Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Those who bet that EdM would be out by the end of the year

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Those who bet that EdM would be out by the end of the year are probably going to be disappointed

EdM no longer on the danger list
The Speccie's James Forsyth has a good summary of PMQS
http://t.co/Vrgk69UawN pic.twitter.com/NnEl9MTGgr

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    First, or Vanilla broke. I favour the latter hypothesis.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    This weak, next weak?

    Whatever!
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Are you talking about scared Dave always giving in to his right wingers thus making the party more toxic and less electable?
    AveryLP said:

    This weak, next weak?

    Whatever!

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,202
    Who is more disappointed by this liklihood (with which I agree)? Those who support Labour but are perhaps a little disappointed in the leadership or those who support the tories and think Ed is a loser?

    Labour seem unable to find the correct balance. At one time their leaders were at the whim of a Union dominated Conference, something that clearly led to weak leadership. To prevent that they have removed much of their internal democracy making the postion of the leader, once elected, almost impregnable. Neither are really ideal solutions.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    @Mike - Except that he doesn't and hasn't. You personally are getting tedious: your site remains wonderful.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    No.

    Are you talking about scared Dave always giving in to his right wingers thus making the party more toxic and less electable?

    AveryLP said:

    This weak, next weak?

    Whatever!



  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    .@KateGreenSU @LiamByrneMP not the same as saying you'd reverse though... Labour too weak to stick to a position in opposition?

    Kate Green @KateGreenSU

    'We believe the bedroom tax should be dropped and we believe it should be dropped today' @LiamByrneMP

    Weak labour ? It seems the labour backbenches getting fed up with ed and ed's follow my tory policy.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,603

    Are you talking about scared Dave always giving in to his right wingers thus making the party more toxic and less electable?

    AveryLP said:

    This weak, next weak?

    Whatever!

    Like he did on gay marriage?
  • Options
    I would be astonished if many Tory supporters actually wanted anyone other than Len Miliband as Labour leader.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215

    Are you talking about scared Dave always giving in to his right wingers thus making the party more toxic and less electable?

    AveryLP said:

    This weak, next weak?

    Whatever!

    Like he did on gay marriage?
    Or overseas aid.
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Eh? Did anyone seriously think Ed M was on the danger list? It is far, far too late for that, and there's no viable mechanism, even if there were a better candidate available that MPs and the union bosses who run things could agree on.

    I commented some two years ago (when Henry G, other Labour supporters and quite a few journalists were predicting Ed would be defenestrated) that the only possible way Ed M might be displaced would be if he personally felt he should go. I also commented that this was extremely unlikely because he didn't lack self-belief. I was right then and nothing has changed, except that if anything I underestimated Ed's self-belief, which from the barbed comments of Tom Watson and others seems to be not self-belief but complacency.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Cameron thinks battle with unions will see Miliband ousted as Labour leader before 2015 election

    PM believes Ed Miliband will not survive as polling day approaches
    Plans to target shadow health secretary Andy Burnham over Mid-Staffs
    Row over union influence has destabilised Labour leadership
    Tories buoyed by EU unity, Qatada deportation and economic growth
    Cameron and Miliband again clash at PMQs over party funding

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359310/Cameron-thinks-battle-unions-Miliband-ousted-Labour-leader-2015-election.html
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Eh? Did anyone seriously think Ed M was on the danger list? It is far, far too late for that, and there's no viable mechanism, even if there were a better candidate available that MPs and the union bosses who run things could agree on.

    I commented some two years ago (when Henry G, other Labour supporters and quite a few journalists were predicting Ed would be defenestrated) that the only possible way Ed M might be displaced would be if he personally felt he should go. I also commented that this was extremely unlikely because he didn't lack self-belief. I was right then and nothing has changed, except that if anything I underestimated Ed's self-belief, which from the barbed comments of Tom Watson and others seems to be not self-belief but complacency.

    Cameron does;-)

  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    Out of interest, what (if any) is/are OGH current betting position on the leaders markets?
  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    If Ed does succeed in reshaping the financial and voting relationship with unions (it's a big "if" but he can get a long way with little more than window dressing) then Cameron is facing rather a problem here. In the purest form, there's nothing wrong with being a party controlled by unions - the purest form means that you can say "my party is controlled and funded by union members, that is, by millions of people with a few pounds. It's the party of ordinary people." It's pretty much the Big Society, isn't it? The contrast, then, with the party controlled by a few people with millions of pounds, becomes a simple positive narrative.

    For Cameron's strategy (read: Crosby's strategy) to work, he's relying on the continued effect of "union" as an unquestioningly evil slur, like calling someone "communist" or "fascist". It was possible to use it in that way with moderate success in the 80s given the events of the previous decade, but I'm not at all convinced that union-hatred is a majority pursuit in the UK these days, or even one that reaches far outside the core Tory-UKIP vote. I wonder whether Crosby's Australian mindset, and the existing Conservative inner circle's admiration of all things American has led to an over-estimation of the impact of the "union puppet" slur.

    Has anyone seen any polling on this? An interesting question would be to assess the reaction to "controlled by a few rich people" and "controlled by unions". My expectation, based on an entirely unscientific method of talking to my mates, would be that more people would consider the former quality to reduce their chances of voting for a party than the latter. The hard-right, unions-are-evil-the-market-is-good population is a lot smaller than the faction who feel that a few very wealthy people are profiting at the benefit of ordinary people (bear in mind that for much of the population anyone earning over £50k comes into this category).
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Do you get the impression that Sam is a little embarrassed to have got hitched to Tory Boy?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9876685/David-Cameron-I-did-not-appoint-enough-women-to-Cabinet.html
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,202
    Would anyone who has the benefit of actual pictures help? England are scoring an absurd number of their runs in boundaries. All of Bell's runs have come that way and 24 of Bairstow's 27.

    Why? Is it erratic bowling, the nature of the pitch, very aggressive fielding positions by the Australians looking for wickets or a failure of the English batsmen to rotate the strike?
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Cameron thinks battle with unions will see Miliband ousted as Labour leader before 2015 election

    PM believes Ed Miliband will not survive as polling day approaches
    Plans to target shadow health secretary Andy Burnham over Mid-Staffs
    Row over union influence has destabilised Labour leadership
    Tories buoyed by EU unity, Qatada deportation and economic growth
    Cameron and Miliband again clash at PMQs over party funding

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359310/Cameron-thinks-battle-unions-Miliband-ousted-Labour-leader-2015-election.html

    Cameron and Conservative strategists are living in cloud cuckoo land . If they are basing their campaign strategy on EdM being replaced they are making an elementary error .

  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013

    Cameron does;-)

    Good tactics from Cameron (if indeed it is from Cameron). Sowing doubts in your opponents, who have doubts anyway.

    However, I doubt if anyone senior in the Conservative Party seriously thinks that Ed will be chucked out. More more likely is that the Ray Collins review will be stitched up so nothing changes. Having the review done by an ex-union boss who created Unite pretty much guarantees that.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    This isn't Australia. If it were, both Ed and Dave might be having to look over their shoulders as far as leadership contests are concerned.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The Spectator post is very good in multiple ways. It understands that this is fundamentally a Pyrrhic victory for Ed Miliband. "Out of the danger zone" is not an inspiring motto for either side: the fact that it needs to be asserted is evidence that he is a long way from where he should be right now.

    But a victory it is.
  • Options
    scampi said:

    I would be astonished if many Tory supporters actually wanted anyone other than Len Miliband as Labour leader.


    Lol - o-not so-gh flags me for off topic. Clearly any criticism brings punishment!

  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Cameron thinks battle with unions will see Miliband ousted as Labour leader before 2015 election

    PM believes Ed Miliband will not survive as polling day approaches
    Plans to target shadow health secretary Andy Burnham over Mid-Staffs
    Row over union influence has destabilised Labour leadership
    Tories buoyed by EU unity, Qatada deportation and economic growth
    Cameron and Miliband again clash at PMQs over party funding

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359310/Cameron-thinks-battle-unions-Miliband-ousted-Labour-leader-2015-election.html

    Cameron and Conservative strategists are living in cloud cuckoo land . If they are basing their campaign strategy on EdM being replaced they are making an elementary error .

    First time for everything,I agree with you.

  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @MarkSenior

    'Cameron and Conservative strategists are living in cloud cuckoo land . If they are basing their campaign strategy on EdM being replaced they are making an elementary error '

    I would imagine that's the last thing they want.
  • Options
    tim said:

    I see CCHQ are saying Hague has two female SpAds in his defence.
    Err, I don't think it's an accident that Hague has two female SpAds after the last one resigned is it?

    More smearing from the Cheshire farmer - how very McBrideian!
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Cheshire Farmer is getting very excited about Hague voicing an opinion...must be the biggest rabbit so far this week..any chance of some Labour Policies to discus instead
  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    antifrank said:

    The Spectator post is very good in multiple ways. It understands that this is fundamentally a Pyrrhic victory for Ed Miliband. "Out of the danger zone" is not an inspiring motto for either side: the fact that it needs to be asserted is evidence that he is a long way from where he should be right now.

    But a victory it is.

    But what will now happen is that media attention will turn back to other selection decisions (the MEPs one looks particularly fruitful). So I don't think Ed's diversionary chaff will work; after all, he has now confirmed (in surprisingly strong language) that Labour has a problem.
  • Options
    JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,215
    Good for Hague. She deserved it.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Opposition leaders

    The moment of truth

    History suggests it is time for Ed Miliband to make his move

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21572226-history-suggests-it-time-ed-miliband-make-his-move-moment-truth

    Before you labour supporters get excited,this from the article -

    Although his score improved in 2012 (in part because of the coalition’s deep and unpopular spending cuts), a Cameronesque mid-term breakthrough eludes him. His ratings most closely resemble those of his party’s two-time election loser, Neil Kinnock.

    ;-)
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    edited July 2013
    Polruan said:

    Has anyone seen any polling on this? An interesting question would be to assess the reaction to "controlled by a few rich people" and "controlled by unions". My expectation, based on an entirely unscientific method of talking to my mates, would be that more people would consider the former quality to reduce their chances of voting for a party than the latter.

    I guess the other element to this is that Labour has actually lost a lot of union-minded support since the 1980s, and is only still in the game because Tory support has dropped as well, while FPTP tipped the playing field in Labour's favour. The attack might be effective against the kind of people Labour need to make 40%, but if the goal is just to keep Gordon Brown's 29% plus left-wing ex-LibDems (which should be enough to put Ed Miliband in Downing Street) it may well be counter-productive...
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    JohnO said:

    Good for Hague. She deserved it.

    Agree,she and labour tried to smear hague.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,603
    edited July 2013
    They've u-turned on the u-turn!

    "There was initial confusion over the policy today after Labour suggested that MPs who currently hold company directorships may be able to keep them.

    However, the party later toughened up its stance and announced that an MP will not be able to stand for the Labour Party in 2015 if they have outside earnings of more than 15 per cent of their total income.
    The tough new measures could affect Labour heavyweights including Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister.

    The Labour reforms could also put pressure on former Cabinet minister including David Blunkett and Jack Straw, who both have lucrative outside interests.

    The intention is that no Labour MP will have a second job by the time of the next election."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10171640/Miliband-will-ban-MPs-from-having-lucrative-second-jobs-by-2015.html
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149

    His ratings most closely resemble those of his party’s two-time election loser, Neil Kinnock.

    Luckily for Ed Miliband FPTP is in one of its funny moods, and David Cameron is no John Major.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    His ratings most closely resemble those of his party’s two-time election loser, Neil Kinnock.

    Luckily for Ed Miliband FPTP is in one of its funny moods, and David Cameron is no John Major.
    AND Ed miliband is no neil Kinnock,he's worse.

  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Are two U turns a whirl or a spin, perhaps a Dervish
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Crikey - Dir of HR is dying in front of SComm - watch live here http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886

    chris g @chrisg0000
    #BBC authorised redundancy payments to managers 3 or 4 times what they were entitled to, Human Resources head is paid £300,000 per annum
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    DavidL : 4 poor shots + 2 good balls.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    WTF?

    Ross Hawkins @rosschawkins
    BBC HR head suggests outgoing exec Roly Keating sought severance payment because he had new job lined up - but it would pay less
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    TGOHF said:

    DavidL : 4 poor shots + 2 good balls.

    Chief sports writer Tom Fordyce at Trent Bridge

    "Ian Bell now averages 21 in 16 Test innings against Australia in England. That's against an overall Test average of over 45."


  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Will Diane Abbott have to give up her 2nd job st the BBC under rEds new missive ?

    Will she get a nice pay off ?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm not sure what Ed Miliband has against MPs earning outside money. It obviously isn't the time commitment, because his restriction is by value received by the MP.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    antifrank said:

    I'm not sure what Ed Miliband has against MPs earning outside money. It obviously isn't the time commitment, because his restriction is by value received by the MP.

    Fag packet/half baked/panic/ thin air/ not a chance

    All of the above ?

  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Are two U turns a whirl or a spin, perhaps a Dervish

    Doesn't it just mean you're still going in the direction you originally intended?
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited July 2013
    @CarlottaVance

    'However, the party later toughened up its stance and announced that an MP will not be able to stand for the Labour Party in 2015 if they have outside earnings of more than 15 per cent of their total income.'

    Does Labour's latest u-turn include income from property and investments?

  • Options
    RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    So that's tim's hero Alistair Darling (2012: £263,000) likely to be out, then.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    tim said:

    @Carlotta

    Remember weak Dave on this issue?

    Cameron gives in to his Cabinet 'moonlighters'
    By BENEDICT BROGAN

    William Hague threatened to lead a walk-out if David Cameron forced his Shadow Cabinet to give up their lucrative second jobs, it was claimed last night.
    The Tory leader planned to ban 'moonlighting' by Christmas, but has since backed down in the face of an internal revolt.
    Senior Conservatives revealed that up to three spokesmen, including the Shadow Foreign Secretary, were ready to quit.



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1100971/Cameron-gives-Cabinet-moonlighters.html#ixzz2Yecpsgz5
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    The british people will just have to look at labours front bench and decide we don't want career politicians.

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anyone who puts money with an organisation that is praised by the two Eds is a braver investor than me.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BBC - SAS sniper, Danny Nightingale found guilty.
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    You forget to mention the leftie troughers.

    'David Miliband's outside earnings top £200k | Left Futures

    www.leftfutures.org/2011/.../david-milibands-outside-earnings-top-200k...‎

    May 31, 2011 - David Miliband's earnings from outside parliament this year now exceed £200,000. These earnings include: £25,000 for a lecture in Abu Dhabi; ...
  • Options
    rodwarnerrodwarner Posts: 8
    Ed's going nowhere till 2015 at least - clever tactician or fall guy - he will be one or the other. As said several times on my rare outings here...
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    tim said:


    It's peer group pressure.
    Hope he doesn't take up smoking or Byron burgers.

    Are you rowing back from blaming his "twit" school, tim? What is a twit school by the way?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tim said:

    antifrank said:

    I'm not sure what Ed Miliband has against MPs earning outside money. It obviously isn't the time commitment, because his restriction is by value received by the MP.


    It's populism that will play well in the polls, and among those PB Tories who spent years on here criticsing David Milibands outside interests.

    (The second category was a joke, they'll forget all that they said)

    The donations cap is where Cameron is in big trouble.
    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630
  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    john_zims said:

    @CarlottaVance

    'However, the party later toughened up its stance and announced that an MP will not be able to stand for the Labour Party in 2015 if they have outside earnings of more than 15 per cent of their total income.'

    Does Labour's latest u-turn include income from property and investments?

    The clue's probably in the word "earnings" which is generally interpreted as including income from employment, officeholding and trading, but not "passive" income such as income and capital growth from real property and financial assets.

    Why do people keep asking this? It might be good policy or bad policy, but it doesn't seem to be particularly difficult policy to understand. Am I missing some nuance or getout in the announcements?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Are you talking about scared Dave always giving in to his right wingers thus making the party more toxic and less electable?

    AveryLP said:

    This weak, next weak?

    Whatever!

    Like the time he gave in on gay marriage? Or the time he gave in on international aid?
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Neil said:

    tim said:


    It's peer group pressure.
    Hope he doesn't take up smoking or Byron burgers.

    Are you rowing back from blaming his "twit" school, tim? What is a twit school by the way?
    Tim told us he doesnt care where people come from.

    But then he said Falkirk was overblown.

    He also has posted over 100 times on party funding in 2 days after never mentioning in 3 years.

    He's predictable if not consistent ;)
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Royal baby betting

    'Alexandra' now at 6/4 to lay.

    http://www.betfair.com/exchange/special-bets/market?id=1.107689204

    follow me in, if you dare.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    There is no earthly reason that any cap should result in an increase in costs for taxpayers. Let political parties do what they can with the money they raise, if they cant raise enough to do everything they want to then they will have to do less.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited July 2013
    Tory Treasury @ToryTreasury

    Liam Byrne says Labour would "drop" the spare room subsidy. Means £500 million more spending and borrowing in 2015-16

    Labour have a policy and I agree with it.(if true)
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Polruan said:

    ...In the purest form, there's nothing wrong with being a party controlled by unions - the purest form means that you can say "my party is controlled and funded by union members, that is, by millions of people with a few pounds. It's the party of ordinary people." It's pretty much the Big Society, isn't it? The contrast, then, with the party controlled by a few people with millions of pounds, becomes a simple positive narrative....

    I generally think along similar lines, but one problem is that the internal democracy of trade union is even more atrophied than at Westminster, so the extent to which one can honestly claim that the leadership of the Unions is held to account by its members is limited.

    It's not control of Labour by the Unions that is a problem, but control of Labour by a trio of Union leaders (Unite, GMB, Unison). I would guess that there are a few more than three rich people providing funds to the Tories.

    From what I can tell from some of the detail the Miliband plan is therefore a wizard idea - it appears to involve giving Union members the option of donating their political levy directly to Labour, bypassing the Union leadership. If he can pull that off then he safeguards Union donations from a cap, because they will become large numbers of small individual donations, rather than small numbers of large donations, and he will neuter the Union leaders.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    O/T:

    Was last night's Channel 4 documentary on the Piper Alpha disaster worth watching?
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited July 2013
    @Dodd

    "Cheshire Farmer is getting very excited about Hague voicing an opinion...must be the biggest rabbit so far this week.."

    So "Stupid woman" is fair comment if accurate? I wonder whether the Hague admirers would be as sanguine if one or two of the Tory posteresses on here were similarly abused?
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited July 2013
    @antifrank

    Taxpayers subsidising political parties,could anyone come up with a more unpopular idea?
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    @Pong

    "follow me in, if you dare."

    I'm hoping for Tracey Dutchess of Scunthorpe
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    john_zims said:

    @antifrank

    Taxpayers subsiding political parties,could anyone come up with a more unpopular idea?

    Iraq war ?

  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Polruan said:

    ...In the purest form, there's nothing wrong with being a party controlled by unions - the purest form means that you can say "my party is controlled and funded by union members, that is, by millions of people with a few pounds. It's the party of ordinary people." It's pretty much the Big Society, isn't it? The contrast, then, with the party controlled by a few people with millions of pounds, becomes a simple positive narrative....

    I generally think along similar lines, but one problem is that the internal democracy of trade union is even more atrophied than at Westminster, so the extent to which one can honestly claim that the leadership of the Unions is held to account by its members is limited.

    It's not control of Labour by the Unions that is a problem, but control of Labour by a trio of Union leaders (Unite, GMB, Unison). I would guess that there are a few more than three rich people providing funds to the Tories.

    From what I can tell from some of the detail the Miliband plan is therefore a wizard idea - it appears to involve giving Union members the option of donating their political levy directly to Labour, bypassing the Union leadership. If he can pull that off then he safeguards Union donations from a cap, because they will become large numbers of small individual donations, rather than small numbers of large donations, and he will neuter the Union leaders.
    Yeah, it does seem to have some proper benefits. I'd go further and set out some kind of minimum standard for democracy within unions, insisting that unions have to meet that standard or lose their role in the Labour party. It could be portrayed very reasonably, relying on the unions not to trigger the suicide pact: that is, to either depose a Labour leader, or set out to create an alternative union-friendly party would wipe out the left in British politics for a generation (kind of UKIP and the right style). The unions of the 70s would probably have been up for triggering that collective suicide, I don't think they would these days as they have far less power and public support.

    At that stage, comparing the slogans of "one person one vote" with "one pound one vote" would probably give a favourable outcome to any accusations of union control.

  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Neil said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    There is no earthly reason that any cap should result in an increase in costs for taxpayers. Let political parties do what they can with the money they raise, if they cant raise enough to do everything they want to then they will have to do less.
    The Conservative party raised £3.66m in donations in the first three months of this year, which is about 34p for each vote they received in 2010.

    Would a £5,000 cap really present a serious problem?

  • Options
    Pretty much anything beating the inner ring is going to the fence.
    DavidL said:

    Would anyone who has the benefit of actual pictures help? England are scoring an absurd number of their runs in boundaries. All of Bell's runs have come that way and 24 of Bairstow's 27.

    Why? Is it erratic bowling, the nature of the pitch, very aggressive fielding positions by the Australians looking for wickets or a failure of the English batsmen to rotate the strike?

  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    Maybe that's why it was dropped.
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Roger .you are the one who thinks groping your crew and staff is ok..if they dont like it then they should not be in the film biz..
    Want to discuss hypocricy now?.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    Who the hell is Iggy Azalea? I keep seeing ads for her on the side of the page.
  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Neil said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    There is no earthly reason that any cap should result in an increase in costs for taxpayers. Let political parties do what they can with the money they raise, if they cant raise enough to do everything they want to then they will have to do less.
    The Conservative party raised £3.66m in donations in the first three months of this year, which is about 34p for each vote they received in 2010.

    Would a £5,000 cap really present a serious problem?

    Quick calc suggests you'd need 2,928 people donating the full quota every year. Doesn't sound too much of a challenge for the Tory party to cultivate 3,000 high value donors. The question is whether the donation rate increases drastically in election years.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Shocking first innings chaps. Hopefully our bowlers can get the better of the aussies.
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Roger

    'So "Stupid woman" is fair comment if accurate?'

    You must have been outside the country or deaf to have missed the misogyny and general abuse from your comrades when Thatcher died..
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Andy_JS said:

    Who the hell is Iggy Azalea? I keep seeing ads for her on the side of the page.

    Fairly new American female rapper/singer, getting a fair bit of push at the moment.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,936
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T:

    Was last night's Channel 4 documentary on the Piper Alpha disaster worth watching?

    Personally I would say yes but then of course I have a personal interest in it. What I would recommend is reading the book that the documentary is based upon as it is very effective at explaining the scale of the disaster.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    edited July 2013
    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630

    antifrank, this is an issue where the Tories could win. Call for Ed to come back to the negotiating table with a cap between 25-50k on the table and no union exemption (especially now that Ed is trying to distance himself from them). That will force Ed to refuse negotiations and hand the victory to Dave. If Ed wants to argue on party funding this is a very, very easy argument for the Tories to win on, Dave just needs to grow a pair and put on a poker face.

    Dave needs to just call Ed's bluff on wanting to distance Labour from the unions and the whole idea will come crashing down. £3m per year from Unite tells me that Ed is all talk.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921
    So predictable from England. It's the same in just about every series. Especially in the Ashes.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921
    My post at 7.57 am sadly prescient ...

    In the last five ashes series England have started very poorly. They got away with it in 09 (just) and 10/11 because the Australian attack was not up to taking 20 wickets. This year their fast bowlers look a lot better. On that basis I'd make Australia slight favourites.
  • Options
    TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Very useful time trial by Froome. It'll gain him time on all his closest adversaries.
  • Options
    I'm very glad they decided Bresnan's batting could be safely ignored when picking the team.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630

    antifrank, this is an issue where the Tories could win. Call for Ed to come back to the negotiating table with a cap between 25-50k on the table and no union exemption (especially now that Ed is trying to distance himself from them). That will force Ed to refuse negotiations and hand the victory to Dave. If Ed wants to argue on party funding this is a very, very easy argument for the Tories to win on, Dave just needs to grow a pair and put on a poker face.

    Dave needs to just call Ed's bluff on wanting to distance Labour from the unions and the whole idea will come crashing down. £3m per year from Unite tells me that Ed is all talk.
    I think the Union exemption would come automatically if Miliband has his way and converts block Union donations to individual member donations.

    That's why Miliband feels able to gazump Cameron with a £5,000 cap, rather than a £50k one.

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,603
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T:

    Was last night's Channel 4 documentary on the Piper Alpha disaster worth watching?

    Haven't watched it yet - but several on here & Andrew Neil were praising it very highly - if its the BBC2 one you mean....

  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Roger said:

    @Pong

    "follow me in, if you dare."

    I'm hoping for Tracey Dutchess of Scunthorpe

    Keith. You can't go wrong with Keith.

    'King Keith I"
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    tim said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630

    antifrank, this is an issue where the Tories could win. Call for Ed to come back to the negotiating table with a cap between 25-50k on the table and no union exemption. That will force Ed to refuse negotiations and hand the victory to Dave. If Ed wants to argue on party funding this is a very, very easy argument for the Tories to win on, Dave just needs to grow a pair and put on a poker face.

    A £50k cap, twice average earnings, £250k over a parliament.
    Yes that'll sell really well.


    As Andrew Neil was pointing out today, they get all their different family members to pony up so that's a million from one family.
    He cited one family who paid the Tories a million quid each, four million in total.
    because Labour don't have families or family dynasties.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    edited July 2013
    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630

    antifrank, this is an issue where the Tories could win. Call for Ed to come back to the negotiating table with a cap between 25-50k on the table and no union exemption. That will force Ed to refuse negotiations and hand the victory to Dave. If Ed wants to argue on party funding this is a very, very easy argument for the Tories to win on, Dave just needs to grow a pair and put on a poker face.
    Polruan said:

    Neil said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    There is no earthly reason that any cap should result in an increase in costs for taxpayers. Let political parties do what they can with the money they raise, if they cant raise enough to do everything they want to then they will have to do less.
    The Conservative party raised £3.66m in donations in the first three months of this year, which is about 34p for each vote they received in 2010.

    Would a £5,000 cap really present a serious problem?

    Quick calc suggests you'd need 2,928 people donating the full quota every year. Doesn't sound too much of a challenge for the Tory party to cultivate 3,000 high value donors. The question is whether the donation rate increases drastically in election years.
    25k as a bottom limit is too high to generate much movement or interest.

    Off the top of my head the Tory party's current donation structure would struggle with a £5k limit, relies far more donors on up nearer £50k.

    I'd imagine if they thought they could spread it out with even a £10k cap they'd leap at the opportunity if the could end the Union exemption. As it is, they haven't.

    Of course there is an inherent turkeys and Christmas bias against parties voting for any measure that'd end up with them less money.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,603
    tim said:

    @Carlotta

    Remember weak Dave on this issue?

    Squirrel of the day!

    A story from four and a half years ago

    You know, when Ed Miliband was sorting out Power Generation as SoS for Energy, and Ed Balls was sorting out Education by presiding over ever-increasing grades.....
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    The BBC seems to have been very generous with our tax money, how nice of them to award 3-4 times what the recipients were allowed, never mind, lets put granny in jail if she wont pay her licence fee
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,293

    So predictable from England. It's the same in just about every series. Especially in the Ashes.

    But look on the bright side, SO.

    It ain't gonna be a draw. :-)
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    England seemed to be putting a high run-rate above keeping wickets in hand today which isn't really appropriate for the first day of an important Test series.
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Rabbits and squirrels.. so difficult to herd when there are so many of them
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    @Pong

    "follow me in, if you dare."

    I'm hoping for Tracey Dutchess of Scunthorpe

    Roger, how could you keep trawling the telephone boxes for business !!

  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    corporeal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Who the hell is Iggy Azalea? I keep seeing ads for her on the side of the page.

    Fairly new American female rapper/singer, getting a fair bit of push at the moment.
    Thanks, although I've just looked her up on Wikipedia and it says there she's Australian.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    tim said:

    tim said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630

    antifrank, this is an issue where the Tories could win. Call for Ed to come back to the negotiating table with a cap between 25-50k on the table and no union exemption. That will force Ed to refuse negotiations and hand the victory to Dave. If Ed wants to argue on party funding this is a very, very easy argument for the Tories to win on, Dave just needs to grow a pair and put on a poker face.

    A £50k cap, twice average earnings, £250k over a parliament.
    Yes that'll sell really well.


    As Andrew Neil was pointing out today, they get all their different family members to pony up so that's a million from one family.
    He cited one family who paid the Tories a million quid each, four million in total.
    because Labour don't have families or family dynasties.
    Labour is arguing for a £5k limit, so the largest family of four donation would be £100k over a parliament
    The Tories want a million quid limit.

    you're still struggling tim.

    the basics of money driving politics has been with us for several millenia. Ed Dave and Nick can't and won't stop it, all they can do is try to rig the system so it favours them. Hence £5k favours Ed since he hopes to exclude Union freebies and Cameron wants it higher since he can get more cash than Labour.

    The moral posturing atm is just laughable.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @ SOuthamObserver


    What is totally predictable is your negativity when it comes to sport, Of course you are quite right to be pessimistic about England Cricket , after all they did very badly in 2005,2009.2010, I mean it was a fecking disaster.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921
    tim said:

    My post at 7.57 am sadly prescient ...

    In the last five ashes series England have started very poorly. They got away with it in 09 (just) and 10/11 because the Australian attack was not up to taking 20 wickets. This year their fast bowlers look a lot better. On that basis I'd make Australia slight favourites.



    There's a venn diagram somewhere with the pessimism of Spurs fans overlapping with the pessimism of English cricket fans.
    I've a feeling you're at the epicentre of it.



    You don't know many Spurs fans do you?! It's not pessimism, it's realism born of years of experience.

    In the first game of the last six Ashes series now England have been largely outplayed and/or beaten. We got away with it the last two times because the Australian bowlers were not good enough. This time they look a lot better and our batting looks as fragile as ever. Hopefully our bowlers can dig us out of the hole, but the pitch looks decent enough.

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    tim said:

    Polruan said:

    Neil said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    There is no earthly reason that any cap should result in an increase in costs for taxpayers. Let political parties do what they can with the money they raise, if they cant raise enough to do everything they want to then they will have to do less.
    The Conservative party raised £3.66m in donations in the first three months of this year, which is about 34p for each vote they received in 2010.

    Would a £5,000 cap really present a serious problem?

    Quick calc suggests you'd need 2,928 people donating the full quota every year. Doesn't sound too much of a challenge for the Tory party to cultivate 3,000 high value donors. The question is whether the donation rate increases drastically in election years.
    Far easier to have 12 people for kitchen supper.
    Jesus "tim" give it a rest !!

  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    MaxPB said:

    antifrank said:


    The donations cap is not a particular problem for David Cameron, if it carries on being reported in the terms that Nick Robinson reports it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23258630

    antifrank, this is an issue where the Tories could win. Call for Ed to come back to the negotiating table with a cap between 25-50k on the table and no union exemption. That will force Ed to refuse negotiations and hand the victory to Dave. If Ed wants to argue on party funding this is a very, very easy argument for the Tories to win on, Dave just needs to grow a pair and put on a poker face.

    A £50k cap, twice average earnings, £250k over a parliament.
    Yes that'll sell really well.


    As Andrew Neil was pointing out today, they get all their different family members to pony up so that's a million from one family.
    He cited one family who paid the Tories a million quid each, four million in total.
    because Labour don't have families or family dynasties.
    Labour is arguing for a £5k limit, so the largest family of four donation would be £100k over a parliament
    The Tories want a million quid limit.

    How about a "connected persons" test similar to that in various bits of tax legislation? The limit applies to amounts from the donor and his/her connected persons. It's a fairly straightforward piece of anti-avoidance that would be pretty difficult to oppose once someone's proposed it.

    Fortunately for the blues, cousins fall outside most definitions...
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Just to say that the YouGov five-poll average (8, 6, 6, 8, 8) Lab lead at 7.2 is still lower than any point since the 2012 budget save for the last two weeks.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921

    @ SOuthamObserver


    What is totally predictable is your negativity when it comes to sport, Of course you are quite right to be pessimistic about England Cricket , after all they did very badly in 2005,2009.2010, I mean it was a fecking disaster.

    Look at the opening games of each of those series, as well as the ones before 05 and the 06/07 one. We always start very poorly in the Ashes.

This discussion has been closed.