Also, not sure if it has been mentioned, Ed is the only leader with a net negative rating from his own voters. Cameron (+48), Clegg (+4) and Farrage (+69) have their parties behind them to differing degrees, only Ed (-12) does not even have the support of his own party.
Cameron needs to get UKIP down to 5%, his ratings with UKIP voters are -50. It's all very well having fitalass style devotion among your core vote, but where's the extra coming from?
Who on Earth would vote UKIP knowing now that doing so would cause World War 3?! ;-)
Afternoon all. I'm not quite sure why MORI still publishes the "All Giving A Voting Intention" figures because it's been shown that the "Certain To Vote" numbers are by far the most reliable.
Also, not sure if it has been mentioned, Ed is the only leader with a net negative rating from his own voters. Cameron (+48), Clegg (+4) and Farrage (+69) have their parties behind them to differing degrees, only Ed (-12) does not even have the support of his own party.
Cameron needs to get UKIP down to 5%, his ratings with UKIP voters are -50. It's all very well having fitalass style devotion among your core vote, but where's the extra coming from?
@Max - Sorry, but you're talking utter bilge. Cameron should neither move left nor right - his present occupation of the broad centre ground (with a modest rightist tilt) is the only place to create the conditions for re-election. It is fundamentally necessary but of course not in itself sufficient. That depends on competence on the economy.
Sean Fear is a person of integrity and principle; when he was in the Conservative Party he was always on its far right (that's no attack, all parties are coalitions). He has now chosen UKIP. It would be suicidal for the Tories to move so far in Sean's direction for him to return. Not that it matters but were it to do so, the party would very likely lose my membership and vote.
From the Conservatives' point of view, I agree. I'd far rather that the Conservatives were led by a Tony Abbott type of politician, but Cameron would come over as inauthentic if he were to nor portray himself as such a figure.
Really, Cameron has to bank on the economic recovery and Ed Milliband's dreadful ratings.
I'm surprised that Tories are taking any satisfaction from Ed's dismal personal ratings. Surely they realize that turning Ed's position round is very much easier than it would be turning round Labour's.
Infact when Ed's numbers improve as they are certain to do who knows what heights Labour will reach
There don't seem to be that many don't knows. I think people have made up their minds about Ed Milliband.
"Exclusive: Tim Farron interview: "I really like Ed Miliband, I don't want to diss him" The Liberal Democrat president lavishes praise on the Labour leader and says "I don’t want join in with the Tories who compare him to Kinnock."
Days before the Lib Dem conference opens in Glasgow, Farron lavishes praises on Ed Miliband in a clear signal that he has his eyes on a Labour-Lib Dem coalition after 2015.
Afternoon all. I'm not quite sure why MORI still publishes the "All Giving A Voting Intention" figures because it's been shown that the "Certain To Vote" numbers are by far the most reliable.
Even trying to look at it from a potential labour voter's point of view, seriously what's to get enthusiastic about getting involved with that party??
Green policies that destroy jobs and force up fuel bills. 'Social justice' that sees the gap between rich and poor widen. Unlimited immigration. Welfare spending that sees your workless neighbour as well off as you. Ever increasing national debt. a vast strata of highly paid aparatchiks that have to be financed by taxing your meagre wages. Bog standard schools, many with serious problems in less affluent areas. Oxford PPE MPs with zero experience of the working life, especially in tough neighborhoods. Union barons who welcome the workless to join as well as the working.
I seriously can't see why a working class working person, especially in the private sector, would be enthusiastic about joining the party. FFS what's in it for them? nothing. zero. zip. They are at the back of the queue. That might be true of the tories as well, but the tories aren't pretending to be the champions of the interests of the working person.
Ed is looking to build Labour`s membership to 500000.That means more dosh and more involvement for people.
Cameron has managed to cut his membership to less than 100000.Maybe it`s even less than 50000+1(Plato).
That`s the real difference between the two leaders.
What, that Ed deals in fantasy land, and Cameron in reality
Sums that up really.
Reality is keeping membership figures secret from your own membership?
I think we need to organise search parties to spot that most elusive creature a Tory party member-the Conservative party member needs a Conservation programme,otherwise it may become extinct.
@Max - Sorry, but you're talking utter bilge. Cameron should neither move left nor right - his present occupation of the broad centre ground (with a modest rightist tilt) is the only place to create the conditions for re-election. It is fundamentally necessary but of course not in itself sufficient. That depends on competence on the economy.
Sean Fear is a person of integrity and principle; when he was in the Conservative Party he was always on its far right (that's no attack, all parties are coalitions). He has now chosen UKIP. It would be suicidal for the Tories to move so far in Sean's direction for him to return. Not that it matters but were it to do so, the party would very likely lose my membership and vote.
From the Conservatives' point of view, I agree. I'd far rather that the Conservatives were led by a Tony Abbott type of politician, but Cameron would come over as inauthentic if he were to nor portray himself as such a figure.
Really, Cameron has to bank on the economic recovery and Ed Milliband's dreadful ratings.
He doesn't need to be Tony Abbot, Thatcher would be enough, and his impression of Thatcher doesn't seem too bad.
The problem I see, that the Tory party seems to not be ready to address, is that the path they are on (hoping for the best that the economy holds out and Ed remains a liability) leads to an almost identical result to 2010, which was this awful coalition. Majority government under Cameron seems out of reach and if retaining the keys to No. 10 is good enough for the party then Cameron it is until 2020 with all of the issues to the party that he brought from 2010 to now. I could foresee an FDP style collapse in 2020 if Cameron is still there alienating natural Con voters.
Even trying to look at it from a potential labour voter's point of view, seriously what's to get enthusiastic about getting involved with that party??
Green policies that destroy jobs and force up fuel bills. 'Social justice' that sees the gap between rich and poor widen. Unlimited immigration. Welfare spending that sees your workless neighbour as well off as you. Ever increasing national debt. a vast strata of highly paid aparatchiks that have to be financed by taxing your meagre wages. Bog standard schools, many with serious problems in less affluent areas. Oxford PPE MPs with zero experience of the working life, especially in tough neighborhoods. Union barons who welcome the workless to join as well as the working.
I seriously can't see why a working class working person, especially in the private sector, would be enthusiastic about joining the party. FFS what's in it for them? nothing. zero. zip. They are at the back of the queue. That might be true of the tories as well, but the tories aren't pretending to be the champions of the interests of the working person.
Don`t worry about Labour-they have more members than all other parties put together!
The Tory party is so ashamed of it`s membership count it won`t even release the numbers.I suspect Cameron goes red everytime anyone asks for the membership numbers to be released.
There is nothing there I wouldn't have expected Mr Farron to say 20 years ago when I first knew him. He knows exactly which voters he needs to focus on - those who voted lib dem rather than labour before and could do so again.
I'm surprised that Tories are taking any satisfaction from Ed's dismal personal ratings. Surely they realize that turning Ed's position round is very much easier than it would be turning round Labour's.
Infact when Ed's numbers improve as they are certain to do who knows what heights Labour will reach
There don't seem to be that many don't knows. I think people have made up their minds about Ed Milliband.
In which case surely his crapness is factored into the voting intentions.
"There was something about his talk that made one think of the prophets of the Old Testament: he spoke as if he believed himself to be inspired. The only thing that dispelled the illusion was his frequent use of words that are not found in the dictionary of a cultivated German."
12% of Unite members said they would join Labour, which if replicated across the affiliated unions would give around 500,000 members. I'd say 400,000 -500,000 was a fair target.
Of course you are right to recognise that Cameron has decided to live with a dying party dependent on a dozen hedge fund donors though.
Let's keep in mind that the question did not mention the cost of being an individual member so it's not a realistic picture.
On topic, I remain to be convinced that these 2010 LD switchers will stick with Labour when they are confronted with the reality of their vote potentially making Ed Miliband prime minister. It is one thing voting in local elections, or European elections, or by-elections (or saying how you'd vote to a pollster); it is another actually voting where a government is at stake.
The sort of people who are LD switchers are inherently oppositionist. They didn't want to vote for a party of government in 2010 and don't want to now. Will they want to take on a responsibility for what the next government does? I doubt it.
He doesn't need to be Tony Abbot, Thatcher would be enough, and his impression of Thatcher doesn't seem too bad.
Look at Theresa May's polling among UKIP voters compared to Cameron (ComRes July)
That would be enough. Kippers hate Dave with a passion, and he hates them Thats why he branded them racists.
Still, he needs their temporary allegiance to get a workable minority or majority in Parliament. He needs to make nice, and transforming into a Thatcherite figure before the election would persuade enough of them in marginals to hold their nose and vote Tory.
Overall, there's something for everyone in this poll.
Labour folk can point to the 10% lead, Tories can say, well how crap is Ed.
Yes, Labour's lead is huge among those who aren't likely to vote (which group contains, we can reasonably surmise, a substantial portion who indifferent and apathetic towards politics, and who haven't yet taken a considered view of how good or otherwise Miliband might be as PM).
I'm surprised that Tories are taking any satisfaction from Ed's dismal personal ratings. Surely they realize that turning Ed's position round is very much easier than it would be turning round Labour's.
Infact when Ed's numbers improve as they are certain to do who knows what heights Labour will reach
There don't seem to be that many don't knows. I think people have made up their minds about Ed Milliband.
In which case surely his crapness is factored into the voting intentions.
It's factored in to mid-term voting intentions, but it's probably one of the things that's gradually pulling down Labour's score.
So is Shappsy grossly incompetent or a bare-faced liar?
The Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, has described as an "absolute disgrace" a call from the United Nations for the government to scrap the so-called bedroom tax. Accusing Raquel Rolnik, the UN special rapporteur on housing, of having an agenda, Shapps said he had written to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, demanding an apology and an explanation of Rolnik's findings. The UN investigator had not been invited to Britain by ministers, and was biased, Shapps said. "It is completely wrong and an abuse of the process for somebody to come over, to fail to meet with government ministers, to fail to meet with the department responsible, to produce a press release two weeks after coming, even though the report is not due out until next spring, and even to fail to refer to the policy properly throughout the report. "That is why I am writing to the secretary general today to ask for an apology and an investigation as to how this came about," Shapps told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. However, the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed that Rolnik had met Eric Pickles, the secretary of state. She also met council officials in Glasgow. Rolnik later countered Shapps's claims at a press conference in London, signalling further blistering criticisms of housing and welfare policy in her final report next year. She had been invited by the UK government, and had met "numerous" government officials in the four countries as well as Pickles and Don Foster, the communities minister, she said.
Kind request to have a thread titled `How many members do the Conservatives have?`and a poll accompanying it.On last count,they were giving away four bottles of wine + the membership for 25 quid.I suspect they cleaned up among the winos.
Afternoon all. I'm not quite sure why MORI still publishes the "All Giving A Voting Intention" figures because it's been shown that the "Certain To Vote" numbers are by far the most reliable.
By whom and where is the evidence/data posted ?
By MORI themselves. Bob Worcester was saying so for years: (I don't know whether he's retired now).
That's why their headline figure is always the "Certain To Vote" figure.
Look at UKPollingReport: Anthony Wells is headlining those numbers.
That said, I do not recall the UN being so upset when Labour introduced the same measures for private housing. In addition, the UN might consider that the vast majority of countries have a far worse situation than we do. For example, 2 million Syrians are now refugees.
"There was something about his talk that made one think of the prophets of the Old Testament: he spoke as if he believed himself to be inspired. The only thing that dispelled the illusion was his frequent use of words that are not found in the dictionary of a cultivated German."
"He could not brook contradiction and used to fly into terrible rages if anyone ventured a word of dissent."
@SouthamObserver If she did see Eric Pickles then he is the one who should be hauled over the coals for wasting ministerial and civil servants time meeting her and feeding her agenda-driven nonsense.
Also, not sure if it has been mentioned, Ed is the only leader with a net negative rating from his own voters. Cameron (+48), Clegg (+4) and Farrage (+69) have their parties behind them to differing degrees, only Ed (-12) does not even have the support of his own party.
Cameron needs to get UKIP down to 5%, his ratings with UKIP voters are -50. It's all very well having fitalass style devotion among your core vote, but where's the extra coming from?
People who say they are likely to vote UKIP do so in large part precisely because they're disillusioned with the other parties / leaders. Cameron's figures are likely to remain sub-minus fifty (as will Clegg's and Miliband's) for the simple reason that once a (current) UKIPper becomes reasonably disposed to another leader / party, their voting intention will switch and they'll come out of the UKIP column.
You are, however, right that the Tories need to reduce the UKIP score.
@SouthamObserver If she did see Eric Pickles then he is the one who should be hauled over the coals for wasting ministerial and civil servants time meeting her and feeding her agenda-driven nonsense.
Clearly Pickles has been grossly incompetent too - fancy not telling Grant about his meeting; but Grant really should have checked before mouthing off, so a big, fat F for him too.
Even trying to look at it from a potential labour voter's point of view, seriously what's to get enthusiastic about getting involved with that party??
Green policies that destroy jobs and force up fuel bills. 'Social justice' that sees the gap between rich and poor widen. Unlimited immigration. Welfare spending that sees your workless neighbour as well off as you. Ever increasing national debt. a vast strata of highly paid aparatchiks that have to be financed by taxing your meagre wages. Bog standard schools, many with serious problems in less affluent areas. Oxford PPE MPs with zero experience of the working life, especially in tough neighborhoods. Union barons who welcome the workless to join as well as the working.
I seriously can't see why a working class working person, especially in the private sector, would be enthusiastic about joining the party. FFS what's in it for them? nothing. zero. zip. They are at the back of the queue. That might be true of the tories as well, but the tories aren't pretending to be the champions of the interests of the working person.
<blockquote
My wife used to work in a private school kitchen. They used to take the pish out of her and her colleagues, bullying them into working long hours, weekends, playing one off against another, working in conditions that were not ideal, sometimes dangerous, and used the fact that they were all mums working part time to pay them crap wages. I organised a meeting down the pub with them, with a union rep mate from work. He talked through their rights and options with them, and put them in contact with another union, which they consequently joined. The school never recognised their union membership, but once she and her workmates used the union to back them up, things changed for the better, rapidly. That's why you join a union.
Afternoon all. I'm not quite sure why MORI still publishes the "All Giving A Voting Intention" figures because it's been shown that the "Certain To Vote" numbers are by far the most reliable.
By whom and where is the evidence/data posted ?
By MORI themselves. Bob Worcester was saying so for years: (I don't know whether he's retired now).
That's why their headline figure is always the "Certain To Vote" figure.
Look at UKPollingReport: Anthony Wells is headlining those numbers.
So is Shappsy grossly incompetent or a bare-faced liar?
The Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, has described as an "absolute disgrace" a call from the United Nations for the government to scrap the so-called bedroom tax. Accusing Raquel Rolnik, the UN special rapporteur on housing, of having an agenda, Shapps said he had written to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, demanding an apology and an explanation of Rolnik's findings. The UN investigator had not been invited to Britain by ministers, and was biased, Shapps said. "It is completely wrong and an abuse of the process for somebody to come over, to fail to meet with government ministers, to fail to meet with the department responsible, to produce a press release two weeks after coming, even though the report is not due out until next spring, and even to fail to refer to the policy properly throughout the report. "That is why I am writing to the secretary general today to ask for an apology and an investigation as to how this came about," Shapps told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. However, the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed that Rolnik had met Eric Pickles, the secretary of state. She also met council officials in Glasgow. Rolnik later countered Shapps's claims at a press conference in London, signalling further blistering criticisms of housing and welfare policy in her final report next year. She had been invited by the UK government, and had met "numerous" government officials in the four countries as well as Pickles and Don Foster, the communities minister, she said.
My wife used to work in a private school kitchen. They used to take the pish out of her and her colleagues, bullying them into working long hours, weekends, playing one off against another, working in conditions that were not ideal, sometimes dangerous, and used the fact that they were all mums working part time to pay them crap wages. I organised a meeting down the pub with them, with a union rep mate from work. He talked through their rights and options with them, and put them in contact with another union, which they consequently joined. The school never recognised their union membership, but once she and her workmates used the union to back them up, things changed for the better, rapidly. That's why you join a union.
Only stupid people argue against union representation for unskilled and semi-skilled labour where exploitation is a real concern because employees are easily replaced, especially at a time of high unemployment. It is in skilled work that union representation doesn't make sense and the use of industrial action to get their way because they know their members are a key part of the economy absolutely stinks.
In my line of work employers treat us all very well, because we have skills that are not easy to replace, I have no need to join a union. Doctors, nurses, firemen, police and other skilled public sector employees don't need a union to represent them, the skills they have are enough to get them a fair wage and retirement scheme. The lack of competition in some sectors is part of the problem though, the reason I get such a good package is that there is always a company offering something better.
As curtailing the Spare Room Subsidy is electorally popular and outside intervention by some foreign UN bod generally isn't, I would have thought that putting the combination together will have Conservatives quietly chortling.
Afternoon all. I'm not quite sure why MORI still publishes the "All Giving A Voting Intention" figures because it's been shown that the "Certain To Vote" numbers are by far the most reliable.
By whom and where is the evidence/data posted ?
By MORI themselves. Bob Worcester was saying so for years: (I don't know whether he's retired now).
That's why their headline figure is always the "Certain To Vote" figure.
Look at UKPollingReport: Anthony Wells is headlining those numbers.
Look at Theresa May's polling among UKIP voters compared to Cameron (ComRes July)
And of course, as you very well know, if by any chance Theresa May did become Tory leader, those same UKIPpers would suddenly discover they hated her too. In fact, they might well discover that without her becoming leader, as they did with Boris.
It's not Cameron they dislike, it's the modern world. He's just the figurehead.
12% of Unite members said they would join Labour, which if replicated across the affiliated unions would give around 500,000 members. I'd say 400,000 -500,000 was a fair target.
Of course you are right to recognise that Cameron has decided to live with a dying party dependent on a dozen hedge fund donors though.
Let's keep in mind that the question did not mention the cost of being an individual member so it's not a realistic picture.
Isnt the point that the cost of being an individual member will be zero for many?
"Francois Hollande: David Cameron committed 'schoolboy error' on Syria
David Cameron committed a "schoolboy error" in allowing himself to be beaten in a parliamentary vote over Syria and came out of it "weakened", Francois Hollande is reported to have said."
In my line of work employers treat us all very well, because we have skills that are not easy to replace, I have no need to join a union. Doctors, nurses, firemen, police and other skilled public sector employees don't need a union to represent them, the skills they have are enough to get them a fair wage and retirement scheme. The lack of competition in some sectors is part of the problem though, the reason I get such a good package is that there is always a company offering something better.
Your basic point is right, I think, but you're slightly contradicting yourself with your examples. As your last sentence implies, unions can be very important when there is a monopoly employer, which does effectively apply to doctors, nurses, and firefighters.
The sort of people who are LD switchers are inherently oppositionist. They didn't want to vote for a party of government in 2010 and don't want to now. Will they want to take on a responsibility for what the next government does? I doubt it.
I agree and with Labour's increase since the GE now approaching the amount who have moved from the LDs, Labour's headline leads looks to be built on sand. The voter rebels do not stick with oppositions in a GE, so we may already have Con vs Lab at the same VI. With 20 months remaining.
As curtailing the Spare Room Subsidy is electorally popular and outside intervention by some foreign UN bod generally isn't, I would have thought that putting the combination together will have Conservatives quietly chortling.
In addition to Barroso's frankly idiotic comments today I wouldn't be surprised if the Tory leadership aren't thanking their lucky starts this evening.
If there is one thing that everyone hates, it's outside meddling from figures of "authority". I wouldn't be surprised if Barroso's comments have the opposite effect of what he intended, and I'm surprised (though not as surprised as I would have been before his tactical missteps at Eastleigh) Farrage is falling into the trap of declaring victory...
"Francois Hollande: David Cameron committed 'schoolboy error' on Syria
David Cameron committed a "schoolboy error" in allowing himself to be beaten in a parliamentary vote over Syria and came out of it "weakened", Francois Hollande is reported to have said."
He doesn't need to be Tony Abbot, Thatcher would be enough, and his impression of Thatcher doesn't seem too bad.
Look at Theresa May's polling among UKIP voters compared to Cameron (ComRes July)
That would be enough. Kippers hate Dave with a passion, and he hates them Thats why he branded them racists.
The more people see and hear of politicians the less they like them. Look at Milliband's ratings since he's been in the news recently. Not exactly going up are they?
People like Theresa May at the moment because they don't really know much about her.
In the olden days when the cabinet and shadow cabinet were full of big beasts and barons with their own supporters a weakish leader was a problem but not an insuperable one.
Today in the 24/7 media with hours to fill, with leaders debates forming the focus of the election campaign, with an ever more presidential style to our politics and cabinets and shadow cabinets full of non entities that few of the public have even heard of this is a major problem.
Weird isn't it? If Cameron had scraped a few more votes together I don't think we would have gone down this additional step. If there is a poll before Conference with a tory lead he is toast. That is still unlikely but that is the sort of random chance he is now subject to.
My wife used to work in a private school kitchen. They used to take the pish out of her and her colleagues, bullying them into working long hours, weekends, playing one off against another, working in conditions that were not ideal, sometimes dangerous, and used the fact that they were all mums working part time to pay them crap wages. I organised a meeting down the pub with them, with a union rep mate from work. He talked through their rights and options with them, and put them in contact with another union, which they consequently joined. The school never recognised their union membership, but once she and her workmates used the union to back them up, things changed for the better, rapidly. That's why you join a union.
Only stupid people argue against union representation for unskilled and semi-skilled labour where exploitation is a real concern because employees are easily replaced, especially at a time of high unemployment. It is in skilled work that union representation doesn't make sense and the use of industrial action to get their way because they know their members are a key part of the economy absolutely stinks.
In my line of work employers treat us all very well, because we have skills that are not easy to replace, I have no need to join a union. Doctors, nurses, firemen, police and other skilled public sector employees don't need a union to represent them, the skills they have are enough to get them a fair wage and retirement scheme. The lack of competition in some sectors is part of the problem though, the reason I get such a good package is that there is always a company offering something better.
We'll have to disagree, Max. I have nowhere else to go, in my line of work. I either work for The Man, or I get a different career.
In my line of work employers treat us all very well, because we have skills that are not easy to replace, I have no need to join a union. Doctors, nurses, firemen, police and other skilled public sector employees don't need a union to represent them, the skills they have are enough to get them a fair wage and retirement scheme. The lack of competition in some sectors is part of the problem though, the reason I get such a good package is that there is always a company offering something better.
Your basic point is right, I think, but you're slightly contradicting yourself with your examples. As your last sentence implies, unions can be very important when there is a monopoly employer, which does effectively apply to doctors, nurses, and firefighters.
Actually I was trying to imply that monopolies need to be broken. For doctors, nurses and teachers it does not apply, the private sector is a massive employer in health and education, and the public sector does have to keep up with wages and employment terms in these sectors to prevent a brain drain.
Afternoon all. I'm not quite sure why MORI still publishes the "All Giving A Voting Intention" figures because it's been shown that the "Certain To Vote" numbers are by far the most reliable.
By whom and where is the evidence/data posted ?
By MORI themselves. Bob Worcester was saying so for years: (I don't know whether he's retired now).
That's why their headline figure is always the "Certain To Vote" figure.
Look at UKPollingReport: Anthony Wells is headlining those numbers.
LOL , pollster says his way of presenting the figures is the correct one . I would wish for something rather more unbiased than that .
Not really LOL. They've no reason to promote a figure which isn't the most accurate one.
I think you will find that rather than being the most accurate , the figures for only those absolutely certain to vote is the most volatile . IIRC , Bob Worcester has an aversion to using any form of past vote/voter ID weighting and his solution when Mori completely revamped their polling a few years ago following an embarrassingly poor result for one election was to only present the figures for only those 100% certain to vote . I would agree that without past vote weighting , giving the figures for all those polled id likely to be just as inaccurate or more so . Fortunately the full data tables allow us to see the vI figures for those with a variety of certainty to vote figures .
@MaxPB - Yes, I agree with that sentiment. Monopoly employers are a public evil, and obviously bad for employees. It's amazing that unions are so in favour of them, although I suppose without them the unions themselves would wither.
However, in practice I think you are wrong about health and education. Sure, consultant surgeons can go into the private sector, but many doctors and other NHS workers effectively can't (there aren't any private paediatric oncologists, for example).
We'll have to disagree, Max. I have nowhere else to go, in my line of work. I either work for The Man, or I get a different career.
How about if different brigades were allowed to set remuneration policies independently. If the one you work for has a lower wage and the one next door has a higher one you could apply go and ply your trade there.
Having pay set centrally is not something I agree with as it leads to a monopoly situation which is ripe for exploitation. Locally set pay and budgets would create a competitive environment.
My wife used to work in a private school kitchen. They used to take the pish out of her and her colleagues, bullying them into working long hours, weekends, playing one off against another, working in conditions that were not ideal, sometimes dangerous, and used the fact that they were all mums working part time to pay them crap wages. I organised a meeting down the pub with them, with a union rep mate from work. He talked through their rights and options with them, and put them in contact with another union, which they consequently joined. The school never recognised their union membership, but once she and her workmates used the union to back them up, things changed for the better, rapidly. That's why you join a union.
Only stupid people argue against union representation for unskilled and semi-skilled labour where exploitation is a real concern because employees are easily replaced, especially at a time of high unemployment. It is in skilled work that union representation doesn't make sense and the use of industrial action to get their way because they know their members are a key part of the economy absolutely stinks.
In my line of work employers treat us all very well, because we have skills that are not easy to replace, I have no need to join a union. Doctors, nurses, firemen, police and other skilled public sector employees don't need a union to represent them, the skills they have are enough to get them a fair wage and retirement scheme. The lack of competition in some sectors is part of the problem though, the reason I get such a good package is that there is always a company offering something better.
That's taking the view that unions are only there to fight for better conditions against indifferent or uncaring management. That certainly *can* be one role but even where a more co-operative culture exists within a workplace, unions have at least two significant roles: firstly, representing individual members on disciplinaries, grievences and so on, and secondly, acting as a voice / point of contact with which management can consult with the workforce on matters of mutual interest.
The sort of people who are LD switchers are inherently oppositionist. They didn't want to vote for a party of government in 2010 and don't want to now. Will they want to take on a responsibility for what the next government does? I doubt it.
It will be enough for these voters to vote against the 2010 Coalition.
After all I think it is less than 30 Labour gains from the Conservatives that would make them the largest party - which creates the real prospect of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, probably what these particular voters want more than the alternatives.
I'm sure they do discounts for students and the like.
How does that help union members, unless you are suggesting mass discounts for union members, which again leads to the question, why bother if 500k people are only going to yield £2m per year and lose you the massive block grants from Unite, GMB and others.
After all I think it is less than 30 Labour gains from the Conservatives that would make them the largest party - which creates the real prospect of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, probably what these particular voters want more than the alternatives.
So what did those particular voters in Con/Lab marginals want last time?
We'll have to disagree, Max. I have nowhere else to go, in my line of work. I either work for The Man, or I get a different career.
How about if different brigades were allowed to set remuneration policies independently. If the one you work for has a lower wage and the one next door has a higher one you could apply go and ply your trade there.
Having pay set centrally is not something I agree with as it leads to a monopoly situation which is ripe for exploitation. Locally set pay and budgets would create a competitive environment.
Wouldn't work, it's taxpayer's money wot pays my wages.
@MaxPB - Yes, I agree with that sentiment. Monopoly employers are a public evil, and obviously bad for employees. It's amazing that unions are so in favour of them, although I suppose without them the unions themselves would wither.
However, in practice I think you are wrong about health and education. Sure, consultant surgeons can go into the private sector, but many doctors and other NHS workers effectively can't (there aren't any private paediatric oncologists, for example).
I think for the kinds of health professional you are talking about the employment market is global, the NHS is not just competing with the private sector in the UK, but hospitals in the US and other countries which is enough competition to keep wages at a decent level.
I'm sure they do discounts for students and the like.
How does that help union members, unless you are suggesting mass discounts for union members, which again leads to the question, why bother if 500k people are only going to yield £2m per year and lose you the massive block grants from Unite, GMB and others.
I dont think you've quite grasped the proposals and how they could end up working. It's wrong to suggest that it will necessarily cost the individual trade union member anything to opt it and it is also wrong to suggest that it will necessarily cost Labour a penny in funding from the trade unions if take-up is miserable.
@tim - Actually, tim, that's a much more interesting article than your caricature implies.
I found Hodges' article well-constructed and cogent, largely devoid of his default kneejerkism. Of course, that's partly because I agree with the thrust of his argument so there is a some confirmation bias going on, but his central contentions seemed strong.
The Labour party, in terms of its senior personnel and its values, is now more of a metropolitan bent than a working class one. This affects its policy formation.
Restoring personal ties between senior Labour politicians and leading trade unionists, can't restore a genuine relationship between Labour and the working classes, as similar "representativity" issues surround the unions as affect the political entities (Labour Party, Cooperative Party, think tanks) in the Labour movement.
The wider union membership shows a distinct uninterest in participating in the organised political processes. The idea of hundreds of thousands of working class people at the vanguard of a reinvigorated Labour movement is a pipe dream. (Not just Ed Miliband's response to Falkirk; the hope for a resurgent volunteer army predates this. David Miliband mistakenly thought his Movement For Change would spearhead his leadership campaign victory, for instance.) As Richard Nabavi points out, this relates more to wider social fragmentation and individualism (Bowling alone syndrome) than to a specific sickness in left-wing politics, so the ailment can't be cured by changes to the political programme, its presentation, or membership structure.
And I strongly agree with Hodges' conclusion. The absence of a strong working class voice in politics will inevitably erode the status, interests and wellbeing of working class people in the future.
I'm sure they do discounts for students and the like.
How does that help union members, unless you are suggesting mass discounts for union members, which again leads to the question, why bother if 500k people are only going to yield £2m per year and lose you the massive block grants from Unite, GMB and others.
I dont think you've quite grasped the proposals and how they could end up working. It's wrong to suggest that it will necessarily cost the individual trade union member anything to opt it and it is also wrong to suggest that it will necessarily cost Labour a penny in funding from the trade unions if take-up is miserable.
If that is truly the case, what is the point of the reforms? So Ed can claim some moral victory over the unions but also keep the funding?
@MaxPB - Yes, I agree with that sentiment. Monopoly employers are a public evil, and obviously bad for employees. It's amazing that unions are so in favour of them, although I suppose without them the unions themselves would wither.
However, in practice I think you are wrong about health and education. Sure, consultant surgeons can go into the private sector, but many doctors and other NHS workers effectively can't (there aren't any private paediatric oncologists, for example).
Don't think I'd agree with that. The main reasons that unions love monopoly employers (or national terms and conditions, which largely amounts to the same thing), are: (1) it's far easier for them to negotiate and therefore gives them a much bigger input into the process as they can concentrate their efforts lobbying just a few individuals, and (2) it creates the opportunity for employer and union to stitch up a deal where both benefit in the short term by screwing the customer - monopoly employers being by definition monopoly suppliers.
I'm sure they do discounts for students and the like.
How does that help union members, unless you are suggesting mass discounts for union members, which again leads to the question, why bother if 500k people are only going to yield £2m per year and lose you the massive block grants from Unite, GMB and others.
I dont think you've quite grasped the proposals and how they could end up working. It's wrong to suggest that it will necessarily cost the individual trade union member anything to opt it and it is also wrong to suggest that it will necessarily cost Labour a penny in funding from the trade unions if take-up is miserable.
If that is truly the case, what is the point of the reforms? So Ed can claim some moral victory over the unions but also keep the funding?
I think Ed set out the point of the reforms pretty clearly both in the speech he made about the Falkirk selection and to the TUC - he wants a more engaged relationship between local parties and affiliated members.
@tim - Actually, tim, that's a much more interesting article than your caricature implies.
I found Hodges' article well-constructed and cogent, largely devoid of his default kneejerkism. Of course, that's partly because I agree with the thrust of his argument so there is a some confirmation bias going on, but his central contentions seemed strong.
The Labour party, in terms of its senior personnel and its values, is now more of a metropolitan bent than a working class one. This affects its policy formation.
Restoring personal ties between senior Labour politicians and leading trade unionists, can't restore a genuine relationship between Labour and the working classes, as similar "representativity" issues surround the unions as affect the political entities (Labour Party, Cooperative Party, think tanks) in the Labour movement.
The wider union membership shows a distinct uninterest in participating in the organised political processes. The idea of hundreds of thousands of working class people at the vanguard of a reinvigorated Labour movement is a pipe dream. (Not just Ed Miliband's response to Falkirk; the hope for a resurgent volunteer army predates this. David Miliband mistakenly thought his Movement For Change would spearhead his leadership campaign victory, for instance.) As Richard Nabavi points out, this relates more to wider social fragmentation and individualism (Bowling alone syndrome) than to a specific sickness in left-wing politics, so the ailment can't be cured by changes to the political programme, its presentation, or membership structure.
And I strongly agree with Hodges' conclusion. The absence of a strong working class voice in politics will inevitably erode the status, interests and wellbeing of working class people in the future.
Is th obvious conclusion not unions cutting out the waste of space metropolitan middle persons ir the Labour party and forming their own party ?
After all I think it is less than 30 Labour gains from the Conservatives that would make them the largest party - which creates the real prospect of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, probably what these particular voters want more than the alternatives.
So what did those particular voters in Con/Lab marginals want last time?
They wanted to oppose the then incumbent Labour government, but didn't have the foresight to anticipate a Conservative - Lib Dem coalition.
As David Herdson said, they're instinctive oppositionists. That sort of thinking is inherently backward-looking, so leading to unintended consequences - such as Ed Miliband as PM, and Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I think Ed set out the point of the reforms pretty clearly both in the speech he made about the Falkirk selection and to the TUC - he wants a more engaged relationship between local parties and affiliated members.
So that's a yes, he wants his money and a "victory" over the unions.
Not suggesting that the unions won't go for it, but I'm looking for reasons as to why they would want to.
A thought: Has Cameron's 'humiliating defeat' on Syria insulated him from the ongoing foreign policy fiasco Obama and Hollande are now facing?
Maybe his luck's a-changin'
It was the best result for him politically. He looks like he tried to do the right thing regarding the chemical weapons, but instead of trying to force it through with a load of lies and dodgy dossiers he just made his case and was defeated democratically which is exactly the way these things are meant to work.
He looked quite relieved as well after they lost the vote.
The fact that Milliband made a complete berk of himself afterwards was just good fortune.
I think Ed set out the point of the reforms pretty clearly both in the speech he made about the Falkirk selection and to the TUC - he wants a more engaged relationship between local parties and affiliated members.
So that's a yes, he wants his money and a "victory" over the unions.
That's how you choose to characterise it. I presume you're not a Labour supporter this week? When you get back to supporting them again you might characterise it differently.
So the electorate agrees that Ed is the new Neil Kinnock, complete with Kinnochio’s gravitas, sound judgment and intellect. But will this prevent him becoming PM?
That's how you choose to characterise it. I presume you're not a Labour supporter this week? When you get back to supporting them again you might characterise it differently.
Not sure I've ever been a Labour voter, flirted with UKIP plenty, but Labour? Not in this life, I may have previously made the connection that voting for Dave's Conservatives is the same as voting for Labour though...
We'll have to disagree, Max. I have nowhere else to go, in my line of work. I either work for The Man, or I get a different career.
I can second TFS here. There are other reasons for joining a union than to fight for pay and conditions, although the role of the unions in this is important and was one of the reasons I was happy to pay my subs both when I worked as a lecturer, and when I was a secondary teacher.
But unions also offer other services - I was always aware I was very reliant on my union for legal protection for instance. In the education sector it's a big deal when you're one false accusation away from never working again.
The idea of private sector alternatives is not always as rosy as you might think. Private schools can be associated with shoddy working conditions and job security. Nor does an end to centralisation cure all ills - when the FE colleges escaped local authority control and became independent corporations, competition bid pay and conditions downwards. The days of the Silver Book are long gone.
As for skilled labour having an international marketplace: this is true to an extent (not all skills are equally straightforward to take abroad - you may be limited to certain countries due to visa issues or linguistic requirements), and of course economics applies at the margin, but not all the marginal doctors, teachers and nurses wants to work abroad. So pay doesn't necessarily level out across borders.
Max is extremely fortunate (and through his brains and hard work, largely responsible for his own good fortune) to work in a very high-skilled, well-remunerated, and internationally mobile environment. But his experience doesn't generalise to all sectors.
I think Ed set out the point of the reforms pretty clearly both in the speech he made about the Falkirk selection and to the TUC - he wants a more engaged relationship between local parties and affiliated members.
So that's a yes, he wants his money and a "victory" over the unions.
Not suggesting that the unions won't go for it, but I'm looking for reasons as to why they would want to.
tim reckons that Labour want to give up donations from the unions entirely.
That's how you choose to characterise it. I presume you're not a Labour supporter this week? When you get back to supporting them again you might characterise it differently.
Not sure I've ever been a Labour voter, flirted with UKIP plenty, but Labour? Not in this life, I may have previously made the connection that voting for Dave's Conservatives is the same as voting for Labour though...
You came out as a Labour supporter on this very blog! It was one of those times that Dave had lost your vote for the very last time.
So the electorate agrees that Ed is the new Neil Kinnock, complete with Kinnochio’s gravitas, sound judgment and intellect. But will this prevent him becoming PM?
With the current boundaries I can't see how he won't be PM. They only need to get about 32% to be the largest party.
You came out as a Labour supporter on this very blog! It was one of those times that Dave had lost your vote for the very last time.
I think you must have misunderstood me in that case... I don't remember it, but it was probably along the lines of it making no difference voting Lab or Tory (I still don't see much of a difference, if any tbh).
How the Government could backtrack from Help to Buy Vince Cable says a controversial scheme to boost mortgages with taxpayer money should be rethought.
For a bubble to exist the banks would have to be increasing their net mortgage lending. The banks are not. Households are paying down more capital faster than they are taking out loans. Over the past six months household net repayments averaged £0.3 bn per month. Even in July, the peak month this year for mortgage approvals household still paid back more than they borrowed.
There is much talk in the media about galloping house prices but outside of London there is little evidence to support the claims. The last monthly ONS House Price Index was for June (July's is released on 17.09). It's first key finding was:
∙ In the 12 months to June 2013 UK house prices increased by 3.1%, up from a 2.9% increase in the 12 months to May 2013.
So an increase only marginally above CPI after seven years of falls in nominal prices. And the picture is very varied across regions:
∙ The year-on-year increase reflected growth of 3.3% in England and 4.3% in Wales, offset by falls of 0.9% in Scotland and 0.4% in Northern Ireland.
∙ Annual house price increases in England were driven by London (8.1%), the West Midlands (3.1%) and the South East (2.9%).
In a follow up post I will paste a table which will help you identify a bubble, its consequent bust and a gentle recovery.
Paediatric oncologists are perfectly free to start private practice, if the demand was there there would be some. And there would be private A&E's, and private fire brigades.
It's not just demand, it's also practicality of supply. There are some things the private sector can't realistically supply, you'll be surprised to hear.
The point is, though, that in practice there's only one employer. OK, you might be able to move to a different NHS Trust, but that's more like moving to a different department than to a different employer.
Of course, if we had a sensibly-structured health service, with private providers contracted by the state to provide NHS services as in many other European countries, that wouldn't be the case. It would be much better both for employees and patients, both of which groups would have some choice and therefore be able to drive up standards.
How to distinguish between a bubble, a bust and a gentle recovery:
BBA: Bank mortgage lending ------------------------------------------ Period Amount Increase over Outstanding previous period £ million % ------------------------------------------ 1998 Year 285,023 3.86% 1999 Year 315,921 10.84% <-| 2000 Year 352,438 11.56% <-| This 2001 Year 381,383 8.21% <-| is 2002 Year 426,863 11.93% <-| a 2003 Year 468,374 9.72% <-| bubble 2004 Year 496,383 5.98% <-| 2005 Year 521,087 4.98% 2006 Year 542,584 4.13% 2007 Year 549,290 1.24% 2008 Year 495,832 -9.73% <-|A BUST ** 2011 Year 767,080 1.43% <-| 2012 Year 777,447 1.35% <-| 2013 Jan 777,357 -0.01% <-| This 2013 Feb 776,344 -0.13% <-| is 2013 Mar 780,637 0.55% <-| NOT 2013 Apr 779,541 -0.14% <-| a 2013 May 779,309 -0.03% <-| bubble 2013 Jun 779,542 0.03% <-| 2013 Jul 779,944 0.05% <-|
** Note that 2009-2010 figures are distorted by the decision to include 'off-balance sheet' mortgages which were moved offshore to support covered bond issues. This added approximately £250 bn to amounts outstanding. </pre>
And remember that the practice of offshoring and securitising mortgages in the early half of the noughties decade added a further increase of some 50% of amounts outstanding which are not shown in the above figures.
They wanted to oppose the then incumbent Labour government, but didn't have the foresight to anticipate a Conservative - Lib Dem coalition.
As David Herdson said, they're instinctive oppositionists. That sort of thinking is inherently backward-looking, so leading to unintended consequences - such as Ed Miliband as PM, and Ed Balls as Chancellor.
I'd agree with all that, except that the logic suggests these voters won't vote Labour, but will either not vote at all, or will go back to the LibDems, or will vote for the Greens, UKIP or some other party safely free of any risk of being tainted with reality.
Does anyone else think its odd that a women from Brazil representing the UN has decided to release a snippet from a report due to be published in 6 months criticizing a democratically elected governments policy of not using taxpayers money to pay for people to have spare rooms in their rented homes. Has the world gone mad, is that what the UN was formed for, to ensure that taxpayers money was spent on providing people with spare rooms. Unreal.
Watching the private UK health sector train it's own staff while it's also rigging the insurance market and price fixing would be entertaining, but they'd never do it.
By that logic you have just proved that France, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Germany and Italy don't have a health service.
Is th obvious conclusion not unions cutting out the waste of space metropolitan middle persons ir the Labour party and forming their own party ?
I don't think so, even if we ignore the logistics of duplication, the political faux pas of splitting the Left, the historical and practical nature of the relationship between unions and Labour. Having a Union Party might solve the issue of personal relationships between union leaders and "their" party, but it wouldn't address the lack of genuine feed-through of working class voices, or the erosion of mass political participation.
As someone who has drifted away from Labour over the years, I have found the alternative electoral choices rather dispiriting. There is the TUSC, which is trade union backed but also infected by the SWP. The Greens are genuinely radical despite/because of being so "metropolitan", but some of their economic policies in particular are insane. Respect are just vile.
In certain circumstances I could stomach voting for Labour, although in some ways I'd be happier voting for the Lib Dems. I don't feel there is a massive chasm between those parties and the Conservatives. When I ended up voting Tory (tactically, mind you!) I didn't feel I had transmogrified into some baby-eating slash'n'burn monster. Perhaps I'm not tribal enough for proper grown-up politics.
The puzzle continues. Why has Labour's share remained consistent, in majority territory, even as Ed's ratings have bounced around (driven primarily by perceptions amongst his own supporters).
Surely suggests that his "crapness" is "priced in"?
Or, to put it another way, high 30s% of people are fully intending to vote Labour, might even like Ed Miliband themselves, but are worried that he isn't doing enough to convince enough other voters to secure victory.
The ICM wisdom index might give a bit of weight to the idea too, with Labour in the low 30s. Lots of pessimistic, but fully signed up Labour voters out there...
Does anyone else think its odd that a women from Brazil representing the UN has decided to release a snippet from a report due to be published in 6 months criticizing a democratically elected governments policy of not using taxpayers money to pay for people to have spare rooms in their rented homes. Has the world gone mad, is that what the UN was formed for, to ensure that taxpayers money was spent on providing people with spare rooms. Unreal.
They're not providing spare rooms for everyone. If you work hard and are successful, you don't get a spare room.
The puzzle continues. Why has Labour's share remained consistent, in majority territory, even as Ed's ratings have bounced around (driven primarily by perceptions amongst his own supporters).
Surely suggests that his "crapness" is "priced in"?
Or, to put it another way, high 30s% of people are fully intending to vote Labour, might even like Ed Miliband themselves, but are worried that he isn't doing enough to convince enough other voters to secure victory.
The ICM wisdom index might give a bit of weight to the idea too, with Labour in the low 30s. Lots of pessimistic, but fully signed up Labour voters out there...
Labour/Miliband had a good 2012, following the Omnishambles budget, but in the first half of this year Labour have declined from ~42% to ~38% and Miliband has declined from just below zero to -36 on net satisfaction.
The evidence does not appear to back your assertion that Labour's share has remained consistent as Miliband's have declined. Zooming out from the poll-to-poll fluctuations to look at the big picture over the course of a year, and there seems a fairly clear correlation in my view.
The puzzle continues. Why has Labour's share remained consistent, in majority territory, even as Ed's ratings have bounced around (driven primarily by perceptions amongst his own supporters).
Surely suggests that his "crapness" is "priced in"?
Or, to put it another way, high 30s% of people are fully intending to vote Labour, might even like Ed Miliband themselves, but are worried that he isn't doing enough to convince enough other voters to secure victory.
The ICM wisdom index might give a bit of weight to the idea too, with Labour in the low 30s. Lots of pessimistic, but fully signed up Labour voters out there...
Seeing as there isn't an election tomorrow, the voting share are always best on theoreticals (until we get much closer to the election). So, wrapping yourself in that comfort blanket might not be the best idea.
The vast majority of people are not thinking about an election. They might have a vague idea of how they feel about the parties, but clearly no idea bout manfestios or policies yet.
Comments
Sums that up really.
Yes, it does undermine somewhat the PB mantra ‘it’s all a coalition conspiracy’ when his own team, rate him lower than a snakes arse..
Really, Cameron has to bank on the economic recovery and Ed Milliband's dreadful ratings.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/bruc/
"Exclusive: Tim Farron interview: "I really like Ed Miliband, I don't want to diss him"
The Liberal Democrat president lavishes praise on the Labour leader and says "I don’t want join in with the Tories who compare him to Kinnock."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/exclusive-tim-farron-interview-i-really-ed-miliband-i-dont-want-diss-him
Days before the Lib Dem conference opens in Glasgow, Farron lavishes praises on Ed Miliband in a clear signal that he has his eyes on a Labour-Lib Dem coalition after 2015.
Even trying to look at it from a potential labour voter's point of view, seriously what's to get enthusiastic about getting involved with that party??
Green policies that destroy jobs and force up fuel bills. 'Social justice' that sees the gap between rich and poor widen. Unlimited immigration. Welfare spending that sees your workless neighbour as well off as you. Ever increasing national debt. a vast strata of highly paid aparatchiks that have to be financed by taxing your meagre wages. Bog standard schools, many with serious problems in less affluent areas. Oxford PPE MPs with zero experience of the working life, especially in tough neighborhoods. Union barons who welcome the workless to join as well as the working.
I seriously can't see why a working class working person, especially in the private sector, would be enthusiastic about joining the party. FFS what's in it for them? nothing. zero. zip. They are at the back of the queue. That might be true of the tories as well, but the tories aren't pretending to be the champions of the interests of the working person.
The problem I see, that the Tory party seems to not be ready to address, is that the path they are on (hoping for the best that the economy holds out and Ed remains a liability) leads to an almost identical result to 2010, which was this awful coalition. Majority government under Cameron seems out of reach and if retaining the keys to No. 10 is good enough for the party then Cameron it is until 2020 with all of the issues to the party that he brought from 2010 to now. I could foresee an FDP style collapse in 2020 if Cameron is still there alienating natural Con voters.
The Tory party is so ashamed of it`s membership count it won`t even release the numbers.I suspect Cameron goes red everytime anyone asks for the membership numbers to be released.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/eccentric-quite-pleasant-fellow
"There was something about his talk that made one think of the prophets of the Old Testament: he spoke as if he believed himself to be inspired. The only thing that dispelled the illusion was his frequent use of words that are not found in the dictionary of a cultivated German."
IDS is fighting an uphill battle
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24051470
It'll be interesting indeed to see how that plays out.
The sort of people who are LD switchers are inherently oppositionist. They didn't want to vote for a party of government in 2010 and don't want to now. Will they want to take on a responsibility for what the next government does? I doubt it.
The Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, has described as an "absolute disgrace" a call from the United Nations for the government to scrap the so-called bedroom tax.
Accusing Raquel Rolnik, the UN special rapporteur on housing, of having an agenda, Shapps said he had written to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, demanding an apology and an explanation of Rolnik's findings.
The UN investigator had not been invited to Britain by ministers, and was biased, Shapps said.
"It is completely wrong and an abuse of the process for somebody to come over, to fail to meet with government ministers, to fail to meet with the department responsible, to produce a press release two weeks after coming, even though the report is not due out until next spring, and even to fail to refer to the policy properly throughout the report.
"That is why I am writing to the secretary general today to ask for an apology and an investigation as to how this came about," Shapps told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
However, the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed that Rolnik had met Eric Pickles, the secretary of state. She also met council officials in Glasgow.
Rolnik later countered Shapps's claims at a press conference in London, signalling further blistering criticisms of housing and welfare policy in her final report next year.
She had been invited by the UK government, and had met "numerous" government officials in the four countries as well as Pickles and Don Foster, the communities minister, she said.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/un-housing-bedroom-tax-absolute-disgrace
That's why their headline figure is always the "Certain To Vote" figure.
Look at UKPollingReport: Anthony Wells is headlining those numbers.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
That said, I do not recall the UN being so upset when Labour introduced the same measures for private housing. In addition, the UN might consider that the vast majority of countries have a far worse situation than we do. For example, 2 million Syrians are now refugees.
You are, however, right that the Tories need to reduce the UKIP score.
In my line of work employers treat us all very well, because we have skills that are not easy to replace, I have no need to join a union. Doctors, nurses, firemen, police and other skilled public sector employees don't need a union to represent them, the skills they have are enough to get them a fair wage and retirement scheme. The lack of competition in some sectors is part of the problem though, the reason I get such a good package is that there is always a company offering something better.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
It's not Cameron they dislike, it's the modern world. He's just the figurehead.
David Cameron committed a "schoolboy error" in allowing himself to be beaten in a parliamentary vote over Syria and came out of it "weakened", Francois Hollande is reported to have said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10302082/Francois-Hollande-David-Cameron-committed-schoolboy-error-on-Syria.html
If there is one thing that everyone hates, it's outside meddling from figures of "authority". I wouldn't be surprised if Barroso's comments have the opposite effect of what he intended, and I'm surprised (though not as surprised as I would have been before his tactical missteps at Eastleigh) Farrage is falling into the trap of declaring victory...
People like Theresa May at the moment because they don't really know much about her.
"We're gonna need a bigger chart".
In the olden days when the cabinet and shadow cabinet were full of big beasts and barons with their own supporters a weakish leader was a problem but not an insuperable one.
Today in the 24/7 media with hours to fill, with leaders debates forming the focus of the election campaign, with an ever more presidential style to our politics and cabinets and shadow cabinets full of non entities that few of the public have even heard of this is a major problem.
Weird isn't it? If Cameron had scraped a few more votes together I don't think we would have gone down this additional step. If there is a poll before Conference with a tory lead he is toast. That is still unlikely but that is the sort of random chance he is now subject to.
If there is no cost involved with being a member then why bother having members?
I would agree that without past vote weighting , giving the figures for all those polled id likely to be just as inaccurate or more so . Fortunately the full data tables allow us to see the vI figures for those with a variety of certainty to vote figures .
However, in practice I think you are wrong about health and education. Sure, consultant surgeons can go into the private sector, but many doctors and other NHS workers effectively can't (there aren't any private paediatric oncologists, for example).
Having pay set centrally is not something I agree with as it leads to a monopoly situation which is ripe for exploitation. Locally set pay and budgets would create a competitive environment.
Maybe his luck's a-changin'
After all I think it is less than 30 Labour gains from the Conservatives that would make them the largest party - which creates the real prospect of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, probably what these particular voters want more than the alternatives.
The Labour party, in terms of its senior personnel and its values, is now more of a metropolitan bent than a working class one. This affects its policy formation.
Restoring personal ties between senior Labour politicians and leading trade unionists, can't restore a genuine relationship between Labour and the working classes, as similar "representativity" issues surround the unions as affect the political entities (Labour Party, Cooperative Party, think tanks) in the Labour movement.
The wider union membership shows a distinct uninterest in participating in the organised political processes. The idea of hundreds of thousands of working class people at the vanguard of a reinvigorated Labour movement is a pipe dream. (Not just Ed Miliband's response to Falkirk; the hope for a resurgent volunteer army predates this. David Miliband mistakenly thought his Movement For Change would spearhead his leadership campaign victory, for instance.) As Richard Nabavi points out, this relates more to wider social fragmentation and individualism (Bowling alone syndrome) than to a specific sickness in left-wing politics, so the ailment can't be cured by changes to the political programme, its presentation, or membership structure.
And I strongly agree with Hodges' conclusion. The absence of a strong working class voice in politics will inevitably erode the status, interests and wellbeing of working class people in the future.
As David Herdson said, they're instinctive oppositionists. That sort of thinking is inherently backward-looking, so leading to unintended consequences - such as Ed Miliband as PM, and Ed Balls as Chancellor.
Not suggesting that the unions won't go for it, but I'm looking for reasons as to why they would want to.
He looked quite relieved as well after they lost the vote.
The fact that Milliband made a complete berk of himself afterwards was just good fortune.
But unions also offer other services - I was always aware I was very reliant on my union for legal protection for instance. In the education sector it's a big deal when you're one false accusation away from never working again.
The idea of private sector alternatives is not always as rosy as you might think. Private schools can be associated with shoddy working conditions and job security. Nor does an end to centralisation cure all ills - when the FE colleges escaped local authority control and became independent corporations, competition bid pay and conditions downwards. The days of the Silver Book are long gone.
As for skilled labour having an international marketplace: this is true to an extent (not all skills are equally straightforward to take abroad - you may be limited to certain countries due to visa issues or linguistic requirements), and of course economics applies at the margin, but not all the marginal doctors, teachers and nurses wants to work abroad. So pay doesn't necessarily level out across borders.
Max is extremely fortunate (and through his brains and hard work, largely responsible for his own good fortune) to work in a very high-skilled, well-remunerated, and internationally mobile environment. But his experience doesn't generalise to all sectors.
For a bubble to exist the banks would have to be increasing their net mortgage lending. The banks are not. Households are paying down more capital faster than they are taking out loans. Over the past six months household net repayments averaged £0.3 bn per month. Even in July, the peak month this year for mortgage approvals household still paid back more than they borrowed.
There is much talk in the media about galloping house prices but outside of London there is little evidence to support the claims. The last monthly ONS House Price Index was for June (July's is released on 17.09). It's first key finding was:
∙ In the 12 months to June 2013 UK house prices increased by 3.1%, up from a 2.9% increase in the 12 months to May 2013.
So an increase only marginally above CPI after seven years of falls in nominal prices. And the picture is very varied across regions:
∙ The year-on-year increase reflected growth of 3.3% in England and 4.3% in Wales, offset by falls of 0.9% in Scotland and 0.4% in Northern Ireland.
∙ Annual house price increases in England were driven by London (8.1%), the West Midlands (3.1%) and the South East (2.9%).
In a follow up post I will paste a table which will help you identify a bubble, its consequent bust and a gentle recovery.
The point is, though, that in practice there's only one employer. OK, you might be able to move to a different NHS Trust, but that's more like moving to a different department than to a different employer.
Of course, if we had a sensibly-structured health service, with private providers contracted by the state to provide NHS services as in many other European countries, that wouldn't be the case. It would be much better both for employees and patients, both of which groups would have some choice and therefore be able to drive up standards.
Housing Market
How to distinguish between a bubble, a bust and a gentle recovery:
As someone who has drifted away from Labour over the years, I have found the alternative electoral choices rather dispiriting. There is the TUSC, which is trade union backed but also infected by the SWP. The Greens are genuinely radical despite/because of being so "metropolitan", but some of their economic policies in particular are insane. Respect are just vile.
In certain circumstances I could stomach voting for Labour, although in some ways I'd be happier voting for the Lib Dems. I don't feel there is a massive chasm between those parties and the Conservatives. When I ended up voting Tory (tactically, mind you!) I didn't feel I had transmogrified into some baby-eating slash'n'burn monster. Perhaps I'm not tribal enough for proper grown-up politics.
Surely suggests that his "crapness" is "priced in"?
Or, to put it another way, high 30s% of people are fully intending to vote Labour, might even like Ed Miliband themselves, but are worried that he isn't doing enough to convince enough other voters to secure victory.
The ICM wisdom index might give a bit of weight to the idea too, with Labour in the low 30s. Lots of pessimistic, but fully signed up Labour voters out there...
Labour/Miliband had a good 2012, following the Omnishambles budget, but in the first half of this year Labour have declined from ~42% to ~38% and Miliband has declined from just below zero to -36 on net satisfaction.
The evidence does not appear to back your assertion that Labour's share has remained consistent as Miliband's have declined. Zooming out from the poll-to-poll fluctuations to look at the big picture over the course of a year, and there seems a fairly clear correlation in my view.
The vast majority of people are not thinking about an election. They might have a vague idea of how they feel about the parties, but clearly no idea bout manfestios or policies yet.