Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now EdM is in a standoff with the biggest union baron of th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now EdM is in a standoff with the biggest union baron of them all
Just when you thought politics was getting boring EdM takes on Len Mcluskey – goo.gl/PL9aA twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The unions put up with Blair at three elections, they're not going to stop funding Ed while he's attempting to remove Dave.
Therefore, that slight vulnerability may counter-intuitively enable him to be bolder in taking on (or being seen to be taking on) the Unions and other internal enemies. Why? Because despite a mostly strong position, many in Labour may have been slightly rattled by the anti-Ed M stuff, and more worried than they were about not winning in 2015. As such, he may be able to count on more rallying to him because of that fear, and more support for breaking his image as the union's man, who in turn will back down, as they certainly don't want to undercut Ed M so much that he risks throwing away such a simple win in 2015 so long as they do not implode.
Why does Baron have such negative connotations in general useage? And which noble title is eviller? Marquis?
There was a brief, very brief, outbreak of reality in January 2012:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16558820
That gave rise to a bit of a contest.
Reality lost.
What a silly count...
as Dame Edna said in a Barry MacKenzie film as a vampire died.
No idea whether that's relevant.
Probably a storm in a tea cup but Ed is once again (as with the internal changes he forced through) making it clear that for good or ill this is his show. Unlike his brother I don't think he is going to die wondering.
Fair enough actually - although it wouldn't have and likely never will make a difference in my neck of the woods, when I cast my vote in 2010 I did want a Cameron premiership, principally on the basis that trying to eliminate the deficit in five painful years seemed better than a promise to stretch it out for longer.
Of course, now they may just about half erase it by 2015 and it will be until 2020 to eliminate it entirely if at all (I don't know if they've officially admitted it will take until 2020 yet, but I imagine it will be coming, just like it went from 2015 to 2017 to 2018), so it turns out it really would have made no difference! The apathetic public who don't vote were right all along!
Responding to taffs upthread, this analysis gives useful background:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits
"If 2015 comes down to Austerity vs Austerity Lite, then why would voters choose the latter?"
Fair enough actually - although it wouldn't have and likely never will make a difference in my neck of the woods, when I cast my vote in 2010 I did want a Cameron premiership, principally on the basis that trying to eliminate the deficit in five painful years seemed better than a promise to stretch it out for longer.
Of course, now they may just about half erase it by 2015 and it will be until 2020 to eliminate it entirely if at all (I don't know if they've officially admitted it will take until 2020 yet, but I imagine it will be coming, just like it went from 2015 to 2017 to 2018), so it turns out it really would have made no difference! The apathetic public who don't vote were right all along! "
Do you really think that a party that refused to even have a spending review before the election in case they had to face up to any hard choices (other than wiping out the capital investment budget) would have made even the modest progress that the Coalition has made? Look at what Darling was promising and then insert the real growth figures instead of his fantasy efforts. It was truly scary.
As I have said before the epic deficit the Coalition inherited was only a part of the problem. They also inherited a system that essentially had no return valves built into it ensuring that future spending only went in one direction. For anyone who believes that the deficit and, you know, having the money to pay for things, is important the next election is shaping up to be a no brainer. Nothing Ed has said or is doing is changing that one iota.
Dukes usually get portrayed ok, maybe due to a martial or royal focus. Earls I certainly don't recall being evil in public conciousness.
Maybe it's all down to either foreigny (Count) or closeness - dukes and earls are probably not likely to go around oppressing you personally, but Barons are more likely to. Certainly some of our appointed Barons upset me from time to time at any rate.
Looks to me a manufactured row to beef up Ed M as not being the puppet of the Unions.
All timed very conveniently just before the local elections.
Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
I used to give the Coalition a lot of leeway and even credit, but the cumulative weight of failure to meet promises or expectations, and an inability to, in the generous view, communicate anything effectively and, more realistically, actually being pretty incompetent at so many things, wore me down.
Labour hold far fewer fears for me than they used to, because a 'probable inability to do any better', trumps 'certainly cannot do any better'.
Sorry didn't make clear I made that point as an example of a "good" Baron (even though he flew for the "bad guys" in WW1!).
My grandparents used the expression "speak German", for example, to describe flatulent emissions.
Historically I think barons not only tended to be lower down, but also created so they tended to be those who needed to carve out land or money often brutally. (in the Norman conquest William rewarded those who'd gambled on supporting him with baronies and pretty much let them loose to suppress the populace and establish themselves, again pretty brutally).
Fair enough - it's even weirder then, as I cannot offhand think of evil barons (who are known specifically as barons) that would justify the title being associated with shady or ruthless business, media etc kingpins.
I think corporeal has the best explanation so far. When in doubt, I'd prefer to think such things have a longstanding historical reason behind them.
It's such an unfair life, being a baron I guess.
This row (and that is probably a slightly flattering word) shows how far we have come from that. Going back is inconceivable under either major party now which makes the Unions as bogey men a lot less effective for the tories than they were. Such is the price of success!
Wiki, uncited fwiw suggests it's not just an English language thing with barons.
What on earth did Ed Miliband mean when he called McCluskey "reprehensible"?
The adjective comes from the verb to reprehend (Latin "re" = back + prehendere = to seize, grasp or arrest).
Is Ed suggesting that McCluskey should be seized and brought back into custody?
I am quite at loss to understand what Ed was going on about,
"I have in my hand a piece of paper signed by King John."
I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt with what we have learnt from the eurodisasters over the last three years that Darling/Brown would have done much worse than they claimed or that Osborne/Cameron are.
Baron Silas Greenback.
The Baron in German language Operetta is generally a baritone and baritones are generally baddies.
Something deserving of censure.
If Labour get in at the next GE and things still do not turn around (although simple time elapsed may mean things pick up), you can guarantee someone will make the same argument, that there can be no reasonable doubt that Cameron and co would have done much worse.
As I see it, Ed M and co, who I would prefer not get in straight away as I don't think that would be good for the Labour party's ego after so long in power before, may not fix things, but will likely be no worse than any crappy government would be, but the possibility exists they could be better than expected. Cameron and co have deteriorated fast, and are very unconvincing that they could do better than we have seen.
It's a shame, but since I voted LD last time, it's not like it's costing the Tories a vote if I did switch, not that that is my intention at this stage - growing up in the Tory shires, I have a deep apprehension at the prospect of voting Labour. Plus I detested Blair.
What is difficult to believe is that they will choose Miliband as Kinnock lite in 2015.
But he wasn't going up against Thatcher Classic at the time.
That said, on reflection people might choose between Austerity and Austerity lite and pick the latter - they didn't last time, but truth of the extent of austerity conducted to date or not, the perception has shifted to that it doesn't work, so 'the same thing, but less so' might work 5 years on when it didn't then.
There's nothing more boring than a Labour leader v Union spat.
I thought politics was getting interesting, with the Tories deciding to fight back a bit, and their media / spinners saying that Cameron is up for it, Ed is short of friends right now etc etc.
Thatcher was a big selling point for Labour well into the 21st century.
She probably still is.
[re]prehends- is the past participle stem of the Latin verb [re]prehendere.
The adjective was formed from the stem + ibilis.
I can see how the meaning "deserving of censure" has developed from the primary source but Ed's usage remains ambiguous.
Of course, Ed may think that McCluskey should be arrested but only be brave enough to call for censure when speaking in public.
Mike, where do you find these people!?
They didn't try in government, they never came up with any plans, they never did a review, they expanded the deficit in almost every one of their 13 years in power.
They've not tried in opposition. They've opposed every cut and not named a single one of their own they'd do instead.
In good times and bad Labour increased the deficit in almost every year. In what are undeniably bad times for our continent, the worst that can be said about the current government is its standing still. Standing still is a lot better than getting worse.
Balls and Ed were both heavily involved in Treasury decisions of the last government so its not like there's a vacuum here - either that we're operating in (Europe) or to judge them with.
Hmm...One thing you need to remember with Latin is that it was dominant language for the best part of a 1,000 years. In this country we tend to study classical latin from the time of the late republic. Having done this at school I found translating some of the Digest from Justinian's time surprisingly difficult.
The source I referred to indicated that this was late Latin which was perhaps not as pure as the earlier version. Certainly the meaning of this word seems to have developed somewhat and it is rather curiously found its way into English, or at least political English. When was the last time someone other than a politician used the word reprehensible?
We still kept our AAA rating under the last Government, unlike this Tory lot.
Public services were improved, unlike under the Tories. And living standards improved, unlike under this Tory Government.
Cameron and Osborne have made lots of things worse and improved nothing.
Link: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/24/some-more-thatcherite-than-others/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
But don't worry, Carl, Pork was confused too.
Hardly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/14/kat-banyard-feminist-pornography-equality
What is confusing me at the moment is the link between the aria from Bach's Goldberg Variations and Sky's screening of their "Hannibal" series. I had always thought it written to send a Russian diplomat to sleep.
I am waiting for Plato, TSE or MD to explain.
I am not sure, however, that this applied when Macmillan attended and departed,
What's his next tip going to be!?
It starts early. A fellow student reading law as an undergraduate who later became Chairman of the Bar Council of E&W, saw a suspicious youth running away from a distressed old aged pensioner in the street outside his college.
His reaction was to strut manfully towards the Porters Lodge and demand that the Police be rung immediately as "he had seen a dishevelled youth and suspected thief ambulate in a westerly direction in a manner which could only be described as guilty".
Yes, David, I feel sure "reprehensible" would be used by barristers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWW1NGOB288
That's yet another one that looks like it's been ripped straight from a very confused conspiracy loon website. They just threw random alarming words at the headlines and hoped something would stick.
Bizarre.
Well, the debate then becomes, which is better 1)Someone who tries to do something and only gets it half done, or 2)Someone who offers to try half as much but gets it done as promised?
Now, Labour may not have got it done. Probably wouldn't have. But I suspect that the message 'We promised 5 years of pain on the basis the job would be done by then, only now it will ten years of pain to do it' will not beat 'We promised half as much pain, to achieve the same end'
In effect a con trick? Maybe, and I would hate to think there is no difference in outcomes whatever the choice, but the challenges will remain immense, and if one lot could not get it done, and are unable to convince the public that it was the best that could be achieved (and the government have lost that argument in the last year when their comptency in the public perception took a nosedive), then fear stories of predictions of Labour doing worse will not convince either.
I truly hope things will turn around - it would be nice to think either of the parties could stem the tide properly.
Night all.
I also think Sun staff should spend less time on PB and Guido.
Over the same period, the proportion of Catholic Brazilians fell from 74% of the population to to 65%, Brazil’s National Statistics Institute reported.
In overall terms, the percentage of evangelicals rose 44%, as evangelical churches won over the faithful, especially women and people in poorer communities.
The rise of evangelical Christianity is a growing trend across Latin America."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/29/ratio-of-evangelicals-in-brazil-jumps-44-in-10-years/
They had the Suarez ban to work with, SUAREZ! That's pure tabloid crack and it writes itself.
Earls, Dukes and Lords are okay. Counts are sinister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10016467/David-Cameron-recruits-Boriss-brother-for-Number-10.html
I'm not sure if its just Mr Cameron desperately sucking up to Conservative MPs, or if they really are going to have some input into government policy making. I suspect the former.
And are we expecting a South Shields poll?
I have seen a UKIP poster, against immigration, on Tigers way in Leicester near the Rugby ground and University. A little bit odd in that Leicester (as opposed to the county) is not having elections. Perhaps they want to catch people who park on the street while braving the urban wasteland to watch the Rugby. They seem to like the player Tulangi, who may be one of those furriners, so not sure if it will work.
Applying that to South Shields, Labour would go from 18,995 to 12,622. That sounds like a good prediction to me as far as the Labour vote is concerned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ameliagentleman
Why are English people so cold? Perhaps this is the reason so many foreigners fail to integrate properly into society in the UK? I am a foreigner totally grateful to the UK for giving me a passport (married to a Brit for 21 years) as the chances of being killed where I come from are pretty good.
However, in all the time I spent living in the UK (five years in total), although I'm blue-eyed, blonde and speak perfect English with just a 5% accent, I am always regarded as being foreign. All my friends are foreign too mainly because we have come to realise we are all in the same boat.
My best friend is Swedish and has lived here in the UK for about 12 years. Even after that length of time living in the UK she says I am still the only person who has ever invited her home for a coffee!
We're told we have to be patient and that it takes time for an English person to trust you (say four years of knowing you), but then once they are friends with you, they are the best friends in the world. Well, I'm afraid I've given up trying and hoping.
Is it perhaps because your mothers never breast fed you and thus did not expose you to the first essential human warmth that we should all know? Or is it because you really are all xenophobic and your government, in its multicultural tendencies has failed to realise this basic truth? Perhaps it is just because you are SO polite, politically correct and you really don't want us to be here, so instead of telling us sincerely, you pretend to put up with us because you really don't want to become our friends?
Since first moving to the UK, I decided to move away again and have lived abroad for seven years. During that time I have never failed to make friends with the locals, and quickly too. So why are the English so aloof with foreigners?"
http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a393.asp
I am a norwegian student (so forgive my bad english - I'm working on it!), and I recently started to study here in England, near London.
Before I came here I had the impression that british people were some of the most friendly and polite people in the world. I have never been in the Uk before I started to study here, but I got these impressions from tv, movies, newspapers, other peoples experiences and so on. It's a general impression where I come from that british people are very friendly.
The first month I was here I was really amazed of how kind, helpful and polite the english people were. Everyone seemed to be in such a good mood, and when I asked for help everyone were so kind and patient. I was really looking forward to study here!
However, now that I started university, my impression has slightly changed. I find it really hard to get to know people in my class. Nobody ever try to speak to me or get to know me. If I try to talk to them of course they will reply, but they will not try to talk to me. I can sit all alone at a table while 3-4 brits are having a conversation above my head. It's like all the british students have isolated themselves inside their own big bubble, and they do not want to let anyone else inside.
I do not understand why...
We are about 35 students in my class. I think 11 of us are from other countries, and everyone share the same impression: brits are cold and hard to get to know! And if I meet a friendly brit it turns out he/she isn't british afterall, but come from another country.
I have always heard from foreigners that Norwegians are cold and unfriendly, that's why I find all this so odd. I do not want to offend anyone, I only want to try and understand why it's like this.
What do you think?"
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1445505
A tad sexist, and with apologies, but I have also noticed that being a cute female seems to be an advantage in bringing those cultural barriers down, at least with males who I know....and I am sure they would have been tempted to invite her home for a coffee, although I am not sure if that would have been offered on arrival. : )
The British and the French are exactly the same: they both will accept anyone. However, for the French to accept you, you must fully embrace all French culture, and then they will accept you as French, regardless of your origins. The British, on the other hand, will accept all foreigners as they are. However, they will never be British.
If you had to choose, which of the following
options would be best for Britain?
A majority Conservative government 29(+1)
Con/LD Coalition 9(+1)
LAB/LD Coalition 13(0)
Labour Majority 29(-2)
DK 21(+2)
LD voters are split: 2/36/45/2/14 but
LD 2010 voters : 10/16/32/23/19
UKIP voters say: 40/6/9/11/34
He could say that McCluskey is operating against the best interests of the UK and its people and invite union members and other supporters to send their political donations direct to Labour HQ.
A resolute stand against the vested political interests of this union leader could gain EdM a lot of support especially from the Don't Knows.
Maj own party gov:
Con: 88
Lab: 77