

    We were at his daughter's wedding and it was like Coronation St meets Dynasty. I can't recall how many times we were told that it was REAL salmon on enormous silver platters. That was about 20yrs ago and it's a vivid memory!

    My favourite wedding reception was held above the swimming pool in a leisure centre/all we could hear during the speeches were the screams of small children dive bombing their friends - the wine was from Châteaux Sarsons and the bride/groom drank *champagne* that was actually vintage Sarsons with lemonade to make it fizz.

    The happy couple were delighted by it all. Even the lino and smell of chlorine didn't detract from the merriment.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    JackW said:

    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!

    Given that you say that you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE, why should we pay any more attention to your guesses than anyone else's guesses?
    You are free to ignore my ARSE at your will .... although from your recent history I'd guess it will grab your attention.

    Well, you see, that is the problem. There is no history.

    According to your own admission last week, you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE. Thus we have zero track record upon which to judge your guesses.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Financier said:

    OT
    More than 100 ‘outstanding’ schools have been downgraded since Ofsted introduced tough new rules about quality of teaching last year.

    Funny what happens when you run Education in the interests of the consumers, not the producers..
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Financier - how can a school rated as Outstanding become Inadequate? I can see how generous marking could result in becoming Good - but to fall from an A to a D even in just two cases raises questions about the Ofsted inspector.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Just getting ISDN installed?! Crikey. I've had it at home since the mid 90s for doing down-the-line intvs. Dogs barking/birds tweeting too loudly was my biggest problem...

    "It is a new wheeze by Downing Street to connect David Cameron to the voters. Whatever you do, though, don’t label it “Call Dave”. The Prime Minister has decided to follow in the footsteps of his deputy, Nick Clegg, and embrace a campaigning radio revolution, broadcasting to voters once a week.

    Aides to Mr Cameron have installed a broadcast studio in No 10 to make it easier for the Prime Minister to host phone-ins and engage in banter with local radio presenters the length of the country. The innovation has been kept quiet until now. The Prime Minister’s recent interview on Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4 is the only example so far of a national broadcast from No 10.

    His aides say that the intention is to focus on local radio, and they are hoping that he will be able to do broadcasts with a different regional station, preferably in a marginal seat, each week. The first regional broadcast took place earlier this month in Yorkshire, a key target area... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3826824.ece
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    @Plato wrote :

    ".... a £3k suit ...."

    Tsk .... how vulgar. Much like a second hand car salesman whose won the lottery !!

    My last suit .... no it wasn't a demob one !! .... a country one with two pairs of trousers and different waistcoats rushed me for about 800 guineas and still gives good service !!

    A relative of my ex suddenly became very *successful* and appallingly snobby/nouveau rich - we assumed he'd won the Pools but he claimed it was all his own efforts.

    We were at his daughter's wedding and it was like Coronation St meets Dynasty. I can't recall how many times we were told that it was REAL salmon on enormous silver platters. That was about 20yrs ago and it's a vivid memory!

    My favourite wedding reception was held above the swimming pool in a leisure centre/all we could here during the speeches were the screams of small children dive bombing their friends - the wine was from Châteaux Sarsons and the bride/groom drank *champagne* that was actually vintage Sarsons with lemonade to make it fizz.

    The happy couple were delighted by it all. Even the lino and smell of chlorine didn't detract from the merriment.
    LOL ....

    In contrast one of the best weddings I have ever attended was a simple registry office affair with a modest country pub reception after. The bride was divorced and at the time the CoE was sniffy and one of the parents didn't approve, wouldn't help financially and didn't attend.

    However it all went off splendidly. All there were hugely pleased for the couple and the simple country reception was intimate, hugely entertaining and the home cooked food wonderful. But most of all it was plain to all that the bride and groom were made for each other - truly a match made in heaven - even if it wasn't a CoE one. They remain blissfully happy to this day.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013
    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!

    Given that you say that you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE, why should we pay any more attention to your guesses than anyone else's guesses?
    You are free to ignore my ARSE at your will .... although from your recent history I'd guess it will grab your attention.

    Well, you see, that is the problem. There is no history.

    According to your own admission last week, you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE. Thus we have zero track record upon which to judge your guesses.
    Such problems Stuart, upon which nations may rise or fall .... NOT.

    Look just chill out, enjoy the ride, my ARSE is there to be enjoyed even by the odd curmudgeonly Scot whose fallen out of bed the wrong side this morning.

    Smile man, you've a referendum to look forward to !!

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    OT Some of these are really very funny - Will Foxton tries internet dating - 28 times using different sites. He also writes for the DT

    http://28dateslater.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/date-26-video-gamer-and-zombies.html
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    'For anyone wanting the stats behind the Daily Mail front page, they're here: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/CT0069/view/default?rows=c_tenhuk11&cols=c_yrarrpuk11 …'

    Worth having a look at Kate Allen's twitter feed (stats journalist on the FT). That's if you're interested in what's behind the DM/Telegraph take, obv.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,487
    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!

    Given that you say that you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE, why should we pay any more attention to your guesses than anyone else's guesses?
    You are free to ignore my ARSE at your will .... although from your recent history I'd guess it will grab your attention.

    Well, you see, that is the problem. There is no history.

    According to your own admission last week, you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE. Thus we have zero track record upon which to judge your guesses.
    To be fair to Jack, this is the first time we have had a fixed-term parliament, so we have never known before that there are, in fact, two years to a general election.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    No to State Funding

    Not bothered about reform. Let me be a naysayer and say if Unite wants to bankroll Labour and have influence, let the public know it. They do.

    All income should be properly declared so we know who is giving what to whom but beyond that let them deal with it - and let the public decide accordingly.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2013
    Plato said:

    Aides to Mr Cameron have installed a broadcast studio in No 10

    The Times's phrasing seems a bit odd. Surely it should be, "Mr Cameron has installed," or "engineers have installed", rather than imply that the aides either got their hands dirty or commissioned the studio against the PM's wishes.

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    CarlottaVance said:

    Financier said:

    OT
    More than 100 ‘outstanding’ schools have been downgraded since Ofsted introduced tough new rules about quality of teaching last year.

    Funny what happens when you run Education in the interests of the consumers, not the producers..
    That's good news. Too much has been based on manipulated data. There are issues re the Ofsted view of good teaching (progressive) v the Wilshaw (balanced)/Gove (DI) view - I'm on side with Wilshaw/Gove on this - but that's another/elsewhere debate.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Plato said:

    Aides to Mr Cameron have installed a broadcast studio in No 10

    The Times's phrasing seems a bit odd. Surely it should be, "Mr Cameron has installed," or "engineers have installed", rather than imply that the aides either got their hands dirty or commissioned the studio against the PM's wishes.

    I think they're rather over-egging the idea of a *broadcast studio* myself. It's a good quality microphone attached to an ISDN line and a button to press when you want to go live. I've had one in my spare bedroom since the mid 90s.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Plato said:

    @Financier - how can a school rated as Outstanding become Inadequate? I can see how generous marking could result in becoming Good - but to fall from an A to a D even in just two cases raises questions about the Ofsted inspector.

    @Plato

    Sorry for the late reply but just had my breakfast served.
    As inspections were only every 5 years,it could be possible at a stretch. Of course it could be a measure of how far the rot had spread. In Wales they have just woken up to the fact that "average" is not really good enough.

    Re:Mr van H. Had met him several times and some of his 'cousins' who were in the same game. They used to 'employ' hard men from Brixton who collected their debts, in cash or goods, armed with an electric drill.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Financier said:

    Plato said:

    @Financier - how can a school rated as Outstanding become Inadequate? I can see how generous marking could result in becoming Good - but to fall from an A to a D even in just two cases raises questions about the Ofsted inspector.

    @Plato

    Re:Mr van H. Had met him several times and some of his 'cousins' who were in the same game. They used to 'employ' hard men from Brixton who collected their debts, in cash or goods, armed with an electric drill.

    The cordless drill has a lot to answer for!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If you don't follow this account - you're missing some v funny trivia and the occasional howler.

    Tweets MPs Delete @deletedbyMPs
    DT @andyburnhammp: Despite media silence, people are seen through Tory #NHS strategy: run down #NH... pltw.ps/19o5Stn
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "GDP figures leave Labour in need of new plan of attack
    Voters need to feel that the future is likely to be better than the past, and the Tories are on a concerted charm offensive."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/26/gdp-labour-new-plan-attack
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tim said:

    A cap around £5k is sensible that still allows a family of four to give £100k over a parliament.

    How can a family of 4 possibly give £100k?

    A "family of 4" typically has 2 adults and 2 children - 2 adults if giving 5k a year for 5 years (thus no spike at general election as normally happens) can't possibly give £100k.

    Or are you proposing either that kids get 5k a year in pocket money they'd choose to give to their parents party? Or are you proposing that the "Head of the Household" really gives all the money but just uses other people's (even childrens) names to do it.

    So before rules are even agreed you're looking for ways to violate them? Typical.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    Stuart_Dickson said:

    JackW said:

    ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT .... ARSE ALERT ....

    The last ARSE 2015 GE projection before the Summer recess will be exclusively published on PB on Monday at 9.00am.

    In the finest traditions of Mike Smithson it might be that there are some interesting results !!

    Given that you say that you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE, why should we pay any more attention to your guesses than anyone else's guesses?
    You are free to ignore my ARSE at your will .... although from your recent history I'd guess it will grab your attention.

    Well, you see, that is the problem. There is no history.

    According to your own admission last week, you have never before published your guesses two years before a UK GE. Thus we have zero track record upon which to judge your guesses.
    To be fair to Jack, this is the first time we have had a fixed-term parliament, so we have never known before that there are, in fact, two years to a general election.
    Thanks NOA.

    It's not so much the fixed term aspect, after all the two US presidential election were fixed term as was to all intense and purpose was our 2010 GE, but I've branched my ARSE out to more long term projections.

    Previously the longest my ARSE has gone was the 12 months before the 2008 US election and that was just for Obama to win both the nomination and the November election.

    Onward and upwards ....

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    What nonsense.

    "Labour’s controversial “tax efficient” £1.65million donation of company shares was arranged after talks with the party, millionaire businessman John Mills has said." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10153326/Labour-helped-me-arrange-tax-efficient-1.65million-donation-in-shares-says-John-Mills.html

    " Labour’s “tax efficient” £1.65million donation of company shares was arranged after talks with the party, millionaire businessman John Mills has said.

    The remarks appear to contradict Labour, which is insisting that the idea for a donation in shares from Mr Mills' company JML was not discussed with anyone at the party.

    In February Mr Mills gave a £1.65million donation to the Labour in shares in his shopping channel company JML. Last month, Mr Mills described the type of donation as “tax efficient” in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

    He explained that the donation was made in shares rather than cash so the tax on the deal would be significantly reduced, causing a major political headache for Labour leader Ed Miliband who has criticised tax avoidance among multi-national companies.

    Speaking at a press conference, Mr Mills said that he “had no personal advantage out of all of this. Nor did the Labour Party.” < really.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,240
    Hoogstraten is a piece of work. He served four years for arson on a synagogue, and more time for handling stolen goods.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Financier said:


    Re:Mr van H. Had met him several times and some of his 'cousins' who were in the same game. They used to 'employ' hard men from Brixton who collected their debts, in cash or goods, armed with an electric drill.

    Housing benefit is too often a state subsidy for criminals who have become landlords, even if they are not criminal landlords in the sense of NvH.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    DH: A belated thanks for a good leader as usual.

    Just occurred to me (must be the effects of a full cooked breakfast served by a very pretty waitress), if voting became compulsory in the UK (like Australia, Brazil, Singapore etc 10 countries enforce it and 13 do not enforce), how would you approach political party funding and what would be the entry criteria?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Sean_F said:

    Hoogstraten is a piece of work. He served four years for arson on a synagogue, and more time for handling stolen goods.

    TBH, I'm amazed anyone ever appeared as a witness against him. I'd imagine his associates would break your legs without a second glance.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    I noted a £25k cap as I felt the suggested £50k was too high and some research (sorry can't recall who) indicated the lower figure would allow for a functioning system. If a lower figure was shown to work then that's fine too.

    I'd also say a considerable reduction in personal donations and no business donations would hurt the Conservatives.

    The essential principle should be that political parties should not be reliant on business, unions or excessively large individual donations.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    JackW said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    I noted a £25k cap as I felt the suggested £50k was too high and some research (sorry can't recall who) indicated the lower figure would allow for a functioning system. If a lower figure was shown to work then that's fine too.

    I'd also say a considerable reduction in personal donations and no business donations would hurt the Conservatives.

    The essential principle should be that political parties should not be reliant on business, unions or excessively large individual donations.

    How would you address the rise of Kippers? With Sir Jimmy and now Mr Wheeler - they'd be nowhere.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Charles

    Do you know this chap?

    Daniel Furr @DanielFurrUK
    Sir Jon Cunliffe to join Bank of England as deputy governor via @Telegraph fw.to/AGh30yl
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    tim said:

    @Carola

    One of the other things they appear to have appear to have done is include housing associations as having maintenance costs paid for by the taxpayer, whereas they are paid for through rent
    (some of whom are evil "foreign born)

    God knows what they'll do when they find out Osborne's Help to Buy is buying Romanian families houses, as we saw this week

    Yeah well. That's why I hope things do get better. I don't like pitchforker-rallying of the dim. Which gets worse when the economy does.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Plato said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    What nonsense.
    The current system favours the Conservative Party which makes more from donations than does Labour.

    That partisans on either side can point to individual donations that look a bit iffy does not alter the underlying arithmetic which favours the Conservatives over Labour and that pair over the rest.

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/party-funding
    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm

    The figures are collated by the Electoral Commission and the Tories invariably receive more in donations than Labour, so there is no financial incentive for the Conservatives to change the rules, especially if it risks Labour retaliating after the next election, or a move to state funding, which would probably favour established minor parties like the LibDems and UKIP.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @CarlottaVance

    Interesting article. Who had what good idea first is moot - but the point is clear, HMG's make the most of Good Ideas because they can actually do something about it.

    "Meanwhile, Labour's rhetoric is shrewdly picked up and amplified by the coalition. Miliband talks of "predatory capitalism", then David Cameron warns Starbucks to "wake up and smell the coffee" and makes cracking down on tax avoidance the centrepiece of his G8 presidency. Labour calls for a British investment bank, then Vince Cable announces that he will set one up. It may be smaller and less powerful than the opposition's blueprint, but voters are hardly likely to notice the nuances.

    Similarly, Miliband's notion of "pre-distribution" remains a vague and woolly aim, while David Cameron happily embraces the notion of a living wage and promises to "build a recovery for hard-working people".

    Labour's recent decision to match the Tories' spending plans for the first year of the next parliament may have been a shrewd political tactic; but it makes the task of differentiating themselves from the government even tougher. They need to show how they will build a fairer tax system; a banking sector that serves society; enough homes to put the housing market on an even keel; and, most importantly, an economy that delivers more and better jobs..."

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    tim said:

    @Financier.

    So how many schools have been given outstanding that weren't before?

    You seem to believe that reinspecting a school and changing it's rating is due to "extra rigour" but schools often change on reinspection, both up and down.

    So could you give us the number going from good to outstanding please?
    And "revised" up to good.

    I'm more interested in the academy convert/not stats. Not tried to dig those out yet. Academies (overall) are generally more likely to pass off voc quals as multiple GCSEs. I think stopping that would be a positive move.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,517
    The funding issue should be tackled from the demand end. Ban phone canvassing to people who have opted out of marketing calls - they don't want it and we shouldn't force it on them. Ban direct mail urging support for or opposition to any party unless it is identified with and counted against the spending limits of a local political party. I don't care if the parties spend £X squillion on advisers and flow-charts and whatever else they get up to in HQ. The real imbalance comes from ways of getting round the local spending limits, and if those are squeezed out the funding issue will diminish in importance. (It's already small compared with the US, where they have the gigantic media spend loophole.)

    Am I volunteering to be the first not to use direct mail? No - while it exists we all have to use it. But essentially parties who want to gain a local edge should get off their arses and work the patch locally, not just write a cheque for XYZ Marketing plc to phone-canvass and mail the constituency to death.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,699
    Morning all. A few thoughts I wasn't able to drop into the leader as I thought it best to look at the big picture there, rather than propose detail.

    - Absolutely no to state funding as a matter of course. Like too many failing organisations with good political connections, being propped up by a state subsidy 'in the national interest' is too easy an option. Particularly in the Facebook / Paypal age, it should not be too difficult for parties / candidates to reach out way beyond their existing membership, though that takes effort and inclination, and too many are wedded to the old ways. (I would make an exception for Short Money - the party/ies in government shouldn't effectively have an advantage in policy formation and research with free access to the Civil Service when others don't, and it's not realistic to give them that same access).

    - A cap of £25k has been suggested a few times on the thread and I'd agree with that as a sensible ballpark figure. The key point, as Plato says, is to prevent the buying of influence. I would however suggest a lower limit - certainly no more than £5k, perhaps less - for donations to an individual constituency organisation (i.e. if an individual wants to donate more than £5k in a year, they'd have to either spread it around or donate to a party centrally).

    - Donations would need to include cash and in kind.

    - The limit should apply as a cumulative figure for any individual's or organisation's donations within a calendar year to all registered parties / party components. Likewise, the cap should apply to all donations made by sub-units of an organisation (so a business couldn't donate £25k x n, where n is the number of its subsidiaries).

    - Donations via third parties should be pro-rataed off against that person's limit e.g. if an individual donates £1k to charity X and charity X donates £25k out of an income of £250k to Party Y, that counts as a £100 donation. However, it should be an offence to make a donation via a third party with the intention or effect of circumventing the cap (e.g. making ten donations of £25k to ten groups who that then pass the whole amount on where they would not otherwise have done so), and where the person knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that this is the effect of the donation/s.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Labour got approx the same amount in donations from approx the same number of donors as the Tories.

    Neither party has anything to rest on their laurels over.
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Plato said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    What nonsense.
    The current system favours the Conservative Party which makes more from donations than does Labour.

    That partisans on either side can point to individual donations that look a bit iffy does not alter the underlying arithmetic which favours the Conservatives over Labour and that pair over the rest.

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/party-funding
    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Donations.htm

    The figures are collated by the Electoral Commission and the Tories invariably receive more in donations than Labour, so there is no financial incentive for the Conservatives to change the rules, especially if it risks Labour retaliating after the next election, or a move to state funding, which would probably favour established minor parties like the LibDems and UKIP.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Plato said:

    Sean_F said:

    Hoogstraten is a piece of work. He served four years for arson on a synagogue, and more time for handling stolen goods.

    TBH, I'm amazed anyone ever appeared as a witness against him. I'd imagine his associates would break your legs without a second glance.
    @Plato:

    If people are desperate enough, have nothing more to lose and feel that life is not worth living anymore, then they will turn for help to get out of that misery.

    I believe,that in such an instance the associates were witnessed in action by those in authority,and to save their skins, blabbed all. Probably his greatest mistake was to try and eliminate some of the competition.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,699
    Further thoughts (to comply with the post-length limits):

    - There'd need to be severe limits on political campaigning by non-PPRA organisations in the six months before an election where the intention or likely effect of the campaigning is to influence the public in favour or against a particular party or candidate (to avoid PAC-like activity).

    - Should there be an exemption for new or very small parties? To introduce one is screaming 'loophole' to me and I'm instinctively inclined against though I can see the logic about start-up costs. I'm not convinced, not least because most small parties that have broken through have done so organically from humble origins rather than being heavily bankrolled and buying their way in. In any case, I'm not convinced that an overly-diverse party structure is a healthy thing for democracy and accountability.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited July 2013
    The conservatives under Cameron are now a sham party. Their MP's may have gone off into recess with a lighter bounce, but they will return after conference season to confront the bitter realities of this autumns political scene.

    I don't think that Cammo has kept a single political promise in its entirety. Below is another massive promise made that he has never kept and in all probability, never meant to keep.

    Tories and others hoping that Cammo will keep his referendum promise know in their hearts that with the PM its all smoke and mirrors.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2379379/Coalition-colludes-sham-Recall-Bill.html
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    tim said:

    The other assumption in the Mail piece about housing is that all people born abroad live solely with other people who were born abroad.So each "immigrant" in a house is presumed to live with three other "immigrants"
    So not only is Boris an immigrant all of the people in his house become immigrants too.

    Farage lives with three immigrants
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,699
    Financier said:

    DH: A belated thanks for a good leader as usual.

    Just occurred to me (must be the effects of a full cooked breakfast served by a very pretty waitress), if voting became compulsory in the UK (like Australia, Brazil, Singapore etc 10 countries enforce it and 13 do not enforce), how would you approach political party funding and what would be the entry criteria?

    Compulsory voting is a profoundly unBritish thing. People have a right to want to have their voice and opinions ignored.

    In any case, it's far better for people to vote because they believe it is a valuable act in its own right rather than because they will be punished if they don't.

    I also doubt that dragging, say, the disinterested 60-70% of the electorate to the polls at a local election who don't currently vote would improve the overall decision-making process.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    MikeK said:

    The conservatives under Cameron are now a sham party. Their MP's may have gone off into recess with a lighter bounce, but they will return after conference season to confront the bitter realities of this autumns political scene.

    I don't think that Cammo has kept a single political promise in its entirety. Below is another massive promise made that he has never kept and in all probability, never meant to keep.

    Tories and others hoping that Cammo will keep his referendum promise know in their hearts that with the PM its all smoke and mirrors.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2379379/Coalition-colludes-sham-Recall-Bill.html

    Piffle. And Double piffle. I've an on-off relationship with the Tories but that hyperbole is nonsense on stilts. Kippers are feeling the polling/policy squeeze and getting all huffy about it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,735
    P3 now underway. It'll be interesting to see how Red Bull and Mercedes stack up in qualifying. I feel Red Bull will end up on top.

    Mercedes could go back dramatically in the race, so I'll consider that when betting.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    I noted a £25k cap as I felt the suggested £50k was too high and some research (sorry can't recall who) indicated the lower figure would allow for a functioning system. If a lower figure was shown to work then that's fine too.

    I'd also say a considerable reduction in personal donations and no business donations would hurt the Conservatives.

    The essential principle should be that political parties should not be reliant on business, unions or excessively large individual donations.

    How would you address the rise of Kippers? With Sir Jimmy and now Mr Wheeler - they'd be nowhere.
    I wouldn't address it at all.

    If parties have the support the cash will follow it. The SNP have operated on a shoe string for decades and are now governing alone and accordingly attract wider financial support.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,735
    F1: apparently Alonso's got some sort of strapping around his shoulder. Might be a minor injury.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    tim said:

    @Financier.

    So how many schools have been given outstanding that weren't before?

    You seem to believe that reinspecting a school and changing it's rating is due to "extra rigour" but schools often change on reinspection, both up and down.

    So could you give us the number going from good to outstanding please?
    And "revised" up to good.

    @tim

    I was just quoting from the Mail and did not offer an opinion or even an anecdote in that post.

    So just do not try to put words in my mouth and I am afraid you will have to do your research to find the answer.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Financier said:

    If people are desperate enough, have nothing more to lose and feel that life is not worth living anymore, then they will turn for help to get out of that misery.

    I believe,that in such an instance the associates were witnessed in action by those in authority,and to save their skins, blabbed all. Probably his greatest mistake was to try and eliminate some of the competition.

    A chap whose brother had been a "hard man" in 50s and 60s London told me that one of the rules (and as Sunil might say, it was probably more of a guideline) was that you did not attack honest people because they could go to the police. As Reg Kray used to point out, the Twins only killed gangsters. Rather, debt collectors would seek to intimidate and harrass: approaching you when out with your family and staring meaningfully at your wife and children. Perhaps breaking the odd vase or television set, but chucking a handful of fivers to cover the damage (draw your own Bullingdon parallels).

    Things may be different now, since the state has little apparent interest in stopping gangs overunning entire estates.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,699
    Plato said:

    JackW said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    JackW said:

    Absolutely no to extending state funding of political parties.

    Political parties must live within their means like joe public. I'd cap donations at a maximum of £25K per year per person. All donations over £1K to be made public and no foreign donations. No company or union donations at all.

    Sorted.

    Surely a cap of, say, 10 per cent of median income would remove most of the bias towards parties with wealthier supporters, like, say, the Conservat ... oh, I see. Carry on.

    The current system favours the Conservative Party and any change that is designed to hit Labour risks retaliation after 2015, so probably nothing will happen.
    I noted a £25k cap as I felt the suggested £50k was too high and some research (sorry can't recall who) indicated the lower figure would allow for a functioning system. If a lower figure was shown to work then that's fine too.

    I'd also say a considerable reduction in personal donations and no business donations would hurt the Conservatives.

    The essential principle should be that political parties should not be reliant on business, unions or excessively large individual donations.

    How would you address the rise of Kippers? With Sir Jimmy and now Mr Wheeler - they'd be nowhere.
    I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The great majority of the rise in UKIP's share is down to (1) them being the NOTA option in England at the moment, (2) disillusionment with the EU, shared by influential individuals in the print media, (3) the Tories having done several things in government which have irritated some of their former supporters.

    UKIP's income is marginal to the second and third points and only modestly related the first. The Greens in 1989 had a massive but short-lived breakthrough when they were in the right place at the right time, despite having virtually no income or national presence. Similarly, the BNP started to receive strong support in the second half of the last decade across some communities despite their minimal central organisation or income. If there is the mood, the public will find a way.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Financier - the most tribal on the Left are making charlies of themselves as they attempt to divert onto Look Squirrel or dredge up old stories.

    They'd be much better off actually making arguments that Labour could use - if OGH is right and there are lots of eyes watching from The Village - they'd at least be helping their Blank Sheet cause.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The conservatives pinched a seat from the lib dems in Kingston on Thursday with an 8% swing, which set me to wondering if Ed Davey might be vulnerable next time around.

    he has an 8,000 majority but in government is coming across as ed windmills. Plus the lib dems might lose left orientated votes to labour.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    taffys said:

    The conservatives pinched a seat from the lib dems in Kingston on Thursday with an 8% swing, which set me to wondering if Ed Davey might be vulnerable next time around.

    he has an 8,000 majority but in government is coming across as ed windmills. Plus the lib dems might lose left orientated votes to labour.

    I asked the other day if there was a league table of by-election results since LE2013 - it'd be really helpful to know the trend rather than the odd ward result or two.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    tim said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    tim said:

    A cap around £5k is sensible that still allows a family of four to give £100k over a parliament.

    How can a family of 4 possibly give £100k?

    A "family of 4" typically has 2 adults and 2 children - 2 adults if giving 5k a year for 5 years (thus no spike at general election as normally happens) can't possibly give £100k.

    Or are you proposing either that kids get 5k a year in pocket money they'd choose to give to their parents party? Or are you proposing that the "Head of the Household" really gives all the money but just uses other people's (even childrens) names to do it.

    So before rules are even agreed you're looking for ways to violate them? Typical.

    When the offspring are over 18 obviously.
    Then its misleading to use the "family of 4" phrase. Adult kids are typically independent adults who may even support a different party to their parents, they're not a single unit.
    Andrew Neil and the Daily Politics researchers unravelled a family giving huge amounts to the Tories before the last election by splitting the donations around their family to obscure where they came from.
    Not sure if it's still on the I Player.
    And you're wanting to encourage this kind of behaviour? You think its a good thing?

    Personally I'd rather one large donation being publicly visible as to who it came from than one relatively large donation being obscured into many tiny ones and not having a clue who's really behidn it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Scary photoshopping

    Gareth Baines @GABaines
    Can you imagine a Labour Government post 2015? The same old ghouls from 13 ruinous years pic.twitter.com/LGGMgAsVgb

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQK51LKCMAAgJxs.jpg:large
This discussion has been closed.