To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
...
Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.
...
"Where ignorance is bliss, Let Surby advise"
Germany: Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 74.5% UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%
Only out by over 100% Surby!
Err, do you have a source for that Avery? Because according to the ONS current debt/GDP is 75%, and I hardly think it has halved in the past 3 years.
UK: ONS Public Sector Finances Bulletin - June 2013 (rel. 07/2013), Table PSF9 "Long Run of Fiscal Indicators as a percentage of GDP", Final Column, "Public Sector Net Debt (PSND)"
If the Tories are losing over 1000 members a month. And UKIP are gaining around the same amount we could be in the position where the membership figures are
Tories: 74k UKIP: 61k
At the time of the 2015 general election. Good luck getting UKIP down to 5% with those figures...
Why do the kippers hate the Tories so much ?
Two reasons: most UKIP members have joined recently (v few have been members for more than 5 years, unlike the membership of the other parties). Many have the zeal of the convert.
Secondly, the Tory party tends to more scathing, dismissive and rude about UKIP than the other parties. And we know that their knocking copy does have an effect.
The line 'but only the Tories have promised an In/Out referendum' is insufficient attraction.
'Only the tories will help you to win a referendum, and will give the date when Britain gives notice to the quit the EU, if No won'. That would be rather different.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
...
Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.
...
"Where ignorance is bliss, Let Surby advise"
Germany: Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 74.5% UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%
Only out by over 100% Surby!
Err, do you have a source for that Avery? Because according to the ONS current debt/GDP is 75%, and I hardly think it has halved in the past 3 years.
UK: ONS Public Sector Finances Bulletin - June 2013 (rel. 07/2013), Table PSF9 "Long Run of Fiscal Indicators as a percentage of GDP", Final Column, "Public Sector Net Debt (PSND)"
What are you on about. Labour has 190,000 members. The scheme that enrolled people lasted about a year has now been scrapped and brought in no more than a couple of hundred.
As pointed out by the Ashcroft poll Labour could have almost a million members who sign up voluntarily.
So I would suggest there are about 193,000 people who would voluntary and independently become members now. And probably over a 1,000,000 if we got our act together.</blockquote/
you really don't get the public's view and hostility to political parties, do you.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
I picked 1980 as that was when modern Labour party membership started being recorded properly. I picked 2005 as that was when Cameron was elected. I picked 2013 as an end point for both as that is now.
No matter how you look at it Cameron has screwed the Tory party membership
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
...
Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.
...
"Where ignorance is bliss, Let Surby advise"
Germany: Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 74.5% UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%
Only out by over 100% Surby!
Err, do you have a source for that Avery? Because according to the ONS current debt/GDP is 75%, and I hardly think it has halved in the past 3 years.
UK: ONS Public Sector Finances Bulletin - June 2013 (rel. 07/2013), Table PSF9 "Long Run of Fiscal Indicators as a percentage of GDP", Final Column, "Public Sector Net Debt (PSND)"
So the source you use for UK debt uses a totally different definition to your source for German debt. Comparing like for like the UK had a lower debt/GDP ratio, as your own source for Germany shows. If you look up UK figures on that website you find we were on 73.9% and Germany on 74.5% in 2010.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
Then why was the phrase "whoever was the party of government" used, rather than "the government. The two are clearly distinct.
IIRC the Tories had c5m after the War - given that my FiL who voted Labour was the Treasurer of the Con Club because it had better snooker tables and cheaper beer shows how different the social aspect is.
Who'd join a party now to meet a potential spouse?
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
Then why was the phrase "whoever was the party of government" used, rather than "the government. The two are clearly distinct.
I suspect the wording was I would like to bequeath 500k to the government, whoever was the party of the government,
We know UKIP is booming and have 40k membership. Those in the know are saying the Tories are lower than 95k. It seems they have also lost 35k in the last two years.
UKIP could have a bigger membership than the Tories in 18 months if this doesn't slow.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
We know UKIP is booming and have 40k membership. Those in the know are saying the Tories are lower than 95k. It seems they have also lost 35k in the last two years.
UKIP could have a bigger membership than the Tories in 18 months if this doesn't slow.
True, but surely we should assume it will slow? The final 25K members of the Tories are the hardcore, and less likely to leave than the 25K before them. Who are themselves less likely to leave than the previous 25K and so on. I'm not saying the direction of travel will be reversed, but the low hanging fruit so to speak for both UKIP and the Tories will join and leave respectively first so all else being equal the speed of change should steadily decline.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
I'm surprised the gift hasn't been litigated - it's quite difficult to ever leave something to an unincorporated association like a political party.
I find the notion and motivation of those who challenge wills really urgh unless there is very clear evidence of coercion. You can do what you want with your stuff even if your grasping family and friends feel they deserved a slice of the action.
To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
...
Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.
...
"Where ignorance is bliss, Let Surby advise"
Germany: Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 74.5% UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%
Only out by over 100% Surby!
Err, do you have a source for that Avery? Because according to the ONS current debt/GDP is 75%, and I hardly think it has halved in the past 3 years.
UK: ONS Public Sector Finances Bulletin - June 2013 (rel. 07/2013), Table PSF9 "Long Run of Fiscal Indicators as a percentage of GDP", Final Column, "Public Sector Net Debt (PSND)"
So the source you use for UK debt uses a totally different definition to your source for German debt. Comparing like for like the UK had a lower debt/GDP ratio, as your own source for Germany shows. If you look up UK figures on that website you find we were on 73.9% and Germany on 74.5% in 2010.
Tradingeconomics can be unreliable. The proper source for Germany's Debt to GDP Ratio is Eurostat but I absolutely hate the site and will only go there when compelled under duress.
PSND directly correlates with the Eurostat categories, PSND ex only applies in the UK and was imposed upon the ONS by Brown and Darling as a means of obscuring the additional debt imposed on the nation as part of the bank bailouts.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
The thing is, which will probably save the Tories and the Lib Dems is that the people in charge of executing the woman's will, had no objection to what happened.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
The thing is, which will probably save the Tories and the Lib Dems is that the people in charge of executing the woman's will, had no objection to what happened.
Yeah wondering if that the case. The will doesn't mention 'party' apparently (shippers).
Why have the trolls suddenly started getting obsessed with party membership numbers? Very odd.
FWIW, I was at a local meeting of Conservative Party members last week (the really excellent Conservative Policy Forum initiative, which as far as I can tell has no equivalent in either of the other two main parties - I'd be grateful for a correction if I'm wrong on that), and conversation turned to the question of attracting new members. One of the attendees, who has been a party member since time immemorial and has held various offices in that time, was absolutely adamant that the blame for falling membership should be laid at the door of William Hague, whose reforms of party organisation when he was leader emasculated the local associations. I've no idea of how much truth there is in this point - I wasn't a party member at the time - but it was strongly made, by someone in a position to know.
Your figures on UK Government debt are horribly, hilariously, wrong. Sorry.
152% in 2010! Lol.
They are not my figures, Carl.
They are the figures published in the National Accounts by the Office for National Statistics and are accurate to the last publication of the Public Sector Finances Bulletin in July 2013.
I have already referenced the table in the bulletin from which I copied the data.
Would you like a page number as well?
If so, it is page 51 of 55 (in my version of Adobe Reader)
I believe IOS by his own admission was once a Labour Parliamentary candidate who finished a dismal third place.
That would contradict my theory that IOS wasnt old enough to stand (or even vote) in 2010!
LoL. Perhaps he was a child prodigy studying at one of those Oxbridge Colleges that awarded first class honours automatically allocated to certain elite public schools.
OK, I'm off to bed. Anyone who is having trouble sleeping may enjoy this fairly brief report from 2012 on party membership which collates most available sources going back for almost a century. Particularly interesting in my mind is the revenue the BNP generates from such a small membership, and the low revenue UKIP makes from a much larger one. Also the decline in UKIP membership from 25K in 2004 until the recent surge, I never realised they'd been so populous before.
Your figures on UK Government debt are horribly, hilariously, wrong. Sorry.
152% in 2010! Lol.
They are not my figures, Carl.
They are the figures published in the National Accounts by the Office for National Statistics and are accurate to the last publication of the Public Sector Finances Bulletin in July 2013.
I have already referenced the table in the bulletin from which I copied the data.
Would you like a page number as well?
If so, it is page 51 of 55 (in my version of Adobe Reader)
I'm sorry, but you're a bit of a charlatan really aren't you? You post all that data and blurb, gosh, he must know his stuff.
Then you say we had 152% UK Govt Debt in 2010. Lol.
We know UKIP is booming and have 40k membership. Those in the know are saying the Tories are lower than 95k. It seems they have also lost 35k in the last two years.
UKIP could have a bigger membership than the Tories in 18 months if this doesn't slow.
The most recent figure from UKIP was 30,000 members.
Why have the trolls suddenly started getting obsessed with party membership numbers? Very odd.
It was my understanding the long term trend for all the parties (bar the newbies, UKIP) was a decline in membership numbers, so focusing on them seems a move that is liable to result in plenty of friendly fire down the line, or a game of 'who loses the most', which is not very helpful for anyone.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
The thing is, which will probably save the Tories and the Lib Dems is that the people in charge of executing the woman's will, had no objection to what happened.
Wording is: 'The will said money should go to ‘whichever Govt is in office at the date of my death... for the Govt in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit.’' (shippers).
I think ALP has a valid point. It is generally assumed that being canvassed increases the voters willingness to vote for the canvassers party. There is at least a possibility that being disturbed at home by a swivel eyed loon who rants on about their hobbyhorse puts voters off the party in question.
I remember doing some canvassing in 1997 for Labour, and I stuck to the New Labour script of the day, but some in my group were very off message. One was a monomaniac on the subject of unilateral disarmament who canvassed in a very off message way. Little did she know of the Labour wars to follow in her wake; but to be fair none involved weapons of mass destruction!
Why have the trolls suddenly started getting obsessed with party membership numbers? Very odd.
FWIW, I was at a local meeting of Conservative Party members last week (the really excellent Conservative Policy Forum initiative, which as far as I can tell has no equivalent in either of the other two main parties - I'd be grateful for a correction if I'm wrong on that), and conversation turned to the question of attracting new members. One of the attendees, who has been a party member since time immemorial and has held various offices in that time, was absolutely adamant that the blame for falling membership should be laid at the door of William Hague, whose reforms of party organisation when he was leader emasculated the local associations. I've no idea of how much truth there is in this point - I wasn't a party member at the time - but it was strongly made, by someone in a position to know.
Richard, there's a lot of truth in that. In addition, prior to those reforms there was no fixed membership fee to join the party: people could pay £1 or less. Now you have to pay a minimum charge (£25 I think) to have full voting membership rights.
I'm surprised the gift hasn't been litigated - it's quite difficult to ever leave something to an unincorporated association like a political party.
Didn't a large gift to the Tories get overturned by the courts a few years back on the basis that the recently deceased had lost control of their mental faculties at the time they made it or something?
Why have the trolls suddenly started getting obsessed with party membership numbers? Very odd.
It was my understanding the long term trend for all the parties (bar the newbies, UKIP) was a decline in membership numbers, so focusing on them seems a move that is liable to result in plenty of friendly fire down the line, or a game of 'who loses the most', which is not very helpful for anyone.
Quite so. It's Bowling Alone.
Of course it's important for all three parties to find ways of increasing engagement. But these need to be new ways, for the post-social generation.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
The thing is, which will probably save the Tories and the Lib Dems is that the people in charge of executing the woman's will, had no objection to what happened.
Wording is: 'The will said money should go to ‘whichever Govt is in office at the date of my death... for the Govt in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit.’' (shippers).
how many people do you know, does anyone know, these days, who would VOLUNTARILY join a political party
What black magic do you think is being worked on those people who do join the Labour party if you dont believe they are acting voluntarily?
Mental subnormality.
So you meant to say that only 20,000 people would join Labour if the rest werent mentally subnormal? That union association thing just got you a bit confused.
As with Polling of 2010Lib Dems I'd like to see some regional figures. The Tories leaking to UKIP in safe seats doesn't matter as much as the party dying in marginals.
Correct, and of course true for all three parties.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
The thing is, which will probably save the Tories and the Lib Dems is that the people in charge of executing the woman's will, had no objection to what happened.
Wording is: 'The will said money should go to ‘whichever Govt is in office at the date of my death... for the Govt in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit.’' (shippers).
how many people do you know, does anyone know, these days, who would VOLUNTARILY join a political party
What black magic do you think is being worked on those people who do join the Labour party if you dont believe they are acting voluntarily?
Mental subnormality.
So you meant to say that only 20,000 people would join Labour if the rest werent mentally subnormal? That union association thing just got you a bit confused.
Mental subnormality and union membership probably.... how shall I say this... enjoy a significant overlap.
With a bit of hard work you'll be able to figure out the difference between the two.
HM Government (tm) is led by the Prime Minister, so I suppose if you leave money to the Government, it should be for the PM to determine?
In addition 'government' is sometimes taken to mean only the executive branch of a state, so not for the whole. Eh, it's murkyish but seems above board I guess.
Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
The Mail (from what I can squint read) seem to be claiming that they've looked up the will and the spirit of it was that the money be spent for the public good by whichever Govt was in power.
That's my take on it as well
IF that turns out to be the case and it's been trousered by the parties that's just chortle-tastic.
The thing is, which will probably save the Tories and the Lib Dems is that the people in charge of executing the woman's will, had no objection to what happened.
Wording is: 'The will said money should go to ‘whichever Govt is in office at the date of my death... for the Govt in their absolute discretion to use as they may think fit.’' (shippers).
Your figures on UK Government debt are horribly, hilariously, wrong. Sorry.
152% in 2010! Lol.
They are not my figures, Carl.
They are the figures published in the National Accounts by the Office for National Statistics and are accurate to the last publication of the Public Sector Finances Bulletin in July 2013.
I have already referenced the table in the bulletin from which I copied the data.
Would you like a page number as well?
If so, it is page 51 of 55 (in my version of Adobe Reader)
I'm sorry, but you're a bit of a charlatan really aren't you? You post all that data and blurb, gosh, he must know his stuff.
Then you say we had 152% UK Govt Debt in 2010. Lol.
You cannot even read what I wrote.
UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%
Obviously educated under Labour. The Prince's Trust might be able to help you, Carl.
If the DM article is accurate (usual sharp intake of breath) then both parties have behaved deplorably. The money should not be seen as a political donation.
If the DM article is accurate (usual sharp intake of breath) then both parties have behaved deplorably. The money should not be seen as a political donation.
@tim - C'mon, plastic pundit, tell us when you last did any leafleting or canvassing? Have you ever?
Enough to get elections right, you should try it. Go canvass in a marginal, see how the Tory membership is dying.
So that's a no to either then. Quelle surprise. Try 'doing' politics for a change. You might just - for once - learn something. And when you start winning money from me, then I might concievably begin to take you a quarter-seriously.
If the DM article is accurate (usual sharp intake of breath) then both parties have behaved deplorably. The money should not be seen as a political donation.
The article doesn't make much sense. It's the executors who decide who are actually supposed to be the beneficiaries of the will, not the recipients. They may have decided incorrectly, of course, but they are (according to the article) solicitors, so it seems unlikely a priori that they would have just sent off a cheque for half a million quid without checking it was the right payee.
That Daily Mail story doesnt look very good for the Tories or Lib Dems.
Terrible story for them.
I imagine they'll be looking for some kind of distracting news soon - now that the Mail are scenting blood over the story, even if the parties give the money back no-one will give them any credit for doing so, so there's absolutely nothing either party can do to look better, including pointing out lack of objection from the executors etc. Nothing to be gained in terms of positive press from any option really.
I think ALP has a valid point. It is generally assumed that being canvassed increases the voters willingness to vote for the canvassers party. There is at least a possibility that being disturbed at home by a swivel eyed loon who rants on about their hobbyhorse puts voters off the party in question.
The generally accepted purpose is not to persuade but to identify supporters, whom you can then pester to death on polling day so they vote if only to shut you up. There is a recognised risk that they are so pissed off that they vote for the other lot, but I've never actually met anyone who claimed to have done so.
Why have the trolls suddenly started getting obsessed with party membership numbers? Very odd.
FWIW, I was at a local meeting of Conservative Party members last week (the really excellent Conservative Policy Forum initiative, which as far as I can tell has no equivalent in either of the other two main parties - I'd be grateful for a correction if I'm wrong on that)...
The Labour Policy Forum has been around for quite a while - I know a prominent member. They do good work on detail but it doesn't stop the party leader suddenly declaring that henceforth our new policy is X. That's a general phenomenon common to all parties, and one reason for apathy.
General reply to SeanT and others: Labour membership isn't noticeably falling at present - it surged in 2010, settled a bit in 2011-12 and is now picking up again. It is precisely measured by the number who are up to date with subs - Fox's mailbox may still get stuff from us, but unless he's forgotten to cancel his direct debit he's not counted. But the correlation between membership and wanting to do stuff to win elections is not as strong as you might think - many people join parties as an interesting place to have discussions, much like pb.com (presumably none of us think we are actually persuading each other here or indeed doing anything more than having a chat). Conversely some of my keenest campaigners wouldn't dream of joining a party; they want to fight, not sit around talking.
The Labour Policy Forum has been around for quite a while - I know a prominent member. They do good work on detail but it doesn't stop the party leader suddenly declaring that henceforth our new policy is X. That's a general phenomenon common to all parties, and one reason for apathy.
I think that is different - the Conservative Policy Forum is for ordinary members to have an input into policy-making at an early stage. Any party member can take part.
I agree about the apathy bit, which is is precisely why I think the CPF is a good initiative.
If the DM article is accurate (usual sharp intake of breath) then both parties have behaved deplorably. The money should not be seen as a political donation.
The article doesn't make much sense. It's the executors who decide who are actually supposed to be the beneficiaries of the will, not the recipients. They may have decided incorrectly, of course, but they are (according to the article) solicitors, so it seems unlikely a priori that they would have just sent off a cheque for half a million quid without checking it was the right payee.
And the possiblility that there is no precedent and practice on this kind of legacy is almost minimal.
There will not only be precedent in probate law but there will also be Cabinet Office precedent and policy on how to handle such bequests.
Also, the executors of a will are personally liable if they get it wrong, are they not? So, again, I somehow doubt the Mail story is quite the entire truth.
Yes I was frog marched to Transport House by some nasty lefties and was not allowed out until I had signed my labour membership direct debit. LOL
Should have just told them to Foxtrot Oscar. I did.
Mind you, I've never seen the appeal of being a party member, even back in the days when I voted Labour. It makes even less sense to be a member of the Tory Party as the only time you get a say on anything is when there's a leadership contest...which probably means the 250,000 figure in 2005 was probably one of the high watermarks of that decade and seeing as there isn't going to be a leadership contest in the next few years there'll probably only be a small pullback leading up to the GE.
And also, it's pointless conflating party membership with activists on the ground. Hardly any party members go doorknocking.
Also, the executors of a will are personally liable if they get it wrong, are they not? So, again, I somehow doubt the Mail story is quite the entire truth.
You could have the bizarre situation of the Her Majesty's Government suing the executors over money given to the Governing parties.
If you leave money to the Government then it will always be theirs to do as they please. As it happens this seems to be an acceptable compromise. Imagine what it would be like if the Conservatives had pocketed ALL the money!
Church comes out against fracking - were they so against coal mining ??
One would think that dealing with gay vicars and female bishops was more pressing - but no. Given that ABC Welby worked for an oil company I find this a most strange bit of displacement behaviour posturing.
If you leave money to the Government then it will always be theirs to do as they please. As it happens this seems to be an acceptable compromise. Imagine what it would be like if the Conservatives had pocketed ALL the money!
Well, legal precedent goes back at least to 1799-1808.
Here is the evidence:
In the will of Abraham Newland, dated May 2. 1799, was a bequest of stock "to His Majesty's government in exoneration of the national debt."
The Lord Chancellor directed it to be transferred to such person as the King, under his sign manual, should appoint.
Newland v. Clark and Others. On further directions, July 17. 1809. Ordered "as to" the several stocks therein mentioned, "and as to any interest or diveidend which shall accrue due on the same, previous to the transfer hereafter to be directed, the same to be transferred and paid to such person or persons as his majesty, by his sign manual, shall think fit to nominate for that purpose; and any person or persons who shall be so nominated is or are to be at liberty to apply," &c. as advised. Reg. Lib. B. 18010 Fo. 1214.
I am not a lawyer so cannot establish whether this judgement still applies. But if it does, should not the Daily Mail be demanding an explanation from Her Majesty?
@SamuelCoates: Find it hard to believe that Tory & LibDem treasurers would've accepted that £520k bequest if it was presented to them in the way reported.
Spiv and Feldman on the Tory side, who's the Lib Dem?
Hoping for a conflict of interest are you, tim?
Cabinet Office Minister and Party leader?
There will be so much precedent on these types of bequest that the whole process will have been near automatic. And I would expect there to be many examples of Labour benefitting in the same way from previous wills.
Comments
UK: ONS Public Sector Finances Bulletin - June 2013 (rel. 07/2013), Table PSF9 "Long Run of Fiscal Indicators as a percentage of GDP", Final Column, "Public Sector Net Debt (PSND)"
Germany: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp
Secondly, the Tory party tends to more scathing, dismissive and rude about UKIP than the other parties. And we know that their knocking copy does have an effect.
The line 'but only the Tories have promised an In/Out referendum' is insufficient attraction.
'Only the tories will help you to win a referendum, and will give the date when Britain gives notice to the quit the EU, if No won'. That would be rather different.
Not sure you can quite say party membership is dieing for Labour. In 1980 Labour had 348,000 members. It has 193,000 now.
Labour has lost less members in 33 years than Cameron has in 8
This is quite extraordinary. Figures released today show that a "Ms Joan L B Edwards" left half a million pounds to the Coalition. But she wasn't a member of the Tory or Lib Dem faithful – she reportedly left instructions to donate the money "to whoever was the party of government of the day". The Conservative Party received £420,576 from Ms Edwards, with the Lib Dems getting £99,423.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100230925/woman-leaves-500000-in-her-will-to-the-government-of-the-day/
The Times are reporting the spirit, if not the wording of her will, intended the money money to bequeathed to the govt of the day, to spend on things like the NHS etc
Wikipedia may be using the subset of PSND, "PSND ex".
From the same table in the ONS Bulletin, UK 2010 = 56.4% and 2013 = 74.2%.
Always best to use the aggregate net figures.
I picked 1980 as that was when modern Labour party membership started being recorded properly. I picked 2005 as that was when Cameron was elected. I picked 2013 as an end point for both as that is now.
No matter how you look at it Cameron has screwed the Tory party membership
Your figures on UK Government debt are horribly, hilariously, wrong. Sorry.
152% in 2010! Lol.
I want to know what he thinks those 173,000 members are doing in the party if it isn't voluntary.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp
Germany: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/government-debt-to-gdp
Who'd join a party now to meet a potential spouse?
We know UKIP is booming and have 40k membership. Those in the know are saying the Tories are lower than 95k. It seems they have also lost 35k in the last two years.
UKIP could have a bigger membership than the Tories in 18 months if this doesn't slow.
I would also bet that that ends up having to be paid back.
Power of Love?
To be fair they aren't dieing they are just joining UKIP!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23690472
I can't think why.
But he's still going strong.
Thank Heavens.
We Blue lovelies can sleep easy.
It was years before they stopped sending me stuff, possibly they still are at my old address.
I would agree but it seems that their membership has been decreasing at every increasing rates!
PSND directly correlates with the Eurostat categories, PSND ex only applies in the UK and was imposed upon the ONS by Brown and Darling as a means of obscuring the additional debt imposed on the nation as part of the bank bailouts.
FWIW, I was at a local meeting of Conservative Party members last week (the really excellent Conservative Policy Forum initiative, which as far as I can tell has no equivalent in either of the other two main parties - I'd be grateful for a correction if I'm wrong on that), and conversation turned to the question of attracting new members. One of the attendees, who has been a party member since time immemorial and has held various offices in that time, was absolutely adamant that the blame for falling membership should be laid at the door of William Hague, whose reforms of party organisation when he was leader emasculated the local associations. I've no idea of how much truth there is in this point - I wasn't a party member at the time - but it was strongly made, by someone in a position to know.
193,000. I mean seriously this isn't hard. There are no compulsory obligations. The figure is 193,000
They are the figures published in the National Accounts by the Office for National Statistics and are accurate to the last publication of the Public Sector Finances Bulletin in July 2013.
I have already referenced the table in the bulletin from which I copied the data.
Would you like a page number as well?
If so, it is page 51 of 55 (in my version of Adobe Reader)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00440/Brookes_14_440987c.jpg
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05125
The Tories have less than 95,000 members that's what.
Then you say we had 152% UK Govt Debt in 2010. Lol.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/08/why-cant-we-be-told-how-many-members-the-conservative-party-has.html
Hmmm...
I remember doing some canvassing in 1997 for Labour, and I stuck to the New Labour script of the day, but some in my group were very off message. One was a monomaniac on the subject of unilateral disarmament who canvassed in a very off message way. Little did she know of the Labour wars to follow in her wake; but to be fair none involved weapons of mass destruction!
Of course it's important for all three parties to find ways of increasing engagement. But these need to be new ways, for the post-social generation.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRlI_-wCIAAAoeE.jpg:large
In addition 'government' is sometimes taken to mean only the executive branch of a state, so not for the whole. Eh, it's murkyish but seems above board I guess.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392343/Grasping-politicians-pocket-spinsters-500-000-legacy-bequeathed-government-spend-think-fit.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392343/Grasping-politicians-pocket-spinsters-500-000-legacy-bequeathed-government-spend-think-fit.html
UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%
Obviously educated under Labour. The Prince's Trust might be able to help you, Carl.
Unless they considered probate law first, of course.
Night all.
General reply to SeanT and others: Labour membership isn't noticeably falling at present - it surged in 2010, settled a bit in 2011-12 and is now picking up again. It is precisely measured by the number who are up to date with subs - Fox's mailbox may still get stuff from us, but unless he's forgotten to cancel his direct debit he's not counted. But the correlation between membership and wanting to do stuff to win elections is not as strong as you might think - many people join parties as an interesting place to have discussions, much like pb.com (presumably none of us think we are actually persuading each other here or indeed doing anything more than having a chat). Conversely some of my keenest campaigners wouldn't dream of joining a party; they want to fight, not sit around talking.
Double hmmm.
I agree about the apathy bit, which is is precisely why I think the CPF is a good initiative.
There will not only be precedent in probate law but there will also be Cabinet Office precedent and policy on how to handle such bequests.
Mind you, I've never seen the appeal of being a party member, even back in the days when I voted Labour. It makes even less sense to be a member of the Tory Party as the only time you get a say on anything is when there's a leadership contest...which probably means the 250,000 figure in 2005 was probably one of the high watermarks of that decade and seeing as there isn't going to be a leadership contest in the next few years there'll probably only be a small pullback leading up to the GE.
And also, it's pointless conflating party membership with activists on the ground. Hardly any party members go doorknocking.
... presumably none of us think we are actually persuading each other here or indeed doing anything more than having a chat ...
Speak for yourself, Mr. Palmer.
Most Tories post on PB to inform not persuade.
Our reward is the knowledge we are casting pearls before swine
But it is a strangely worded will if she merely wanted it to go to the State.
What a shame!
Here is the evidence:
In the will of Abraham Newland, dated May 2. 1799, was a bequest of stock "to His Majesty's government in exoneration of the national debt."
The Lord Chancellor directed it to be transferred to such person as the King, under his sign manual, should appoint.
Newland v. Clark and Others. On further directions, July 17. 1809. Ordered "as to" the several stocks therein mentioned, "and as to any interest or diveidend which shall accrue due on the same, previous to the transfer hereafter to be directed, the same to be transferred and paid to such person or persons as his majesty, by his sign manual, shall think fit to nominate for that purpose; and any person or persons who shall be so nominated is or are to be at liberty to apply," &c. as advised. Reg. Lib. B. 18010 Fo. 1214.
I am not a lawyer so cannot establish whether this judgement still applies. But if it does, should not the Daily Mail be demanding an explanation from Her Majesty?
The faster the rate at which the capital value of houses rises, the more likely it is that rents will fall.
Which explains why rents are beginning to fall at the moment.
An investor takes his return from capital appreciation and rental yield. Generally as one increases the other falls.
The impact of house prices starting to rise in nominal value again is that housing benefits linked to rents will start to fall.
Ironic, innit!
Cabinet Office Minister and Party leader?
There will be so much precedent on these types of bequest that the whole process will have been near automatic. And I would expect there to be many examples of Labour benefitting in the same way from previous wills.
Cul-de-sac, tim.