Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early work

Ten years ago David Cameron’s victory speech as the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party argued against Thatcher’s famous remark insisting “there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same as the state.” His vision for a Big Society never proved a campaign hit in its own right, but helped set the tone of a party that was keen to hear many flourish within civil society and for that to d…

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,296
    edited September 2015
    Good Morning Comrade Manson ....

    Oh .... :smile:
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406
    Ha hahaha - pathetic diversionary twaddle - nobody's gonna fall for it. Not today of all days.
  • 'Motes and beams' springs to mind.......
  • "What on Earth has happened to David Cameron?" - Hubris
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406

    "What on Earth has happened to David Cameron?" - Hubris

    Yup - that's the big headline in all the papers today. Not.
  • As Martin Kettle observed of Osborne's 'New Labour' budget:

    British voters remain highly receptive to a modernising Labour approach that shows it is in touch with the way the country and the world have changed and are changing. Whether Labour offers them that is what the party must now decide in its leadership contest. In the absence of such an offer from Labour, however, Osborne’s budget will seem to many voters like a logical and not wholly unreasonable alternative.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/09/george-osborne-budget-new-labour-thatcherite
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,226
    "reduction of elected MPs (constructed in a way that will hurt its main opposition the most)"

    that'd be on the Boundary Commission, surely?
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,247
    edited September 2015
    Learning from SkyNews that Hilary Benn is to continue as Shadow Foreign Secretary under Corbyn's leadership, convinced me to invest two crisp oncers on him becoming the next Prime Minister (post Cameron) at a price of 1000 with Betfair, i.e. 949/1 net of commission.

    Should I successfully land this bet, would I first of all be handed by OGH the position of life honorary president of PB.com in recognition of having placed the greatest political bet ever and second, five years hence, will both the UK and the USA be led by individuals both having Hil[l]ary as their first name ..... that alone surely has to be at least a 949/1 shot.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,226

    Learning from SkyNews that Hilary Benn is to continue as Shadow Foreign Secretary under the Corbyn regime, convinced me to invest two crisp oncers on him becoming the next Prime Minister (post Cameron) at a price of 1000 with Betfair, i.e. 949/1 net of commission.

    Should I successfully land this bet, would I first of all be handed by OGH the position of life honorary president of PB.com in recognition of having placed the greatest political bet ever and second, five years hence, will both the UK and the USA be led by individuals both having Hil[l]ary as their first name ..... that alone surely has to be at least a 949/1 shot.

    Does this mean someone has locked up a grand betting against that? Hah!
  • So I assume we still don't have a full shadow cabinet then?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,658
    This does not feel like a PB article. I don't mind robustly debating political issues of the day, but an outright party political attack on the government as the entire purpose of the article with no real tie in to betting markets just doesn't seem right.
  • felix said:

    "What on Earth has happened to David Cameron?" - Hubris

    Yup - that's the big headline in all the papers today. Not.
    Did I say that it was? Henry asked a question. I posted an answer.

    Apparently the big headline in the San is "Corbyn to abolish army". Tomorrow "Corbyn to tax all foreigners living abroad", Wednesday "Corbyn to kill the first born male child in every household".

    I was told that the press were going to destroy Corbyn. Ludicrous headline that even a San reader can see through helps do the opposite.

    Hubris.....
  • RobD said:

    Learning from SkyNews that Hilary Benn is to continue as Shadow Foreign Secretary under the Corbyn regime, convinced me to invest two crisp oncers on him becoming the next Prime Minister (post Cameron) at a price of 1000 with Betfair, i.e. 949/1 net of commission.

    Should I successfully land this bet, would I first of all be handed by OGH the position of life honorary president of PB.com in recognition of having placed the greatest political bet ever and second, five years hence, will both the UK and the USA be led by individuals both having Hil[l]ary as their first name ..... that alone surely has to be at least a 949/1 shot.

    Does this mean someone has locked up a grand betting against that? Hah!
    No ...... two grand actually and for up to 4yrs and 8 months or even longer, should Cameron see out this Parliament as PM!
  • "An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early work" ?
    Possibly. Luckily, we have the opposition to hold them to account.
  • Nice try, Henry. Corbyn has made the Tory majority much larger by appointing his Shadow Chancellor. I don't think the DUP or UUP will be marching through many Labour lobbies any time soon.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,658
    The latest WP-ABC poll has some conclusions that might ring true for the UK following Corbyn's upset:

    "Overall, the survey underscored the degree of dissatisfaction toward government and politics that is shaping the campaign. More than 7 in 10 Americans say people in politics cannot be trusted. More than 6 in 10 say the political system is dysfunctional. Sizable majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents agree with those assessments.

    "But Democrats and Republicans part ways over the kind of experience they are looking for in the next president. Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans say they prefer the next president to have experience that comes from outside the political establishment. Only about a quarter of Democrats say the same."

    The year of the anti-politician.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,226

    RobD said:

    Learning from SkyNews that Hilary Benn is to continue as Shadow Foreign Secretary under the Corbyn regime, convinced me to invest two crisp oncers on him becoming the next Prime Minister (post Cameron) at a price of 1000 with Betfair, i.e. 949/1 net of commission.

    Should I successfully land this bet, would I first of all be handed by OGH the position of life honorary president of PB.com in recognition of having placed the greatest political bet ever and second, five years hence, will both the UK and the USA be led by individuals both having Hil[l]ary as their first name ..... that alone surely has to be at least a 949/1 shot.

    Does this mean someone has locked up a grand betting against that? Hah!
    No ...... two grand actually and for up to 4yrs and 8 months or even longer, should Cameron see out this Parliament as PM!
    LOL. And they win a princely £2 if you are wrong, and he isn't the next PM. Drinks are on them!
  • I've lost track.....yesterday someone rather unkindly tweeted that Jerry had 'divorced more women than he had appointed to senior positions in the Shadow Corbynet' - is that still the case?
  • Fat_Steve said:

    "An authoritarian Tory government will undo Cameron’s early work" ?
    Possibly. Luckily, we have the opposition to hold them to account.

    Actually, this is the major problem with this hijacking of the main (formerly) centre-left party. It's left Cameron with no opposition so he can do anything he wants. Which isn't good, really.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Learning from SkyNews that Hilary Benn is to continue as Shadow Foreign Secretary under the Corbyn regime, convinced me to invest two crisp oncers on him becoming the next Prime Minister (post Cameron) at a price of 1000 with Betfair, i.e. 949/1 net of commission.

    Should I successfully land this bet, would I first of all be handed by OGH the position of life honorary president of PB.com in recognition of having placed the greatest political bet ever and second, five years hence, will both the UK and the USA be led by individuals both having Hil[l]ary as their first name ..... that alone surely has to be at least a 949/1 shot.

    Does this mean someone has locked up a grand betting against that? Hah!
    No ...... two grand actually and for up to 4yrs and 8 months or even longer, should Cameron see out this Parliament as PM!
    LOL. And they win a princely £2 if you are wrong, and he isn't the next PM. Drinks are on them!
    No ..... they actually win £1.90 net of Betfair's 5% commission if I am wrong!
  • The national security stuff smacks of crying wolf. What will happen when Cameron next seeks public approval for something national security related? He's cheapened the whole thing.
  • I've lost track.....yesterday someone rather unkindly tweeted that Jerry had 'divorced more women than he had appointed to senior positions in the Shadow Corbynet' - is that still the case?

    There was talk Del Piero would get defence but this seems to have all gone quiet.

    In fact, there were a few names that emerged late last night that seem to have gone quiet: Del Piero, Woodcock, Bryant... Makes one wonder if whats leaking is the offer rather than the acceptance?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    The Tories should remember they govern for all even those that did not vote for them. However, On the morning after the night before as the Labour Party cast their eyes over all the smouldering ruins of their political landscape Henry says this "What on Earth has happened to David Cameron? I don’t recognise him and his government has taken a dark turn."
    Huh??
    "Taken a dark turn?"
    Oh please? Look Squirrel just isn't going to cut it at this point.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Face it Henry. Cameron and Osborne demolished the LibDems by using their craving for power against them, and has now demolished Labour by using their craving for protest against them.

    Thanks to the incompetence of Miliband and now Corbyn we now live in what is effectively a one party state.
  • I've just realised, we're less than two weeks away fron the Labour Party Conference at Brighton ..... should be fun!
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Face it Henry. Cameron and Osborne demolished the LibDems by using their craving for power against them, and has now demolished Labour by using their craving for protest against them.

    Thanks to the incompetence of Miliband and now Corbyn we now live in what is effectively a one party state.


    The Tories got a majority from the voters in May that effectively makes it a "one party state', at least for the term of the government. Odd though these points were never mentioned when Blair got his landslides neither was the % of the vote to achieve the number of seats he had.
  • Face it Henry. Cameron and Osborne demolished the LibDems by using their craving for power against them, and has now demolished Labour by using their craving for protest against them.

    Thanks to the incompetence of Miliband and now Corbyn we now live in what is effectively a one party state.

    But surely that can't be so - I read only last night that the mighty Trade Unions are about to bring down the present Government?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 312
    Obviously with Corbyn in charge of Labour being a bit authoritarian and sounding a bit silly is going to cost him far fewer votes than he gains just by not being Jeremy Corbyn. It would still be smart tooperate as if Labour had a potential election winner in charge rather than allowing the Tories' baser instincts to emerge. You never know, Labour may very swiftly come to its senses. The lesson here is Labour 2001-2005. The party was master of all it surveyed, but allowed hubris and battles over its future erode the coalition which had brought it there. It didn't't matter at the time because the party still had the economic credibility to win in 2005. It did though when the Tories sorted themselves out and a recession hit. If so many left wing voters hadn't abandoned Labour then it's possible Labour could'be squeaked in in 2010, or been so far ahead in 2007 that Brown would'be gone for it whatever the Tories did. I suppose the point is, never needlessly erode your voter base because you never know when the other lot will get their act together and start wooing the swing voters back.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.
  • felix said:

    "What on Earth has happened to David Cameron?" - Hubris

    Yup - that's the big headline in all the papers today. Not.
    Did I say that it was? Henry asked a question. I posted an answer.

    Apparently the big headline in the San is "Corbyn to abolish army". Tomorrow "Corbyn to tax all foreigners living abroad", Wednesday "Corbyn to kill the first born male child in every household".

    I was told that the press were going to destroy Corbyn. Ludicrous headline that even a San reader can see through helps do the opposite.

    Hubris.....

    No need for the press to destroy Corbyn. Thankfully, he is doing it himself.

  • Hmmm. Wasn't expecting to read this sort of partisan whinge on PB. Actually I think the union proposals are a bit heavy handed, especially the ones on picketing. As far as I am concerned, if you are going about your business lawfully, the police have no right to take an interest. At least it is only up for consultation at the moment. But then the context is that pickets are used to intimidate people also going about their legitimate business.
  • Burnham is in the Shadow Cabinet today.. will he have changed his mind by tomorrow
  • Nicely written Henry. But it does basically translate as "the Tories won and here's why I don't like it."
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    @robdothutton
    This is the first time I can remember the shadow cabinet has been selected by a process of elimination.
  • The national security stuff smacks of crying wolf. What will happen when Cameron next seeks public approval for something national security related? He's cheapened the whole thing.

    He has just appointed someone to be Shadow Chancellor who supports the "armed struggle" of the IRA. I think that might prove the point. And he is also a Putin fellow-traveller who of course you think is a greater force for good than the Dalai Lama.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
  • Burnham is in the Shadow Cabinet today.. will he have changed his mind by tomorrow

    Incidentally, it may be Burnham resigning that brings down the whole charade.

    Quite depressing, really, that such a task falls to someone as meek as Burnham, but there you go.

    For what it's worth, I don't believe he will, unless things get so terrible that there is no alternative.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Good morning all. A very poor quality article; more emotion than reason.

    A 'two child policy'? Ludicrous. Every couple should have as many children as they wish/can afford. It's called being responsible adults. I hate it when people use this kind of rhetoric. Look at China's 'one child policy' and the horrors their government perpetrated in pursuit of that, and hang your head in shame for even implicitly comparing the two.

    I don't agree that Corbyn is a threat to national security; that's overblown. However, on several other counts he (and the strand of thinking he represents) scares the shit out of me.
  • The hysteria over Corbyn will soon die down, the EU/migrant crisis isn't going anywhere.

    Cameron has had an unforseeable few months since May but the spotlight will turn back on him soon with all sorts of people, including some within his own party waiting to pounce.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    Morning all. Just catching up on last night's thread as a few time zones ahead at the moment. Haven't laughed so much in ages, Mrs Sandpit wants to know what's up with me!
    Did Jeremy really choose his shad cabinet by default as he could only find a dozen MPs and a couple of Lords who wanted a job?
    *Sets alarm for 11:55 on Wednesday, and orders extra popcorn*
  • SO All bills have the throwaway bits.. which are expected to be taken down in debate..so who will be able to seriously debate on the oppo front bench...all Labours own fault...The Conservatives will probably have to take over and remove the red herrings themselves
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

  • Sorry Henry, but that's one big, long, unjustified whinge that the Conservatives don't form part of the left-liberal consensus. No, they don't and nor should they.

    To take some of the above points:

    "the Conservative-supporting press". They are only Conservative-supporting because the Conservatives are delivering: The Sun backed Labour when it was winning and when it looked like winning. And papers reflect their readers; those that don't lose circulation. So whinging about the press is essentially whinging about the electorate.

    "sustained assault on the Leader of the Opposition". Justified and accurate analysis of his past actions and current policies. It's not the Tories' fault if Labour has a collective brain spasm.

    "ministers avoided independent recommendations of televised TV debates". We still live in a democracy. Ministers and party leaders should consider but should not be bound to independent advice. That's why they, not the experts, are ultimately accountable. If other parties don't like it, they're free to criticise or propose their own alternative.

    "ministers routinely refuse live interviews". For which people are free to draw their own conclusions, as they are of Corbyn doing the same.

    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Reducing MPs; hurting other parties". Or more accurately, reducing the structural advantage Labour has from its undersized constituencies. Why should a vote in South Wales be worth more than one in the Home Counties?

    "voters rejected mayors in the north". True. But local government is the responsibility of Westminster. In any case, the mayors that the voters rejected were within each authority; not across them. How else to provide regional leadership? Even more politicians?

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.

    "The new leader of the Opposition is apparently ‘a threat to national security’". He is. Just because he's Labour leader doesn't change that. If you don't like the language, you shouldn't have elected him.

    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    It is difficult not to feel Henry's pain at the moment but this thread header is just silly.

    To repeat Osborne's budget actually slowed the rate at which public spending will be cut compared to the last Coalition budget. Taxes were quietly increased again to take the strain. Osborne and Cameron are both absolutely focussed on the middle ground which Labour has so blatantly evacuated.

    There is undoubtedly a risk that the absence of any meaningful opposition will tempt this government to do some silly things. It is one of the many reasons that Corbyn is a mistake of potentially terminal proportions which is bad not only for the Labour party but also the country.

    I am not sure the trade union bill is one of them. Public sector strikes (and almost all significant strikes are now in the public sector) are a real pain and it is not unreasonable that a certain proportion of the workforce should feel sufficiently aggrieved to vote for them before they happen. The quid pro quo is that voting should be made a lot easier and all the technical issues which resulted in some very dodgy injunctions against strikes should be simplified or go.
  • Moses_ said:

    Face it Henry. Cameron and Osborne demolished the LibDems by using their craving for power against them, and has now demolished Labour by using their craving for protest against them.

    Thanks to the incompetence of Miliband and now Corbyn we now live in what is effectively a one party state.


    The Tories got a majority from the voters in May that effectively makes it a "one party state', at least for the term of the government. Odd though these points were never mentioned when Blair got his landslides neither was the % of the vote to achieve the number of seats he had.
    These points were mentioned, and misunderstood. There were numerous threads about the pro-Labour bias in the electoral system, and indeed this perception underlay the Conservative proposals for seat reduction, boundary changes and individual registration.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,187
    edited September 2015
    DavidL said:

    It is difficult not to feel Henry's pain at the moment but this thread header is just silly.

    To repeat Osborne's budget actually slowed the rate at which public spending will be cut compared to the last Coalition budget. Taxes were quietly increased again to take the strain. Osborne and Cameron are both absolutely focussed on the middle ground which Labour has so blatantly evacuated.

    There is undoubtedly a risk that the absence of any meaningful opposition will tempt this government to do some silly things. It is one of the many reasons that Corbyn is a mistake of potentially terminal proportions which is bad not only for the Labour party but also the country.

    I am not sure the trade union bill is one of them. Public sector strikes (and almost all significant strikes are now in the public sector) are a real pain and it is not unreasonable that a certain proportion of the workforce should feel sufficiently aggrieved to vote for them before they happen. The quid pro quo is that voting should be made a lot easier and all the technical issues which resulted in some very dodgy injunctions against strikes should be simplified or go.

    Tory governments are a real pain, so why should they be elected on a level of vote that this legislation deems could not trigger a strike?

    That said, the really worrying part of the trade union bill is the stuff on online activity and picketing.

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    OT Lucy Powell as Shadow Education Secretary? Oh my giddy aunt; I see why Henry is so sour in his article now; Labour have jumped the shark.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited September 2015
    Disappointing Henry Manson that you did not mention the return of baby eating by the Govt.
    Is this because you are distracted by the death throes of your beloved Labour party?
  • "Incidentally, it may be Burnham resigning that brings down the whole charade."

    I very much doubt it. Surely as a two time loser, he no longer counts for very much in the Labour Party going forward.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Actually, I do think it's daft that a vote carried 48-1 with 51% abstentions is invalid but one carried 26-25 with 49% abstentions isn't. I'd have made the requirement for support to come from at least 25% of all members, including a majority of those voting.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited September 2015

    The hysteria over Corbyn will soon die down, the EU/migrant crisis isn't going anywhere.

    Cameron has had an unforseeable few months since May but the spotlight will turn back on him soon with all sorts of people, including some within his own party waiting to pounce.

    The problem for labour is it won't die down the press won't allow it as they were attacked in the first few lines of the acceptance speech. . The migrant ( refugee) crisis has been worsened by Merkel and like it or not she and the ones under siege in the EU have come around to what Cameron said in the first place. .

    As for people waiting to pounce? Do enlighten us? I can only presume you mean Toynbee and Jones as everyone one else has picked up their political footballs and gone home sulking.

    Labour voted by a landslide for Corbyn and this is the result. It's their own doing no one else's. Now they have to deal with it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,492

    DavidL said:

    It is difficult not to feel Henry's pain at the moment but this thread header is just silly.

    To repeat Osborne's budget actually slowed the rate at which public spending will be cut compared to the last Coalition budget. Taxes were quietly increased again to take the strain. Osborne and Cameron are both absolutely focussed on the middle ground which Labour has so blatantly evacuated.

    There is undoubtedly a risk that the absence of any meaningful opposition will tempt this government to do some silly things. It is one of the many reasons that Corbyn is a mistake of potentially terminal proportions which is bad not only for the Labour party but also the country.

    I am not sure the trade union bill is one of them. Public sector strikes (and almost all significant strikes are now in the public sector) are a real pain and it is not unreasonable that a certain proportion of the workforce should feel sufficiently aggrieved to vote for them before they happen. The quid pro quo is that voting should be made a lot easier and all the technical issues which resulted in some very dodgy injunctions against strikes should be simplified or go.

    Tory governments are a real pain, so why should they be elected on a level of vote that this legislation deems could not trigger a strike?

    That said, the really worrying part of the trade union bill is the stuff on online activity and picketing.


    I haven't read the bill, but from the little I have gleaned, the Unions will rightly and sensibly make a fuss. The opt in is going to make the unions work harder to get their money and might be seen as petty nay vindictive.

    The question in my mind is , is this legislation necessary, and do the Tories really need to do this?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,065
    OT Just heard David Milliband on Radio 5 talking about the refugee crisis.

    He is excellent. Really excellent

    What have Labour done?
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Actually, I do think it's daft that a vote carried 48-1 with 51% abstentions is invalid but one carried 26-25 with 49% abstentions isn't. I'd have made the requirement for support to come from at least 25% of all members, including a majority of those voting.

    Do you really support the idea unions should supply the names and addresses of pickets to the police, and give the police notice if they plan to use social media?

  • OGH is conspicuous by his absence during such interesting times.
    Have I perhaps missed a reference to him being away on yet another holiday?
  • I'm sorry to say that is a poor piece, Henry, for the reasons mentioned above.

    But now the important issue: how long before iSam appears to complain about the relative lack of commas in this piece?

    No?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,839
    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,226
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    Might have to go into the popcorn business to keep the PB Tories stocked up!
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Actually, I do think it's daft that a vote carried 48-1 with 51% abstentions is invalid but one carried 26-25 with 49% abstentions isn't. I'd have made the requirement for support to come from at least 25% of all members, including a majority of those voting.

    Do you really support the idea unions should supply the names and addresses of pickets to the police, and give the police notice if they plan to use social media?

    I would support the proposal that the union be required to hand over details if so requested, though not in advance. If there are limits on the number of lawful pickets - and there are already - then there needs to be a mechanism to determine which are the lawful pickets.

    I've not seen the proposals on social media use but from your comment would not agree with that. As a general principle, I don't see why existing laws re incitement and the like can't be used and if people have a problem with what some union puts out then they should bring it to the authorities' attention in the normal way.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,492
    Roger said:

    OT Just heard David Milliband on Radio 5 talking about the refugee crisis.

    He is excellent. Really excellent

    What have Labour done?

    Roger, you have a short memory.. try googling Miliband's trip to India 2009? and how he bolloxed everything up and had to be rescued by Mandleson.. that's why Miliband is the wrong choice.... the right choice for Labour does not exist at the moment.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,839
    @SophyRidgeSky: This is what some Labour MPs are worried about. Threat of deselection for those seen as not left wing enough... https://t.co/cbJahFdQq9
  • Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    Quite Extraordinary - he just ain't going to last if this is the way he intends dealing with the media?
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.

    Read the proposals. See what David Davis has to say.

    The tube strikes would not be affected by the new laws.

    I've read them. Sorry, I don't find them repugnant in the slightest.

    David Davis has his own agenda.
  • Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    And this is why party leaders take cars.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,065
    Our policy towards the refugee crisis is really shameful and turning us into the pariahs of Europe. If anyone bothers to watch french TV or indeed any news outlet less parochial than the UK's they might get some idea of the human catastrophe happening out there and our inglorious part in it

    Meanwhile our fat bloated PM is watching cricket and doing less than nothing. Sorry Henry but if you think taking the subsidy away from families who choose to have more than two children is as bad as it gets then we've all lost our moral compass
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,814
    Australia having another leadership contest. Seems like they have them every 3 months!
  • What a thoroughly disappointing article. I had started it expecting to some some genuine and reasoned complaints but all we have is a series of party political whines. Perhaps the only complaint that is justified is the packing of the Lords. Compared to the authoritarian, statist garbage Labour were producing for 13 years with genuine attacks on freedom and a massive increase in state powers and surveillence Henry's complaints are completely insignificant.

    Even as a Cameron critic, this is perhaps the weakest article I have seen presented here in a very long time.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    And in more sensible news than the Labour Shad Cab http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/11862475/Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-has-online-dating-profile-is-detained-but-ready-to-mingle.html
    A detainee at Guantanamo Bay has an online dating profile and is "detained but ready to mingle", according to his lawyer.

    Muhammad Rahim al-Afghani, an Afghan who has been held by the CIA since 2007 and is classified as a "high-value" detainee, appears to have an account on the dating site Match.com. In a letter to Carlos Warner, his lawyer, the man described by the US government as a "close associate" of Osama bin Laden also expresses concern over the hack of adultery website Ashley Madison.

    "This is terrible news about Ashley Madison, please remove my profile immediately!!!" al-Afghani wrote in a letter dated 21 July. "I'll stick with Match.com even though you say it is for old people. There is no way I can do Tinder in here."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,308
    "The new leader of the Opposition is apparently ‘a threat to national security’. Language we don’t expect to hear from a Prime Minister of Britain."

    No, that's right, you wouldn't expect the PM to be saying that. But Cameron is absolutely right to say it.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,814
    I think the main "danger" (for the Tories) about the threshold proposals for strike action is that it may, perversely, significantly increase Union power. The fact that strike ballots at the moment rarely reach the relevant thresholds doesn't mean that they won't do in the future once they become a requirement. And a strike called on the back of passing these thresholds is far more likely to generate public sympathy and support, and be far harder to be dismissed by the Government. On the other hand if the result is a more representative union leadership then that may be a good thing anyway.
  • Roger said:

    Our policy towards the refugee crisis is really shameful and turning us into the pariahs of Europe. If anyone bothers to watch french TV or indeed any news outlet less parochial than the UK's they might get some idea of the human catastrophe happening out there and our inglorious part in it

    Meanwhile our fat bloated PM is watching cricket and doing less than nothing. Sorry Henry but if you think taking the subsidy away from families who choose to have more than two children is as bad as it gets then we've all lost our moral compass

    You stick with your parochial French TV Roger whilst sipping wine in Southern France. I'll carry on watching Danish, Dutch and even German TV where the view of the UK is very different from the one you describe.
  • the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Actually, I do think it's daft that a vote carried 48-1 with 51% abstentions is invalid but one carried 26-25 with 49% abstentions isn't. I'd have made the requirement for support to come from at least 25% of all members, including a majority of those voting.
    Isn't it 40% of all members in favour, as well as at least half of all members voting, for a strike in key public services as a double-majority?

    Seems reasonable to me. If the strike is on a serious matter that the workers feel very strongly about then they should easily be able to get half of them to vote for it.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Bit like Scotland then.

    This has been the most surreal, yet oddly predictable 24hrs.

    Face it Henry. Cameron and Osborne demolished the LibDems by using their craving for power against them, and has now demolished Labour by using their craving for protest against them.

    Thanks to the incompetence of Miliband and now Corbyn we now live in what is effectively a one party state.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,362
    I grant the union thing is designed to hit labour purely for partisan reasons, but cutting the number of mps and increasing the number of lords is neither here nor there. I agree there is a danger of arrogance and tacking right, but I think it is too soon to say it has happened.
    Roger said:

    Our policy towards the refugee crisis is really shameful and turning us into the pariahs of Europe. If anyone bothers to watch french TV or indeed any news outlet less parochial than the UK's they might get some idea of the human catastrophe happening out there and our inglorious part in it

    Meanwhile our fat bloated PM is watching cricket and doing less than nothing. Sorry Henry but if you think taking the subsidy away from families who choose to have more than two children is as bad as it gets then we've all lost our moral compass

    That you continue to say we are doing nothing re refugees undermines any point you may have. It simply isn't true. Could and should we do more, a lot more? Reasonable people may have that debate, but ignoring what we are doing and the lack of cohesion in europes actions is not having that debate.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,344
    I read yesterday about the biggest thumbs down ever.

    Gillian Duffy will no longer vote Labour while Jezza is LOTO. A sign of the times for sure.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,814
    edited September 2015

    the new trade union legislation is deeply repugnant. As David Davis says, parts of it are Francoist. But Labour is no longer a serious political party, so the Tories have free rein to do as they wish.

    Why is it repugnant to require half of trade unionists to vote in a ballot to make a strike legal?

    Most people are fed up of wildcat strikes on the tube.
    Actually, I do think it's daft that a vote carried 48-1 with 51% abstentions is invalid but one carried 26-25 with 49% abstentions isn't. I'd have made the requirement for support to come from at least 25% of all members, including a majority of those voting.
    Isn't it 40% of all members in favour, as well as at least half of all members voting, for a strike in key public services as a double-majority?

    Seems reasonable to me. If the strike is on a serious matter that the workers feel very strongly about then they should easily be able to get half of them to vote for it.
    The major problem with double thresholds is that it rewards people who oppose motions for not participating. It's fundamentally wrong that a motion can fail to carry because opponents of the motion choose to sit on their hands rather than register said opposition at the ballot box.

  • Moses_ said:

    The hysteria over Corbyn will soon die down, the EU/migrant crisis isn't going anywhere.

    Cameron has had an unforseeable few months since May but the spotlight will turn back on him soon with all sorts of people, including some within his own party waiting to pounce.

    The problem for labour is it won't die down the press won't allow it as they were attacked in the first few lines of the acceptance speech. . The migrant ( refugee) crisis has been worsened by Merkel and like it or not she and the ones under siege in the EU have come around to what Cameron said in the first place. .

    As for people waiting to pounce? Do enlighten us? I can only presume you mean Toynbee and Jones as everyone one else has picked up their political footballs and gone home sulking.

    Labour voted by a landslide for Corbyn and this is the result. It's their own doing no one else's. Now they have to deal with it.
    Mr Moses, I mean the eurosceptics in his party, he was humiliated last week but fortunate enough that Corbyn deflected attention. The EU will define Cameron's place in history, if we vote OUT his career ends in abject failure.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,495
    I thought this was a very good piece, Henry, and am not in the least surprised that the PB Tories are dismissing it out of hand.

    Somebody asked what this has to do with betting. The answer is in your last line: "Some voters may soon start to notice."

    They already are. The comparison is not between the Tories and Labour under Corbyn - but between the present Tory Government and the last Coalition one. Most people seem to like that last one much better.
  • henry is absolutely right.

    there is only one possible response to such a topical piece.

    the country demands and needs a hashtag campaign

    #stopthedarksideofcameroon
  • Hmmm. Wasn't expecting to read this sort of partisan whinge on PB.

    Not above the line, certainly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,733
    I know we are at No.1 Surreal Avenue, Surreal Town, Surrealshire, but it is extraordinary that on R4 all criticisms of the make-up of the shadow cabinet are being reported as coming from....the Labour Party.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Well quite. Every Bill has outrageous stuff in there to deflect attention and offer up *concessions*, so the rest of it looks reasonable.

    SO All bills have the throwaway bits.. which are expected to be taken down in debate..so who will be able to seriously debate on the oppo front bench...all Labours own fault...The Conservatives will probably have to take over and remove the red herrings themselves

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    MTimT said:

    This does not feel like a PB article. I don't mind robustly debating political issues of the day, but an outright party political attack on the government as the entire purpose of the article with no real tie in to betting markets just doesn't seem right.

    Take your rosy Tory specs off then
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    I said last night the BBC would not mention Abbott's racism and what do you know:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395

    The organisation has stopped even pretending to be objective any more.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I didn't think my opinion of Andy Burnham could fall any lower - and he's done it. He's got more faces than someone with Multiple Personality Disorder.

    A political weakling who shamelessly sucked up to Jezza to get a job.

    "Incidentally, it may be Burnham resigning that brings down the whole charade."

    I very much doubt it. Surely as a two time loser, he no longer counts for very much in the Labour Party going forward.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,362



    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.


    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.

    While I'd like the gov to do or not do things listed inthis piece, I have to agree with a lot of this.particularly re benefits changes, whic iirc are one of the few things done that is very popular - it is taxpayer money and the public is generally in favour of being tighter with it. It certainly isn't a sign of abandoning the centre. I do think motives are suspect on the BBC and trade unions, but they e not done much on the former yet and the latter is. It proof of a wholesale move to the right.

    But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.

    That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    Mass immigration, Middle East meddling, EU subservience, high rates of tax, same sex marriage, a ban on grammar schools, style over substance and a chancellor that puts political advantage before anything else...

    How is a Blairite unhappy with this government?
  • Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    He's a natural
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,362

    The hysteria over Corbyn will soon die down, the EU/migrant crisis isn't going anywhere.

    Cameron has had an unforseeable few months since May but the spotlight will turn back on him soon with all sorts of people, including some within his own party waiting to pounce.

    Better hope labour are in a position to properly stir things up further when it happens - I demand my political entertainment.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,814
    Laura Kuernsberg not mincing her (reporting of) words on Radio 4 re: McDonnell!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCLouise: Labour Leader Corbyn's Long Walk Of Silence http://t.co/cIO99C8weO

    Just wow

    Would expect a turnip like you to think that is great. Do you ever see Cameron walking home , no he needs a fleet of limousines and a squad of heavies to make sure the idiots asking the stupid questions don't get within a hundred yards of baw face having to answer one.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    JEO said:

    I said last night the BBC would not mention Abbott's racism and what do you know:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395

    The organisation has stopped even pretending to be objective any more.

    Give them some credit, this was about as brutal as it gets

    Hope Khan gets the same treatment

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,604
    MJW said:

    Obviously with Corbyn in charge of Labour being a bit authoritarian and sounding a bit silly is going to cost him far fewer votes than he gains just by not being Jeremy Corbyn. It would still be smart to operate as if Labour had a potential election winner in charge rather than allowing the Tories' baser instincts to emerge.

    What Labour forgot in May - and for a long run-up to the election - is the "Tories' baser instincts" are about one thing. And one thing alone. Winning elections.

    They really are not going to do anything to jeopardise winning in 2020. A "dark turn", Henry? No. Those are the storm clouds over the Labour Party that are obscuring your view...

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    tlg86 said:

    "The new leader of the Opposition is apparently ‘a threat to national security’. Language we don’t expect to hear from a Prime Minister of Britain."

    No, that's right, you wouldn't expect the PM to be saying that. But Cameron is absolutely right to say it.

    Nutjob
  • Morning all.


    Mr Manson, your party has just been hijacked by a communist throwback from the 70s with a list of nasty friends as long as your arm – and you present PB this diversionary nonsense? - Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
  • What a thoroughly disappointing article. I had started it expecting to some some genuine and reasoned complaints but all we have is a series of party political whines. Perhaps the only complaint that is justified is the packing of the Lords. Compared to the authoritarian, statist garbage Labour were producing for 13 years with genuine attacks on freedom and a massive increase in state powers and surveillence Henry's complaints are completely insignificant.

    Even as a Cameron critic, this is perhaps the weakest article I have seen presented here in a very long time.

    The trouble is, this article incorrectly politicises the creep toward authoritarianism. It's actually not political, it's a deliberate worldwide agenda.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,814
    Hilary Benn pointedly failing to support appointment of MCDonell
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    kle4 said:



    "The BBC has since been duffed up". The BBC's governance arrangements are archaic and needed updating (a process which should go further still). Its (in)ability to project a balanced output should be questioned and addressed. In any case, the cuts in its output could be minimised were it run more efficiently.

    "Trade Union Reform Bill". A Labour Party less dependent on the unions would be a good thing. Besides, unions should be representing members, not running the country. As for regulations, strikes and union activities have always been regulated and rightly so. The Miners Strike was fought and won on the principle that unions couldn't ignore that fact.


    "family size of the non-affluent is now government business". Welfare is certainly government business.

    "a heterosexual couple on a modest income will have their pennies pinched by the Treasury if they don’t obey a ‘two child’ policy". Benefits are taxpayers' pennies, not the recipients.

    "Some voters may soon start to notice". That's the idea.

    While I'd like the gov to do or not do things listed inthis piece, I have to agree with a lot of this.particularly re benefits changes, whic iirc are one of the few things done that is very popular - it is taxpayer money and the public is generally in favour of being tighter with it. It certainly isn't a sign of abandoning the centre. I do think motives are suspect on the BBC and trade unions, but they e not done much on the former yet and the latter is. It proof of a wholesale move to the right.

    But the Tory mood on here has understandably been triumphant the past few days, it's important to remember the challenges and accusations that need to be defended against, the luck won't always be with them.

    That said, one of the problems labour had was portraying Cameron as so e malevolent figure which didn't match what the public saw, which was he's a bit crap and that's it, like most pms. It is simply hyperbole to talk of not recognising him anymore as though he's managed a complete transformation in a few months, when he's not even done much. It is overplaying the spin again.
    What has happened to Cameron , he gets more like a red faced Mr Potatohead every time I see him , what is he eating, certainly not hard work that is causing it.
Sign In or Register to comment.