Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

Ed Miliband


  • Please log in to reply
777 replies to this topic

#201 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:49 AM

The long-term unspoken agreement between the Tories and Labour has been that we don't discuss your dirty laundry too much and you don't discuss ours.  The Tories seem to have scented blood in the last couple of years with Labour just not effectively retaliating and some would say not retaliating at all.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#202 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:28 AM

I just don't get it... can someone help me out with something...  Why is it bad for Labour to take money from the unions but it's perfectly acceptable for the Tories to take substantially more centrally and to individual members from their City funders?  If the Tories can get funded from their narrow interest parties to further their aims then why is it in any way unacceptable for a union to essentially keep a party going that can represent the working people?

 

The way Miliband is going, Labour will lose a lot of funding with no obvious way of getting more money from sources that are more acceptable to their critics.  A bankrupt Labour party isn't that difficult a concept to imagine.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#203 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:36 AM

Oh dear :D

 

BOlQvm2CYAAgHwr.jpg-large.jpeg

 

 

Not really relevant, but I didn't realise Cameron had such a pointy nose!


That's me.  I'm done.


#204 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:56 AM

 

I just don't get it... can someone help me out with something...  Why is it bad for Labour to take money from the unions but it's perfectly acceptable for the Tories to take substantially more centrally and to individual members from their City funders?  If the Tories can get funded from their narrow interest parties to further their aims then why is it in any way unacceptable for a union to essentially keep a party going that can represent the working people?
 
The way Miliband is going, Labour will lose a lot of funding with no obvious way of getting more money from sources that are more acceptable to their critics.  A bankrupt Labour party isn't that difficult a concept to imagine.



Union funding is a bit different in that who does the money belong to - the union or its members ? I'm sure there are many union members who are not Labour Party supporters and resent their dues being used to fund an organisation that they have no affiliation with.

If people fund the Tories from private funds then that is a personal choice about what to do with their own money. Its not like the Labour Party haven't had large personal donations at various times too.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#205 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:02 AM

 

I just don't get it... can someone help me out with something...  Why is it bad for Labour to take money from the unions but it's perfectly acceptable for the Tories to take substantially more centrally and to individual members from their City funders?  If the Tories can get funded from their narrow interest parties to further their aims then why is it in any way unacceptable for a union to essentially keep a party going that can represent the working people?
 
The way Miliband is going, Labour will lose a lot of funding with no obvious way of getting more money from sources that are more acceptable to their critics.  A bankrupt Labour party isn't that difficult a concept to imagine.


You'll have to ask the Labour party. They seem to be the ones getting all het up about it. This isn't about funding though, it seems to be about Unite "rigging" elections to get their people in.

The funding the Tories get from their "city funders" is no different to the cash Labour get/got from Lord Sainsbury, Alan Sugar, Bernie Ecclestone, John Mills etc.

#206 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,693 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:22 PM

 


Union funding is a bit different in that who does the money belong to - the union or its members ? I'm sure there are many union members who are not Labour Party supporters and resent their dues being used to fund an organisation that they have no affiliation with.

 

As I understand it, union members can currently opt out of the political levy, meaning their money can't be given to the Labour Party or anyone else for that matter?


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#207 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:44 PM

 

As I understand it, union members can currently opt out of the political levy, meaning their money can't be given to the Labour Party or anyone else for that matter?


They can but like most of these type of things people are often unaware of how to or want the hassle of doing so. That's why, when you go to somewhere like Chester Zoo (for example) they automatically opt you in for Gift Aid donations meaning the onus is on you to opt out which very few people do. I reckon if the members had to go through a process to opt-in rather than an opt-out then you'd see a much different outcome. Automatic enrolling with responsibility on the individual to opt-out always produces a far better result than the alternative.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#208 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,693 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:49 PM

 

They can but like most of these type of things people are often unaware of how to or want the hassle of doing so. That's why, when you go to somewhere like Chester Zoo (for example) they automatically opt you in for Gift Aid donations meaning the onus is on you to opt out which very few people do. I reckon if the members had to go through a process to opt-in rather than an opt-out then you'd see a much different outcome. Automatic enrolling with responsibility on the individual to opt-out always produces a far better result than the alternative.

 

Isn't that pretty much what Ed Miliband is now proposing?


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#209 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:08 PM

 

Isn't that pretty much what Ed Miliband is now proposing?


Not quite.

His proposal is that the 'political levy' will remain in its current guise with the members still having to opt-out of it. The big change he is proposing is that members who pay the levy are no longer automatically enrolled as affiliate members of the Labour Party. Currently by doing this the union is guaranteeing Labour funding via the affiliate membership subscription. The difference under the new proposals is that the union member can pay into the union's political fund without their donation automatically going to the Labour Party. Although, in the real world, the union management will be free to make other donations to the party from union funds so ultimately it won't make much difference to the overall funding being given.

If the proposal were to require union members to opt-in to the political levy then the funds available would be significantly smaller. Miliband's proposal maintains the unions' cash position and will not really affect the funding of the Labour Party too much, the value won't change only the mechanism will.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#210 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:32 PM

 

Not quite.

His proposal is that the 'political levy' will remain in its current guise with the members still having to opt-out of it. The big change he is proposing is that members who pay the levy are no longer automatically enrolled as affiliate members of the Labour Party. Currently by doing this the union is guaranteeing Labour funding via the affiliate membership subscription. The difference under the new proposals is that the union member can pay into the union's political fund without their donation automatically going to the Labour Party. Although, in the real world, the union management will be free to make other donations to the party from union funds so ultimately it won't make much difference to the overall funding being given.

If the proposal were to require union members to opt-in to the political levy then the funds available would be significantly smaller. Miliband's proposal maintains the unions' cash position and will not really affect the funding of the Labour Party too much, the value won't change only the mechanism will.

Certainly in my current union, and I'm fairly certain in my previous one, you had to tick the box on the application form to say that you wanted to pay the political levy, and, on top of that, you had to state whether you wanted that levy to be used to affiliate to the Labour Party (if not it would go towards the union's political campaign).


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#211 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,994 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:45 PM

 

Certainly in my current union, and I'm fairly certain in my previous one, you had to tick the box on the application form to say that you wanted to pay the political levy, and, on top of that, you had to state whether you wanted that levy to be used to affiliate to the Labour Party (if not it would go towards the union's political campaign).


According to this article, Unison is the only union which gives members a choice to affiliate to Labour or not on its membership application form....

http://www.newstates...union-donations

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#212 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 4,988 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:07 PM

 


Union funding is a bit different in that who does the money belong to - the union or its members ? I'm sure there are many union members who are not Labour Party supporters and resent their dues being used to fund an organisation that they have no affiliation with.

If people fund the Tories from private funds then that is a personal choice about what to do with their own money. Its not like the Labour Party haven't had large personal donations at various times too.

 

Yet when I buy goods or services from a business, I don't expect part of the profit to be handed over to the Tories, but that is often what happens.

 

This whole nonsense is rank hypocrisy. It's okay for business to fund the Conservative Party in return for favours, but it's wrong for a Union to fund the Labour Party in return for ... what exactly?

 

This is actually persuading me that I ought to join the Labour Party and try to right the wrongs being done.


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#213 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:27 PM

 It's okay for business to fund the Conservative Party in return for favours, but it's wrong for a Union to fund the Labour Party in return for ... what exactly?

 

This is actually persuading me that I ought to join the Labour Party and try to right the wrongs being done.

In return for ###### all it seems, since 1997, not a solitary "anti-union" law passed by the tories was repealed by the party that happily takes union's money. Why any union gives out the cash to politicians is utterly beyond me.

 

http://link.brightco...id=684898079001



#214 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:03 PM

Tories now level with Labour in latest ICM poll

I haven't looked but I dread to think what Ed's poll ratings are.

Edited by Methven Hornet, 15 July 2013 - 09:04 PM.

"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."

#215 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 09:09 AM

I think the Tories will get a narrow but workable majority next election and the two people I blame are Miliband and Clegg.  I think it's a given that the Lib Dems will get a right pasting at the next election.  Labour are just going from one shambles to another with confusing statements from the Shadow Cabinet, many of them seemingly trying to out-right the right wing of the Tories.

 

The worst of it is that the Tories will loudly boast that this is the public endorsing the Tory message when in fact it's the complete lack of a credible opposition that's helping them.  I know the Lib Dems are in a coalition but they're so indistinct from the Tories these days that you'd never know they were a separate party.  And Labour, I'm coming close to believing that the Foot leadership period was a more credible platform for election than the current Labour party.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#216 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 520 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:23 PM

No party has increased its share of the vote while in government for over half a century. A Tory majority is very unlikely but worth a few quid in it if yiu think it'll happen as you'll get good odds.

The ICM poll result looks a real one off at the moment. Labour led by 11 on Sunday with YouGov/Observer. Their lead has averaged between 5 and 8 for a few weeks now.

Miliband's personal rating still lags behind Cameron's but this isn't as relevant as many would think when it comes to predicting the result of the next election. In the last poll before the 1979 election, I think I'm right in saying Callaghan was 20 points ahead of Thatcher which was massive but ultimately counted for nothing.

The most likely scenario is still a Labour majority and Ed being the next PM.

#217 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

No party has increased its share of the vote while in government for over half a century. A Tory majority is very unlikely but worth a few quid in it if yiu think it'll happen as you'll get good odds.

The ICM poll result looks a real one off at the moment. Labour led by 11 on Sunday with YouGov/Observer. Their lead has averaged between 5 and 8 for a few weeks now.

Miliband's personal rating still lags behind Cameron's but this isn't as relevant as many would think when it comes to predicting the result of the next election. In the last poll before the 1979 election, I think I'm right in saying Callaghan was 20 points ahead of Thatcher which was massive but ultimately counted for nothing.

The most likely scenario is still a Labour majority and Ed being the next PM.

I just can't see that happening.  The Tories simply need to ramp up their targeting of UKIP members with "Vote UKIP, get Labour" or "Vote UKIP, get another coalition" type campaigns and they'll bring back a few members out of fear of Labour rather than love of Cameron.  Yes, Labour will definitely recover some seats from the Lib Dems in places like Redcar but it's the Tories who are most likely to benefit from a fractured centre and left of the political spectrum with low voter turnouts for Labour and Lib Dem potential voters.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#218 Richard de la Riviere

Richard de la Riviere
  • Coach
  • 520 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:47 PM

Labour don't really need to take Lib Dem seats. They need 2010 LD voters to push them over the line in constituencies where it's a Tory v Labour fight and they'll win dozens of those.

Don't forget Labour can get a decent majority with 35%. In 2006 they got just 36% and still had a 60-something seat majority. In 2010 the Tories got 37% but were 20-odd seats short.

I know Miliband isn't particularly electable but Brown certainly wasn't in 2010. Ed's worth 6% more than Gordon and that's all they need.

#219 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

Labour don't really need to take Lib Dem seats. They need 2010 LD voters to push them over the line in constituencies where it's a Tory v Labour fight and they'll win dozens of those.

Don't forget Labour can get a decent majority with 35%. In 2006 they got just 36% and still had a 60-something seat majority. In 2010 the Tories got 37% but were 20-odd seats short.

I know Miliband isn't particularly electable but Brown certainly wasn't in 2010. Ed's worth 6% more than Gordon and that's all they need.

 

It's the individual constituencies that'll count next time I think rather than the overall majority.  Redcar and Cambridge are solid Labour gains but the Tories just need Labour voters not to bother leaving their houses to win enough marginal seats to scrape a majority.

 

I really don't want the Tories to win next time but even that isn't enough to make me want to vote Labour with Ed in charge and the waft of idiocy coming from his Shadow Cabinet, that'd just be rewarding mediocrity.  This is likely to be my first time ever that I won't vote in a general election.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#220 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,304 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

Gut feeling is that if Cameron were to rid his party of the UKIP tendency and promote a few more Lib Dem policies, he'd stand a chance of pulling in a few more centre votes.

 

Perhaps its what happens in the last 3 months of the 5 year spell, that counts, though...and what role Theresa May plays.