Ed Miliband, he is the one.

[dune]

sAINTS WON. THE SOCIALISTAS LOWST. HAPPY DAYS.

[bridge too far]

Two wins today - I'm one happy bunny

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Now my 15 minutyes is up. Ann d i,ll be ****ed if if im payimn g another 10 lira to post hereŞ so see you all later.

 

Good, **** off drunkard.

[benjii]

Lol - they voted the gimpy one in!?

 

[Mao Cap]

They're both gimpy...come to think of it I can't remember any party leader who was a real person and not a wimpy Oxbridge type public-school fag. The last one who wasn't was John Smith, I think.

[benjii]

White, middle-aged, Oxbridge educated, career politician....

 

I thought Labour hated all that kind of stuff?

[benjii]

They're both gimpy...come to think of it I can't remember any party leader who was a real person and not a wimpy Oxbridge type public-school fag. The last one who wasn't was John Smith, I think.

 

Cameron aint wimpy Mr Cap.

 

You can tell he's had proper breeding. He'd birth a cow, give Gerry a good thrashing, score a half-century and see off a pint before lunch.

[iansums]

Not a good result if you want Labour back in power. The public won't want a union boy.

[benjii]

Not a good result if you want Labour back in power. The public won't want a union boy.

 

... who looks and sounds like a gimpy toff.

[bridge too far]

Depends how you define 'toff' I suppose. Comprehensive education but obviously with the backing at home of parents who encouraged him and his brother to achieve.

 

Interesting back story here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11316855

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Another leader with great experience of living and working in the real world.

[iansums]

Depends how you define 'toff' I suppose. Comprehensive education but obviously with the backing at home of parents who encouraged him and his brother to achieve.

 

Interesting back story here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11316855

 

Interesting article and as I said a union boy:

 

'Unite was even accused of breaking the rules of the contest by including a leaflet pledging its support for Ed Miliband along with the ballot papers for the contest it sent to its 950,000 members eligible to vote.'

[bridge too far]

Interesting article and as I said a union boy:

 

'Unite was even accused of breaking the rules of the contest by including a leaflet pledging its support for Ed Miliband along with the ballot papers for the contest it sent to its 950,000 members eligible to vote.'

 

The Labour Party comprises a number of interests, apart from its root and branch membership. Trade Unions are one of those interests and were, of course, part of the foundation of the Labour Party.

 

The Conservative Party also has a number of interested parties and receives its main funding from corporates and wealthy individuals in the same way as the Labour Party receives its funding from individual donations and from Trade Unions.

 

So there's no real difference in the idea of backing a leadership candidate from an interested party for either the Conservative or Labour Party. I suppose the main issue is that no-one is forced to join a Trade Union if they don't like the contributions that union makes to the Labour Party. However, the only choice that most of us have to express our disatisfaction with donations to the Conservative Party is to withdraw our custom. Since we often don't actually know which big businesses contribute to the Conservative Party, it's easier said than done.

 

All Labour leadership contenders had some union backing - they wouldn't have had wealthy individuals or corporate backers to fund their campaigns.

[mightysaints]

His wife is quite tasty

[bridge too far]

His wife is quite tasty

 

She's a Hampshire lass

 

http://www.yvettecooper.com/about-yvette

[benjii]

The Labour Party comprises a number of interests, apart from its root and branch membership. Trade Unions are one of those interests and were, of course, part of the foundation of the Labour Party.

 

The Conservative Party also has a number of interested parties and receives its main funding from corporates and wealthy individuals in the same way as the Labour Party receives its funding from individual donations and from Trade Unions.

 

So there's no real difference in the idea of backing a leadership candidate from an interested party for either the Conservative or Labour Party. I suppose the main issue is that no-one is forced to join a Trade Union if they don't like the contributions that union makes to the Labour Party. However, the only choice that most of us have to express our disatisfaction with donations to the Conservative Party is to withdraw our custom. Since we often don't actually know which big businesses contribute to the Conservative Party, it's easier said than done.

 

All Labour leadership contenders had some union backing - they wouldn't have had wealthy individuals or corporate backers to fund their campaigns.

 

You seem to be implying that big businesses, or the proprietors thereof, never donate to the Labour party?

 

Admittedly, the Labour party are completely dependent on Union funding but let's not pretend they won't accept the buck of capital.

Edited 25 September, 2010 by benjii

[bridge too far]

You seem to be implying that big businesses, or the proprietors thereof, never donate to the Labour party?

 

Admittedly, the Labour party are completely dependent on Union funding but let's not pretend they won't accept the buck of capital.

 

Yes, you're right - some wealthy backers come from the business community, although without looking at the accounts I can't say I'm aware of actual businesses donating to the Labour Party. But Lord Sainsbury is a big philanthropist who donates to the Labour Party, as an individual I guess.

[benjii]

There's venture capitalist Nigel Doughty, private equity boss Sir Ronald Cohen, Lord Sainsbury (as you mentioned), Lakshmi Mittal (£2m) (around the time Blair sought to buy him influence in Romania, funnily enough), Hinduja Brothers (cash for passports, Mandy's resignation).... maybe not donations made in company names but I doubt they were "philanthropic" in the most part!

 

Not really a criticism, just a statement that it's a bit rich to make out there is something unpalatable about the Tory party when all other parties are at it when they can, just to a less enviable extent.

[bridge too far]

There's venture capitalist Nigel Doughty, private equity boss Sir Ronald Cohen, Lord Sainsbury (as you mentioned), Lakshmi Mittal (£2m) (around the time Blair sought to buy him influence in Romania, funnily enough), Hinduja Brothers (cash for passports, Mandy's resignation).... maybe not donations made in company names but I doubt they were "philanthropic" in the most part!

 

Not really a criticism, just a statement that it's a bit rich to make out there is something unpalatable about the Tory party when all other parties are at it when they can, just to a less enviable extent.

 

I think the Liberals don't do so well as far as private / corporate donations are concerned. I wasn't saying necessarily that Tory coprorate donations are 'unpalatable', merely that the unions' support for the Labour party is no worse or better than how the Conservatives are funded in the main.

 

There's a good argument to be had for state funding, if people are worried about 'undue influence' or power-broking but I suspect that large private donations would still take place.

[aintforever]

I thought the other brother would be more electable, also looks gimpy but at least he looks old enough to run a country.

[bridge too far]

I thought the other brother would be more electable, also looks gimpy but at least he looks old enough to run a country.

 

Why on earth does it matter what someone looks like? Jeez if it becomes a beauty contest will truly end up with a government we deserve FFS.

[benjii]

Why on earth does it matter what someone looks like? Jeez if it becomes a beauty contest will truly end up with a government we deserve FFS.

 

Maybe it shouldn't but it does. Howard and Hague were always screwed as leaders due to being or looking like gimps or weirdos.

[Johnny Bognor]

The Labour Party comprises a number of interests, apart from its root and branch membership. Trade Unions are one of those interests and were, of course, part of the foundation of the Labour Party.

 

The Conservative Party also has a number of interested parties and receives its main funding from corporates and wealthy individuals in the same way as the Labour Party receives its funding from individual donations and from Trade Unions.

 

So there's no real difference in the idea of backing a leadership candidate from an interested party for either the Conservative or Labour Party. I suppose the main issue is that no-one is forced to join a Trade Union if they don't like the contributions that union makes to the Labour Party. However, the only choice that most of us have to express our disatisfaction with donations to the Conservative Party is to withdraw our custom. Since we often don't actually know which big businesses contribute to the Conservative Party, it's easier said than done.

 

All Labour leadership contenders had some union backing - they wouldn't have had wealthy individuals or corporate backers to fund their campaigns.

 

 

Hmmm. The influence the unions hold is a lot more than just giving some dosh, blackmail plays its part too like threatening to withdraw party funding if their man isn't elected.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7969112/Union-threatens-to-withdraw-funding-over-Labour-leadership-battle.html

Edited 25 September, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Badger]

His wife is quite tasty

 

She's a Hampshire lass

 

http://www.yvettecooper.com/about-yvette

 

Does not wish to be known as Yvette Balls then?

[Saint in Paradise]

She was born a long way away from Hampshire.

[Deppo]

Why on earth does it matter what someone looks like? Jeez if it becomes a beauty contest will truly end up with a government we deserve FFS.

 

I refused to even entertain the idea of Michael Foot whilst he wore that coat.

[bridge too far]

Hmmm. The influence the unions hold is a lot more than just giving some dosh, blackmail plays its part too like threatening to withdraw party funding if their man isn't elected.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7969112/Union-threatens-to-withdraw-funding-over-Labour-leadership-battle.html

 

But the same thing happens with the Conservatives - their wealthy backers threaten to withdraw funding if they don't like a particular policy.

[scotty]

I honestly dont understand the ed miliband win, unless he's just the sacrificial lamb sent to the slaughter of the next election. I'm sure he's a lovely man, very well-meaning etc etc, but have you ever heard such a meaningless stream of cliches and platitudes in a single speech as he spouted yesterday? I mean I realise he's a politician and it goes with the territory, but they usually find something to actually say.

[Verbal]

I honestly dont understand the ed miliband win, unless he's just the sacrificial lamb sent to the slaughter of the next election. I'm sure he's a lovely man, very well-meaning etc etc, but have you ever heard such a meaningless stream of cliches and platitudes in a single speech as he spouted yesterday? I mean I realise he's a politician and it goes with the territory, but they usually find something to actually say.

 

That wouldn't make any sense. Labour were far from annihilated in the last election, and the Tories were far from being victors. The next election is eminently winnable for Labour, especially when the cuts REALLY bite, as they haven't even begun to yet. The coalition will disintegrate - even those within it are aware that that's more likely than not - and so there is everything to play for.

 

I'm not sure about EM, but I think I'll give him more than a few hours before deciding whether I think he has potential as a serious and engaging political leader.

[dune]

Beıng completely serıous (and sober) ı am well happy wıth the result. If Davıd had won ı,d have been concernedş but wıth the nerdıer brother ıt,s fantastıc news ıf you want the Conservatıves to wın the next electıon. Labour wıll no be ın opposıtıon for a long tıme.

[Verbal]

Beıng completely serıous (and sober) ı am well happy wıth the result. If Davıd had won ı,d have been concernedş but wıth the nerdıer brother ıt,s fantastıc news ıf you want the Conservatıves to wın the next electıon. Labour wıll no be ın opposıtıon for a long tıme.

 

You made more sense p*ssed. And then hardly any. What's with the weird punctuation and bizarre syntax? You appear to be saying the opposite of what you (presumably - who knows?) intend.

[Johnny Bognor]

But the same thing happens with the Conservatives - their wealthy backers threaten to withdraw funding if they don't like a particular policy.

 

True, but the private individual knows what he/she wants. Did the Union ballot their members before making the threat (i.e. is the Unions stance in line with what their membership?)?

[Verbal]

True, but the private individual knows what he/she wants. Did the Union ballot their members before making the threat (i.e. is the Unions stance in line with what their membership?)?

 

But they are rarely 'private individuals' are they? They are frequently chairmen (and always men) of often large companies, who are almost always contributing funds without consulting employees or shareholders. And they contribute in order to buy influence.

Edited 26 September, 2010 by Verbal

[bridge too far]

I think this article is quite interesting - it lists the top 10 donors to the Labour and Conservative parties during the last General Election campaign:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-campaign-funding-twice-that-of-labours-751467.html#list

[Special K]

I think this article is quite interesting - it lists the top 10 donors to the Labour and Conservative parties during the last General Election campaign:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-campaign-funding-twice-that-of-labours-751467.html#list

 

Serious question. Do Union members get a vote in whether they want their fees help to finance a political party? If i'm a member of the AEEU and i don't want to vote Labour, do i get a say in whether i want a union that represents me to use money (part of which i've paid) to fund a (likely unsuccessful) Labour election campaign. Or is it fait accompli?

[CB Saint]

I think this article is quite interesting - it lists the top 10 donors to the Labour and Conservative parties during the last General Election campaign:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-campaign-funding-twice-that-of-labours-751467.html#list

 

surprised about the lack of big business in the tory list. Also by how little you have to contribute to get into the list

[bridge too far]

Serious question. Do Union members get a vote in whether they want their fees help to finance a political party? If i'm a member of the AEEU and i don't want to vote Labour, do i get a say in whether i want a union that represents me to use money (part of which i've paid) to fund a (likely unsuccessful) Labour election campaign. Or is it fait accompli?

 

No - you can contract out of paying the political levy.

[bridge too far]

surprised about the lack of big business in the tory list. Also by how little you have to contribute to get into the list

 

The lists were of donors to the General Election fighting funds only. Try as I may, I can't find a list of donors to the parties rather than the fighting funds. I did, however, find this news report interesting:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/29/tory-donors-audit-commission

[Johnny Bognor]

I think this article is quite interesting - it lists the top 10 donors to the Labour and Conservative parties during the last General Election campaign:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-campaign-funding-twice-that-of-labours-751467.html#list

 

Slighty out of date, it was for 2001.

 

Come on BTF, you're losing it. First you get your abc's wrong and now you can't read dates. I am getting concerned, I hope you are OK.

 

As for the election campaign, Labour received the largest single donation of £1m from Unite:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tMKCTfCkE02GL0qqp0Rh3Lg#gid=1

 

Here is an overview, for those that are interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/27/general-election-2010-electoral-commission-party-funding-data#data

Edited 26 September, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Oh JB - you're the bane of my life

 

I couldn't find anything more up-to-date although, in my defence, I didn't say WHICH election

 

Well done you for finding more recent info. I don't have the patience to read the information from the electoral commission but, if anyone wants to, here's a list of donations registered:

 

http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272010%2D09%2D26%2022%3A40%3A16%27%7D

[Johnny Bognor]

Oh JB - you're the bane of my life

 

I couldn't find anything more up-to-date although, in my defence, I didn't say WHICH election

 

I believe you said "last" election which I took to mean the one that happened recently, however I will be sympathetic as your memory may be failing you

[bridge too far]

I believe you said "last" election which I took to mean the one that happened recently, however I will be sympathetic as your memory may be failing you

 

I rather think it is - that's what comes with retirement lol.

 

And. being an NHS pensioner, I can't afford the expensive brain food any more

[Draino76]

Pretty pleased with this. The son of a Marxist will keep the Conservatives in office for a generation; and I think it will take a generation of austerity to get this country back on it's feet.

 

Thread closed.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Pretty pleased with this. The son of a Marxist will keep the Conservatives in office for a generation; and I think it will take a generation of austerity to get this country back on it's feet.

 

Thread closed.

 

Hmmm not quite. Especially if people such as Ashcroft get away with not paying their tax bills...(as reported on BBC)

[Special K]

No - you can contract out of paying the political levy.

 

Thanks. Are those figures ever published at all?

[bridge too far]

Thanks. Are those figures ever published at all?

 

I can't find anything so far. I did find this, however - it tells you about the process to contract out of the political levy should you want to:

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionmembership/DG_179239

 

I've just looked at the BECTU website and it seems that, if you contract out, you still have to pay the same subscription but the 'political' part is kept by the Union rather than being donated to any political party or other organisation:

 

http://www.bectu.org.uk/about/political-fund

Edited 27 September, 2010 by bridge too far

[Verbal]

I've just looked at the BECTU website and it seems that, if you contract out, you still have to pay the same subscription but the 'political' part is kept by the Union rather than being donated to any political party or other organisation:

 

http://www.bectu.org.uk/about/political-fund

 

Absolutely right, BTF. As a former member of BECTU, I know that members have been able to do this since the 1980s. (And note: this was the result of pressure from members, NOT Thatch.)

[scotty]

Why on earth does it matter what someone looks like? Jeez if it becomes a beauty contest will truly end up with a government we deserve FFS.

 

Maybe it shouldn't but it does. Howard and Hague were always screwed as leaders due to being or looking like gimps or weirdos.

 

THis is something else I dont follow in the EM triumph, because benji is right: it oughtnt to matter, but it does. The points against him are that a: he hath a thpeech impediment, b: he looks very dark-skinned, almost Indian, (which most certainly shouldn't mean anything but sadly, in this country, it will at the polls ,) c: wouldn't have won the contest without the union vote, and d: has a brother with more political clout, credibility and experience than he does.

 

In short, the tabloids and satirists will make mincemeat of him, the anti-immigration crowd in the labour camp will hate him, (and dont ever think there arent plenty of them,) and everyone will believe, probably correctly, that he is in the pocket of the unions. I just cannot view him as electable.

[Wade Garrett]

To be fair to the Unions, they didn't block vote, the members voted individually. My union recommended Ed, I voted Dave.

 

I don't think Ed is in the pockets of the unions. Their members just liked him more.

[scotty]

To be fair to the Unions, they didn't block vote, the members voted individually. My union recommended Ed, I voted Dave.

 

I don't think Ed is in the pockets of the unions. Their members just liked him more.

 

What was the split? 49% to 51%? A union recommendation would have to account for at least 2% of the vote, surely. I havent heard anybody else dispute thus far the proposition that Ed won because of the union vote, not even himself.