Surely this loss of funding is part of how even a successful plan was going to work? Reduce perceived influence and turn to private donors who are now more motivated to donate. 3% of the budget would seem like a good amount to get the ball rolling - to ask private donors to make up £1m is not asking for peanuts but the GMB slashing funding looks good on the influence.
Just looking at the details of Jesse Norman's constituency. Turns out the Lib Dems nearly won the seat in 2010, 2,000 behind on a straight 2 way fight. Interesting counterfactual: had the Lib Dems won, do you think Lords Reform and thus the boundary changes would have gone through had Jesse Norman not been in parliament? Maybe a much better outcome for Dave in the long run?
Well, I think Hopi is right on his points about the Labour rule-change, but, yes, I think the whole idea of the Bill (so beloved of the left) is dross. The reason is not just bad drafting, it's that the concept is doomed from the start. I don't think it's possible to distinguish 'good' lobbying from 'bad' lobbying, and I don't even think that in principle one should try to: it's freedom of speech, innit? If Lord Sainsbury were to want to take out a full page ad in the Nottingham Post saying 'Vote for Nick Palmer, he's a great guy', then that would fine by me.
On that basis, a responsible government would be proposing the repeal of parts IV, IVA, V, VI, VIII and chapter II of part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, among other enactments which restrict donations and expenditure.
Well, I think Hopi is right on his points about the Labour rule-change, but, yes, I think the whole idea of the Bill (so beloved of the left) is dross. The reason is not just bad drafting, it's that the concept is doomed from the start. I don't think it's possible to distinguish 'good' lobbying from 'bad' lobbying, and I don't even think that in principle one should try to: it's freedom of speech, innit? If Lord Sainsbury were to want to take out a full page ad in the Nottingham Post saying 'Vote for Nick Palmer, he's a great guy', then that would fine by me.
On that basis, a responsible government would be proposing the repeal of parts IV, IVA, V, VI, VIII and chapter II of part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, among other enactments which restrict donations.
I think that's the point ultimately behind the bill. It's a load of crap, but it's there to spike the wheels of those which want to control 'lobbying' by one group of people (the 'bad' people), but protect it from others (the 'good' people).
It'll bubble along in the background, but it'll never make it to the statute book.
Well, I think Hopi is right on his points about the Labour rule-change, but, yes, I think the whole idea of the Bill (so beloved of the left) is dross. The reason is not just bad drafting, it's that the concept is doomed from the start. I don't think it's possible to distinguish 'good' lobbying from 'bad' lobbying, and I don't even think that in principle one should try to: it's freedom of speech, innit? If Lord Sainsbury were to want to take out a full page ad in the Nottingham Post saying 'Vote for Nick Palmer, he's a great guy', then that would fine by me.
On that basis, a responsible government would be proposing the repeal of parts IV, IVA, V, VI, VIII and chapter II of part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, among other enactments which restrict donations and expenditure.
As an alternative to the lobbying bill that has much to commend it.
On that basis, a responsible government would be proposing the repeal of parts IV, IVA, V, VI, VIII and chapter II of part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, among other enactments which restrict donations and expenditure.
Yes, or, failing that, at least ensuring that direct expenditure by Labour's paymasters is covered by the same rules, which is part of what the new Bill tries to do. If we are going to have rules on spending, we should obviously remove that gigantic loophole, but my personal preference would be to scrap the lot.
As an alternative to the lobbying bill that has much to commend it.
I tend to agree, but the government is proposing more restrictions on freedom of expression as an answer to unjustifiable restrictions on freedom of expression. That is madness.
So now that the GMB have cut £1m off labour's budget will the Co-op bank review it's lending facilities ? Any SME in this position would find it's facility chopped PDQ.
Think of the old ladies suffering so Labour can get bailed out
"Roger Gorvin, who was an executive member of the bank's main board before his retirement in 1993, said the Co-op Group seemed to want to "minimise its involvement" in the bank's rescue in order to "retain capital to solve its own trading problems" and inflict the pain on the bank's bondholders instead.
He said the bank had attempted to paint some holders of its bonds, who are expected to lose half of their investments under the bank's restructuring plan, as "pseudo institutional" and "well able to take the strain of a substantial haircut". But Mr Gorvin said: "This is simply not true and the [Co-op] Group needs to reassess its thinking on this matter."
He cited the example of a friend who, at the age of almost 80, would have to move house if his income were cut under the restructuring plans"
"The struggling lender downgraded the “fair value” of its loan book by £4.2bn between the end of last year and June, wiping nearly 13pc off the value of its £29bn portfolio.
Cutting the value of its loans means the difference between the assumed market price of the loans and the “carrying value” of what the bank reckons them to be worth has reversed from a £37m credit to a £3.6bn deficit in just six months.
In the notes to its latest accounts, the Co-op said the change came after the bank “reviewed and improved the methods used to calculate the fair values”."
Yes, or, failing that, at least ensuring that direct expenditure by Labour's paymasters is covered by the same rules, which is part of what the new Bill tries to do. If we are going to have rules on spending, we should obviously remove that gigantic loophole, but my personal preference would be to scrap the lot.
That might just about justify Part 2, but Part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill is absurd on any rational basis, and it is extraordinary that is being proposed by a "Conservative" government.
So now that the GMB have cut £1m off labour's budget will the Co-op bank review it's lending facilities ? Any SME in this position would find it's facility chopped PDQ.
Think of the old ladies suffering so Labour can get bailed out
"Roger Gorvin, who was an executive member of the bank's main board before his retirement in 1993, said the Co-op Group seemed to want to "minimise its involvement" in the bank's rescue in order to "retain capital to solve its own trading problems" and inflict the pain on the bank's bondholders instead.
He said the bank had attempted to paint some holders of its bonds, who are expected to lose half of their investments under the bank's restructuring plan, as "pseudo institutional" and "well able to take the strain of a substantial haircut". But Mr Gorvin said: "This is simply not true and the [Co-op] Group needs to reassess its thinking on this matter."
He cited the example of a friend who, at the age of almost 80, would have to move house if his income were cut under the restructuring plans"
I think the fun will be how can the directors extend a loan to Labour when in truth they should be reducing their exposure especially after the GMB news.
Comments
It'll bubble along in the background, but it'll never make it to the statute book.
On the campaign trail in NH in 2008 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms He looks no more than early 40s (Was 47)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23962304 I think he looks late 50s now, perhaps 60.
He is 52.
http://transition2008.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/changing-washington-obamas-first-100-days/
Not good for his health at all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10285153/Former-Co-op-director-Roger-Gorvin-attacks-unethical-bank-over-rescue.html
"Roger Gorvin, who was an executive member of the bank's main board before his retirement in 1993, said the Co-op Group seemed to want to "minimise its involvement" in the bank's rescue in order to "retain capital to solve its own trading problems" and inflict the pain on the bank's bondholders instead.
He said the bank had attempted to paint some holders of its bonds, who are expected to lose half of their investments under the bank's restructuring plan, as "pseudo institutional" and "well able to take the strain of a substantial haircut". But Mr Gorvin said: "This is simply not true and the [Co-op] Group needs to reassess its thinking on this matter."
He cited the example of a friend who, at the age of almost 80, would have to move house if his income were cut under the restructuring plans"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10281808/Co-op-Bank-loan-value-deficit-grows-to-3.6bn.html
"The struggling lender downgraded the “fair value” of its loan book by £4.2bn between the end of last year and June, wiping nearly 13pc off the value of its £29bn portfolio.
Cutting the value of its loans means the difference between the assumed market price of the loans and the “carrying value” of what the bank reckons them to be worth has reversed from a £37m credit to a £3.6bn deficit in just six months.
In the notes to its latest accounts, the Co-op said the change came after the bank “reviewed and improved the methods used to calculate the fair values”."