Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
No, but it is a reason for saying Ed has done it badly and/or at the wrong time, both of which are true IMO. It's a battle he seems to have fallen into accidentally and without preparing the ground or taking senior colleagues with him. If it were a battle he'd clearly win it might be a positive, but that looks extremely unlikely; more likely it will be a fudge which satisfies no-one, makes enemies on all sides, hits funding, and leaves Labour still open to criticism that a few dinosaur union bosses call the shots.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
Dunno, the voters seem to quite like it when leaders slap around the extremes of their parties. The hitch is that the leader has to win, decisively.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
The alternative that Cameron has chosen is to try to pander to all elements of his party to varying degrees and seen a sullen departure of two thirds of his members because nobody thinks he stands for anything.
Anyhow it's the right thing to do.
But not down to any principle, merely a panic reaction to the Falkirk-Scandal-That-Never-Was (allegedly).
Apologies to all for posting wrong picture of Ed M in ASDA today with a small group of blank faces. I should have linked to happy OAPs, young mothers, teenagers, nurses, lovely vote casting nurses cheering him on in a frenzied outbreak of enthusiasm. The picture sub editor has been banished to cover junior football in Lerwick.
more likely it will be a fudge which satisfies no-one, makes enemies on all sides, hits funding, and leaves Labour still open to criticism that a few dinosaur union bosses call the shots.
I guess that'll be the Tory line, but can the media run that much nuance? I know they mostly won't be going out of their way to be helpful to Ed Miliband, but they generally only have two settings, Victory and Defeat.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
No, but it is a reason for saying Ed has done it badly and/or at the wrong time, both of which are true IMO. It's a battle he seems to have fallen into accidentally and without preparing the ground or taking senior colleagues with him. If it were a battle he'd clearly win it might be a positive, but that looks extremely unlikely; more likely it will be a fudge which satisfies no-one, makes enemies on all sides, hits funding, and leaves Labour still open to criticism that a few dinosaur union bosses call the shots.
Sometimes you cannot choose when you fight your battles; but you still have to fight them. Clearly, the Tories will portray it as a fudge and/or a failure, but they would do that at whatever stage it happened. My view is that a fudge, let alone a climb-down, will be terminal for Ed, so there is little chance we will see either. He has made clear what he wants, he now has to deliver it. If he does, it will be a great day for the Labour party and for the centre left in the UK generally; and it will put the Tories on the back foot on party funding. If he doesn't he is buggered, so is Labour and so are the unions.
@tim - Neither Richard nor I have suggested that Miliband will not get some sort of reform. But what part of 'it won't help him electorally' do you not understand?
That you are reduced to genuflecting in awe to one Indy poll with its ludicrous 'would it make you more likely to vote one way or another' is but one more sign of your desperation. But I don't feel sorry for you.
I guess that'll be the Tory line, but can the media run that much nuance? I know they mostly won't be going out of their way to be helpful to Ed Miliband, but they generally only have two settings, Victory and Defeat.
I guess that'll be the Tory line, but can the media run that much nuance? I know they mostly won't be going out of their way to be helpful to Ed Miliband, but they generally only have two settings, Victory and Defeat.
So it will be Defeat.
Sounds hard to get a decent hook for that if he wins the vote and leaves [obligingly villainous union leader] looking narked off.
@tim - Neither Richard nor I have suggested that Miliband will not get some sort of reform. But what part of 'it won't help him electorally' do you not understand?
That you are reduced to genuflecting in awe to one Indy poll with its ludicrous 'would it make you more likely to vote one way or another' is but one more sign of your desperation. But I don't feel sorry for you.
I doubt anyone seriously thinks Labour will reap short-term electoral benefit from the major reforms that EdM is proposing. Longer-term, though, cutting the formal ties with the unions and becoming a party that aims to build a mass membership (indeed has to build one) will broaden Labour's appeal and open it up to more ideas. It will also blunt Tory attacks on union masters, being in the unions' pay and so on, while also putting the spotlight very firmly on the Tories' reliance on big money from the City and what gets promised in return for that.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
Indeed. But resolving it a little over a year from the GE - and taking up half the time available before the GE to fix it is sub optimal at best.
Why did Ed not address this 2 years ago, so that it would all be water under the bridge by the GE?
I guess that'll be the Tory line, but can the media run that much nuance? I know they mostly won't be going out of their way to be helpful to Ed Miliband, but they generally only have two settings, Victory and Defeat.
So it will be Defeat.
Sounds hard to get a decent hook for that if he wins the vote and leaves [obligingly villainous union leader] looking narked off.
I imagine Labour will be expecting Guido, the Mail, the Telegraph and others who hate Labour to rubbish whatever happens. It goes with the territory; but it is not terminal.
cutting the formal ties with the unions and becoming a party that aims to build a mass membership
The trade unions are its link to a mass membership movement which is why there is no suggestion of cutting formal ties to them. Just moving from opt out to opt in.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
Indeed. But resolving it a little over a year from the GE - and taking up half the time available before the GE to fix it is sub optimal at best.
Why did Ed not address this 2 years ago, so that it would all be water under the bridge by the GE?
Because he was bounced into it, just as Dave was bounced into his Euro referendum promise. These things happen. It would be ridiculous for me to pretend otherwise. But we are where we are. The battle lines have been drawn; there can be no walking away.
@tim - Neither Richard nor I have suggested that Miliband will not get some sort of reform. But what part of 'it won't help him electorally' do you not understand?
That you are reduced to genuflecting in awe to one Indy poll with its ludicrous 'would it make you more likely to vote one way or another' is but one more sign of your desperation. But I don't feel sorry for you.
I doubt anyone seriously thinks Labour will reap short-term electoral benefit from the major reforms that EdM is proposing. Longer-term, though, cutting the formal ties with the unions and becoming a party that aims to build a mass membership (indeed has to build one) will broaden Labour's appeal and open it up to more ideas. It will also blunt Tory attacks on union masters, being in the unions' pay and so on, while also putting the spotlight very firmly on the Tories' reliance on big money from the City and what gets promised in return for that.
Over to Brother tim on your first sentence!! You'll be denounced as a pbTory for that heretical assertion.
Otherwise, I can't fault your argument (apart from doubting that the political significance of funding from whatever source is particularly high).
"A report by the American Chemistry Council said shale gas has given the US a "profound and sustained competitive advantage" in chemicals, plastics, and related industries.
Consultants IHS also expect US chemical output to double by 2020, while Europe's output will have fallen by a third. IHS said $250bn (£160bn) in extra US manufacturing will be added by shale in the next six years."
But hey man the models say polar bears are going to melt...
Fracking seems to have reduced energy costs in the States.
That's because they don't (yet) have the infrastructure to export much of it. As they build that out it'll get closer to the prices other countries are paying, although obviously that's not all bad because they'll have some nice export growth instead.
cutting the formal ties with the unions and becoming a party that aims to build a mass membership
The trade unions are its link to a mass membership movement which is why there is no suggestion of cutting formal ties to them. Just moving from opt out to opt in.
Fair enough - cutting the existing arrangements and remoulding them. As the union leaders well recognise, if you recast the relationship so that it is based on individual membership a lot of other things fall by the wayside.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
No, but it is a reason for saying Ed has done it badly and/or at the wrong time, both of which are true IMO. It's a battle he seems to have fallen into accidentally and without preparing the ground or taking senior colleagues with him. If it were a battle he'd clearly win it might be a positive, but that looks extremely unlikely; more likely it will be a fudge which satisfies no-one, makes enemies on all sides, hits funding, and leaves Labour still open to criticism that a few dinosaur union bosses call the shots.
Sometimes you cannot choose when you fight your battles
Why couldn't Ed have chosen to fight this battle two years ago?
The fact is, he didn't "choose" to fight this battle, he was bounced into it by the mother of all "non-stories"..
I guess that'll be the Tory line, but can the media run that much nuance? I know they mostly won't be going out of their way to be helpful to Ed Miliband, but they generally only have two settings, Victory and Defeat.
So it will be Defeat.
Sounds hard to get a decent hook for that if he wins the vote and leaves [obligingly villainous union leader] looking narked off.
Richard will proclaim it a defeat as he proclaimed three years without growth a triumph for Osborne's growth strategy. But it's not really aimed at him.
Do you support or oppose the changes Ed Miliband is proposing?
2010 Lib Dems
Support 68 Oppose 12
All Voters
Support 56 Oppose 22
Labour navel gazing at it self,just like the tories on the EU,it's not a winner.
The trade unions are its link to a mass membership movement which is why there is no suggestion of cutting formal ties to them. Just moving from opt out to opt in.
Aye, but that 'just' conceals a big, big change, doesn't it? Ed wants to nick the mass membership from the unions and cut out the middle men, Fair dos, as Southam says, that would be a good wheeze if he can bring it off. However, the middle men aren't quite that stupid, and they're not going to want to be cut out without a fight. Nor is it obvious that the mass membership is terribly keen on being wrapped up into a collaterised obligation and passed over to Labour just because Ed wants them.
All of that might not matter if he'd prepared the ground properly. There's absolutely no sign of that, though; it looks like a very ill-thought-out panic reaction to a scandal which (ahem) disappeared after a few friendly chats.
So he'll get his fight, which indeed he might want. But hasn't maximised the chances of winning it.
"A report by the American Chemistry Council said shale gas has given the US a "profound and sustained competitive advantage" in chemicals, plastics, and related industries.
Consultants IHS also expect US chemical output to double by 2020, while Europe's output will have fallen by a third. IHS said $250bn (£160bn) in extra US manufacturing will be added by shale in the next six years."
But hey man the models say polar bears are going to melt...
So you think UK fracked gas is going to be traded at below the market price do you, or that it will be so big that it will force the market price for gas down in the international,as opposed to isolated US market, that we are part of.
Any estimates for what percentage of the Euro-Asian gas market UK fracking will account for
Fracking has pushed down the costs of energy, chemicals and plastic in the USA.
Europe is not following because - well they subscribe to the cult of anti CO2.
Some of Mick's points about methodology are pretty accurate, and Ashcroft needs to think over whether his huge surveys are justified if they take forever to collect - smaller surveys might be more useful if faster. The additional accuracy of 10K over 1K is not great, as Mick notes.
However, the tide does seem to be running against independence to an extent that it's hard to see it reversed. If it's lost, I'd think that the SNP will struggle in 2015 as they chew over why and what to do next and Labour could benefit there. But the Tories may benefit in England, by being seen - however inaccurately - to have seen off the threat and kept the country together.
Doubt there will be much impact in England if the vote is No.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
Indeed. But resolving it a little over a year from the GE - and taking up half the time available before the GE to fix it is sub optimal at best.
Why did Ed not address this 2 years ago, so that it would all be water under the bridge by the GE?
Because he was bounced into it, just as Dave was bounced into his Euro referendum promise. These things happen. It would be ridiculous for me to pretend otherwise. But we are where we are. The battle lines have been drawn; there can be no walking away.
Which carries the grave risk of it appearing like something someone had thought up "after a bad night out", to borrow a phrase....
As you write, we are where we are - but some of the protestations of Ed's "visionary courageous stand" are so much hog wash.
If he does well, and it scrapes through without a train wreck I suspect most voters will think "about time too...." But those fondly thinking this will swing votes to Labour may be sorely disappointed.
On topic, any poll that ignores the 36% that disagrees with your leading questions are positive and merely looks at the rest is not worth apiece of toilet paper. Everyone knows that Indy is key to the SNP, but that they also look after other interests. That is why they get relelected with half the people supporting them or the Greens and avoiding the big 3 "English" parties. Ashcroft can suggest this is revelatory but it makes sense to me.
I guess that'll be the Tory line, but can the media run that much nuance? I know they mostly won't be going out of their way to be helpful to Ed Miliband, but they generally only have two settings, Victory and Defeat.
So it will be Defeat.
Sounds hard to get a decent hook for that if he wins the vote and leaves [obligingly villainous union leader] looking narked off.
Richard will proclaim it a defeat as he proclaimed three years without growth a triumph for Osborne's growth strategy. But it's not really aimed at him.
Do you support or oppose the changes Ed Miliband is proposing?
2010 Lib Dems
Support 68 Oppose 12
All Voters
Support 56 Oppose 22
Labour navel gazing at it self,just like the tories on the EU,it's not a winner.
That's the serious concern, I think. Normally you'd do this stuff earlier in the parliament. On the other hand maybe the fixed-term parliament gives him a bit more leeway.
cutting the formal ties with the unions and becoming a party that aims to build a mass membership
The trade unions are its link to a mass membership movement which is why there is no suggestion of cutting formal ties to them. Just moving from opt out to opt in.
Fair enough - cutting the existing arrangements and remoulding them. As the union leaders well recognise, if you recast the relationship so that it is based on individual membership a lot of other things fall by the wayside.
Of course, but Miliband is on the right side of public opinion while Cameron is seen to side with his millionaire donors. Who just got a big bonus gift from Osborne while everyone else's living standards are falling.
That the Tory Party look after/are funded by a tiny sector of society does them untold damage. Thatcher and Major had a much stronger membership to counter that, and were never seen as looking solely after their chums who fund them
On living standards,help is on the way -
'Every penny counts': Osborne borrows supermarket slogans to promise help to cut rent, water and energy bills
Exactly. In the Lord Ashcroft poll, one of the interesting highlights showed the SNP run the risk of being perceived as being more interested in their Independence agenda than the priorities of the Scottish electorate. Ed Miliband runs exactly the same risk with his focus on an internal reform of the Labour party's relationship with the Unions and its membership in the run up to the GE.
Take this week, Osborne gives an important and very positive speech on the economy today. Ed Miliband will address the TUC tomorrow, he will attempt to criticise the Government's economic record in amongst other more pressing internal Labour party issues in what could be a very uncomfortable and hostile environment. The master strategist knew what he was doing when he arranged to speak a day before Miliband did at a very different venue to a very different audience, the electorate. Miliband on the other hand, faces the problem where his current woes with the Unions that donate to the Labour will be the dominant story tomorrow rather than any other message he might be trying to convey.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Spot-on, that is the entire point.
That's not a good reason for Labour not to do it though.
Indeed. But resolving it a little over a year from the GE - and taking up half the time available before the GE to fix it is sub optimal at best.
Why did Ed not address this 2 years ago, so that it would all be water under the bridge by the GE?
People care as much about party funding as they care about whether the Great White shark should be saved from extinction - they have a view on the subject and will tell you that it's important to them, but barring a few cranks, it isn't really.
I would like to have a rant at these idiotic "securecode" passwords for online transactions. I swear that high street retailers have banded together and forced these awful things onto the world of online retail. I'm trying to buy something and it's asking me to register my credit card with Barclays for this system but once I enter all of my details it says registration failed, and to call Barclays. I call them and they say nothing is wrong and to try again. It fails for a second time, and then I get a call from the fraud prevention team saying there have been some irregular transactions and my card is being used on Sony's UK website to buy high value goods. I tell them that I have been trying to purchase a new TV and the stupid system won't let me register a password. They give me a phone number, which is the same as the one I rang previously, and say try them to register it manually.
Now I can't use my new credit card for the company discount scheme website. I even called our tech support, and they said there is no way around it, the merchant requires the use of these new securecode profiles in all transactions because we sell desirable high value items.
In terms of membership, Labour are about 5 years from where the Conservatives are now. Both organisations have a tiny fraction of the members they once had.
Three years ago, yes. But the membership bounced, plateaued, and is now rising again - in Broxtowe we're nearly double the 2010 level. In general parties gain members in opposition and lose them in government - the curiosity about the Tories is that they lost members even as they were gaining votes.
Richard N: Ed won't lose the argument however often you assert it (five times so far today!). These party-union confrontations usually work OK for both sides, enabling everyone to demonstrate that they're sticking up for their side, unless they get out of hand and one side tries to crush the other.
Osborne is going to cut rents and energy costs. How's that going to work then?
We will after wait and see -
George Osborne revealed the government will make a series of announcements in the coming weeks to reduce the cost of living, including: Water, gas and electricity bills Rising rent and housing costs Rail fares and motoring charges Fees for pensions and financial services Payday loans and credit cards
Twitter tom_watson @tom_watson 6 Sep After the decision over Falkirk, I'm sure @jimmurphymp would wish to retract his comments about the role of @unitetheunion.
Jim Murphy @jimmurphymp 6 Sep @tom_watson You know how to get in touch away from Tory twitter eyes m'while I'll just get on with supporting Ed's plans for Party/TU reform
People care as much about party funding as they care about whether the Great White shark should be saved from extinction - they have a view on the subject and will tell you that it's important to them, but barring a few cranks, it isn't really.
Barack Obama is "staring defeat in the face" over a vote on Syria and it would be "devastating for the president if he loses", said Andrew Neil in New York.
The BBC political presenter said he would be a "lame duck president for the rest of his tenure" if he failed to get American politicians to back his call for military action in Syria.
Is it not a major part of the Energy Secretary's brief to secure long term and reliable energy sources. Supply and not price should be his priority.. he has the treasury to sort out the dosh .. I mean .. would a Government close down its Nuclear Stations and Coal fired power stations without building some form of replacement.. would they?
Osborne is going to cut rents and energy costs. How's that going to work then?
We will after wait and see -
George Osborne revealed the government will make a series of announcements in the coming weeks to reduce the cost of living, including: Water, gas and electricity bills Rising rent and housing costs Rail fares and motoring charges Fees for pensions and financial services Payday loans and credit cards
And motherhood and apple pie will more accessible too!
"Despite advising the Prime Minister on international affairs, Tory MP Rory Stewart missed the crucial Commons vote over bombing Syria. His sheepish explanation is that he was at his sister’s wedding. As Guido revealed in the Sun yesterday, Rory almost made it back though he got stuck in traffic in Chiswick on the outskirts of London.
Given he took a taxi from the West Country at a cost of £360 it was an expensive cock-up. Cameron sacked Jesse Norman for missing the vote so this might cost him yet. He certainly can’t justify making an expense claim if he didn’t vote. Guido understands he only missed the train by three minutes…"
"Labour finds itself in the position it is, pathetically dependent on union money, because its attempt to remodel itself only ever appealed to the relatively well-off. It has become a party of solidarity for middle-class, metropolitan types. In the Blair-Brown years we had employment and equality regulations galore, but aside from the national minimum wage, almost all of this activity has favoured the better-off.
If you are a female banker aggrieved that your million-pound bonus is only half the size of a male colleague’s, or a middle-class father looking forward to paternity leave so as to immerse yourself in parenthood, Labour is on your side. If you are a dustman down to a three-day week, the party has little to offer you.
The Blair Government looked at zero-hours contracts and decided they were fine. Gordon Brown kicked away the 10 per cent tax rate for low-earners that he had himself introduced. Labour stood by while house prices and rents went through the roof. Labour encouraged immigration, in spite of evidence that low-paid workers suffered while the better-off benefited from cheaper domestic staff and the like. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3863868.ece
Blimey you think Osborne's timing is masterful, who'd have thought it, you thought the omnishambles budget was masterful too.
But I'm a bit surprised that the masterful Master Strategist timed his new haircut launch for a few hours before the Chris Patten/Mark Thompson show begins. Someone who's so smart should know how much attention that'll get.
Would seem that Labour have made the schoolboy error announcing which policies they are going to have without announcing the policies.
Then mean old George has snaffled the best two - leaving Ed with Rail nationalisation.
@TUD - one difference in the Ashcroft mega poll may be they only prompt "yes/no" - the "Don't know" has (Do not ask) next to it.
Do other pollsters prompt similarly, or include "Don't know" as an option?
I suppose you could argue that "forcing" a "yes/no" choice will either favour:
1) the affirmative "yes", or 2) the status quo "no"......
There seem to be as many variations on *the* question as there are clients willing to pay for it to be asked. Personally I don't see much value in forcing respondees into a binary choice at this stage, or asking how they would vote if the referendum were tomorrow. It's surely more interesting to find out the strength of support for Yes & No, and especially the strength of uncertainty in DKs.
Then mean old George has snaffled the best two - leaving Ed with Rail nationalisation.
Ed may very well have a point that this is (so far) a recovery for the few. But he also lets GO know exactly what he needs to do in the next 18 months.
If GO can share the pie around, what's labour's position then?
The Union is between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
So Scotland leaving the Union should require a majority vote amongst current Union members, not just amongst those in Scotland.
Given the majority of people in England would vote for Scotland to leave the Union, the sooner the politicians recognise this the better.
That's not how self-determination works.
If you wish England to leave the Union then you need to organise a referendum in England on that question - you can't have a vote on kicking Scotland out, but keeping Wales and Northern Ireland. Also, on a pedantic point, I'm pretty sure that Wales is only a member of the Union by virtue of being incorporated within England.
"...If you think I exaggerate, remember what he said in early July, when the shenanigans were exposed. Ed said he was “incredibly angry”. Unite was “wrong” to try to fix the selection process for the Falkirk seat. It was “malpractice” that the union was essentially buying party memberships, en bloc, for people without even telling them, and thereby creating a 21st-century rotten borough. It was “machine politics”, he said, and “besmirching the reputation” of the Labour Party, and he was jolly well going to sort it out.
Labour campaign manager Tom Watson resigned, and two members of the Unite plot were suspended. A big inquiry was announced, and the promise of a new relationship with the unions. Then Ed went off on his well-deserved summer break, and managed to keep his nerve.
The unions plotted their revenge. On September 2, Unite announced that it would boycott the Labour Party conference unless the two conspirators were reinstated. On September 4, the GMB union announced that it was stripping the cash-strapped Labour Party of £1 million in support. On September 6, it suddenly emerged – miracle of miracles – that key evidence to the Falkirk inquiry had been eaten by someone’s dog. The Unite members have been reinstated to the party and all is apparently forgiven. It turns out that no one has done anything wrong at all! Isn’t life grand? >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10294976/Milisecond-n-the-time-it-takes-Ed-to-do-the-unions-bidding.html
On energy: easy, just get rid of all the greenist nonsense. Alas, that will mean either ahuge u-turn or decapitating Cameron, but you can't build a power station with breaking greenists.
Mr. Antifrank, I fear Blair's anti-Midas touch won't help those pro-EU sorts. One wonder show big the overlap between people who repeatedly voted for Blair and now loathe him is.
The Public Accounts Committee has issued a damning report on HS2 including the following:
"The Department has yet to demonstrate that this is the best way to spend £50 billion on rail investment in these constrained times; that this is the most effective and economic way of responding to future demand patterns, that the figures predicting future demand are robust and credible and that the improved connectivity between London and regional cities will enhance growth and activity in the regions rather than sucking more activity into London."
“As usual with NAO reports, the Department had agreed the facts in the report as accurate before publication. However, as soon as the report was published, the media reported unnamed departmental sources as claiming that it contained errors and was based on out-of date analysis. These claims were quite unfounded."
I'm very doubtful that reforming party funding on the basis of majority vote rather than consensus is sensible long term. It makes party funding a political football, especially if the perception is that the imposed reforms disadvantage one player more than the others.
If you go down that route, you had better make sure you take them out - otherwise the next time they have a majority there is a good chance they will strike back even harder than you hit them.
Is Osborne's intent to help cut energy bills a sign that Green subsidy boondoggles may be coming to an end? Hallelujah if so. Maybe the Abbot win in Oz is resonating.
I'm very doubtful that reforming party funding on the basis of majority vote rather than consensus is sensible long term. It makes party funding a political football, especially if the perception is that the imposed reforms disadvantage one player more than the others.
If you go down that route, you had better make sure you take them out - otherwise the next time they have a majority there is a good chance they will strike back even harder than you hit them.
You're right, of course.
But this Government has tried to use a range of issues that should probably be cross-party for cheap party political advantage. From their attempts to rig the boundaries to their miserable "lobbying" bill.
Labour might be in the mood for revenge when they return to power, and who could blame them.
osh Halliday @JoshHalliday BBC payoff row: Mark Thompson has arrived in parliament for his punch-up, sorry evidence session, before MPs gu.com/p/3ttne/tw - LIVE!
Mr. Charles, you're entirely right. Funding changes, made in law, have to have widespread consensus, otherwise it'll just be gerrymandering.
The situation right now isn't really very bad. I'd just leave it.
Fund raising is not the issue.
Limit spending.
Stop the richest party buying success Control the power and scope of Parties by limits on expenditure Massive big donations become useless as the party can not spend them.
As always, the obsession with 'funding' is making people look at the wrong side of the equation.
OT Syria, I wonder if Kerry will have to go if Obama loses the vote. This thing about an "unbelievably small" war kind-of ties the whole omnishambles around his neck.
PS search "unbelievably small" on Twitter for some very fine snark.
Hmm. Toto Wolff reckons Mercedes will learn lessons for Singapore and bounce back after lacklustre races in Spa and Monza.
Whilst I agree Mercedes will do better in Singapore that's because of the nature of the circuit, which I think will favour the team. Hope so, anyway, as I'm planning on checking their odds on top scoring (Ladbrokes seem to have the market listed but no options up).
Perhaps. But as someone else (SO?) said earlier, this is a long-term matter. IMHO that is well worth high-lighting. Very few politicians look farther ahead than the next election, so one who's prepared to do so gains my respect.
As to why Mr Miliband should not have tackled the business earlier - well, I still hold to my opinion that he never expected to win and therefore hadn't developed his thinking in the way a leadership candidate usually does.
In my perception, there is still a 'dinosaur' element to some Trade Unions and IMHO those elements are dragging the Labour party down with them.
The link between the TUs and Labour should be something to celebrate, not to hide from public view.
At the risk of kicking off flame wars on voting systems, how the hell did the Australian Sports Party - with just 0.02% of the first-choice vote - manage to end up with a seat in the Australian Senate? The whole system seems to be utterly bonkers, even if you ignore the fact that most (but not all!) of the new senators don't take office until July 2014.
"The First Minister of Scotland is masterful at mixing anti-English rhetoric, rose-tinted recollections of Scottish history and no gloves politicking. When he does it right, it can be devastating. History is at the heart of his campaign for Scottish independence in the run up to the referendum, so I was surprised to see how quiet he is today over an important point in his nation’s heritage. How come the Scottish government are silent over today’s anniversary of the Battle of Flodden. Where is the usual fanfare?"
OT Syria, I wonder if Kerry will have to go if Obama loses the vote. This thing about an "unbelievably small" war kind-of ties the whole omnishambles around his neck.
PS search "unbelievably small" on Twitter for some very fine snark.
Smacks of Chamberlains ... 'a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.'
At the risk of kicking off flame wars on voting systems, how the hell did the Australian Sports Party - with just 0.02% of the first-choice vote - manage to end up with a seat in the Australian Senate? The whole system seems to be utterly bonkers, even if you ignore the fact that most (but not all!) of the new senators don't take office until July 2014.
Essentially, the major parties conspired to produce this outcome, by diverting preference flows away from their main rival, to the benefit of the rag-tag-and-bobtail parties....
Presumably, the idea is that once in parliament, these individuals can be bought-off by one side or the other.
At the risk of kicking off flame wars on voting systems, how the hell did the Australian Sports Party - with just 0.02% of the first-choice vote - manage to end up with a seat in the Australian Senate? The whole system seems to be utterly bonkers, even if you ignore the fact that most (but not all!) of the new senators don't take office until July 2014.
Redcliffe posted on this within the last couple of days.
With over a 100 boxes to rank for Senate seats, voters tend to mark only their party of first preference and accept the list of lesser rankings prepared by that party. The main parties tend to give higher preferences to obscure parties with little chance of winning a seat than to their main rivals. If the main rivals both support the same obscure party, this leads to surprise results.
Australia needs a good psephologist to rework their voting systems. I am speaking to some Australian dental implant surgeons to secure Sir Roderick a tempting discount.
At the risk of kicking off flame wars on voting systems, how the hell did the Australian Sports Party - with just 0.02% of the first-choice vote - manage to end up with a seat in the Australian Senate? The whole system seems to be utterly bonkers, even if you ignore the fact that most (but not all!) of the new senators don't take office until July 2014.
Mr. Charles, you're entirely right. Funding changes, made in law, have to have widespread consensus, otherwise it'll just be gerrymandering.
The situation right now isn't really very bad. I'd just leave it.
Fund raising is not the issue.
Limit spending.
Stop the richest party buying success Control the power and scope of Parties by limits on expenditure Massive big donations become useless as the party can not spend them.
As always, the obsession with 'funding' is making people look at the wrong side of the equation.
Limiting spending just means outsourcing of campaigning to 3rd parties not linked directly with the political parties...
Surely it's time for Cameron to put his foot down and discipline William Hague. He keeps popping up and contradicting the PM's word on whether Parliament will get a second vote on Syria and he's in too deep with John Kerry who is also turning into a liability.
Mr. Charles, you're entirely right. Funding changes, made in law, have to have widespread consensus, otherwise it'll just be gerrymandering.
The situation right now isn't really very bad. I'd just leave it.
Fund raising is not the issue.
Limit spending.
Stop the richest party buying success Control the power and scope of Parties by limits on expenditure Massive big donations become useless as the party can not spend them.
As always, the obsession with 'funding' is making people look at the wrong side of the equation.
Thanks for being the one to make that point today - it is the essence of the current system that we have.
My suggestion to limit spending would be to ban political cold-calling. It seems that a lot of Union and big Tory donor money goes into large phone banks. A face-to-face conversation on the doorstep is preferable.
"Never pose a question you don't already know the answer to..."
The Russians have just unexpectedly said "Da!"
Time for the Americans to remember that intervening in other countries' wars requires a unanimous vote of the Security Council, and unilateral action breaches long-standing principles etc etc.
At the risk of kicking off flame wars on voting systems, how the hell did the Australian Sports Party - with just 0.02% of the first-choice vote - manage to end up with a seat in the Australian Senate? The whole system seems to be utterly bonkers, even if you ignore the fact that most (but not all!) of the new senators don't take office until July 2014.
I'd imagine a lot of people who preferred other candidates had him as a second choice.
It's the same essential process that goes on with people voting tactically, you just see it happening.
That's how it should work, but they have a weird system where voters preferences are broken because you have to number 105 boxes to get a valid vote, but you can instead cast a single vote and let the party you voted for choose where your transfers go.
"Never pose a question you don't already know the answer to..."
The Russians have just unexpectedly said "Da!"
Time for the Americans to remember that intervening in other countries' wars requires a unanimous vote of the Security Council, and unilateral action breaches long-standing principles etc etc.
I am not sure that is true, Artful.
On a pedantic point, the UNSC requires a majority vote with no vetos from the five permanent members.
Setting that aside, there are moral, political and legal arguments, all supported by the UN itself, for intervention being legitimate, provided it conforms to defined priniciples, even if not authorised by the UNSC.
I accept though that not all UN Members would subscribe to this latter view,
Christopher Hope @christopherhope Margaret Hodge is on fire and her MPs are backing her up. Having all 7 BBC witnesses in a line is a master-stroke. They have nowhere to hide
Comments
Dartford Messenger @KMDartford
Labour leader Ed Miliband getting quizzed by people @asda in Greenhithe on immigration, jobs, benefits, tax & NHS
pic.twitter.com/1xLmOTHUYw
Ed M visits ASDA cafe - staff weren't breaking into cheers or spontaneous applause.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415849/Send-Justine-Ed-Milibands-wife-come-fighting-Labour-leader-party-conference-bid-woo-voters.html
That you are reduced to genuflecting in awe to one Indy poll with its ludicrous 'would it make you more likely to vote one way or another' is but one more sign of your desperation. But I don't feel sorry for you.
The pendle labour councillor who defected to the conservatives left because the labour group was run like a dictatorship ;-)
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2013/09/pendle-labour-councillor-defects-to-conservatives.html
Ed Davey says fracking is unlikely to bring down energy prices. I think Lib Dems are determined that nothing will bring down energy prices.
Patrick O'flynn ?
;-)
Why did Ed not address this 2 years ago, so that it would all be water under the bridge by the GE?
Otherwise, I can't fault your argument (apart from doubting that the political significance of funding from whatever source is particularly high).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10295045/Brussels-fears-European-industrial-massacre-sparked-by-energy-costs.html
"A report by the American Chemistry Council said shale gas has given the US a "profound and sustained competitive advantage" in chemicals, plastics, and related industries.
Consultants IHS also expect US chemical output to double by 2020, while Europe's output will have fallen by a third. IHS said $250bn (£160bn) in extra US manufacturing will be added by shale in the next six years."
But hey man the models say polar bears are going to melt...
The fact is, he didn't "choose" to fight this battle, he was bounced into it by the mother of all "non-stories"..
One doesn't like to pass judgement, but...
(And refusing to pay "in protest". Charming)
All of that might not matter if he'd prepared the ground properly. There's absolutely no sign of that, though; it looks like a very ill-thought-out panic reaction to a scandal which (ahem) disappeared after a few friendly chats.
So he'll get his fight, which indeed he might want. But hasn't maximised the chances of winning it.
It all seems too much of a bother... perhaps we should just leave it where it is..
Europe is not following because - well they subscribe to the cult of anti CO2.
As you write, we are where we are - but some of the protestations of Ed's "visionary courageous stand" are so much hog wash.
If he does well, and it scrapes through without a train wreck I suspect most voters will think "about time too...." But those fondly thinking this will swing votes to Labour may be sorely disappointed.
Everyone knows that Indy is key to the SNP, but that they also look after other interests. That is why they get relelected with half the people supporting them or the Greens and avoiding the big 3 "English" parties. Ashcroft can suggest this is revelatory but it makes sense to me.
'Every penny counts': Osborne borrows supermarket slogans to promise help to cut rent, water and energy bills
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415934/Every-penny-counts-Osborne-borrows-supermarket-slogans-promise-help-cut-rent-water-energy-bills.html
Take this week, Osborne gives an important and very positive speech on the economy today. Ed Miliband will address the TUC tomorrow, he will attempt to criticise the Government's economic record in amongst other more pressing internal Labour party issues in what could be a very uncomfortable and hostile environment. The master strategist knew what he was doing when he arranged to speak a day before Miliband did at a very different venue to a very different audience, the electorate. Miliband on the other hand, faces the problem where his current woes with the Unions that donate to the Labour will be the dominant story tomorrow rather than any other message he might be trying to convey.
What matters is the fight.
Now I can't use my new credit card for the company discount scheme website. I even called our tech support, and they said there is no way around it, the merchant requires the use of these new securecode profiles in all transactions because we sell desirable high value items.
Horrible system. Incredibly frustrating.
Richard N: Ed won't lose the argument however often you assert it (five times so far today!). These party-union confrontations usually work OK for both sides, enabling everyone to demonstrate that they're sticking up for their side, unless they get out of hand and one side tries to crush the other.
George Osborne revealed the government will make a series of announcements in the coming
weeks to reduce the cost of living, including:
Water, gas and electricity bills
Rising rent and housing costs
Rail fares and motoring charges
Fees for pensions and financial services
Payday loans and credit cards
tom_watson @tom_watson 6 Sep
After the decision over Falkirk, I'm sure @jimmurphymp would wish to retract his comments about the role of @unitetheunion.
Jim Murphy @jimmurphymp 6 Sep
@tom_watson You know how to get in touch away from Tory twitter eyes m'while I'll just get on with supporting Ed's plans for Party/TU reform
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24017804
Barack Obama is "staring defeat in the face" over a vote on Syria and it would be "devastating for the president if he loses", said Andrew Neil in New York.
The BBC political presenter said he would be a "lame duck president for the rest of his tenure" if he failed to get American politicians to back his call for military action in Syria.
Supply and not price should be his priority.. he has the treasury to sort out the dosh ..
I mean .. would a Government close down its Nuclear Stations and Coal fired power stations without building some form of replacement.. would they?
Have you no shame?
It needs to be an independent *judge-led* inquiry
http://order-order.com/2013/09/09/rory-stewarts-latest-trek/
Seems some apologies might be in order from certain sections...
http://order-order.com/2013/09/09/rory-stewarts-latest-trek/
"Despite advising the Prime Minister on international affairs, Tory MP Rory Stewart missed the crucial Commons vote over bombing Syria. His sheepish explanation is that he was at his sister’s wedding. As Guido revealed in the Sun yesterday, Rory almost made it back though he got stuck in traffic in Chiswick on the outskirts of London.
Given he took a taxi from the West Country at a cost of £360 it was an expensive cock-up. Cameron sacked Jesse Norman for missing the vote so this might cost him yet. He certainly can’t justify making an expense claim if he didn’t vote. Guido understands he only missed the train by three minutes…"
"Labour finds itself in the position it is, pathetically dependent on union money, because its attempt to remodel itself only ever appealed to the relatively well-off. It has become a party of solidarity for middle-class, metropolitan types. In the Blair-Brown years we had employment and equality regulations galore, but aside from the national minimum wage, almost all of this activity has favoured the better-off.
If you are a female banker aggrieved that your million-pound bonus is only half the size of a male colleague’s, or a middle-class father looking forward to paternity leave so as to immerse yourself in parenthood, Labour is on your side. If you are a dustman down to a three-day week, the party has little to offer you.
The Blair Government looked at zero-hours contracts and decided they were fine. Gordon Brown kicked away the 10 per cent tax rate for low-earners that he had himself introduced. Labour stood by while house prices and rents went through the roof. Labour encouraged immigration, in spite of evidence that low-paid workers suffered while the better-off benefited from cheaper domestic staff and the like. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3863868.ece
Then mean old George has snaffled the best two - leaving Ed with Rail nationalisation.
Snooze you lose..
How's that going to work then?
Quite. Plus its a bit of a hostage to fortune.
So Scotland leaving the Union should require a majority vote amongst current Union members, not just amongst those in Scotland.
Given the majority of people in England would vote for Scotland to leave the Union, the sooner the politicians recognise this the better.
Ed may very well have a point that this is (so far) a recovery for the few. But he also lets GO know exactly what he needs to do in the next 18 months.
If GO can share the pie around, what's labour's position then?
If you wish England to leave the Union then you need to organise a referendum in England on that question - you can't have a vote on kicking Scotland out, but keeping Wales and Northern Ireland. Also, on a pedantic point, I'm pretty sure that Wales is only a member of the Union by virtue of being incorporated within England.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/tony-blair-for-britain-to-leave-the-eu-would-be-economic-suicide-8804943.html
Once again, the headline doesn't match the article. There is no claim of 45 minutes to economic destruction:
"To start, we should be clear: of course Britain could both survive and maintain its economy outside of the EU."
I'm shocked. "outside of", indeed.
"...If you think I exaggerate, remember what he said in early July, when the shenanigans were exposed. Ed said he was “incredibly angry”. Unite was “wrong” to try to fix the selection process for the Falkirk seat. It was “malpractice” that the union was essentially buying party memberships, en bloc, for people without even telling them, and thereby creating a 21st-century rotten borough. It was “machine politics”, he said, and “besmirching the reputation” of the Labour Party, and he was jolly well going to sort it out.
Labour campaign manager Tom Watson resigned, and two members of the Unite plot were suspended. A big inquiry was announced, and the promise of a new relationship with the unions. Then Ed went off on his well-deserved summer break, and managed to keep his nerve.
The unions plotted their revenge. On September 2, Unite announced that it would boycott the Labour Party conference unless the two conspirators were reinstated. On September 4, the GMB union announced that it was stripping the cash-strapped Labour Party of £1 million in support. On September 6, it suddenly emerged – miracle of miracles – that key evidence to the Falkirk inquiry had been eaten by someone’s dog. The Unite members have been reinstated to the party and all is apparently forgiven. It turns out that no one has done anything wrong at all! Isn’t life grand? >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10294976/Milisecond-n-the-time-it-takes-Ed-to-do-the-unions-bidding.html
On energy: easy, just get rid of all the greenist nonsense. Alas, that will mean either ahuge u-turn or decapitating Cameron, but you can't build a power station with breaking greenists.
Mr. Antifrank, I fear Blair's anti-Midas touch won't help those pro-EU sorts. One wonder show big the overlap between people who repeatedly voted for Blair and now loathe him is.
"The Department has yet to demonstrate that this is the best way to spend £50 billion on rail investment in these constrained times; that this is the most effective and economic way of responding to future demand patterns, that the figures predicting future demand are robust and credible and that the improved connectivity between London and regional cities will enhance growth and activity in the regions rather than sucking more activity into London."
“As usual with NAO reports, the Department had agreed the facts in the report as accurate before publication. However, as soon as the report was published, the media reported unnamed departmental sources as claiming that it contained errors and was based on out-of date analysis. These claims were quite unfounded."
See in full at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/high-speed-2-report/
I'm very doubtful that reforming party funding on the basis of majority vote rather than consensus is sensible long term. It makes party funding a political football, especially if the perception is that the imposed reforms disadvantage one player more than the others.
If you go down that route, you had better make sure you take them out - otherwise the next time they have a majority there is a good chance they will strike back even harder than you hit them.
The situation right now isn't really very bad. I'd just leave it.
But this Government has tried to use a range of issues that should probably be cross-party for cheap party political advantage. From their attempts to rig the boundaries to their miserable "lobbying" bill.
Labour might be in the mood for revenge when they return to power, and who could blame them.
osh Halliday
@JoshHalliday
BBC payoff row: Mark Thompson has arrived in parliament for his punch-up, sorry evidence session, before MPs gu.com/p/3ttne/tw - LIVE!
Limit spending.
Stop the richest party buying success
Control the power and scope of Parties by limits on expenditure
Massive big donations become useless as the party can not spend them.
As always, the obsession with 'funding' is making people look at the wrong side of the equation.
PS search "unbelievably small" on Twitter for some very fine snark.
Whilst I agree Mercedes will do better in Singapore that's because of the nature of the circuit, which I think will favour the team. Hope so, anyway, as I'm planning on checking their odds on top scoring (Ladbrokes seem to have the market listed but no options up).
As to why Mr Miliband should not have tackled the business earlier - well, I still hold to my opinion that he never expected to win and therefore hadn't developed his thinking in the way a leadership candidate usually does.
In my perception, there is still a 'dinosaur' element to some Trade Unions and IMHO those elements are dragging the Labour party down with them.
The link between the TUs and Labour should be something to celebrate, not to hide from public view.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/detours-ahead-as-minor-parties-claim-senate-balance-20130908-2te36.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2013/09/alex-salmonds-selective-history-lesson/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=alex-salmonds-selective-history-lesson&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/23795766
Reuters: Russia proposes that Syria put their chemical weapons stocks "under the control of the international community".
Now what were those two Russian landing ships doing passing through the Bosphorus a couple of days ago?
Presumably, the idea is that once in parliament, these individuals can be bought-off by one side or the other.
"Never pose a question you don't already know the answer to..."
The Russians have just unexpectedly said "Da!"
Redcliffe posted on this within the last couple of days.
With over a 100 boxes to rank for Senate seats, voters tend to mark only their party of first preference and accept the list of lesser rankings prepared by that party. The main parties tend to give higher preferences to obscure parties with little chance of winning a seat than to their main rivals. If the main rivals both support the same obscure party, this leads to surprise results.
Australia needs a good psephologist to rework their voting systems. I am speaking to some Australian dental implant surgeons to secure Sir Roderick a tempting discount.
It's the same essential process that goes on with people voting tactically, you just see it happening.
My suggestion to limit spending would be to ban political cold-calling. It seems that a lot of Union and big Tory donor money goes into large phone banks. A face-to-face conversation on the doorstep is preferable.
On a pedantic point, the UNSC requires a majority vote with no vetos from the five permanent members.
Setting that aside, there are moral, political and legal arguments, all supported by the UN itself, for intervention being legitimate, provided it conforms to defined priniciples, even if not authorised by the UNSC.
I accept though that not all UN Members would subscribe to this latter view,
Margaret Hodge is on fire and her MPs are backing her up. Having all 7 BBC witnesses in a line is a master-stroke. They have nowhere to hide