politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if the Tories clawed back all of their 2010 voters wh
Comments
-
I think there's quite a lot of potential for swing-back. A 2% shift results in Con 34%, to Lab 37%, and then there are Con/UKIP switchers, and Con voters who are now Don't Know/Won't say, who amount to 11% of voters, between them.0
-
And herein lies the problem for the Conservatives. Miliband's route to 326 seats doesn't just lie over the broken bodies of Conservative backbenchers - he'll be taking down LDs and possibly a Scot Nat or two on the way.edmundintokyo said:
Right, the thought is that they'd lose maybe 12 to Lab and 3 or 4 net to Con, something like that.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Lab are close in at least 12 and the main challenger now in >20 of the 57.edmundintokyo said:
No, on this view the LibDems in seats with close Labour challengers are screwed. But there aren't that many of them. Meanwhile a lot of the Lib/Con seats are like Eastleigh, with Lab way behind. Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.TCPoliticalBetting said:
So they will follow a dictated line even though half the LD seats now have a non-Conservative as their main challenger.... Talk about fighting the previous war!edmundintokyo said:
The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.TCPoliticalBetting said:But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.
The problem is that IF the LDs can recover and hold Labour at bay, they'll likely be holding the Conservatives at bay as well and making a second Hung Parliament a near certainty. If the LDs weaken, the Conservatives have to make sure that their gains are greater than the Labour gains while holding down the marginals as well.
0 -
In other words it's crap. The best I've heard today on the subject was on R4 where a guy pointed out that if Cameron really wanted to do something meaningful on the dark, child abuse side of the internet he should leave people alone and double the size of the detective unit tracking hard core users. CEOP has a budget of £6 m per annum another £6 m would increase convictions and not even make the rounding column of the national accounts. No new laws needed as ever just properly enforce the ones we have.Plato said:Apparently its not going to be legislation - just a code, that already exists, but will be a bit tighter if what I've read is accurate.
It sounds like 'marching youths to the cashpoint to pay fines' thingy Blair talked about.Alanbrooke said:
No it's because we can rely on HMG for a needless fkup. There is little point to this legislation, so why introduce it ? It's yet another gimmick, somebody should tell Cameron to STFU, make some nice noises about the Baby and then go on holiday.RichardNabavi said:
Yeah just like on your mobile phone filter.Alanbrooke said:
Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.Rexel56 said:Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...
Can we get this straight: why haven't all those making these points been campaigning against opt-in filters since 2002? Oh, no, I know the answer - it's because a decade of experience disproves their points.0 -
That's a striking chart and shows just how completely polarised the populace is on political matters. The Conservatives have lost almost no one leftwards. The erstwhile Conservatives who have deserted them are in the main disaffected headbangers.
But our host is correct. The Conservatives need to persuade some of those who did not vote for them last time that their approach has been correct (or that their approach after the next election will be better than Labour's). They have not yet done so. With the economy turning and with Ed Miliband not being inspirational, they have reason to hope that this is possible. But this is going to be hard work for them.0 -
-
Well to be fair, what did you expect Mr J Smith to do on all those lonely nights Jackie was staying at her primary home address - Remember, the house she stayed in so often she had no idea which key opened the front door.richardDodd said:Mr J Smith certainly did it the old fashioned way. He put it on expenses..nice one
0 -
Cameron is just proving what a shallow, low rent Blair impersonator he is. He just can't resist a photo op, can't resist using unfortunate members of the public to reinforce his credentials as a caring, compassionate kinda guy. I really dislike him.
I thought the Tories were going to stop nannying us? They're just as bad as New Labour, and just as bad as PM Milliband will be, when he gets his shot at the top job in 2015.0 -
I'd have expected more.Andy_JS said:Advocates of republicanism in the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Supporters
Current MPs in the list are as follows:
Norman Baker
Russell Brown
Ronnie Campbell
Jeremy Corbyn
David Crausby
Ian Davidson
Paul Flynn
Roger Godsiff
Kelvin Hopkins
Julian Huppert
Glenda Jackson
Caroline Lucas
Jim McGovern
Stephen Pound
Dennis Skinner0 -
I quite agree - what I don't understand [or rather I suspect cynically] is conflating child porn with kids seeing adult porn online.
They are entirely different things and don't beget each other since one is illegal and the other isn't. And 99% of adults think sex with children is beyond vile.
Besides, given the fact that kids appear to be texting each other photos/videos of their bits as a matter of course - one wonders how watching the odd porn movie is more likely to influence behaviour - random bint on the web or Sally in 3B's privates in glorious 30 meg pixel technicolour.Alanbrooke said:
In other words it's crap. The best I've heard today on the subject was on R4 where a guy pointed out that if Cameron really wanted to do something meaningful on the dark, child abuse side of the internet he should leave people alone and double the size of the detective unit tracking hard core users. CEOP has a budget of £6 m per annum another £6 m would increase convictions and not even make the rounding column of the national accounts. No new laws needed as ever just properly enforce the ones we have.Plato said:Apparently its not going to be legislation - just a code, that already exists, but will be a bit tighter if what I've read is accurate.
It sounds like 'marching youths to the cashpoint to pay fines' thingy Blair talked about.Alanbrooke said:
No it's because we can rely on HMG for a needless fkup. There is little point to this legislation, so why introduce it ? It's yet another gimmick, somebody should tell Cameron to STFU, make some nice noises about the Baby and then go on holiday.RichardNabavi said:
Yeah just like on your mobile phone filter.Alanbrooke said:
Less amusing the filter becomes a CRB check item and people start losing their jobs.Rexel56 said:Most amusing aspect of the porn filter... imagine the 14 year old asking Dad why the porn filter appears not to be, er, working...
Can we get this straight: why haven't all those making these points been campaigning against opt-in filters since 2002? Oh, no, I know the answer - it's because a decade of experience disproves their points.0 -
what are the selection process rules? Some months ago I was told by a Kipper that they were using a bizarre national ballot and then allocate winning candidates to regions (accordingly to their preference)....have they kept this system?MikeK said:
FPT:
On topic.
I don't think that Nigel Farage knows which constituency he'll go for yet, theres an awful lot of organising to do.
I myself will be going to a UKIP hustings to pick London MEP's this coming Saturday. It will be the first one I'll attend; I will let you know how it pans out.0 -
It's easy to see how you get swingback to a tie in the popular vote or thereabouts. The problem is that you exhaust all the swingable backable voters and Con still can't get a majority, and you need quite optimistic assumpions to get a Hung Parliament scenario that doesn't put Ed Miliband in Number 10.Sean_F said:I think there's quite a lot of potential for swing-back. A 2% shift results in Con 34%, to Lab 37%, and then there are Con/UKIP switchers, and Con voters who are now Don't Know/Won't say, who amount to 11% of voters, between them.
0 -
TBH, I think he genuinely thinks its a problem and has made it his personal hobbyhorse after minimum booze prices hit the buffers.
They're crap ideas - but he seems to feel it matters a lot. A man on a mission is very hard to stop when he's PM unfortunately.TwistedFireStopper said:Cameron is just proving what a shallow, low rent Blair impersonator he is. He just can't resist a photo op, can't resist using unfortunate members of the public to reinforce his credentials as a caring, compassionate kinda guy. I really dislike him.
I thought the Tories were going to stop nannying us? Their just as bad as New Labour, and just as bad as PM Milliband will be, when he gets his shot at the top job in 2015.0 -
Indeed - I'm going in there for major surgery next month. I could have opted for a different hospital, but the waiting times for surgery at stafford right now are fantastic.AndreaParma_82 said:I think the Duchess of Cambridge should have shown the way to the Nation and go to deliver the Royal Baby at Stafford Hospital!
-1 -
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million0 -
Or rather, he takes down a fair few Tory backbenchers, but he does it by taking votes off the Libdems, not off them.stodge said:
And herein lies the problem for the Conservatives. Miliband's route to 326 seats doesn't just lie over the broken bodies of Conservative backbenchers - he'll be taking down LDs and possibly a Scot Nat or two on the way.edmundintokyo said:
Right, the thought is that they'd lose maybe 12 to Lab and 3 or 4 net to Con, something like that.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Lab are close in at least 12 and the main challenger now in >20 of the 57.edmundintokyo said:
No, on this view the LibDems in seats with close Labour challengers are screwed. But there aren't that many of them. Meanwhile a lot of the Lib/Con seats are like Eastleigh, with Lab way behind. Generalizing from Eastleigh, it seems like in these places lefty LibDems and Labour tactical votes should be reasonably solid.TCPoliticalBetting said:
So they will follow a dictated line even though half the LD seats now have a non-Conservative as their main challenger.... Talk about fighting the previous war!edmundintokyo said:
The thought is that they'll stick with incumbent LibDems against Tory challengers, but go Labour everywhere else.TCPoliticalBetting said:But if OGH is correct that these 2010 LD voters are not going to leave Labour, then the Lib Dem MPs are facing a massive wipe out. Unless of course they really do have two votes each.
The problem is that IF the LDs can recover and hold Labour at bay, they'll likely be holding the Conservatives at bay as well and making a second Hung Parliament a near certainty. If the LDs weaken, the Conservatives have to make sure that their gains are greater than the Labour gains while holding down the marginals as well.
What Cameron really needs is to promote Clegg to Europe and get a new Libdem leader who looks more left-wing, but I don't suppose his party will let him do it...0 -
Welcome to Islam.Morris_Dancer said:Slightly old news, but it's deranged that a woman alleging she'd been raped should get arrested for extramarital sex:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-234040420 -
No need to apologize. I was sure you were just having one of those moments you'll get more of as you become older !!Sean_F said:
BTW I thought your brothers wheeze was wonderful.
0 -
You seem incapable of understanding that there are potentially very simple ways around this.Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
0 -
Shocking!tim said:
Pimp My Victim.TwistedFireStopper said:Cameron is just proving what a shallow, low rent Blair impersonator he is. He just can't resist a photo op, can't resist using unfortunate members of the public to reinforce his credentials as a caring, compassionate kinda guy. I really dislike him.
I thought the Tories were going to stop nannying us? Their just as bad as New Labour, and just as bad as PM Milliband will be, when he gets his shot at the top job in 2015.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/milly-dowler-family-ed-miliband-phone-hacking
"Ed Miliband has spoken of his worries that his two boys will stumble across hard core porn on the internet.
The Labour leader said that ‘like any parent’ he was concerned about how easy it is for Daniel, four, and 2-year-old Sam to see violent adult images on mobile phones or computers."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349927/Miliband-reveals-fears-sons-aged-access-porn-smartphones.html#ixzz2Zmq9drfW
Well I recall you railing against the shallowness and cheap opportunism of Miliband posing with victim's families and posing "as a parent"......not......
0 -
Cameron always said he was the heir to Blair, "the Master" I believe he calls him.TwistedFireStopper said:Cameron is just proving what a shallow, low rent Blair impersonator he is. He just can't resist a photo op, can't resist using unfortunate members of the public to reinforce his credentials as a caring, compassionate kinda guy. I really dislike him.
I thought the Tories were going to stop nannying us? Their just as bad as New Labour, and just as bad as PM Milliband will be, when he gets his shot at the top job in 2015.
0 -
It sure would. There are 1.1 million UNITE membership. If over 10% join, it will increase Labour membership by over 50%. Full members in work normally pay £45/year, vs £2.25 for affiliate members, so it would double the income from unions.Neil said:
That would represent a Labour membership surge.john_zims said:@Slackbladder
'Sunny Hundal @sunny_hundal 2m
Just over 10% of Unite members would join the Labour Party if invited to do so, Lord Ashcroft's polling shows. Full results out midnight
Can't be right,Tim's been telling us repeatedly that Ed's changes will result in a Labour membership surge.
It's the way you tell them!DavidL said:Now it has been demonstrated that a Tory government, even in coalition, is more efficient and careful with peoples' money ...
0 -
I know maths isn't tims strong point, but you're smarter than that,Neil said:
You seem incapable of understanding that there are potentially very simple ways around this.Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million0 -
Oh dear.. he is back with the "Concerned Father " schtick again.. The Cheshire Farmer never never learns.
He doesn't seem to realise that he is using the families Cameron talked to in a rather more abusive fashion. He repeatedly publishes their names and dismisses their genuine concerns, painting them in the same colour as Cameron. what a d**k0 -
As A Father's posturing on porn and posing with bereaved relatives is stomach churning in the extreme.
Its all your fault. Dave's clearly been swayed by your countless posts about labour's lead amongst women.0 -
Surely the new members would pay £8 as they do now ? Fairness for hard working families ?Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million0 -
This isnt about maths, it's about making simple changes to the levy that doesnt change what individuals pay but ensures that Labour doesnt suffer significant losses from the proposed change in relationship. Why would Ed propose something that hurts him in the bank balance when it would be easy to employe a work around that achieves what he wants without costing a penny in funding?Slackbladder said:
I know maths isn't tims strong point, but you're smarter than that,Neil said:
You seem incapable of understanding that there are potentially very simple ways around this.Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million0 -
I find it strange that millionaire members such as rEd pay the same as a key worker such as a nurse !Plato said:
Then wouldn't existing members be peed off that they were paying 5x the rate? That'd be very strange way to do it.TGOHF said:Surely the new members would pay £8 as they do now ? Fairness for hard working families ?
0 -
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.0 -
Good luck Pong0
-
I agree Plato, but what is his mission? What does this:Plato said:TBH, I think he genuinely thinks its a problem and has made it his personal hobbyhorse after minimum booze prices hit the buffers.
They're crap ideas - but he seems to feel it matters a lot. A man on a mission is very hard to stop when he's PM unfortunately.TwistedFireStopper said:Cameron is just proving what a shallow, low rent Blair impersonator he is. He just can't resist a photo op, can't resist using unfortunate members of the public to reinforce his credentials as a caring, compassionate kinda guy. I really dislike him.
I thought the Tories were going to stop nannying us? Their just as bad as New Labour, and just as bad as PM Milliband will be, when he gets his shot at the top job in 2015.
David Cameron @David_Cameron 21 Jul
Meeting with the Jones and Sharp families + hearing their fears about online child abuse images. A major speech tmw
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/358848055790944256/photo/1
have to do with me Googling lesbian nurses in stockings?
Why does he think that horrible crimes mean he can try and control what I do in my own home, if it's not illegal? He's a headline chaser, no better than Blair or Brown.
0 -
Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII0 -
Is the internet porn thing another EU directive that the media and political class are pretending isn't?0
-
I know tim, almost as clueless as somebody mistaking three day's worth of benefits for a week's worth, or thinking the £2,000 NI reduction isn't worth £2,000.... or worrying about the price of Dom Perignon non-vintage champagne...tim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
0 -
I really don't know! It's like he's developed an idee fixe about Flora seeing Frisky Firemen & Their Huge Hoses by accident when looking for My Little Pony videos...TwistedFireStopper said:
I agree Plato, but what is his mission? What does this:Plato said:TBH, I think he genuinely thinks its a problem and has made it his personal hobbyhorse after minimum booze prices hit the buffers.
They're crap ideas - but he seems to feel it matters a lot. A man on a mission is very hard to stop when he's PM unfortunately.TwistedFireStopper said:Cameron is just proving what a shallow, low rent Blair impersonator he is. He just can't resist a photo op, can't resist using unfortunate members of the public to reinforce his credentials as a caring, compassionate kinda guy. I really dislike him.
I thought the Tories were going to stop nannying us? Their just as bad as New Labour, and just as bad as PM Milliband will be, when he gets his shot at the top job in 2015.
David Cameron @David_Cameron 21 Jul
Meeting with the Jones and Sharp families + hearing their fears about online child abuse images. A major speech tmw
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/358848055790944256/photo/1
have to do with me Googling lesbian nurses in stockings?
Why does he think that horrible crimes mean he can try and control what I do in my own home, if it's not illegal? He's a headline chaser, no better than Blair or Brown.0 -
Edward IV's son Edward V was de facto heir apparent, but his uncle Richard III had other ideas...
0 -
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
0 -
Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry VII and older brother of the future Henry VIII - how very different things might have turned out had he not died.....JackW said:Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII0 -
This is Ed Miliband versus the Union barons, and this change would allow him to get all of the political levy from a fraction of members of affiliated Unions rather than a fraction of the political levy from all members of affiliated Unions [on the say-so of the Union General Secretary].Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
Basically, it makes the leader of the Labour party beholden to Union members directly, rather than via the intermediary of the Union leadership.
If Miliband can avoid ballsing the whole thing up [and I have my doubts] it's a political masterstroke that all future leaders of the Labour party will thank him for.0 -
That's the unfortunate truth.JackW said:
No need to apologize. I was sure you were just having one of those moments you'll get more of as you become older !!Sean_F said:
BTW I thought your brothers wheeze was wonderful.
It made us all laugh when my brother told us about it. The club were very sad, as he was their star swimmer.
0 -
TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
0 -
I suppose you could argue Charles II did not succeed when he was supposed to (although he succeeded subsequently).
0 -
Heheh.. a lot of sad people worried about having to opt in to their favourite comfort zone.0
-
Under no circumstances ever work out what you could be sitting on come retirement age if you had paid that £25 per month into a FTSE tracker ISA over your working life...TwistedFireStopper said:TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
0 -
I didn't know the FBU sponsored any MPs. It's been nearly a decade since they disaffiliated from Labour.TwistedFireStopper said:
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
My Google-fu is lacking and I can't find any details of MPs sponsored by the FBU.0 -
Only if the only political party they can donate / affiliate to / join is Labour. Presumably, that decision would remain with the union's leadership, as would the decision to disaffiliate or to offer membership on a like basis to any other party/ies.OblitusSumMe said:
This is Ed Miliband versus the Union barons, and this change would allow him to get all of the political levy from a fraction of members of affiliated Unions rather than a fraction of the political levy from all members of affiliated Unions [on the say-so of the Union General Secretary].Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
Basically, it makes the leader of the Labour party beholden to Union members directly, rather than via the intermediary of the Union leadership.
If Miliband can avoid ballsing the whole thing up [and I have my doubts] it's a political masterstroke that all future leaders of the Labour party will thank him for.0 -
FPT
Detroit's collapse was caused by gang crime which drove out the tax base - ultimately the fault of the media for preventing anything being done to fix the problem.0 -
Correct. Died in 1502.boulay said:
Prince Arthur, eldest son of Henry VII and older brother of the future Henry VIII - how very different things might have turned out had he not died.....JackW said:Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII
0 -
Unsuccessful heirs...
Ok, we have Edward the Black Prince for one. Wasn't Henry I's son drowned at sea leaving the issue of the succession open and starting the civil war which almost destroyed England in the mid-12th Century ?
Earlier, Robert was the Conqueror's eldest son but William Rufus (the third son, the second was Richard who was killed in an "accident") became King of England in 1087.
Didn't James I have a son who pre-deceased him leaving Charles as the heir?0 -
Try this http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=2642OblitusSumMe said:
I didn't know the FBU sponsored any MPs. It's been nearly a decade since they disaffiliated from Labour.TwistedFireStopper said:
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
My Google-fu is lacking and I can't find any details of MPs sponsored by the FBU.
0 -
TGOHF said:
Under no circumstances ever work out what you could be sitting on come retirement age if you had paid that £25 per month into a FTSE tracker ISA over your working life...TwistedFireStopper said:TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
Flashman (deceased), don't go there.
0 -
Four that spring to mind are:JackW said:Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII
Henry I's son who drowned on the White Ship (can't recall his name)
The Black Prince / Edward III's son
Prince Frederick / George II's son
The Duke of Clarence / George V's elder brother0 -
On an unrelated issue, is there a market yet on vote share at the 2015 GE?
I'm wondering if anyone is prepared to bet on either the Conservatives or Labour getting above 40% of the vote - no party has managed that since Labour in 2001.0 -
Looks like Kate's antepartum travails are competing with the McHorse story for Most read/shared on the BBC website.0
-
Sean_F said:
I'd have expected more.Andy_JS said:Advocates of republicanism in the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Supporters
Current MPs in the list are as follows:
Norman Baker
Russell Brown
Ronnie Campbell
Jeremy Corbyn
David Crausby
Ian Davidson
Paul Flynn
Roger Godsiff
Kelvin Hopkins
Julian Huppert
Glenda Jackson
Caroline Lucas
Jim McGovern
Stephen Pound
Dennis Skinner
To be honest that Wikipedia page is a bit useless so there probably are more MPs in that category.0 -
Well done.stodge said:Unsuccessful heirs...
Ok, we have Edward the Black Prince for one. Wasn't Henry I's son drowned at sea leaving the issue of the succession open and starting the civil war which almost destroyed England in the mid-12th Century ?
Earlier, Robert was the Conqueror's eldest son but William Rufus (the third son, the second was Richard who was killed in an "accident") became King of England in 1087.
Didn't James I have a son who pre-deceased him leaving Charles as the heir?
Edward the Black Prince died in 1376 and was eldest son of Edward III.
Prince William Adelin drowned in the White Ship disaster in 1120 was the son of Henry I
Henry Prince of Wales died of typhoid in 1612 was the eldest son of James I/VI
0 -
3/4 Herders.david_herdson said:
Four that spring to mind are:JackW said:Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII
Henry I's son who drowned on the White Ship (can't recall his name)
The Black Prince / Edward III's son
Prince Frederick / George II's son
The Duke of Clarence / George V's elder brother
Not the Duke of Clarence as he was only ever second in line as he predeceased his father the Prince of Wales.
0 -
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the benefits of the 16% or so pay settlement arising from the national strike in 2002 / 03.TGOHF said:
Under no circumstances ever work out what you could be sitting on come retirement age if you had paid that £25 per month into a FTSE tracker ISA over your working life...TwistedFireStopper said:TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
0 -
Bonnie Prince Charlie. Although his father was never actually crowned.david_herdson said:
Four that spring to mind are:JackW said:Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII
Henry I's son who drowned on the White Ship (can't recall his name)
The Black Prince / Edward III's son
Prince Frederick / George II's son
The Duke of Clarence / George V's elder brother
And didn't Harold Godwinson have a son? As, in fact, did Edward the Confessor! Of course in those days the Witan, the equivalent of the Privy Council, elected the King.
Incidentally the monarchial handover in Belguim was remarkably low key. Don't suppose, though, that when Elizabeth does go, the subsequent coronation will be anywhere near such an event as 1953's was.
Unless Charles has passed over, or is passed over, and William succeeds his Gran!0 -
In eight weeks time Charles will become the oldest ever heir to the throne, beating Sailor Bill's (William IV's) record...OldKingCole said:Don't suppose, though, that when Elizabeth does go, the subsequent coronation will be anywhere near such an event as 1953's was.
Unless Charles has passed over, or is passed over, and William succeeds his Gran!
0 -
It's not in any kind of a hurry to appear in the world this sprog. OTOH if Kate follows the timetable of my first one it isn't going to be here until Wednesday!0
-
Bonnie Prince Charlie doesn't count twice. I noted "de facto" and secondly as de jure he did succeed his father as Charles III in 1766.OldKingCole said:
Bonnie Prince Charlie. Although his father was never actually crowned.david_herdson said:
Four that spring to mind are:JackW said:Here we go then .... Royal baby quiz time ....
I'm sure most will wish the new baby succeeds in the fullness of time but who since 1066 have been the de facto next in line to throne, heir apparent/presumptive, who have failed to succeed to the various thrones since 1066. This will keep us going for a while !!
First go to moi .... and as a Jacobite I'll have to go for James Prince of Wales son of James II/VII
Henry I's son who drowned on the White Ship (can't recall his name)
The Black Prince / Edward III's son
Prince Frederick / George II's son
The Duke of Clarence / George V's elder brother
And didn't Harold Godwinson have a son? As, in fact, did Edward the Confessor! Of course in those days the Witan, the equivalent of the Privy Council, elected the King.
Incidentally the monarchial handover in Belguim was remarkably low key. Don't suppose, though, that when Elizabeth does go, the subsequent coronation will be anywhere near such an event as 1953's was.
Unless Charles has passed over, or is passed over, and William succeeds his Gran!
The kings of Saxon England were determined largely by the Witan. Accordingly Harold was succeeded by Edgar Aethling in October 1066.
0 -
Neil said:
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the benefits of the 16% or so pay settlement arising from the national strike in 2002 / 03.TGOHF said:
Under no circumstances ever work out what you could be sitting on come retirement age if you had paid that £25 per month into a FTSE tracker ISA over your working life...TwistedFireStopper said:TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
Remind me who was in power at the time in 2002/03 ?
He would have got that anyway.0 -
@JackW
The kings of Saxon England were determined largely by the Witan. Accordingly Harold was succeeded by Edgar Aethling in October 1066.
Who galavanted about Europe causing distress wherever he went. I bet William I was sorry he didn't send Edgar for the chop when he had him prisoner.0 -
I suspect the reason as to why JackW is so knowledgeable in such matters is that he witnessed them himself!0
-
Labour - there was a huge strike over it. The FBU cant be said to have gotten its way and shortly afterwards they disaffiliated from Labour.TGOHF said:Neil said:
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the benefits of the 16% or so pay settlement arising from the national strike in 2002 / 03.TGOHF said:
Under no circumstances ever work out what you could be sitting on come retirement age if you had paid that £25 per month into a FTSE tracker ISA over your working life...TwistedFireStopper said:TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
Remind me who was in power at the time in 2002/03 ?
He would have got that anyway.
What are you trying to suggest?0 -
This is spot on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10195749/Royal-baby-sketch-Breaking-news-we-have-no-news.html
"Among all the excitement, spare a thought for the people who are spending today working against the clock, under desperately high pressure, to give the country the news it’s dying to hear. Not the Duchess of Cambridge’s medical team – the reporters on 24-hour TV news.
The slog began around 7.30am. From the start, one man decided that he might as well come clean. “Plenty more to come from here,” promised the BBC News channel’s Simon McCoy, stationed outside St Mary’s hospital. “None of it news, of course, but that won’t stop us!” He continued in this disarmingly frank vein well into the afternoon. “The world’s media have gathered to report that there is no news… Let’s speculate, because that’s all we can do… Breaking news: we have no news…”
In desperation he turned to a colleague. “With me is our royal correspondent, Peter Hunt. Peter, what news?” Peter Hunt: “No news.”
Excitement at 11am, as one reporter managed to grab a word with the Prince of Wales, who happened to be visiting York’s National Railway Museum. “That comment from Prince Charles was quite interesting,” revealed the reporter afterwards. “He says that like the rest of us he has no news.”
Back to Peter Hunt, who was wisely hedging his bets. “All I can safely say,” he said, “is that it will be either a boy or a girl.”
Over on Sky News, hopes were raised, only to be cruelly dashed. “Paul!” cried Kay Burley at royal reporter Paul Harrison. “Your phone rang a moment ago. A tip?”
“It wasn’t,” confessed Paul apologetically. “It was about PPI, telling me I was eligible to claim £3,000.” ...0 -
If he'd saved his own personal £25 he could have the huge pot of cash and the pay rise.Neil said:
Labour - there was a huge strike over it. The FBU cant be said to have gotten its way and shortly afterwards they disaffiliated from Labour.TGOHF said:Neil said:
I'm sure it pales in comparison to the benefits of the 16% or so pay settlement arising from the national strike in 2002 / 03.TGOHF said:
Under no circumstances ever work out what you could be sitting on come retirement age if you had paid that £25 per month into a FTSE tracker ISA over your working life...TwistedFireStopper said:TGOHF said:
Is the union levy a flat fixed fee ? I would have thought a % of your salary would mean fairness was hardwired in.tim said:Slackbladder said:
You really have no idea at all do you.....oh dear oh deartim said:Slackbladder said:
Do the maths: Losing 3million at 8 pound a year, with gaining 300,000 at anything up to £40 per year...tim said:Slackbladder and John Zims proving how out of their depth they are.
Over 10% of Unite members joining Labour directly would be a fantastic result.
Thats 300,000 acreoss the affiliate unions raising Labours contributing membership to half a million
" Losing 3million at 8 pound a year"
Clueless.
Utterly clueless.
Go back to fapping over Cameron.. it seems to make you happy.
You are so dim that you believe the entire Unite political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Staggering.
Although after last week and the mortality figures threads nothing should surprise us.
I pay 26 quid a month to the FBU, none of which goes to the political levy. Even if it did, it would only be about 69p a month. None of that would go to the Labour Party, although some would go to sponsored MPs.
Remind me who was in power at the time in 2002/03 ?
He would have got that anyway.
What are you trying to suggest?
0 -
It's being strongly hinted on R4 that the NannyCam posturing on the internet could encompass violence and gambling as well in it's net.
That baby can't come soon enough for the incompetent fop. ;^ )0 -
If the Royal Baby is born today, his/her middle name should be Ludolph (because it's Pi Day);
if tomorrow, Mackintosh (because tomorrow will be Michael Mackintosh Foot's 100th birthday).0 -
Is Nigel Farage related to Edgar ?!?MikeK said:@JackW
The kings of Saxon England were determined largely by the Witan. Accordingly Harold was succeeded by Edgar Aethling in October 1066.
Who galavanted about Europe causing distress wherever he went. I bet William I was sorry he didn't send Edgar for the chop when he had him prisoner.
.....................................
Ok by my count we've still two more first in line heirs apparent and four heirs presumptives who didn't succeed to find. I'll nudge things along :
Eustace, son and heir apparent of King Stephen, who predeceased his father.
0 -
Unsuccessful royal heirs? George I was 81st in line to the throne when he became king, so there were a few there.
Princess Charlotte of Wales was the only daughter of George IV, but died before he came to the throne.0 -
New thread,
Marf returns with a Royal angle0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
