Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slowdive

Ed Miliband

1,127 posts in this topic

 

That more-or-less defines the Daily Mail, does it not?

On the subject of the bedroom tax, an appeals tribunal in Fife has made an interesting ruling that any room smaller than 50 square feet cannot be considered as a bedroom, and anything between 50 and 70 square feet can only be used as a child under the age of 10. There have also been successful appeals in Fife based on the fact that the spare rooms are used for different purposes, eg. used to store braille equipment, wheelchairs.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk/housing-groups-quaking-in-their-boots-after-fife-bedroom-tax-judgments-1.129408

The well publicised case of the guy in Lochgelly pushed a few people in the area to find ways around this.  The local MP is a bit of a grumpy sod but does like to do his bit for his constituents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UN Inspector: "Bedroom Tax" could constitute a violation of the human right to adequate housing. She then says the court cases going on right now about it should take account of her opinion due to her position.

So... on topic: come on Ed, a perfect time to say that you're going to either scrap it or make it fair. A simple step would be to say that if a council has nowhere to downsize you to then you don't get penalised.

Milland would be well advised to steer clear of this woman who has been exposed as a liar. I' m surprised that someone such as yourself has been taken in, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milland would be well advised to steer clear of this woman who has been exposed as a liar. I' m surprised that someone such as yourself has been taken in, too.

Go on then... I'll bite... why is she a liar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not donors, it's donations.

 

If you download it and crunch it up a bit, there's a breakdown of what those donations were.

 

Of that 661 donations to Labour, about 300 came from 12 unions, about 80 came from 50 named individuals, about 200 came from various other bits of the Labour Party (so if your local Labour Party sends money up the chain, it's added in.  It's stuff like raffles and jumble sales, things like that).

 

Between the unions and the local Labour Party, most of the those donations came from ordinary people.  Now, in the case of the unions the collection of this money, IMO, is not appropriate and needs reform, but it cannot be denied that the Labour Party is funded, one way or another, by hundreds and thousands of small donations from many, many people.

 

 

For the Tories, of their 707 about 450 came from named individuals, and about 200 came from companies.  About 50 came from the various raffles and fairs held by Conservative Associations up and down the country.   About half of the total funding for the Tory party comes from just 70 people.

 

 

One of the problems with reform of party funding is that the big three parties all have very different funding models and getting them under one regulatory regime without bias in one direction or the other is very difficult.

In 2012, 79 "ordinary" people donated £1,355,311.32 to labour, roughly £17k per "ordinary" individual, in the same year 449 rich toffs donated £9,078,727.17 to the tories roughly £20k per rich toff.

With companies, £17k per tory donor, they'll be companies who still employ children and the like. £15k per labour company, firms that rescue kittens and puppies.

It's almost like, and this is crazy i know, the labour party court big business and hope no-one notices, or they and their voters try to make out it isn't really happening. The problem is they do do it, they just don't seem very good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with reform of party funding is that the big three parties all have very different funding models and getting them under one regulatory regime without bias in one direction or the other is very difficult.

There's no need to reform it. The day when giving 1m quid gets an extra vote or two is the day to reform , but by then it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2012, 79 "ordinary" people donated £1,355,311.32 to labour, roughly £17k per "ordinary" individual, in the same year 449 rich toffs donated £9,078,727.17 to the tories roughly £20k per rich toff.

With companies, £17k per tory donor, they'll be companies who still employ children and the like. £15k per labour company, firms that rescue kittens and puppies.

It's almost like, and this is crazy i know, the labour party court big business and hope no-one notices, or they and their voters try to make out it isn't really happening. The problem is they do do it, they just don't seem very good at it.

 

You're confusing donors and donations again.  There were 50 Labour donors, not 79.  And there were 288 Tory donors, not 449.   Google "Excel Remove Duplicates"

 

Regardless of any value judgements you put on the who donates this money, the absolute, inarguable fact is that the funding structures of the three major parties are completely different and that is what makes reform of party funding so hard.

 

 

 

Edit - I put a table in here to illustrate the point, but the formatting got mangled.   You'll have to work it out for yourself.

Edited by Steve May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Maria Eagle said on Any Questions last night, the money Labour gets from the Unions is the cleanest money in politics. That might not be saying much, but it represents a few pence a week paid by millions of people (ok most of it involunarily) but what it's supposed to buy is benefits for those people.  Benefits like being able to claim unfair dismissal after one year's employment, not two, benefits like not having to pay to go to an employment tribunal.

On the other hand the money paid by big business to the Tories results in these benefits (and many more) being withdrawn.

There's no question in my mind whose side the Tories are on - and it's not mine!

As for Gove and foodbanks, he's saying what the Tories always say - if you're poor it's your own fault - tough!

Edited by Trojan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently a poll is being published this weekend by Lord Ashcroft that shows Labour clearly ahead in the 40 tightest Lab-Con seats.

Despite all his perceived faults, Ed looks to be on course for Downing Street in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all his perceived faults, Ed looks to be on course for Downing Street in 2015.

 

Nah, when push comes to shove, he's just a lightweight Neil Kinnock.

 

In electoral terms, that's pretty damn light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, when push comes to shove, he's just a lightweight Neil Kinnock.

 

In electoral terms, that's pretty damn light.

 

It's true that Kinnock lost two elections as leader. But it's also true that he turned Labour from a divided squabbling party, penetrated by Trotskyists, into a party that only lost the 1992 election by a hair's breadth. I read somewhere the other week that had about a thousand people in twenty constituencies voted differently he'd have won. Given what he took over in 1983, and the hostility of the media I reckon that was quite an achievement. Every Labour leader has to cope with newspaper hostility, and this IMO influences the broadcast media, although they'll say it doesn't. You only have to listen to "World at One" to appreciate what Milliband and Labour are up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that Kinnock lost two elections as leader. But it's also true that he turned Labour from a divided squabbling party, penetrated by Trotskyists, into a party that only lost the 1992 election by a hair's breadth. I read somewhere the other week that had about a thousand people in twenty constituencies voted differently he'd have won. Given what he took over in 1983, and the hostility of the media I reckon that was quite an achievement.

 

I certainly agree with you about how Kinnock turned Labour round, but he had the support of party members and MP's who were despairing of the way it was descending into chaos and delusion. He had no national leadership potential and the electorate never took to him. Afterwards, any vision that he'd had soon disappeared in favour of cashing in on the EU gravy train.  In retrospect, the indications are that the electorate was right.

 

Ed Miliband has no internal or national leadership potential and the theoritical Labour majority will once again disappear on election day.

 

Miliband is the only good thing that has happened for Nick Clegg in the last three years.

 

I would love to say that I will be voting Labour, but I won't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently a poll is being published this weekend by Lord Ashcroft that shows Labour clearly ahead in the 40 tightest Lab-Con seats.

Despite all his perceived faults, Ed looks to be on course for Downing Street in 2015.

 

Lab 43, Con 29, LibDem 8, UKIP 11. When faced with Labour government many of those UKIP votes will return to the Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a look that women just find repulsive, they don't have to be good looking to get a vote, a trustworthy old uncle look will suffice or that of an old well liked teacher is fine, but bob monkhouse dragged through a lard factory is summat the ladies just wont go for, believe me.

when females only are polled, labour are miles ahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lab 43, Con 29, LibDem 8, UKIP 11. When faced with Labour government many of those UKIP votes will return to the Tories.

That figure of 11 will increase next year in the run up to the European Elections which UKIP will either win or come second, just as it was higher around the time of the recent council elections. They passed 20% in one poll shortly after that. But right now, little is happening for UKIP and they're suffering in the polls as a result.

 

Even so, you're right that at GE2015 the figure will be less than 11. But even if it comes down to 6, it'll still be double what they got in 2010, where they still did the Tories some damage. The Conservatives will get the message out that "a vote for UKIP is a vote for Miliband" but Cameron is hated by so many of the uber right, that more than enough won't care and many will settle for a narrow Labour majority or a Lab-Lib Coalition if it means they get a leader from the right of their party to fight the 2020 election.

 

But much more important than UKIP voters are the 2010 LD voters. Judging by polls like Ashcroft's, more than enough have defected to Labour for Miliband to win, even before UKIP are factored in. The only thing that might stop them is if Clegg is unseated before the election for either Farron or Cable.

 

And talking of Farron, the most telling thing that's happened recently is his cosying up to Miliband. Tactical voting on the left will play a massive part at the next election, by effectively voting for a Lab-Lib coalition. Farron seems to see himself as a member of Miliband's cabinet already. Libs, en masse, will vote Labour but Labour voters, like at Eastleigh, will happily push the LDs over the line in constituencies where the Tories are a threat.

 

A Lab-Lib coalition is a very realistic prospect, but the most likely outcome is still a Labour majority. Strip beneath the media-driven "Ed's not electable enough" and all of the figures are in his favour. They only need 6% more than they got in 2010, which was a disastrous result, to get a majority in 2015.

 

A repeat of 2010 is very unlikely. A Conservative majority in 2015 is virtually impossible. For that to happen, everything above would have to be reversed and it'll take more than a S*n front page for that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to a few friends of mine, admittedly a very narrow pool compared to the thousands of opinion polls, Labour will be getting a few extra votes next time out of "least worst" option.  They, like me, moved from Labour to the Lib Dems in the early-mid 2000s.  They've already said they'd not vote Lib Dem again with the current leadership in place, unlike me though they've said they'd vote Labour rather than not vote at all.  For me, Miliband just hasn't earned my vote, none of the current parties have.

 

In a nutshell, here's why:  No courage, lots of political opportunism and London-itis among the Labour MPs.

 

I'll show one bit of evidence, this bedroom tax thing.  BBC Link. The important bits are the central Labour comments: 
 

"Labour has consistently said that the bedroom tax is as cruel as it is incompetent, and there is a real danger it is so badly thought through it could actually end up costing more than it saves.

 

"David Cameron should drop this policy and he should drop it now."

 

If it's that bad a policy then surely it's a no brainer to say that the central party would revoke or amend it.  Just jump in while the iron is hot and say that you'll fix it.

 

I can see absolutely no reason why they'd do anything else unless it's the big thing Ed is going to talk about at the Labour Party conference.  If that's the case then it's idiot thinking as the natives in the Labour party are getting restless.

 

As an aside, it's interesting to see at the bottom of the article that Cameron's pet fall-guy, Nick Clegg, missing the point so well while making a nothing statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the problems with our political leaders, is that they all are very inexperienced.  So was Blair.  Churchill didn't become PM until he was over sixty, neither did Callaghan.  Thatcher was in her mid fifties when she became PM.  I know it comes badly from a 66 (nearly 67) year old but I think that an experienced politician wouldn't walk into the mistakes that all three of the major party leaders have made.  I bitterly regret the death of John Smith, I think he would have been a great leader for our country. But Blair got the gig and now all the parties feel they have to have a young man.  None of the three leaders had been in the Commons any length of time before they became leader.  I think experience counts for a lot.  As Blair said, you come into office and are very popular but you don't know how to do the job, by the time you do your popularity has melted away.  A seasoned politician in the job IMO would avoid all  the pitfalls that these men have walked into blindfolded (as it were)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cannot envisage a situation where Milliband will be PM. The polls look good but once 2015 comes around and the campaigns get into full swing, I think he will falter.

 

The economy is a big one. Whether they have or haven't the news is starting to look better for the Tories and their policies appear to be working. When you consider that many blame Labour for the recession, the Tories should have a pretty easy sell on that one.

 

I'd much rather see a Labour government than a Tory one but I'm certainly not optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cannot envisage a situation where Milliband will be PM. The polls look good but once 2015 comes around and the campaigns get into full swing, I think he will falter.

 

The economy is a big one. Whether they have or haven't the news is starting to look better for the Tories and their policies appear to be working. When you consider that many blame Labour for the recession, the Tories should have a pretty easy sell on that one.

 

I'd much rather see a Labour government than a Tory one but I'm certainly not optimistic.

 

The figures look good too. But they are distorted. Houses apparently are selling like hot cakes in London and Bristol, but not round here.  Unemployment is up in many regions.  The national figure is down, but many people are in part time employment or on zero hours contracts, so they don't count on the job seekers allowance figures. Duncan-Smith justifies his Universal Credit -under which most people will be worse off as "making work pay" Surely a better way to make work pay would be to increase what people can earn from working rather than cut the payments for those not working.

I've been on "jobseekers" - it's no picnic believe me.  You need to take evidence that you are seeking work fortnightly and there are constant threats that if you don't do whatever they prescribe you to do "it may affect your benefit"  One even came round to my house, marched into my living room and stood with her back to the fireplace and said "now then Mr --- what have you done about finding a job"  I'd been unemployed for two days!

I'm sure there are enough people either in this situation or (like me) with recent experience of it who'll be pretty unforgiving of the party that brought this about. I also believe that many of those who voted Liberal last time because they hated what Labour had done in Iraq, but wanted to keep the Tories out will see the light that the only way to keep the Tories out is to vote Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely a better way to make work pay would be to increase what people can earn from working rather than cut the payments for those not working.

 

Not rocket science is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Surely a better way to make work pay would be to increase what people can earn from working rather than cut the payments for those not working.

Which benefits have been cut then ? I'm not aware of any that have gone down.

How can the government increase what people earn from working ? Other than those on minimum wage (which is estimated to be less than 10% of the workforce) how does government set wages ?

Also, the solution you advocate would make those on benefits even worse off in real terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which benefits have been cut then ? I'm not aware of any that have gone down.

 

 

Bedroom Tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bedroom Tax?

That isn't a universal reduction and doesn't apply only to unemployed people, there are many working people on low incomes on HB too who are affected. Again, which "payments for those not working" (to quote Trojan) have been cut ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just witnessed someone even more useless than Miliband and that is Herman. On Q T tonight she was awful!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017