The TUC Members could form another party apart from Labour, they seem to have tens of millions to throw around.. why should anyone have to pay for them' .
State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE. BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc. And if not,why not? Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.
Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.
Could do, but that would be a huge block on start-up parties. It would make the next UKIP very difficult to get off the ground.
There could be a specific mechanism for that. A breakthrough loan or matched funding.
Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
How about a 20 year ban on anyone with an Oxford PPE qualification becoming an MP ?
People saying political parties that can't get a mass membership should die - true - are missing the point that they don't die. They become rent-boys for lobbyists instead.
If people want an actual democracy rather than the totally corrupt lobbyist-cracy we've got now where it's either unions on one side or corporatist crooks on the other then that will require some kind of active measure like state funding or low and well-policed funding caps.
You don't save money by letting corporate crooks buy the political process. You pay much more in the resulting cartel prices than you'd pay in state funding.
For example, a company can register their brand in a tax haven and have a separate operating company here. If the operating company takes in £100 million in a year the IP company can then charge the operating company £100 million for the use of the brand thus the company pays no tax.
There is no logical reason for this rule to exist other than a corrupted political class.
The tax loss just from this rule over the last 10 years would probably cover 100 years of state funding.
Corporatism - which is what you get when you have a financially corrupted political system - is far more expensive than state funding.
F1: Lotus have moved the front wheels forward about 4" for a longer wheelbase, reducing turbulence to the sidepods, improving braking (might also save the rear tyres under braking). That's for one car, the other is unmodified, so they'll probably compare the two and see which seems best.
Jonathan.. Political Parties are really businesses, if they canot produce the right items at the right cost then they will decline and sometimes go out of business It is up to them to get into the market place with the right product. If they are succesful they prosper, if not, they languish. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that.
Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE. BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc. And if not,why not? Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.
Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.
Could do, but that would be a huge block on start-up parties. It would make the next UKIP very difficult to get off the ground.
There could be a specific mechanism for that. A breakthrough loan or matched funding.
Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
How about a 20 year ban on anyone with an Oxford PPE qualification becoming an MP ?
Only MP from each school. Could be the salvation of the Tory Party.
There are more PPEers in Parlt than old etonians. One in 6 MPs went to Oxford.
Amazing as it might seem, not everyone spends all day on PB. There are even some people out there who don't visit the site at all..
So the more education and information people have about politics and political parties the better. This is to my mind a public good and I am happy for it to be paid for by the State. Short Money criteria of minimum votes/seats achieved is sensible; the State is saying that if enough people, which we can measure, agree with your proposition we will support you in proportion to public support. Good.
To then quibble as to how that money is spent is equivalent to following the beggar you have given £5 to to make sure he doesn't spend it on booze and fags. You have given the money to that person who is a free agent. If you don't want them to have free agency or to restrict it...don't give anything.
Donors are more problematic. Both Len McCluskey and BigCo's CEO have differing agendas. For Len, as long as evey penny he donates can be traced to Union members I have no problem with "Union funding". As for BigCo's CEO agitating for lower taxes on BigCo's widgets (or, say, a rich Wykehamist agitating for an increase in the minimum wage), I have more of an issue. Perhaps such donations should come with restrictions but how on earth do you track that?
Jonathan.. Political Parties are really businesses, if they canot produce the right items at the right cost then they will decline and sometimes go out of business It is up to them to get into the market place with the right product. If they are succesful they prosper, if not, they languish. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that.
Parties are definitely not businesses. They should not be trying to win power to make money for themselves. That way madness lies.
Since all parties have funding problems at the moment, That indicates there is a systemic problem. The govts role is to create a framework that works. Funding is justified in the transition IMO.
@Jonathan - “not particularly keen on long term state funding, but….”
A dangerous first step imho. - No matter how ‘temporary’, once the principle of party funding by the Tax payer is introduced by Government, it will never go away, just get bigger.
Parties will recruit members, if they trust those members with decisions and listen to them.
A major reason why members get pissed off and leave is that despite all there hard work at the coalface, when it comes to deciding policy and candidates they are pushed aside to make room for some favoured policy or candidate who is wanted at central office.
Take Tristam Hunt, the articulate public school educated historian and favourite of Peter Mandelson parachuted into Stoke over the wishes of the local party.
We need to look at what political parties need, and what they want. Jonathan's proposl that the state should fund huge glossy advertising campaigns a la USA simply won't wash.There is a certain earthliness to British political campaigning (Leafleting in the soaking rain), alot of the work is done by unpaid volunteers for the good of the party. Of course doubtless social media and internet media will play an increasingly large part. As unpalatable as it may be Mr Jones and others have a point regarding our political process. My solution ? £1m PA to any party with an MP or that can score over 15% in (national) local or Euro elections. That's their lot.
State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE. BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc. And if not,why not? Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.
Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.
Could do, but that would be a huge block on start-up parties. It would make the next UKIP very difficult to get off the ground.
There could be a specific mechanism for that. A breakthrough loan or matched funding.
Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
How about a 20 year ban on anyone with an Oxford PPE qualification becoming an MP ?
Only MP from each school. Could be the salvation of the Tory Party.
There are more PPEers in Parlt than old etonians. One in 6 MPs went to Oxford.
19 Tory MP's went to Eton, 6% of the Parliamentary Party. They should have a competition to see which one should stay in Parliament.
I'd vote for Ollie Letwin. Or Bill Wiggin.
They could turn it into a Big Brother type reality show, Drop The Fop. Last man standing gets to be PM.
It's not the school that counts it's the University. Despite their protests to the contrary if they've all been on the same course and taught the same way then they're going to produce the same policies and approaches. It's why politics is now more personality based - Ed is crap, Dave's Flashman - than policy based - Cons have few real policies, Labour have none. We might as well do BB or X factor for what we get.
If we sack paid party employees then parties will be full of unpaid intern SPADs brown nosing there way into safe seats. Its not what I think is healthy.
Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
F1: just talking about Williams and Force India hitting one another in Spa, which reminds me of something I read the other day. Apparently Venezuela's continuing economic woe means that there's a question mark over the millions that get shovelled into F1. That'd be bad for Maldonado (quick but crashes a bit) and for Williams.
Anyway regardless of the rights and wrongs if Cerise wants to run with this then he ought to pitch it as an anti-corruption and pro-democracy measure rather than a managerial thing - obviously a bit hypocritical given New Labour but there you go.
He could also run with state funding but trade for a lower cap.
Good article from Henry. I was particularly struck by his point about whether the big guns would bother to engage with party members if there were state funding.
As for the suggestion itself, whatever the merits or demerits in principle, it's hard to think of any policy would would be more universally unpopular.
We need to look at what political parties need, and what they want. Jonathan's proposl that the state should fund huge glossy advertising campaigns a la USA simply won't wash.There is a certain earthliness to British political campaigning (Leafleting in the soaking rain), alot of the work is done by unpaid volunteers for the good of the party. Of course doubtless social media and internet media will play an increasingly large part. As unpalatable as it may be Mr Jones and others have a point regarding our political process. My solution ? £1m PA to any party with an MP or that can score over 15% in (national) local or Euro elections. That's their lot.
You're putting words in my mouth. I do think that so long as politics competes for attention against multi billion marketing budgets it is bound to lose. The fact we think so little of our parties and politicians is not a coincidence.
The age of glossy posters and famous spin doctors is historic anyway. This is the age of personalised messages derived from detailed research data. That is not cheap.
We need to look at what political parties need, and what they want. Jonathan's proposl that the state should fund huge glossy advertising campaigns a la USA simply won't wash.There is a certain earthliness to British political campaigning (Leafleting in the soaking rain), alot of the work is done by unpaid volunteers for the good of the party. Of course doubtless social media and internet media will play an increasingly large part. As unpalatable as it may be Mr Jones and others have a point regarding our political process. My solution ? £1m PA to any party with an MP or that can score over 15% in (national) local or Euro elections. That's their lot.
You're putting words in my mouth. I do think that so long as politics competes for attention against multi billion marketing budgets it is bound to lose. The fact we think so little of our parties and politicians is not a coincidence.
The age of glossy posters and famous spin doctors is historic anyway. This is the age of personalised messages derived from detailed research data. That is not cheap.
State funding would of course have to include all political parties that stand at the GE. BNP,SNP, Labour,Conservatives, Lib/Dems, Respect, Raving Monster Loony Party, Stop the War, Any War Anywhere, Party.Sinn Fein, DUP etc. And if not,why not? Ed created his own financial problem , let him sort it out.
Not so. Could easily apply above a threshold. Either in terms of seats fought or votes won.
Could do, but that would be a huge block on start-up parties. It would make the next UKIP very difficult to get off the ground.
There could be a specific mechanism for that. A breakthrough loan or matched funding.
Personally not particularly keen on long term state funding, but there is no denying that all parties are in a rut and need something to get them out in the short run.
How about a 20 year ban on anyone with an Oxford PPE qualification becoming an MP ?
Only MP from each school. Could be the salvation of the Tory Party.
So, if there are two MPs, fighting for different constituencies, and they went to the same school, would one of them have to withdraw? What if they were from different parties?
F1: Lotus have moved the front wheels forward about 4" for a longer wheelbase, reducing turbulence to the sidepods, improving braking (might also save the rear tyres under braking). That's for one car, the other is unmodified, so they'll probably compare the two and see which seems best.
Blooming 'eck, that's quite some change that'll effect about everything about the car. I'm amazed they've done that in the middle of the season.
Unless, and I could be utterly wrong on this, they're considering designing next year's car to have a longer wheelbase, and want to get some early data? In which case they've pretty much given up on this years.
I also assume that it involved no changes to the monocoque, so no new crash-test necessary.
It's not the school that counts it's the University. Despite their protests to the contrary if they've all been on the same course and taught the same way then they're going to produce the same policies and approaches. It's why politics is now more personality based - Ed is crap, Dave's Flashman - than policy based - Cons have few real policies, Labour have none. We might as well do BB or X factor for what we get.
My college experience has absolutely ZERO influence on my attitude to anything bar thinking that allowing politically biased dogma into the lecture room should be illegal. Having ideology stuffed down my throat by lecturers would be get them banned from teaching if they were members of the BNP instead.
What I learned at home before I was 10yrs old set my views.
The Party's must run on merit ,not a guaranteed cash flow, we have all seen what happens in that scenario. It would also perpetuate the large party syndrome which is probably killing off creative,productive politics in the UK They should all raise their own money and cut the financial cloth accordingly. Good policies= more members= more money. The earners in the UK are already overtaxed
I have no idea how to format this but it's a post yesterday from Richard Nabavi with a simple but logical reply from AnneJP an excellent but very infrequent poster
It was a good reply from Anne, but the comparison she makes with defence or abortion clinics seems wrong to me, because the state has to have some position on such matters. That's different to the case of political parties; the state doesn't have to have any party-political position (indeed should not have).
"Unfortunately for most taxpayers we end up funding the Tories indirectly. Every time they hive off a piece of the State to a flailing private sector "provider" (which coincidentally seems to have donated to the Tories) my taxpayer pounds prop up this destructive, disreputable Party of selfish ideologues on the make."
This made me smile. Anger at Tory attitudes and values just burst out and and even the most sane can't help themselves.
It's like the immortal line from Forrest Gump " Sometimes, I guess there just aren't enough rocks."
Unfortunately for most taxpayers we end up funding the Tories indirectly. Every time they hive off a piece of the State to a flailing private sector "provider" (which coincidentally seems to have donated to the Tories) my taxpayer pounds prop up this destructive, disreputable Party of selfish ideologues on the make.
Really, Ben?
May I suggest you inform yourself about Sir Rod Aldridge, and a company called Capita (you might have heard of it), and the amount of business passed its way by the last Labour government, and the size of the donations made by the same Sir Rod to Labour.
It's not the school that counts it's the University. Despite their protests to the contrary if they've all been on the same course and taught the same way then they're going to produce the same policies and approaches. It's why politics is now more personality based - Ed is crap, Dave's Flashman - than policy based - Cons have few real policies, Labour have none. We might as well do BB or X factor for what we get.
My college experience has absolutely ZERO influence on my attitude to anything bar thinking that allowing politically biased dogma into the lecture room should be illegal. Having ideology stuffed down my throat by lecturers would be get them banned from teaching if they were members of the BNP instead.
What I learned at home before I was 10yrs old set my views.
Maybe, but you're not turning up in an environment where you meet all the other anoraks you debated politics with at Uni and will do for the rest of your life. For labour it also gets worse as they have a second line in NUS officers people like Straw or Woolas or Byrne.
As a side thought, it's parents who chose the school, the young adult who choses the Uni. So how do all those Oxbridgers bleating on about equality or fairness or elitism ( from all parties ) reconcile that with their own choices ? Tyring to square a circle.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
Unfortunately for most taxpayers we end up funding the Tories indirectly. Every time they hive off a piece of the State to a flailing private sector "provider" (which coincidentally seems to have donated to the Tories) my taxpayer pounds prop up this destructive, disreputable Party of selfish ideologues on the make.
Really, Ben?
May I suggest you inform yourself about Sir Rod Aldridge, and a company called Capita (you might have heard of it), and the amount of business passed its way by the last Labour government, and the size of the donations made by the same Sir Rod to Labour.
Gareth Bale = missed by all at scrapheap towers despite saying he'd have gone to RM even if we'd qualified for CL Great Britain = small island (c) Putin & bezzamate Ed M Gareth Barry = average footballer, England cert? Gordon Banks = best save in history Gordon Brown = missed, not so much
Deep insight from yours truly.... don't let it keep you up at night.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
One of the most spectacular examples of Labour hypocrisy (and its a long list) is their attitude to donors. Remember all that fuss about Lord Ashcroft's donations, which Labour and Guardian-reading classes kept telling us was a massive scandal? Yet, he is one clear example of an individual whose donations are absolutely free of any possible taint of conflict of interest - his business interests are not in the UK. Contrast that with Sir Rod, or Lord Sainsbury, or Lord Drayson, or Lakshmi Mittal, all of whom were associated with businesses which would be very much be influenced by UK government decisions.
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
One of the most spectacular examples of Labour hypocrisy (and its a long list) is their attitude to donors. Remember all that fuss about Lord Ashcroft's donations, which Labour and Guardian-reading classes kept telling us was a massive scandal? Yet, he is one clear example of an individual whose donations are absolutely free of any possible taint of conflict of interest - his business interests are not in the UK. Contrast that with Sir Rod, or Lord Sainsbury, or Lord Drayson, or Lakshmi Mittal, all of whom were associated with businesses which would be very much be influenced by UK government decisions.
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
One of the most spectacular examples of Labour hypocrisy (and its a long list) is their attitude to donors. Remember all that fuss about Lord Ashcroft's donations, which Labour and Guardian-reading classes kept telling us was a massive scandal? Yet, he is one clear example of an individual whose donations are absolutely free of any possible taint of conflict of interest - his business interests are not in the UK. Contrast that with Sir Rod, or Lord Sainsbury, or Lord Drayson, or Lakshmi Mittal, all of whom were associated with businesses which would be very much be influenced by UK government decisions.
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
Tobacco Advertising ban adversely affecting your business? -
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 2m Gloves are off between Cameron and Putin, but how do they compare with their shirts off? [PICTURE] pic.twitter.com/VDsG5W3kVN
If Cameron had any sense he'd just go to the art gallery and buy the picture of Putin in a negligee doing Medved's hair, then put it on display the National Portrait gallery in a collection labelled gay icons.
Society in general is much more materialistic and less altruistic than previous generations, politicians greed is just a reflection on how cynical and self serving much of society is.
Sometimes looking in the mirror is not very pleasant.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
One of the most spectacular examples of Labour hypocrisy (and its a long list) is their attitude to donors. Remember all that fuss about Lord Ashcroft's donations, which Labour and Guardian-reading classes kept telling us was a massive scandal? Yet, he is one clear example of an individual whose donations are absolutely free of any possible taint of conflict of interest - his business interests are not in the UK. Contrast that with Sir Rod, or Lord Sainsbury, or Lord Drayson, or Lakshmi Mittal, all of whom were associated with businesses which would be very much be influenced by UK government decisions.
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
Tobacco Advertising ban adversely affecting your business? -
P2 starts at around 1pm. Close between the cars, but, as Anderson said, with 70% of the lap on full throttle that's not too surprising. Mercedes and Ferrari will be quick. Whilst not a typical Red Bull track, they should still be at the sharp end.
Society in general is much more materialistic and less altruistic than previous generations, politicians greed is just a reflection on how cynical and self serving much of society is.
Sometimes looking in the mirror is not very pleasant.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
One of the most spectacular examples of Labour hypocrisy (and its a long list) is their attitude to donors. Remember all that fuss about Lord Ashcroft's donations, which Labour and Guardian-reading classes kept telling us was a massive scandal? Yet, he is one clear example of an individual whose donations are absolutely free of any possible taint of conflict of interest - his business interests are not in the UK. Contrast that with Sir Rod, or Lord Sainsbury, or Lord Drayson, or Lakshmi Mittal, all of whom were associated with businesses which would be very much be influenced by UK government decisions.
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
Tobacco Advertising ban adversely affecting your business? -
Dispensations, yours for £1 million.
Society may be more materialistic, but is it really less altruistic than previous generations? Looking at the plethora of charities, and people giving their spare time to all sorts of causes, I might be tempted to say exactly the opposite.
So how has charitable giving altered over time? It does not go far back, but the following give some recent data:
Oh you only lost 14% of your population did you, now stand back and listen to some fat fop tell you about fighting Nazis. Jesus.
Yeah, well maybe they wouldn't have lost 14% of their population if they hadn't colluded with the Nazi tyrant when Britain was, virtually alone, valiantly trying to do something about him.
foxinsokuk - don't know about that , if you had the wealth in the past you were as oppulent as anybody today I think. However society today does demand you dance more I think as the interviewee from Currys found out . I blame Simon Cowell
"A coconut has been detained by Maldivian police on suspicion of vote-rigging in a key presidential election.
The coconut, described as "young", was found near a school that will be used as a polling station on Saturday on the remote Kaafu atoll, one of the hundreds of islands that comprise the Indian Ocean archipelago state.
Though the population of the Maldives is Sunni Muslim, continuing belief in magic is widespread in rural areas. Coconuts are often used in rituals and inscribed with spells.
The hundreds of thousands of international tourists who travel to the Maldives usually stay in isolated resorts and have no contact with local people other than staff.
The local Minivan news website reported that police "took the coconut into their possession" around 7.05am on Tuesday, after they received a complaint about the suspicious fruit near the school on the Guraidhoo Island, which lies 130 miles from the capital, Male, and has a population of around 2,000 >> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/coconut-detained-maldives-vote-rigging?CMP=twt_gu
Oh you only lost 14% of your population did you, now stand back and listen to some fat fop tell you about fighting Nazis. Jesus.
It may not be diplomatic for Cameron to say so but when Britain was the only country fighting against the Nazis - in 1940 for instance (my father was an RAF Squadron Leader, having volunteered - he was Irish) the Russians had invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and part of Poland and were busy killing and oppressing their peoples as well as providing material to the Nazis to help them.
The Soviet Union suffered greatly after June 1941 but let's not airbrush its own despicable role before then.
@Foxinsox –“Society in general is much more materialistic and less altruistic than previous generations”
I’d agree, up to a point. – The days of Victorian philanthropy are certainly long gone, but no matter how materialistic as a society we have become, it is neither illegal or corrupt to buy a second pair of Jimmy Choos,
O/T but topical -- have to get a couple of things about football that has annoyed me - Why has Greg Dyke been setting 'targets' for England like it was the eradication of world poverty . For a start they are meaningless and sound too bloody corporate . Secondly how can you say getting to the semi finals in a tournament 6 years away is the target when the you have no idea of who you will play or how the ball will roll. Ridiculous !!
This moaning about not enough english players in the premier leagueas to stop. There is no discrimination against english players except on ability as far as I can see. The type of players that are in the Premier league who are English would have been the ones an England manager picked from 30 years ago anyway . The pool hasn't been reduced becasue of foreign players its been merely focused.
Oh you only lost 14% of your population did you, now stand back and listen to some fat fop tell you about fighting Nazis. Jesus.
It may not be diplomatic for Cameron to say so but when Britain was the only country fighting against the Nazis - in 1940 for instance (my father was an RAF Squadron Leader, having volunteered - he was Irish) the Russians had invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and part of Poland and were busy killing and oppressing their peoples as well as providing material to the Nazis to help them.
The Soviet Union suffered greatly after June 1941 but let's not airbrush its own despicable role before then.
I agree with you. But as I say I wouldn't take Cameron too seriously on that period
"David Cameron faced a furious backlash yesterday for the astonishing claim that the UK was a 'junior partner' to America in 1940 - a year before the U.S. even entered the war."
A heinous case of education misselling And before anyone claims it was a slip of the tongue
"Even as Downing Street was trying to repair the damage, the PM's error was compounded in a further interview, recorded earlier, with the American network ABC news. He said: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler; we are the junior partner now. I think you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not.'"
We were the junior patner, the UK didn't win the war it was simply on the winning side.
Oh you only lost 14% of your population did you, now stand back and listen to some fat fop tell you about fighting Nazis. Jesus.
It may not be diplomatic for Cameron to say so but when Britain was the only country fighting against the Nazis - in 1940 for instance (my father was an RAF Squadron Leader, having volunteered - he was Irish) the Russians had invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and part of Poland and were busy killing and oppressing their peoples as well as providing material to the Nazis to help them.
The Soviet Union suffered greatly after June 1941 but let's not airbrush its own despicable role before then.
I agree with you. But as I say I wouldn't take Cameron too seriously on that period
"David Cameron faced a furious backlash yesterday for the astonishing claim that the UK was a 'junior partner' to America in 1940 - a year before the U.S. even entered the war."
A heinous case of education misselling And before anyone claims it was a slip of the tongue
"Even as Downing Street was trying to repair the damage, the PM's error was compounded in a further interview, recorded earlier, with the American network ABC news. He said: 'We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting against Hitler; we are the junior partner now. I think you shouldn't pretend to be something you're not.'"
We were the junior patner, the UK didn't win the war it was simply on the winning side.
Society in general is much more materialistic and less altruistic than previous generations, politicians greed is just a reflection on how cynical and self serving much of society is.
Sometimes looking in the mirror is not very pleasant.
It is indeed striking how much bsiness donates either directly to Labour or indirectly through conference stands when Labour looks like forming the next govt.
One of the most spectacular examples of Labour hypocrisy (and its a long list) is their attitude to donors. Remember all that fuss about Lord Ashcroft's donations, which Labour and Guardian-reading classes kept telling us was a massive scandal? Yet, he is one clear example of an individual whose donations are absolutely free of any possible taint of conflict of interest - his business interests are not in the UK. Contrast that with Sir Rod, or Lord Sainsbury, or Lord Drayson, or Lakshmi Mittal, all of whom were associated with businesses which would be very much be influenced by UK government decisions.
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
Tobacco Advertising ban adversely affecting your business? -
Dispensations, yours for £1 million.
Society may be more materialistic, but is it really less altruistic than previous generations? Looking at the plethora of charities, and people giving their spare time to all sorts of causes, I might be tempted to say exactly the opposite.
So how has charitable giving altered over time? It does not go far back, but the following give some recent data:
Anyone who has watched 'Where Eagles Dare ' will know that the UK did the thinking and the US did the killing as personified by Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood
Having a young population is not an absolute advantage to me - Whats the average age of Syria or egypt's population , or indeed Nigeria or the Central African republics ?
Tim , the job of a British PM is the put Britains' case (Thatcher did it with the EU rebate , Blair and Brown gave it away). I am sure the Russian President can do the same for Russia
To be fair I doubt Cameron knows St Petersburg once had a different name
tim, it still rankles doesn't it, that David Cameron stole the job of Prime Minister from you.
Hey, if only you too had gone to a top public school and stood for Parliament, we might instead of David Cameron we might have an occupant of Downing Street who was a supercilious smug git claiming to know everything (but ultimately is shown up as knowing feck all). Or just maybe, Tony Blair was enough of them for one geological epoch....
Anyone who has watched 'Where Eagles Dare ' will know that the UK did the thinking and the US did the killing as personified by Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood
2013 remake - Michael Horden radios a message to Richard Burton deep undercover inside Syria :
"Broadsword - this is Father McCree - pull out now - save yourselves - Ed has voted it down in the commons.."
If Britain had concluded a peace with Germany in 1940 Russia would have suffered even more than it did. Hitler would have only faced war on one front.
Of course, its not often mentioned but some Russians fought with the Nazis because they hated Stalin. Due to Russia's massive population, there were large numbers of them
Even in Normandy in 1944 the allies came across Cossack regiments. All German units in Russia had a couple of Russian gofers who were along for the ride (they were called Hiwis).
On topic, if Ed Miliband wants to put state funding of political parties at the front of Labour's next election manifesto, who am I to want to stop him.....
We will be counting the words to see if it has more or less words than Foot's Longest Suicide Note in History. Ed could yet be a record-breaker!
Oh well. I had thought that Miliband might have had a cunning plan with this, that would see him get hold of all of the political levy of some union members, instead of some of the political levy of all (affiliated) union members, bypassing the union leadership. However, if someone close to him is floating the idea of state funding of political parties then it is clear they are panicking, and did not have a plan to start with.
Just a little reminder, Britain fought Germany for three years before the USA became involved. Cameron should have said it in Siberia, where 20 million died, killed by ermm..Russians.
If Britain had concluded a peace with Germany in 1940 Russia would have suffered even more than it did. Hitler would have only faced war on one front.
Of course, its not often mentioned but some Russians fought with the Nazis because they hated Stalin. Due to Russia's massive population, there were large numbers of them
Even in Normandy in 1944 the allies came across Cossack regiments. All German units in Russia had a couple of Russian gofers who were along for the ride (they were called Hiwis).
Soviet non-combatant helpers or Hiwis ( Hilfwilliger ) ran in to millions as captured soviet troops knew they were headed for the chop by the NKVD for surrendering and the Germans offered them food and a life of sorts if they volunteered. Maybe up to a quarter of those who surrendered at Stalingrad were actually ex soviet soldiers.
Thanks for the link, but he happens to have a point.
The UK could easily have folded after the fall of France in June 1940. If they had, then Germany would have had a year to dearm France and neuter the UK before launching Barbarossa. How many more divisions could Germany have added to Barbarossa if they had not had to think of Operation Sea Lion, and the defences of Northern France and North Africa? Also, would Hitler have launched Barbarossa earlier or later? And how many more divisions would have been available for Hitler to pour into the melting-pot of Russia in 1942?
How easy would the US have found attacking Germany after December 1941 without the large aircraft carrier called the UK?
As an old saying goes, when it comes to the most important role each country played in the war: The US provided the money. The Russians provided the blood. The UK provided the time.
That is not to devalue the deaths and effort on all sides, but if the UK had folded in June 1940, then the world may be a very different place now. It can easily be argued that our lone fight (*) saved Europe.
''Just a little reminder Britain fought Germany for three years before the USA became involved. Cameron should have said it in Siberia, where 20 million died, killed by ermm..Russians.''
We have Japan to thank for the US getting into the war. Before Pearl Harbor, the mood of America was staunchly anti-fighting. Indeed, if Roosevelt hadn;t matched his opponents anti war rhetoric he might well have lost in the election leading up to it.
Pearl Harbour convinced the Americans there was no staying out. It wasn't an option. If they didn't find war, war would find them.
If Britain had concluded a peace with Germany in 1940 Russia would have suffered even more than it did. Hitler would have only faced war on one front.
Of course, its not often mentioned but some Russians fought with the Nazis because they hated Stalin. Due to Russia's massive population, there were large numbers of them
Even in Normandy in 1944 the allies came across Cossack regiments. All German units in Russia had a couple of Russian gofers who were along for the ride (they were called Hiwis).
A pretty horrible outcome for this country, I imagine. Either Europe would have been completely dominated by Germany, or the Soviets would have been at the Channel.
This moaning about not enough english players in the premier leagueas to stop. There is no discrimination against english players except on ability as far as I can see.
I wonder whether this is the paradox of the English language. It's an immense advantage having English as everyone else's second language (pretty much), but it also means it is easier for young folk from other countries to come here then it is for our young folk to go elsewhere - particularly as the other English-speaking nations are a bit rubbish at football.
Maybe up to a quarter of those who surrendered at Stalingrad were actually ex soviet soldiers.
Ironically, if the Germans had been more benign to the western Russians, they might have been able to hold the the soviets with no problem using local soldiers.
Hitler admired the British empire, but he did not learn its most important lesson - divide to conquer.
Hitler was puzzled at why the British treated some of their overseas subjects well. When the war turned against him, he found out the reason.
Thanks for the link, but he happens to have a point.
The UK could easily have folded after the fall of France in June 1940. If they had, then Germany would have had a year to dearm France and neuter the UK before launching Barbarossa. How many more divisions could Germany have added to Barbarossa if they had not had to think of Operation Sea Lion, and the defences of Northern France and North Africa? Also, would Hitler have launched Barbarossa earlier or later? And how many more divisions would have been available for Hitler to pour into the melting-pot of Russia in 1942?
How easy would the US have found attacking Germany after December 1941 without the large aircraft carrier called the UK?
As an old saying goes, when it comes to the most important role each country played in the war: The US provided the money. The Russians provided the blood. The UK provided the time.
That is not to devalue the deaths and effort on all sides, but if the UK had folded in June 1940, then the world may be a very different place now. It can easily be argued that our lone fight (*) saved Europe.
(*) With the rest of the empire.
Not to mention the role that the Royal Navy played in blockading Germany,
All of Britain's greatest victories (the War of Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic War, WWI) have required alliances.
Comments
.
There is no logical reason for this rule to exist other than a corrupted political class.
The tax loss just from this rule over the last 10 years would probably cover 100 years of state funding.
Corporatism - which is what you get when you have a financially corrupted political system - is far more expensive than state funding.
It is up to them to get into the market place with the right product.
If they are succesful they prosper, if not, they languish.
Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that.
So the more education and information people have about politics and political parties the better. This is to my mind a public good and I am happy for it to be paid for by the State. Short Money criteria of minimum votes/seats achieved is sensible; the State is saying that if enough people, which we can measure, agree with your proposition we will support you in proportion to public support. Good.
To then quibble as to how that money is spent is equivalent to following the beggar you have given £5 to to make sure he doesn't spend it on booze and fags. You have given the money to that person who is a free agent. If you don't want them to have free agency or to restrict it...don't give anything.
Donors are more problematic. Both Len McCluskey and BigCo's CEO have differing agendas. For Len, as long as evey penny he donates can be traced to Union members I have no problem with "Union funding". As for BigCo's CEO agitating for lower taxes on BigCo's widgets (or, say, a rich Wykehamist agitating for an increase in the minimum wage), I have more of an issue. Perhaps such donations should come with restrictions but how on earth do you track that?
Since all parties have funding problems at the moment, That indicates there is a systemic problem. The govts role is to create a framework that works. Funding is justified in the transition IMO.
A dangerous first step imho. - No matter how ‘temporary’, once the principle of party funding by the Tax payer is introduced by Government, it will never go away, just get bigger.
A major reason why members get pissed off and leave is that despite all there hard work at the coalface, when it comes to deciding policy and candidates they are pushed aside to make room for some favoured policy or candidate who is wanted at central office.
Take Tristam Hunt, the articulate public school educated historian and favourite of Peter Mandelson parachuted into Stoke over the wishes of the local party.
As unpalatable as it may be Mr Jones and others have a point regarding our political process. My solution ? £1m PA to any party with an MP or that can score over 15% in (national) local or Euro elections. That's their lot.
We might as well do BB or X factor for what we get.
He could also run with state funding but trade for a lower cap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkWWaOp7Zb0
As for the suggestion itself, whatever the merits or demerits in principle, it's hard to think of any policy would would be more universally unpopular.
The age of glossy posters and famous spin doctors is historic anyway. This is the age of personalised messages derived from detailed research data. That is not cheap.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/downs-syndrome-reversed-in-newborn-mice/4936412
US scientists figured out how to reverse downs syndrome in mice.
My 'e' key is misbehaving !
Unless, and I could be utterly wrong on this, they're considering designing next year's car to have a longer wheelbase, and want to get some early data? In which case they've pretty much given up on this years.
I also assume that it involved no changes to the monocoque, so no new crash-test necessary.
What I learned at home before I was 10yrs old set my views.
It would also perpetuate the large party syndrome which is probably killing off creative,productive politics in the UK
They should all raise their own money and cut the financial cloth accordingly.
Good policies= more members= more money.
The earners in the UK are already overtaxed
"Unfortunately for most taxpayers we end up funding the Tories indirectly. Every time they hive off a piece of the State to a flailing private sector "provider" (which coincidentally seems to have donated to the Tories) my taxpayer pounds prop up this destructive, disreputable Party of selfish ideologues on the make."
This made me smile. Anger at Tory attitudes and values just burst out and and even the most sane can't help themselves.
It's like the immortal line from Forrest Gump " Sometimes, I guess there just aren't enough rocks."
May I suggest you inform yourself about Sir Rod Aldridge, and a company called Capita (you might have heard of it), and the amount of business passed its way by the last Labour government, and the size of the donations made by the same Sir Rod to Labour.
As a side thought, it's parents who chose the school, the young adult who choses the Uni. So how do all those Oxbridgers bleating on about equality or fairness or elitism ( from all parties ) reconcile that with their own choices ? Tyring to square a circle.
I wonder why that is.
Great Britain = small island (c) Putin & bezzamate Ed M
Gareth Barry = average footballer, England cert?
Gordon Banks = best save in history
Gordon Brown = missed, not so much
Deep insight from yours truly.... don't let it keep you up at night.
"What I learned at home before I was 10yrs old set my views."
If you're suggesting everyone should pick up their parents values God help us all!
What about the poor Griifin children?
Of course I'm not for a moment suggesting there was anything improper in the donations of these individuals, but it's the hypocrisy of the attacks on the Tories, especially on Lord Ashcroft, which is so striking.
Dispensations, yours for £1 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/russia-putin-paintings-seized/2710995/
Sometimes looking in the mirror is not very pleasant.
So how has charitable giving altered over time? It does not go far back, but the following give some recent data:
https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/UKGiving2012Summary.pdf
http://data.ncvo-vol.org.uk/a/almanac12/almanac/voluntary-sector/income-in-focus/what-are-the-main-trends-in-charitable-giving/
"A coconut has been detained by Maldivian police on suspicion of vote-rigging in a key presidential election.
The coconut, described as "young", was found near a school that will be used as a polling station on Saturday on the remote Kaafu atoll, one of the hundreds of islands that comprise the Indian Ocean archipelago state.
Though the population of the Maldives is Sunni Muslim, continuing belief in magic is widespread in rural areas. Coconuts are often used in rituals and inscribed with spells.
The hundreds of thousands of international tourists who travel to the Maldives usually stay in isolated resorts and have no contact with local people other than staff.
The local Minivan news website reported that police "took the coconut into their possession" around 7.05am on Tuesday, after they received a complaint about the suspicious fruit near the school on the Guraidhoo Island, which lies 130 miles from the capital, Male, and has a population of around 2,000 >> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/coconut-detained-maldives-vote-rigging?CMP=twt_gu
The Soviet Union suffered greatly after June 1941 but let's not airbrush its own despicable role before then.
I’d agree, up to a point. – The days of Victorian philanthropy are certainly long gone, but no matter how materialistic as a society we have become, it is neither illegal or corrupt to buy a second pair of Jimmy Choos,
This moaning about not enough english players in the premier leagueas to stop. There is no discrimination against english players except on ability as far as I can see. The type of players that are in the Premier league who are English would have been the ones an England manager picked from 30 years ago anyway . The pool hasn't been reduced becasue of foreign players its been merely focused.
anyway glad to get this of my chest!
So should SWP, Greens, UKIP, BNP, or any other 'new' party have cash from the taxpayer The whole thing stinks.
I am thinking of my own profession as much as politicians.
Small island, but big influence.
"The 71-year-old woman from Benfleet was at Southend Central station, Essex, with a friend on 28 August when her wheelchair rolled off the platform.
A railway worker who helped rescue her was suspended amid suggestions he may have breached safety regulations by going on to the track."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23984644
Hey, if only you too had gone to a top public school and stood for Parliament, we might instead of David Cameron we might have an occupant of Downing Street who was a supercilious smug git claiming to know everything (but ultimately is shown up as knowing feck all). Or just maybe, Tony Blair was enough of them for one geological epoch....
"Broadsword - this is Father McCree - pull out now - save yourselves - Ed has voted it down in the commons.."
Of course, its not often mentioned but some Russians fought with the Nazis because they hated Stalin. Due to Russia's massive population, there were large numbers of them
Even in Normandy in 1944 the allies came across Cossack regiments. All German units in Russia had a couple of Russian gofers who were along for the ride (they were called Hiwis).
We will be counting the words to see if it has more or less words than Foot's Longest Suicide Note in History. Ed could yet be a record-breaker!
What a shame.
Cameron should have said it in Siberia, where 20 million died, killed by ermm..Russians.
The UK could easily have folded after the fall of France in June 1940. If they had, then Germany would have had a year to dearm France and neuter the UK before launching Barbarossa. How many more divisions could Germany have added to Barbarossa if they had not had to think of Operation Sea Lion, and the defences of Northern France and North Africa? Also, would Hitler have launched Barbarossa earlier or later? And how many more divisions would have been available for Hitler to pour into the melting-pot of Russia in 1942?
How easy would the US have found attacking Germany after December 1941 without the large aircraft carrier called the UK?
As an old saying goes, when it comes to the most important role each country played in the war:
The US provided the money.
The Russians provided the blood.
The UK provided the time.
That is not to devalue the deaths and effort on all sides, but if the UK had folded in June 1940, then the world may be a very different place now. It can easily be argued that our lone fight (*) saved Europe.
(*) With the rest of the empire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23961480
During the next session of Parliament they will be touring Westminster with a life sized cut out of Gordon Brown.
Cameron should have said it in Siberia, where 20 million died, killed by ermm..Russians.''
We have Japan to thank for the US getting into the war. Before Pearl Harbor, the mood of America was staunchly anti-fighting. Indeed, if Roosevelt hadn;t matched his opponents anti war rhetoric he might well have lost in the election leading up to it.
Pearl Harbour convinced the Americans there was no staying out. It wasn't an option. If they didn't find war, war would find them.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/middle-class-problems
Ironically, if the Germans had been more benign to the western Russians, they might have been able to hold the the soviets with no problem using local soldiers.
Hitler admired the British empire, but he did not learn its most important lesson - divide to conquer.
Hitler was puzzled at why the British treated some of their overseas subjects well. When the war turned against him, he found out the reason.
All of Britain's greatest victories (the War of Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic War, WWI) have required alliances.