villaajax Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Wonder if the tories will wheel out their man in a chicken costume gimmick... again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 193,000 is an approximate total for the entire year, what was the total in May? And I said a fair few times already, membership dropped back in 2012 and has been on the rise since. I'm sure if I was arguing for the Tories you'd be lapping it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell. The question is, why aren't there more members? According to the Guardian article it took nearly two decades of the Tory jackboot to push the membership up to 405k but as soon as Blair unleashed his miracle, half the members decided not to renew. It looks like people ditch their Labour values as soon as they move into the comfort-zone, even when that comfort-zone has been created by a Labour government. I would cynically conclude that when things are going well for people, they personally take credit for it, and when it goes badly they blame the government. So you could say that by making people more prosperous Labour undermined their own position. Considering the number of people who count themselves amongst the Lefties, there is surprisingly few willing to join the Labour Party - it is cheap (£3.80/mth - discounts for scrotes and paupers). I suppose it is has to be listed as one of life's great ironies that Lefties are always saying how they support Labour and hate Murdoch, but in reality pay nothing to the former and vast amounts to the latter, in the form of TV subscriptions. They then complain about the right-wing influence of The Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell. The question is, why aren't there more members? According to the Guardian article it took nearly two decades of the Tory jackboot to push the membership up to 405k but as soon as Blair unleashed his miracle, half the members decided not to renew. It looks like people ditch their Labour values as soon as they move into the comfort-zone, even when that comfort-zone has been created by a Labour government. I would cynically conclude that when things are going well for people, they personally take credit for it, and when it goes badly they blame the government. So you could say that by making people more prosperous Labour undermined their own position. Considering the number of people who count themselves amongst the Lefties, there is surprisingly few willing to join the Labour Party - it is cheap (£3.80/mth - discounts for scrotes and paupers). I suppose it is has to be listed as one of life's great ironies that Lefties are always saying how they support Labour and hate Murdoch, but in reality pay nothing to the former and vast amounts to the latter, in the form of TV subscriptions. They then complain about the right-wing influence of The Sun. That is a very interesting point that you make in terms of membership - and it applies to any political party not just the Labour one. What do you expect from a membership? Take the Tory party for instance, we have seen vast amounts of monies contributed to them (a lot from areas that are surrounded in "mystery" and a lot more from tax avoidance), what exactly are the people donating expecting back? What do the Unions expect back from Labour as one of its biggest backers in terms of finance? I consider myself to be reasonably OK for finance, and know of a lot more people who are wealthy who actively support the Labour party, both members and regular voters, who sometimes find themselves subject to questioning about finance. Why is that? Likewise Murdoch and his empire, many non Tories will in one way or another contribute to the organisation(s) that he oversees, but again where do you stop? Would you not use a JCB for example if you were in that industry for the major amounts of monies that he has contributed to the Tory party? What about the funding that comes from financial "bods" to the Tory party, should / would people move their pensions, and other assets away from these organisations and where do the borders exist to stop this? Good subject matter about why people engage (or not) with politics and the political parties, maybe one for another thread, but it certainly is a good topic rather than not voting Labour because of the appearance of the leader ! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 good post Drat. Is there a way of finding out the tax avoiding companies, to try to avoid them. Is there an alternative to google that pays it uk tax for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I would cynically conclude that when things are going well for people, they personally take credit for it, and when it goes badly they blame the government. immigrants fixed though maybe it should be Govt AND immigrants ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell. The question is, why aren't there more members? According to the Guardian article it took nearly two decades of the Tory jackboot to push the membership up to 405k but as soon as Blair unleashed his miracle, half the members decided not to renew. It looks like people ditch their Labour values as soon as they move into the comfort-zone, even when that comfort-zone has been created by a Labour government. I would cynically conclude that when things are going well for people, they personally take credit for it, and when it goes badly they blame the government. So you could say that by making people more prosperous Labour undermined their own position. Considering the number of people who count themselves amongst the Lefties, there is surprisingly few willing to join the Labour Party - it is cheap (£3.80/mth - discounts for scrotes and paupers). I suppose it is has to be listed as one of life's great ironies that Lefties are always saying how they support Labour and hate Murdoch, but in reality pay nothing to the former and vast amounts to the latter, in the form of TV subscriptions. They then complain about the right-wing influence of The Sun. That is a very interesting point that you make in terms of membership - and it applies to any political party not just the Labour one. What do you expect from a membership? Take the Tory party for instance, we have seen vast amounts of monies contributed to them (a lot from areas that are surrounded in "mystery" and a lot more from tax avoidance), what exactly are the people donating expecting back? What do the Unions expect back from Labour as one of its biggest backers in terms of finance? I consider myself to be reasonably OK for finance, and know of a lot more people who are wealthy who actively support the Labour party, both members and regular voters, who sometimes find themselves subject to questioning about finance. Why is that? Likewise Murdoch and his empire, many non Tories will in one way or another contribute to the organisation(s) that he oversees, but again where do you stop? Would you not use a JCB for example if you were in that industry for the major amounts of monies that he has contributed to the Tory party? What about the funding that comes from financial "bods" to the Tory party, should / would people move their pensions, and other assets away from these organisations and where do the borders exist to stop this? Good subject matter about why people engage (or not) with politics and the political parties, maybe one for another thread, but it certainly is a good topic rather than not voting Labour because of the appearance of the leader ! As far back as 1927 the forces of capitalism combined to make it a legal requirement for trade union members to opt in to the political levy, to weaken the Trade Unions after the General Strike. This was repealed but re-introduced by Thatcher to achieve the same ends. Most Lefties understood this to be hypocritical because every time you go shopping you can't avoid buying stuff from companies who sponsor the Tories, and there is no opt-out. But no one can deny that boycotts have a greater effect than political appeals, whether it was black folk boycotting the buses in the southern states or scousers boycotting the Sun. And some purchases are definitely avoidable: no one needs Sky. On the subject of the Labour party's meagre membership, it is definitely curious as to why, with 5.7 million public employees seemingly having a vested interest in a Labour government being in power, that so few of them are actually members. If people really want to reduce the influence of big business on government, whether that influence comes from JCB or Bernie Ecclestone, contributing to the Labour party might be a good place to start. People who believe in Labour values can't really complain when the likes of Blair go whoring after sponsors, when they offer no support themselves. Edited November 10, 2014 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 10, 2014 Author Share Posted November 10, 2014 Wonder if the tories will wheel out their man in a chicken costume gimmick... again Doubtful as by then he may be leader of the Labour party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell. The question is, why aren't there more members? According to the Guardian article it took nearly two decades of the Tory jackboot to push the membership up to 405k but as soon as Blair unleashed his miracle, half the members decided not to renew. It looks like people ditch their Labour values as soon as they move into the comfort-zone, even when that comfort-zone has been created by a Labour government. I would cynically conclude that when things are going well for people, they personally take credit for it, and when it goes badly they blame the government. So you could say that by making people more prosperous Labour undermined their own position. Considering the number of people who count themselves amongst the Lefties, there is surprisingly few willing to join the Labour Party - it is cheap (£3.80/mth - discounts for scrotes and paupers). I suppose it is has to be listed as one of life's great ironies that Lefties are always saying how they support Labour and hate Murdoch, but in reality pay nothing to the former and vast amounts to the latter, in the form of TV subscriptions. They then complain about the right-wing influence of The Sun. That is a very interesting point that you make in terms of membership - and it applies to any political party not just the Labour one. What do you expect from a membership? Take the Tory party for instance, we have seen vast amounts of monies contributed to them (a lot from areas that are surrounded in "mystery" and a lot more from tax avoidance), what exactly are the people donating expecting back? What do the Unions expect back from Labour as one of its biggest backers in terms of finance? I consider myself to be reasonably OK for finance, and know of a lot more people who are wealthy who actively support the Labour party, both members and regular voters, who sometimes find themselves subject to questioning about finance. Why is that? Likewise Murdoch and his empire, many non Tories will in one way or another contribute to the organisation(s) that he oversees, but again where do you stop? Would you not use a JCB for example if you were in that industry for the major amounts of monies that he has contributed to the Tory party? What about the funding that comes from financial "bods" to the Tory party, should / would people move their pensions, and other assets away from these organisations and where do the borders exist to stop this? Good subject matter about why people engage (or not) with politics and the political parties, maybe one for another thread, but it certainly is a good topic rather than not voting Labour because of the appearance of the leader ! As far back as 1927 the forces of capitalism combined to make it a legal requirement for trade union members to opt in to the political levy, to weaken the Trade Unions after the General Strike. This was repealed but re-introduced by Thatcher to achieve the same ends. Most Lefties understood this to be hypocritical because every time you go shopping you can't avoid buying stuff from companies who sponsor the Tories, and there is no opt-out. But no one can deny that boycotts have a greater effect than political appeals, whether it was black folk boycotting the buses in the souther states or scousers boycotting the Sun. And some purchases are definitely avoidable: no one needs Sky. On the subject of the Labour party's meagre membership, it is definitely curious as to why, with 5.7 million public employees seemingly having a vested interest in a Labour government being in power, that so few of them are actually members. If people really want to reduce the influence of big business on government, whether that influence comes from JCB or Bernie Ecclestone, contributing to the Labour party might be a good place to start. People who believe in Labour values can't really complain when the likes of Blair go whoring after sponsors, when they offer no support themselves. Trouble is, whoring one or two big donors to stump up a total of £250k, promising them favourable legislative changes, tax relief or patronage, is a damn sight easier than recruiting the 5000+ members you need at less than £50 a year to generate the same amount of cash. 5000 proles giving £3.80 a month are politically of no interest to Labour (or any party for that matter) because those people will still vote members or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Perhaps you should avoid details and just stick to paint and pictures. The Guardian puts the big increase in Labour numbers down to the forming of the coalition in May, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/13/labour-party-record-surge-membership So when Ed became their Leader, Labour had a membership of 193,000 Now they have a membership of 190,000. All these figures are in the Appendix to the Library document I must say that's some spin to claim the membership is rising. Did you do some work for George Osborne, to convince us we got a 50% discount on the EU increase aswell. The question is, why aren't there more members? According to the Guardian article it took nearly two decades of the Tory jackboot to push the membership up to 405k but as soon as Blair unleashed his miracle, half the members decided not to renew. It looks like people ditch their Labour values as soon as they move into the comfort-zone, even when that comfort-zone has been created by a Labour government. I would cynically conclude that when things are going well for people, they personally take credit for it, and when it goes badly they blame the government. So you could say that by making people more prosperous Labour undermined their own position. Considering the number of people who count themselves amongst the Lefties, there is surprisingly few willing to join the Labour Party - it is cheap (£3.80/mth - discounts for scrotes and paupers). I suppose it is has to be listed as one of life's great ironies that Lefties are always saying how they support Labour and hate Murdoch, but in reality pay nothing to the former and vast amounts to the latter, in the form of TV subscriptions. They then complain about the right-wing influence of The Sun. That is a very interesting point that you make in terms of membership - and it applies to any political party not just the Labour one. What do you expect from a membership? Take the Tory party for instance, we have seen vast amounts of monies contributed to them (a lot from areas that are surrounded in "mystery" and a lot more from tax avoidance), what exactly are the people donating expecting back? What do the Unions expect back from Labour as one of its biggest backers in terms of finance? I consider myself to be reasonably OK for finance, and know of a lot more people who are wealthy who actively support the Labour party, both members and regular voters, who sometimes find themselves subject to questioning about finance. Why is that? Likewise Murdoch and his empire, many non Tories will in one way or another contribute to the organisation(s) that he oversees, but again where do you stop? Would you not use a JCB for example if you were in that industry for the major amounts of monies that he has contributed to the Tory party? What about the funding that comes from financial "bods" to the Tory party, should / would people move their pensions, and other assets away from these organisations and where do the borders exist to stop this? Good subject matter about why people engage (or not) with politics and the political parties, maybe one for another thread, but it certainly is a good topic rather than not voting Labour because of the appearance of the leader ! maybe you should have just got a big crayon and written Tory= bad labour = Good on it Companies like JML in it's donation avoided tax .. even the new darling of many Umunna took a donation from a company that specialises in tax avoidance ..( This here is the Labour thread so its even On topic to mention it ) Labour currently receive more donations than the Tory Party ... they receive £8m in Union donations who get Falkirk in return and £7m from the house of commons for being in opposition ... private donations they lag behind the Tory party as you would expect by virtue of them being in opposition and not so influential ... and without doubt influence is what the large donors are buying .. however , I guess before we get too hung up on it , one should also think how many business jolly ups we've been on in our careers where suppliers try to win favour and sweeten deals , same thing is it not , buying influence ? ... Sure with some clients you have to go through a tender process to show that the contract is justifiably being awarded on the basis of the pitch and best practise and not the corporate tickets that went via the decision maker , but the world and his dog knows that the corporate stuff is a big part ... of course Public office should be above that , but it never will be 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure of the sense in including Short money in party 'donations'. Edited November 10, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) maybe you should have just got a big crayon and written Tory= bad labour = Good on it Companies like JML in it's donation avoided tax .. even the new darling of many Umunna took a donation from a company that specialises in tax avoidance ..( This here is the Labour thread so its even On topic to mention it ) Labour currently receive more donations than the Tory Party ... they receive £8m in Union donations who get Falkirk in return and £7m from the house of commons for being in opposition ... private donations they lag behind the Tory party as you would expect by virtue of them being in opposition and not so influential ... and without doubt influence is what the large donors are buying .. however , I guess before we get too hung up on it , one should also think how many business jolly ups we've been on in our careers where suppliers try to win favour and sweeten deals , same thing is it not , buying influence ? ... Sure with some clients you have to go through a tender process to show that the contract is justifiably being awarded on the basis of the pitch and best practise and not the corporate tickets that went via the decision maker , but the world and his dog knows that the corporate stuff is a big part ... of course Public office should be above that , but it never will be Tony you have missed the point completely (and where did I say good / bad to any?) Also to claim that Labour receive more in donations that the Tory party is an interesting claim - it would be good to see where these figures come from and who donates - I appreciate with the Tory party typically that is something that is very often hidden. The key thing was about membership and influence. I do not buy into your idea of a floating set of donations to reflect which party is in office else why would Ashcroft and JCB etc not donate to Labour when they were in power. Likewise why would the union monies flow into Tory party coffers etc. The membership of the political parties and what they expected back was the initial question and as such there seems nothing to indicate what the expectations are both from the members and just as key from the parties themselves. In the past members would seemingly be very key to election campaigns but now we seem more media influence and monies from large donations being used to present negative smear campaigns - another bad thing we have seemingly inherited from the US? Which brings around to the campaign that the right are seemingly running about Milliband (at a time when Cameron was really struggling), where is this coming from, because it as was being shown it does not seem to be from the Labour membership Edited November 10, 2014 by drat01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I'm not sure of the sense in including Short money in party 'donations'. I thought that it was "officially" counted in the donations total ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I'm not sure of the sense in including Short money in party 'donations'. I thought that it was "officially" counted in the donations total ?Separately as 'public funds', I think.Obviously it's right that it's accounted for as money coming in but to lump it in with donations (without also quantifying the benefit to a party of being in government) rather skews things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure of the sense in including Short money in party 'donations'. I thought that it was "officially" counted in the donations total ? Separately as 'public funds', I think. Obviously it's right that it's accounted for as money coming in but to lump it in with donations (without also quantifying the benefit to a party of being in government) rather skews things. Indeed http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans The link above shows the current donation info Political parties' latest donations and borrowing figures - Quarter 2 2014 13-08-2014 Nine political parties registered in Great Britain reported accepting almost £15.5 million in donations between 1 April and 30 June 2014. Seven parties also accepted over£2.5 million from public funds....... more on link Me thinks Tony has just got his copy of the Gideon Osborne guide to spin :-) Edited November 10, 2014 by drat01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I reckon you could swap 90% of the employees of each party and still no one would be the wiser. And people would still back their "side". Labels are powerful things it seems, even if the produce changes half-way through. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 seem Umunna let the cat out the bag earlier , maybe the plan is to swap them and hope nobody notices ? I know from my constituents a united Labour party in ensuring we get Dave, er we get Ed Miliband into Number 10. I know ultimately that's going to make a difference to their lives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2014 How much of the Labour Party membership non-increase was down to the unions signing up every man and his deep fried mars bar in Falkirk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts