What do you think Cameron should have done differently ? And why do you still have a high opinion of Osborne ?
I'm just chiding you for making a purely classe based assumption as to the way I think. It doesn't offend me, except intellectually because it's a sign of blinkered and lazy thinking & I know you're smarter than that.
I'm not going to comment on politics because I don't think that's the substance of your question, but rather fundamentals.
On Osborne I wouldn't say "high" but "higher". Overall he has done an ok job on the deficit and squeezing TME sharply. And he's done that w/o crashing the economy. It would have been nice if he had been faster, but it's been a hellish environment & I would rather he was too slow if it reduces the downside risk. His mistakes - e.g. pasty tax - are minor / careless / presentational rather than fundamental.
On the government generally (rather than Cameron personally)
- Too much "nudge". e.g. alcohol minimum pricing, for instance, is just silly. It reminds me of Brown at his most irritating (I don't drink, particularly, so it's a philosophical thing rather than personal economics) - Not thinking carefully through enough some of the benefit changes. Child benefit, for instance: WTF didn't they just make it taxable income instead of this fiddly change that Bobbajob loves so much? - International Development: I like the concept, but why on earth haven't they just shifted back the ramp up by a year or so. Additionally, they should figure out the "right" (i.e. effective) amount to spend rather than an arbitrary 0.7% of GDP - Press regulation. Enough said. - But the big stuff: foreign affairs, education, welfare reform, Europe, crime they are doing broadly the right things
On Cameron personally:
- he needs to get out there much more and get the fundamental message across. Sometimes he is asleep at the switch - He would do better to have a broader range of voices and opinions to listen to. As my Mum said after sitting next to him a dinner a few months ago "that man doesn't know how to listen" - It's fine (and healthy) not to have an obsessive PM. But Cameron takes his duties to lightly. His approach is the classic "essay crisis" mode. Most of us grow out of it when we get a job. - He is too concerned about what his immediate group of friends things - he should govern for the country not West London
BT has beaten BSkyB to win the right to show Champions League soccer from 2015, in the biggest blow to Rupert Murdoch's dominant pay-TV operator since it started broadcasting more than 20 years ago.
The circulation figures published by The Guardian and featured by Mike at the top of this thread appear to relate to the number of hard copies circulated and if so completely disregards the paid-for subscription companies circulated via the internet. If I'm right the figures as shown are disingenuous to say the least since, for example, The Times' subscription service has been growing at a very fast rate, currently totalling 355,711 copies daily which taken alone is almost 180% of The Guardian's headline hard copy circulation figure of 198,803.
But since the Guardian website is free it would presumably have far more "subscribers" than the Times?
There is little doubt that the Guardian has contravened section 6(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The question is whether there exists the political will to prosecute. Sadly, the days in which newspapers were subject to the same law as everyone else appear to have passed.
The circulation figures published by The Guardian and featured by Mike at the top of this thread appear to relate to the number of hard copies circulated and if so completely disregards the paid-for subscription companies circulated via the internet. If I'm right the figures as shown are disingenuous to say the least since, for example, The Times' subscription service has been growing at a very fast rate, currently totalling 355,711 copies daily which taken alone is almost 180% of The Guardian's headline hard copy circulation figure of 198,803.
But since the Guardian website is free it would presumably have far more "subscribers" than the Times?
Indeed. The Guardian far outstrips the Times in terms of unique visitors per day.
If you will excuse me using Wiki for this :
"As of May 2011 it was the second-most popular UK newspaper website after Mail Online, with 2.8m unique visitors per day, and 51.3m per month, behind the Mail Online's 4.4m and 77.3m."
Mike has in no way manipulated the data. In fact by taking the published distribution figures he has, if anything, under-represented the Guardian readership.
There is little doubt that the Guardian has contravened section 6(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The question is whether there exists the political will to prosecute. Sadly, the days in which newspapers were subject to the same law as everyone else appear to have passed.
No idea if there is a public interest defence in this case but if there is then the Guardian should be able to claim it in spades.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
There is little doubt that the Guardian has contravened section 6(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The question is whether there exists the political will to prosecute. Sadly, the days in which newspapers were subject to the same law as everyone else appear to have passed.
Section 6 Sub-section 1 (without which sub-section 2 cannot apply)
This section applies where— (a)any information, document or other article which— (i)relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations; and (ii)has been communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the United Kingdom to another State or to an international organisation,has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been disclosed (whether to him or another) without the authority of that State or organisation or, in the case of an organisation, of a member of it; and (b)the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of the foregoing provisions of this Act.
So as I said for sub-section 2 to apply the UK government must have been passing this information to the US government from whom it was leaked.
Not sure that is a road down which the UK government really want to travel given how annoyed our European neighbours are right now.
No idea if there is a public interest defence in this case but if there is then the Guardian should be able to claim it in spades.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
The Official Secrets Act 1989 was passed as a result of the Ponting case. It was designed specifically to eliminate a public interest defence. Section 6 can be read here (make allowances for the government's website). It is perfectly clear that the Guardian have contravened the statute. It may be that the statute is excessively strict (a view I sympathise with), but the law is the law.
No idea if there is a public interest defence in this case but if there is then the Guardian should be able to claim it in spades.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
The Official Secrets Act 1989 was passed as a result of the Ponting case. It was designed specifically to eliminate a public interest defence. Section 6 can be read here (make allowances for the government's website). It is perfectly clear that the Guardian have contravened the statute. It may be that the statute is excessively strict (a view I sympathise with), but the law is the law.
But to make the case under section 6 the government would have to admit that at least some of the leaked information came from the UK in an official capacity. Do they really want to confirm to the rest of Europe that they have been spying on their calls on behalf of the US?
There is little doubt that the Guardian has contravened section 6(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The question is whether there exists the political will to prosecute. Sadly, the days in which newspapers were subject to the same law as everyone else appear to have passed.
No idea if there is a public interest defence in this case but if there is then the Guardian should be able to claim it in spades.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
IANAL, but I thought the OSA applied to everyone. The signature just means that you know of the act, and what it means.
As for your second paragraph, section 6 of the 1989 act seems to include all sources. It is about information that has been entrusted to other states or international organisations, that relates to security or intelligence, which came into possession without the state's authority.
But to make the case under section 6 the government would have to admit that at least some of the leaked information came from the UK in an official capacity. Do they really want to confirm to the rest of Europe that they have been spying on their calls on behalf of the US?
All HMG would have to state is that they entrusted, in confidence, details of HMG's intelligence operations to the United States, and that those details have been damagingly disclosed by the Guardian. As I seem to remember, that was what the Chiefs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ alleged to the Select Committee this week.
BT has beaten BSkyB to win the right to show Champions League soccer from 2015, in the biggest blow to Rupert Murdoch's dominant pay-TV operator since it started broadcasting more than 20 years ago.
Big blow to consumers as well.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Ladbrokes have David Lammy at 12/1 for next London mayor.
About right IMO. Lammy was hopelessly out of his depth as a minister, has no significant following in the Labour Party and will certainly not survive an open primary if that is how Labour chooses its candidate. Jowell and Khan (and others) are streets ahead of him.
But to make the case under section 6 the government would have to admit that at least some of the leaked information came from the UK in an official capacity. Do they really want to confirm to the rest of Europe that they have been spying on their calls on behalf of the US?
All HMG would have to state is that they entrusted, in confidence, details of HMG's intelligence operations to the United States, and that those details have been damagingly disclosed by the Guardian. As I seem to remember, that was what the Chiefs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ alleged to the Select Committee this week.
I would expect that as part of their defence the Guardian would have the right to ask what information had been passed over. Otherwise HMG could simply make the claim without any proof that they did pass any information over.
I cannot help but think that the Guardian has so far got off relatively lightly when it comes to media attention and scrutiny of this case, especially when considering the serious implications of how poorly they have have handled the illegally obtained information they had in their possession. Its now absolutely clear that the Guardian has acted in a totally irresponsible manner, and they should be held to account as a result.
No idea if there is a public interest defence in this case but if there is then the Guardian should be able to claim it in spades.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
The Official Secrets Act 1989 was passed as a result of the Ponting case. It was designed specifically to eliminate a public interest defence. Section 6 can be read here (make allowances for the government's website). It is perfectly clear that the Guardian have contravened the statute. It may be that the statute is excessively strict (a view I sympathise with), but the law is the law.
I cannot help but think that the Guardian has so far got off relatively lightly when it comes to media attention and scrutiny of this case, especially when considering the serious implications of how poorly they have have handled the illegally obtained information they had in their possession. Its now absolutely clear that the Guardian has acted in a totally irresponsible manner, and they should be held to account as a result.
No idea if there is a public interest defence in this case but if there is then the Guardian should be able to claim it in spades.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
The Official Secrets Act 1989 was passed as a result of the Ponting case. It was designed specifically to eliminate a public interest defence. Section 6 can be read here (make allowances for the government's website). It is perfectly clear that the Guardian have contravened the statute. It may be that the statute is excessively strict (a view I sympathise with), but the law is the law.
I would expect that as part of their defence the Guardian would have the right to ask what information had been passed over. Otherwise HMG could simply make the claim without any proof that they did pass any information over.
It is likely that such evidence would be received in camera.
Ladbrokes have David Lammy at 12/1 for next London mayor.
About right IMO. Lammy was hopelessly out of his depth as a minister, has no significant following in the Labour Party and will certainly not survive an open primary if that is how Labour chooses its candidate. Jowell and Khan (and others) are streets ahead of him.
Actually Lammy was a pretty decent minister. Certainly a whole lot better than those who have followed him in the IP portfolio.
BT has beaten BSkyB to win the right to show Champions League soccer from 2015, in the biggest blow to Rupert Murdoch's dominant pay-TV operator since it started broadcasting more than 20 years ago.
Big blow to consumers as well.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Fantastic news for PL club owners. Their next deal will be even bigger now as Sky now knows it has very serious and committed competition. Daniel Levy will be rubbing his hands together.
Croydon South (28.1% Con Majority) Conservative shortlist appears (as reported by Croydon Advertiser) to be
Charlotte Vere (2010 Brighton Pavillion candidate) Suella Fernandes (2005 Leicester East candidate) Chris Philp (Hampstead and Kilburn 2010 candidate, runner up in Tonbridge selection) Lucy Frazer (also based in Camden)
Casualties include the council leader, Malthouse and a couple of SpAds.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that the Guardian's reporting in relation to the UK has broken any news. If Parliament votes for enactments like the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it should come as no surprise that the powers conferred on the intelligence services are being used. What is of grave concern is the mentality that it is for a Crown servant or agent to judge what document it is in the public interest to disclose.
IANAL, but I thought the OSA applied to everyone. The signature just means that you know of the act, and what it means
That is spot on. I have signed it more times than you can shake the proverbial stick at but it wouldn't matter if I'd never have seen it. We're all covered equally, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
IANAL, but I thought the OSA applied to everyone. The signature just means that you know of the act, and what it means
That is spot on. I have signed it more times than you can shake the proverbial stick at but it wouldn't matter if I'd never have seen it. We're all covered equally, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
That is not true. Certain provisions of the 1989 Act apply only to those notified that they are subject to the provisions of that Act.
IANAL, but I thought the OSA applied to everyone. The signature just means that you know of the act, and what it means
That is spot on. I have signed it more times than you can shake the proverbial stick at but it wouldn't matter if I'd never have seen it. We're all covered equally, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
That is not true. Certain provisions of the 1989 Act apply only to those notified that they are subject to the provisions of that Act.
There seems to now be a certain direction of travel with this scandal.... Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 1m Tomorrow’s Sunday Times front page:Union boss 'elected by phantoms' http://polho.me/17fHvZR
There seems to now be a certain direction of travel with this scandal.... Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 1m Tomorrow’s Sunday Times front page:Union boss 'elected by phantoms' http://polho.me/17fHvZR
What do you mean? Sections 1 to 4 of the 1989 Act apply to Crown servants, government contractors, and those notified that they are subject to the provisions of s. 1 and no one else.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Great news for consumers as it means Sky's pay TV monopoly is broken up.
It should result in reduced prices, better channels and improved TV technology in the long-run.
The fact that Sky's lazy, incompetent monopoly wasn't broken up a decade ago is a disgrace of modern politics. The New Labour government was too scared to take on Murdoch, fearing a barrage of negative press.
On the Guardian thing, I don't if anyone else folllowed the Miranda case but the security services seem to have come up a definition of terrorism so expansive that it defines themselves as terrorists. Surely we can all agree that The Guardian shouldn't be handing over information to terrorists or destroying information on their behalf?
On the Guardian thing, I don't if anyone else folllowed the Miranda case but the security services seem to have come up a definition of terrorism so expansive that it defines themselves as terrorists. Surely we can all agree that The Guardian shouldn't be handing over information to terrorists or destroying information on their behalf?
The incredibly expansive definition of terrorism is not the result of an invention of the intelligence services, but is due to section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by the Blair government. The Supreme Court recently observed how draconian that definition is in R v Gul[2013] UKSC 64.
On the Guardian thing, I don't if anyone else folllowed the Miranda case but the security services seem to have come up a definition of terrorism so expansive that it defines themselves as terrorists. Surely we can all agree that The Guardian shouldn't be handing over information to terrorists or destroying information on their behalf?
Not sure but I think I might be in a unique position on PB of actually having been arrested for spying - by a foreign power not the UK. It is a situation that does tend to concentrate ones mind, particularly when the country concerned was Arabic and my (French) employers leapt into action by immediately denying all knowledge of me.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Great news for consumers as it means Sky's pay TV monopoly is broken up.
It should result in reduced prices, better channels and improved TV technology in the long-run.
The fact that Sky's lazy, incompetent monopoly wasn't broken up a decade ago is a disgrace of modern politics. The New Labour government was too scared to take on Murdoch, fearing a barrage of negative press.
What utter rubbish, how is it a monopoly when there is a bidding process? What should politicians do, nationalise TV coverage of the Premier league.
Ladbrokes have David Lammy at 12/1 for next London mayor.
About right IMO. Lammy was hopelessly out of his depth as a minister, has no significant following in the Labour Party and will certainly not survive an open primary if that is how Labour chooses its candidate. Jowell and Khan (and others) are streets ahead of him.
Actually Lammy was a pretty decent minister. Certainly a whole lot better than those who have followed him in the IP portfolio.
I have been told that the general view in the PLP is that Lammy was promoted too quickly and struggled to cope. I once attended a seminar at which he spoke as minister for higher education - he read a pedestrian, uninspiring speech, written presumably by civil servants, which he clearly did not understand in any detail. Questions were answered with routine cliches and slogans which left the audience distinctly underwhelmed. I have not seen any subsequent evidence to suggest that his performance has improved.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Great news for consumers as it means Sky's pay TV monopoly is broken up.
It should result in reduced prices, better channels and improved TV technology in the long-run.
The fact that Sky's lazy, incompetent monopoly wasn't broken up a decade ago is a disgrace of modern politics. The New Labour government was too scared to take on Murdoch, fearing a barrage of negative press.
But Sky isn't lazy at all. It is now spending millions developing its own comedies and dramas. The lazy incompetent monopoly is the BBC.
There seems to now be a certain direction of travel with this scandal.... Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 1m Tomorrow’s Sunday Times front page:Union boss 'elected by phantoms' http://polho.me/17fHvZR
As ever, this can only be good news for Ed...
Again, what exactly do you think it will do?
(I presume it is something that cannot be measured)
The allegations over the election of Len McCluskey as general secretary of the Unite union centre on claims that almost 160,000 of those balloted were not members.
His rival for the job, Jerry Hicks, has complained that the election was unlawful because people who had left the union were included in the ballot. Hicks said dead former members were among those who were sent voting papers.
The Certification Office — the union regulator, which has the power to order McCluskey’s election to be rerun — confirmed this weekend that it has launched an investigation. An official complaint is expected to be submitted to Unite in the next few weeks.
What utter rubbish, how is it a monopoly when there is a bidding process? What should politicians do, nationalise TV coverage of the Premier league.
I said Sky have a pay TV monopoly, nothing to do with bidding on sport.
One country dominates the pay TV market and most people don't have the option of a pay TV provider or a choice of set-top boxes. That's a monopoly.
Sky should have been split into several separate companies that compete. That includes providers, set-top boxes/dishes, and channels.
There's a reason Sky+ boxes are so horrendously outdated, pay TV takeup is significantly lower than in other countries, and pay TV channels can't afford to create original scripted content.
It's no different to how BT's monopoly was successfully broken up by New Labour via tight regulation and LLU after the botched privatisation in the 1980s.
On the Guardian thing, I don't if anyone else folllowed the Miranda case but the security services seem to have come up a definition of terrorism so expansive that it defines themselves as terrorists. Surely we can all agree that The Guardian shouldn't be handing over information to terrorists or destroying information on their behalf?
The incredibly expansive definition of terrorism is not the result of an invention of the intelligence services, but is due to section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was introduced by the Blair government. The Supreme Court recently observed how draconian that definition is in R v Gul[2013] UKSC 64.
The original definition is already pretty gruesome, but their lawyers have been trying to stretch even that in some fairly mind-bending ways.
THE UNITE union was accused of “hypocrisy” this weekend as leaked documents showed it saved money on its £2.3m-a-year training programme by using tutors on zero-hour contracts.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Very interesting. But I wonder if the poll asked how many people proposed to change their voting intention because of their views about trade union influence on the Labour Party?
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
The honest answer is 80% 'What is the Falkirk Crisis?' rising to 99% by May 2015. Even with people guessing or answering with blind tribal loyalty the 45% 'Don't Know' is unusually high. It was a scandal around PPC selection, no-one outside the Westminster Bubble cares.
What utter rubbish, how is it a monopoly when there is a bidding process? What should politicians do, nationalise TV coverage of the Premier league.
I said Sky have a pay TV monopoly, nothing to do with bidding on sport.
One country dominates the pay TV market and most people don't have the option of a pay TV provider or a choice of set-top boxes. That's a monopoly.
Sky should have been split into several separate companies that compete. That includes providers, set-top boxes/dishes, and channels.
There's a reason Sky+ boxes are so horrendously outdated, pay TV takeup is significantly lower than in other countries, and pay TV channels can't afford to create original scripted content.
It's no different to how BT's monopoly was successfully broken up by New Labour via tight regulation and LLU after the botched privatisation in the 1980s.
What planet have you been living on? Ever heard of Virgin?
As for original scripted content, never heard of:
Mad Dogs The Tunnel Dracula Strike Back
Sky have allocated £500m for their own drama programmes with a view to raise it to £600m.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
I wonder what the heavy decline of The Sun's readership will have on the vote. I certainly suspect it will result in a less right-wing electorate, although that might be counteracted by the BBC's lurch to the right.
I also wonder what Murdoch's plan is to stem the bleeding, given that newspapers are mainly used for influence rather than profits.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Great news for consumers as it means Sky's pay TV monopoly is broken up.
It should result in reduced prices, better channels and improved TV technology in the long-run.
The fact that Sky's lazy, incompetent monopoly wasn't broken up a decade ago is a disgrace of modern politics. The New Labour government was too scared to take on Murdoch, fearing a barrage of negative press.
But Sky isn't lazy at all. It is now spending millions developing its own comedies and dramas. The lazy incompetent monopoly is the BBC.
As a Sky subscriber, I'm not anti Sky. What I am against is that it is not available to Freeview. It should be forced to offer a pay service so people don't have to faff about getting Virgin etc just to watch the Ashes.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
What utter rubbish, how is it a monopoly when there is a bidding process? What should politicians do, nationalise TV coverage of the Premier league.
I said Sky have a pay TV monopoly, nothing to do with bidding on sport.
One country dominates the pay TV market and most people don't have the option of a pay TV provider or a choice of set-top boxes. That's a monopoly.
Sky should have been split into several separate companies that compete. That includes providers, set-top boxes/dishes, and channels.
There's a reason Sky+ boxes are so horrendously outdated, pay TV takeup is significantly lower than in other countries, and pay TV channels can't afford to create original scripted content.
It's no different to how BT's monopoly was successfully broken up by New Labour via tight regulation and LLU after the botched privatisation in the 1980s.
It's tough to break up a private company without good cause. You could insist on open access to Sky's boxes, for instance, but that's no panacea. Arguably they shouldn't have allowed the merger of Sky and BSB originally, but BSB was virtually bankrupt so there wasn't much choice.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
The honest answer is 80% 'What is the Falkirk Crisis?' rising to 99% by May 2015. Even with people guessing or answering with blind tribal loyalty the 45% 'Don't Know' is unusually high. It was a scandal around PPC selection, no-one outside the Westminster Bubble cares.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
I think it is fairer to say Labour was the party of the working man.
Now it's the party of academics and metropolitan professsionals. I don't think it particularly sticks up for the working man (in the way that the Tories seem to have forgotten the C1C2s who were the key to Thatcher and Major's successes)
What planet have you been living on? Ever heard of Virgin?
You're out of touch. Most of the country can't get Virgin. How are they supposed to compete when most people don't even have the option?
As for original scripted content, never heard of:
Mad Dogs The Tunnel Dracula Strike Back
Sky have allocated £500m for their own drama programmes with a view to raise it to £600m.
Strike Back, The Tunnel and Dracula are all poorly-reviewed cheap co-productions (The Tunnel with Canal+, Dracula with NBC, Strike Back with Cinema) and their viewing figures are dismal.
In particular, Dracula shot in Budapest and used a mostly American production team. Not exactly original British content!
And I've never heard of Mad Dogs.
Sky are crap at original productions. They spit them out, no-one talks about them and no-one watches.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Nothing particularly surprising about the continuing decline.
The predictable whining from PB tories lashing out at the guardian is still vastly amusing though. The Guardian is no more immune to market pressures than any other paper and they already have a freemium model like a great many other papers.
That model will either be expanded greatly or used as a basis for another pay model in the near future. Again no different to other papers. What those new models won't do is stop the circulation falls for any of the papers and that matters because having a print edition is hugely important to the owners and proprietors. If you're just another news website then your competition is vast and a thousand times more cutthroat than even the newsstands.
That list of print edition papers will shorten in time and the Guardian is no more immune to being a casualty than the FT or the tabloids.
The increasing proliferation of churnalism, 'outrage' columnists and PR press release articles could be attributed to this far more hostile commercial environment were it not for the fact that it was rife long, long before now.
The print medias influence will continue it's decline but there will still be times when a scoop will dominate the news and bring the press back into focus. The press will still be the press even as their print editions keep withering. It won't have the direct political influence it had but it will still shape events when it does it's job.
As for the attack on the Guardian for focusing on whistleblowers, the effect of the NSA revelations is far greater in the US than it is here and the response from those upset at those revelations is entirely to be expected.
What planet have you been living on? Ever heard of Virgin?
You're out of touch. Most of the country can't get Virgin. How are they supposed to compete when most people don't even have the option?
As for original scripted content, never heard of:
Mad Dogs The Tunnel Dracula Strike Back
Sky have allocated £500m for their own drama programmes with a view to raise it to £600m.
Strike Back, The Tunnel and Dracula are all poorly-reviewed cheap co-productions (The Tunnel with Canal+, Dracula with NBC, Strike Back with Cinema) and their viewing figures are dismal.
In particular, Dracula shot in Budapest and used a mostly American production team. Not exactly original British content!
And I've never heard of Mad Dogs.
Sky are crap at original productions. They spit them out, no-one talks about them and no-one watches.
Just checked and Virgin is available to more than half of UK homes so your argument is rubbish. The Tunnel is excellent, Mad Dogs has run for three series and features four of our top television actors.
Then again I suspect you know all this but your myopic hatred of all things Murdoch forces you to talk bollocks.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
I think it is fairer to say Labour was the party of the working man.
Now it's the party of academics and metropolitan professsionals. I don't think it particularly sticks up for the working man (in the way that the Tories seem to have forgotten the C1C2s who were the key to Thatcher and Major's successes)
It's that too. But the relentless focus on the cost of living and consumer rights is aimed, too, at people who work in poor paying jobs not because they want to, but because they have to.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
Why don't you check then, I am quite happy to be corrected.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
What planet have you been living on? Ever heard of Virgin?
You're out of touch. Most of the country can't get Virgin. How are they supposed to compete when most people don't even have the option?
As for original scripted content, never heard of:
Mad Dogs The Tunnel Dracula Strike Back
Sky have allocated £500m for their own drama programmes with a view to raise it to £600m.
Strike Back, The Tunnel and Dracula are all poorly-reviewed cheap co-productions (The Tunnel with Canal+, Dracula with NBC, Strike Back with Cinema) and their viewing figures are dismal.
In particular, Dracula shot in Budapest and used a mostly American production team. Not exactly original British content!
And I've never heard of Mad Dogs.
Sky are crap at original productions. They spit them out, no-one talks about them and no-one watches.
Virgin media is now directly available to just over half of the 25 million homes in Britain. So your comment that 'most of the country can't get Virgin' is factually incorrect.
The fact that you have never heard of Mad Dogs says far more about you than the programme - particularly given that the first series was nominated for a British Academy TV award for Best Serial Drama in 2011.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Every single one, in all probability.
No Unions in the Offshore industry and frankly we have never missed them.
That is not to say that in times past they didn't do a huge amount of good. Just that these days they are living on past glories and prior to being reigned in by Thatcher they were definitely doing more harm than good.
No one can really claim that Unite covered themselves in glory over Grangemouth.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
Some broadcasters are also feeling the pain I see. That too will continue since the increasing proliferation of new delivery systems for content is proving very profitable for those who take advantage of them. New funding models for content are also going to be a huge threat to established broadcasters if they continue to succeed.
For one thing the BBC certainly isn't going to have to change because idiots like Hunt have a hissy fit about them. They'll have to change because the public has increasing easy access to a host of different content providers and payment models, happily uses them and will just grow ever more hostile to an archaic and outmoded license fee.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
Why don't you check then, I am quite happy to be corrected.
Labour carried the WWC in 2010, never mind just beat Ukip.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
Why don't you check then, I am quite happy to be corrected.
Labour carried the WWC in 2010, never mind just beat Ukip.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
By quite a large margin.
Good luck using best PM/ incumbency stuff.
Except it isn't.
Over 60s prefer a "Tory Govt led by Cameron" over a "Labour Govt led by Miliband"?
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
By quite a large margin.
Good luck using best PM/ incumbency stuff.
Except it isn't.
Over 60s prefer a "Tory Govt led by Cameron" over a "Labour Govt led by Miliband"?
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
They only have to look at how the economy is performing to find good news
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
By quite a large margin.
Good luck using best PM/ incumbency stuff.
Except it isn't.
Over 60s prefer a "Tory Govt led by Cameron" over a "Labour Govt led by Miliband"?
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
At the risk of repeating myself, It isn't incumbency, nor is that the question asked.
Wait for the thread, it should be published in the next week.
Whilst the PB tories hysterical fury at unions is always nothing less than hilarious those who are being complacent about just how much damage the unions and labour are doing to themselves right now had best think again.
The saga of Stevie Deans won't soon be forgotten by workers in Grangemouth. Falkirk is also by no means the only place where Labour has overstepped the mark. As I suspect we soon shall see.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
Why don't you check then, I am quite happy to be corrected.
Labour carried the WWC in 2010, never mind just beat Ukip.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
Hate is a very emotive word.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
The theory why Dave is focussing so heavily on Ed and the Unions is to remind those who lived during the winter of discontent that Ed could bring that back.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
By quite a large margin.
Good luck using best PM/ incumbency stuff.
Except it isn't.
Over 60s prefer a "Tory Govt led by Cameron" over a "Labour Govt led by Miliband"?
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
And just like the posters who accused me of writing threads that are the bad for the Tories, you're just wrong.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
snip
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
snip
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
By quite a large margin.
Good luck using best PM/ incumbency stuff.
Except it isn't.
Over 60s prefer a "Tory Govt led by Cameron" over a "Labour Govt led by Miliband"?
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
And just like the posters who accused me of writing threads that are the bad for the Tories, you're just wrong.
I'm going where the polling leads me.
Sure you are. To Opposition.
I look forward to the thread.
Anyway, I'm sure Miliband has plenty of Cost of Living Crisis wheezes up his sleeve for the over 60s. Put the cricket back on Proper telly. Ban cashpoint charges. Stop posties walking on your grass. Make tins easier to open.
Now he's got control of the issue, the world's his lobster.
Anyone wanting to know why Labour are outplaying Lynton "F*cking Muslims" Immigrants kill their children Crosby could do worse than read this.
Or they could reflect on the fact that despite being an odious tw*t Crosby was still smart enough to fool the incompetent fops into paying a vast sum of money to hire him after the Boris win. Crosby spun that win for all it was worth even though it's blatantly obvious the win had far more to do with Ken being a spent force and Boris still having the edge in that personality contest. Why Cammie and Osbrowne had also so quickly forgotten just how badly Michael Howard's campaign went down under Crosby is anyone's guess.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
Why don't you check then, I am quite happy to be corrected.
Labour carried the WWC in 2010, never mind just beat Ukip.
Just checked and Virgin is available to more than half of UK homes so your argument is rubbish.
I just checked and it's 44% according to Ofcom. FTTC is going to have far wider reach than Virgin ever will and it's easier and cheaper to implement.
If Sky's market share goes sub-50% then I can see the pay TV market significantly improving.
The Tunnel is excellent. Mad Dogs has run for three series and features four of our top television actors.
I watched the first episode of The Tunnel and didn't want to see any more. I've seen two other versions and I'm sick to death of serialised murder shows (although, admittedly, not as sick as I am about episodic police procedurals).
Mad Dogs completely passed me by and I pretty avidly follow the television industry (although, admittedly, not particularly the UK market these days). Its short seasons and lack of significant international sales is probably the reason.
Then again I suspect you know all this but your myopic hatred of all things Murdoch forces you to talk bollocks.
I had satellite in the early 90s, I got Sky Digital on the week of release in 1998 and I bought a TiVo in 1999. At the time, it was a relevation.
The problem is that they've had a monopoly for a decade, the service hasn't improved (and Sky+ was always significantly worse than the TiVo) and they've become vastly more expensive. At the same time, pay TV has vastly improved in other countries and other multichannel options have also improved.
Infrastructure and sports is the main thing keeping Sky's monopoly, and BT is breaking both of them up.
And if you want to hear something positive about a Murdoch property: I love the Fox network in the US. Kevin Reilly is brilliant. Sleepy Hollow and Brooklyn Nine-Nine are the best new shows of the US TV season by a mile.
I also loved the first season of Homeland, which is from Fox 21.
The PB Tory "friends of the troops" hypocrites would be orgasmic if someone had been undermining Brown Notice how silent they are about all troop issues since May 2010
I cant quite make up my mind if you really are stupid or just a dishonest smearer.
As you well know the ONLY government to send our troops to war in recent years with inadequate ammunition and even pain relief was your lot, Labour.
Last time you tried to debate military matters with me you ran off when confronted with facts.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
I think it is fairer to say Labour was the party of the working man.
Now it's the party of academics and metropolitan professsionals. I don't think it particularly sticks up for the working man (in the way that the Tories seem to have forgotten the C1C2s who were the key to Thatcher and Major's successes)
It's that too. But the relentless focus on the cost of living and consumer rights is aimed, too, at people who work in poor paying jobs not because they want to, but because they have to.
Bollocks. It's because they have been comprehensively proved wrong on the macroeconomics and are scrabbling around for something convincing to say.
Unfortunately there's plenty of scope of populism. Even if it's bad policy.
How much influence do the Trade Unions have over Labour?
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
Labour is the party of the working man, it came from the union movement. Trade unions are not evil or anti capitalist - the people who dislike them are Tory voters and a few malcontent right wingers - it's a "meh" from 24%
Correction: Labour used to be the party of the working man, these days they despise the WWC. They are much more interested in scroungers who do not work as they will always vote Labour, public sector workers they provide non-jobs for and importing tens of thousands of Labour voters.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
I wouldn't be sure that the polling backs that up.
Why don't you check then, I am quite happy to be corrected.
Labour carried the WWC in 2010, never mind just beat Ukip.
Just as an aside, the insistence that the banks should provide something for nothing (free current accounts, which are v. expensive) is part of the reason why there are so many problems around misselling and swinging penalty fees for minor breaches.
I wonder how many people on here who hate the unions have themselves benefited from the work they have done over the years to improve pay and conditions, and employment protections.
snip
C'est la vie. Same with the Tories and the energy companies.
snip
Fair enough. It's a rational strategy. The counter point to that is that it does nothing to eat into the firewall of anti-war Labour and leftish LDs that came back to Labour when the Liberals put the Tories into government.
Different strategies for different voters?
Check out the over 60s polling on all these issues, the are behind Ed.
There's a thread on it's way, which shows despite all that, when the forced question is asked on that segment, they'd prefer a Tory Govt/Dave as PM as opposed to a Lab Govt/Ed as PM.
By quite a large margin.
Good luck using best PM/ incumbency stuff.
Except it isn't.
Over 60s prefer a "Tory Govt led by Cameron" over a "Labour Govt led by Miliband"?
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
And just like the posters who accused me of writing threads that are the bad for the Tories, you're just wrong.
I'm going where the polling leads me.
Sure you are. To Opposition.
I look forward to the thread.
Anyway, I'm sure Miliband has plenty of Cost of Living Crisis wheezes up his sleeve for the over 60s. Put the cricket back on Proper telly. Ban cashpoint charges. Stop posties walking on your grass. Make tins easier to open.
Now he's got control of the issue, the world's his lobster.
Doesn't need one. IDS is so hilariously incompetent that even DC is noticing. Not long before he will be wanting to spend more time with his family and polishing the leather of the back benches.
Its that kind of hubris that the Conservative party are banking on. What ever your views of IDS or the Conservative party, the polls clearly show they have won the argument on the issue of Welfare. And that is I think largely down to the sterling work carried out by the Centre for Social Justice founded by IDS a decade ago. Its telling that a few years ago during a Westminster be-election campaign in Glasgow, the most recognised and respected Tory politician was IDS. And that was thanks to his hard work through the CSJ in that poverty stricken area when it was not on the media radar of any political party.
Don't underestimate the sterling work this quiet man has carried out where it matters in the UK over recent years. We are now having a very sensible and much needed debate about the role of the welfare state, and particularly about how we fairly distribute it, IDS deserves much of the credit for this after showing such a passionate interest for so long.
Doesn't need one. IDS is so hilariously incompetent that even DC is noticing. Not long before he will be wanting to spend more time with his family and polishing the leather of the back benches.
Comments
I'm not going to comment on politics because I don't think that's the substance of your question, but rather fundamentals.
On Osborne I wouldn't say "high" but "higher". Overall he has done an ok job on the deficit and squeezing TME sharply. And he's done that w/o crashing the economy. It would have been nice if he had been faster, but it's been a hellish environment & I would rather he was too slow if it reduces the downside risk. His mistakes - e.g. pasty tax - are minor / careless / presentational rather than fundamental.
On the government generally (rather than Cameron personally)
- Too much "nudge". e.g. alcohol minimum pricing, for instance, is just silly. It reminds me of Brown at his most irritating (I don't drink, particularly, so it's a philosophical thing rather than personal economics)
- Not thinking carefully through enough some of the benefit changes. Child benefit, for instance: WTF didn't they just make it taxable income instead of this fiddly change that Bobbajob loves so much?
- International Development: I like the concept, but why on earth haven't they just shifted back the ramp up by a year or so. Additionally, they should figure out the "right" (i.e. effective) amount to spend rather than an arbitrary 0.7% of GDP
- Press regulation. Enough said.
- But the big stuff: foreign affairs, education, welfare reform, Europe, crime they are doing broadly the right things
On Cameron personally:
- he needs to get out there much more and get the fundamental message across. Sometimes he is asleep at the switch
- He would do better to have a broader range of voices and opinions to listen to. As my Mum said after sitting next to him a dinner a few months ago "that man doesn't know how to listen"
- It's fine (and healthy) not to have an obsessive PM. But Cameron takes his duties to lightly. His approach is the classic "essay crisis" mode. Most of us grow out of it when we get a job.
- He is too concerned about what his immediate group of friends things - he should govern for the country not West London
Nadhim Zahawi @nadhimzahawi 7m
Energy Expenses Claims - An apology http://www.zahawi.com/viewblog.php?postID=117 …
I've shown figures like this on a regular basis with different papers faring better and others faring worse.
There is nothing that pisses me off more than accusations like the ones on this thread.
If you don't like it go elsewhere
If you will excuse me using Wiki for this :
"As of May 2011 it was the second-most popular UK newspaper website after Mail Online, with 2.8m unique visitors per day, and 51.3m per month, behind the Mail Online's 4.4m and 77.3m."
Mike has in no way manipulated the data. In fact by taking the published distribution figures he has, if anything, under-represented the Guardian readership.
Besides, I thought the official secrets act applied to people who had signed it and dealt with information they came into possession of from UK sources. According to the Government the UK were not involved in this - it was all the US doing it. Are they now going to admit that it was the UK who were involved in mass pying on their own citizens?
This section applies where—
(a)any information, document or other article which—
(i)relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations; and
(ii)has been communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the United Kingdom to another State or to an international organisation,has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been disclosed (whether to him or another) without the authority of that State or organisation or, in the case of an organisation, of a member of it; and
(b)the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of the foregoing provisions of this Act.
So as I said for sub-section 2 to apply the UK government must have been passing this information to the US government from whom it was leaked.
Not sure that is a road down which the UK government really want to travel given how annoyed our European neighbours are right now.
As for your second paragraph, section 6 of the 1989 act seems to include all sources. It is about information that has been entrusted to other states or international organisations, that relates to security or intelligence, which came into possession without the state's authority.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/section/6
Distributing names of spies seems a clear breach, from my inexpert reading. However, there might be other clauses that make this a moot point.
In this case, 'competition' will be a massive boon to the content sellers like Uefa, but a pain in the arse for sports fans who would rather everything worth watching was in 1 place at 1 price.
Charlotte Vere (2010 Brighton Pavillion candidate)
Suella Fernandes (2005 Leicester East candidate)
Chris Philp (Hampstead and Kilburn 2010 candidate, runner up in Tonbridge selection)
Lucy Frazer (also based in Camden)
Casualties include the council leader, Malthouse and a couple of SpAds.
Twitter
PoliticsHome @politicshome 1m
Tomorrow’s Sunday Times front page:Union boss 'elected by phantoms' http://polho.me/17fHvZR
It should result in reduced prices, better channels and improved TV technology in the long-run.
The fact that Sky's lazy, incompetent monopoly wasn't broken up a decade ago is a disgrace of modern politics. The New Labour government was too scared to take on Murdoch, fearing a barrage of negative press.
The lazy incompetent monopoly is the BBC.
(I presume it is something that cannot be measured)
His rival for the job, Jerry Hicks, has complained that the election was unlawful because people who had left the union were included in the ballot. Hicks said dead former members were among those who were sent voting papers.
The Certification Office — the union regulator, which has the power to order McCluskey’s election to be rerun — confirmed this weekend that it has launched an investigation. An official complaint is expected to be submitted to Unite in the next few weeks.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1338876.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_11_09
How has Ed Miliband handled the Falkirk crisis?
Well 19%
Badly 36%
Don't Know 45%
One country dominates the pay TV market and most people don't have the option of a pay TV provider or a choice of set-top boxes. That's a monopoly.
Sky should have been split into several separate companies that compete. That includes providers, set-top boxes/dishes, and channels.
There's a reason Sky+ boxes are so horrendously outdated, pay TV takeup is significantly lower than in other countries, and pay TV channels can't afford to create original scripted content.
It's no different to how BT's monopoly was successfully broken up by New Labour via tight regulation and LLU after the botched privatisation in the 1980s.
Too much 41%
Not Enough 12%
Balance is right 23%
Don't Know 24%
THE UNITE union was accused of “hypocrisy” this weekend as leaked documents showed it saved money on its £2.3m-a-year training programme by using tutors on zero-hour contracts.
As for original scripted content, never heard of:
Mad Dogs
The Tunnel
Dracula
Strike Back
Sky have allocated £500m for their own drama programmes with a view to raise it to £600m.
The problem for Unions and the Labour party, is that when one union strikes/behaves badly, then whole movement gets tarred with the same brush, whether they are an affiliated union or not.
I also wonder what Murdoch's plan is to stem the bleeding, given that newspapers are mainly used for influence rather than profits.
The white working man in this country is now much more likely to vote UKIP than Labour.
Now it's the party of academics and metropolitan professsionals. I don't think it particularly sticks up for the working man (in the way that the Tories seem to have forgotten the C1C2s who were the key to Thatcher and Major's successes)
In particular, Dracula shot in Budapest and used a mostly American production team. Not exactly original British content!
And I've never heard of Mad Dogs.
Sky are crap at original productions. They spit them out, no-one talks about them and no-one watches.
These people are older, and have a tendency to vote Tory, and could stop any seepage to UKIP.
The predictable whining from PB tories lashing out at the guardian is still vastly amusing though. The Guardian is no more immune to market pressures than any other paper and they already have a freemium model like a great many other papers.
That model will either be expanded greatly or used as a basis for another pay model in the near future. Again no different to other papers. What those new models won't do is stop the circulation falls for any of the papers and that matters because having a print edition is hugely important to the owners and proprietors. If you're just another news website then your competition is vast and a thousand times more cutthroat than even the newsstands.
That list of print edition papers will shorten in time and the Guardian is no more immune to being a casualty than the FT or the tabloids.
The increasing proliferation of churnalism, 'outrage' columnists and PR press release articles could be attributed to this far more hostile commercial environment were it not for the fact that it was rife long, long before now.
The print medias influence will continue it's decline but there will still be times when a scoop will dominate the news and bring the press back into focus. The press will still be the press even as their print editions keep withering. It won't have the direct political influence it had but it will still shape events when it does it's job.
As for the attack on the Guardian for focusing on whistleblowers, the effect of the NSA revelations is far greater in the US than it is here and the response from those upset at those revelations is entirely to be expected.
In particular, Dracula shot in Budapest and used a mostly American production team. Not exactly original British content!
And I've never heard of Mad Dogs.
Sky are crap at original productions. They spit them out, no-one talks about them and no-one watches.
Just checked and Virgin is available to more than half of UK homes so your argument is rubbish. The Tunnel is excellent, Mad Dogs has run for three series and features four of our top television actors.
Then again I suspect you know all this but your myopic hatred of all things Murdoch forces you to talk bollocks.
THE Co-op is to review whether to cancel its donations to the Labour party of up to £1m a year as part of a scramble to save cash.
In particular, Dracula shot in Budapest and used a mostly American production team. Not exactly original British content!
And I've never heard of Mad Dogs.
Sky are crap at original productions. They spit them out, no-one talks about them and no-one watches.
Virgin media is now directly available to just over half of the 25 million homes in Britain. So your comment that 'most of the country can't get Virgin' is factually incorrect.
The fact that you have never heard of Mad Dogs says far more about you than the programme - particularly given that the first series was nominated for a British Academy TV award for Best Serial Drama in 2011.
That is not to say that in times past they didn't do a huge amount of good. Just that these days they are living on past glories and prior to being reigned in by Thatcher they were definitely doing more harm than good.
No one can really claim that Unite covered themselves in glory over Grangemouth.
By quite a large margin.
For one thing the BBC certainly isn't going to have to change because idiots like Hunt have a hissy fit about them. They'll have to change because the public has increasing easy access to a host of different content providers and payment models, happily uses them and will just grow ever more hostile to an archaic and outmoded license fee.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/EMBES Voting Behaviour.pdf
That's incumbency.
Tories everywhere are poll-trawling for good news.
Wait for the thread, it should be published in the next week.
The saga of Stevie Deans won't soon be forgotten by workers in Grangemouth. Falkirk is also by no means the only place where Labour has overstepped the mark. As I suspect we soon shall see.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/WhoCaresAboutTheWhiteWorkingClass-2009.pdf
I'm going where the polling leads me.
I look forward to the thread.
Anyway, I'm sure Miliband has plenty of Cost of Living Crisis wheezes up his sleeve for the over 60s. Put the cricket back on Proper telly. Ban cashpoint charges. Stop posties walking on your grass. Make tins easier to open.
Now he's got control of the issue, the world's his lobster.
If Sky's market share goes sub-50% then I can see the pay TV market significantly improving. I watched the first episode of The Tunnel and didn't want to see any more. I've seen two other versions and I'm sick to death of serialised murder shows (although, admittedly, not as sick as I am about episodic police procedurals).
Mad Dogs completely passed me by and I pretty avidly follow the television industry (although, admittedly, not particularly the UK market these days). Its short seasons and lack of significant international sales is probably the reason. I had satellite in the early 90s, I got Sky Digital on the week of release in 1998 and I bought a TiVo in 1999. At the time, it was a relevation.
The problem is that they've had a monopoly for a decade, the service hasn't improved (and Sky+ was always significantly worse than the TiVo) and they've become vastly more expensive. At the same time, pay TV has vastly improved in other countries and other multichannel options have also improved.
Infrastructure and sports is the main thing keeping Sky's monopoly, and BT is breaking both of them up.
And if you want to hear something positive about a Murdoch property: I love the Fox network in the US. Kevin Reilly is brilliant. Sleepy Hollow and Brooklyn Nine-Nine are the best new shows of the US TV season by a mile.
I also loved the first season of Homeland, which is from Fox 21.
As you well know the ONLY government to send our troops to war in recent years with inadequate ammunition and even pain relief was your lot, Labour.
Last time you tried to debate military matters with me you ran off when confronted with facts.
Unfortunately there's plenty of scope of populism. Even if it's bad policy.
"These Iraqi chemical weapons are a potential death-trap"...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY7ThNFtf68
Don't underestimate the sterling work this quiet man has carried out where it matters in the UK over recent years. We are now having a very sensible and much needed debate about the role of the welfare state, and particularly about how we fairly distribute it, IDS deserves much of the credit for this after showing such a passionate interest for so long.