bickster Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 thus guaranteeing that they won't be reelected any time soon. you have noticed that Cameron and Clegg are about as popular as a freshly stood in dog turd right now? The Liberals will lose votes across the board as they are viewed by many as traitorous and the swing voters will again dump the Tories imo. To be fair to Ed Milliband he hasn't got to get involved right now, he can just let the other two parties lose votes on a daily basis without having to stick the knife in, its a keeping your powder dry situation. It'll be a 2 horse race next time again but much much closer. Cameron is doing his level best to lose his party votes (but keeping his backers happy) personally I won't be voting for any of them as you can imagine - all of them are bent, they're in parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Cameron is doing his level best to lose his party votes even though most recent polls show support climbing and even though Cameron has the best approval rating of all the party leaders I swear you are a closet Labourite at times Gareth Pop idol politics the funding and obvious influence of the hedge fund sector ohhh a reference to hedge funds in a thread about the next labour leader ..who'd have thunk it interesting that all labour supporters keep harping on about the same things in unison ..it's like they were working from a crib sheet or something .. no obviously not all we need now is a reference to the House of Lords or something ... From those in the HOC / HOL ahhh , you can almost set your watch by it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 as normal Tony makes no reference to the points raised and tries to deflect with utter rubbish basically. As has been stated on many many times his "joke" picture of Brown and a comment he made re Pop Idol are nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. More deflection as normal from Tony. There are comments made on all of the leaders re their personality rather than substance, hence the tag pop idol politics where people vote not on who is the best. Tony knows this but continues the attempt to take away any discussion regarding the relative merits of the leaders and the parties views Yes Hedge funds are valid, as are the many financial backers of the Tory party, especially when he and fellow Tory supporters are trying to make out elected Unions as having far too much influence. Again massive attempted deflection from Tony for discussing outside influences into political decisions, such as we have seen recently re Cameron and his protection of the largest donators to the Tory party. By all means talk about the Unions but that then has to include references to people who obviously have far more influence on "his" party with their donations and expectations of returns. More deflection re the crib sheet I see. There are Tory members on this board some who have contributed to this thread. They will have seen memo's, "plans of attack" from Tory HQ, if they claim they haven't then they are either telling porkies or need to get on to their leaders because the Net is littered with references to these. Shame that Tony tries to deflect again when these are mentioned. As for me seeing any Labour ones, unless they have been hacked by Coulson and co. and leaked onto the net then I can't see how I would see them. I am not a Labour member, have never been one. Another deflection from the key points by Tony was the HOL / HOC reference, he knows why that reference was made but another shameful attempt to try and deflect away from any sort of consideration. Quite a poor effort from Tony really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 but continues the attempt to take away any discussion regarding the relative merits of the leaders and the parties views so whilst I'm waiting for you to engage and answer my questions from a few pages back about who you think should replace Ed or indeed if he is doing a good job , perhaps you could post regarding the relative merits of the Tory party and it's leader David Cameron ahhh thought so ... We have a Tory thread , surely you can take your crib sheet over to that thread and thus leave this one to a discussion about the labour party and who may or may not replace Ed ... I see Balls is getting quite vocal and making his play , I reckon he may have shot his bolt too early .. suppose a lot depends on if he can convince the Unions to back him I suppose the other burning question this thread raises though ... Is deflection the new Hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 My comment earlier in the thread about the unions influence was not that members shouldn't have a vote on the leader of the Labour Party - after all the PLP exists (or did) to serve as the political vehicle of organised labour - but the influence that certain powerful leaders had on the conduct of the contest. The reasons for that, although only from one source, are set out very clearly. That has been twisted into an assertion that non Labour people object to union members having a vote on the Labour leadership, which is nonsense. They will have seen memo's, "plans of attack" from Tory HQ, if they claim they haven't then they are either telling porkies or need to get on to their leaders because the Net is littered with references to these. First I've heard but then I'm not a party member or trying to push the agenda of an individual party. *awaits sarcastic comment about those who have lived overseas for a few months not understanding anything about the UK* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 They will have seen memo's, "plans of attack" from Tory HQ, if they claim they haven't then they are either telling porkies or need to get on to their leaders because the Net is littered with references to these. I missed this little gem , so not sure who it is from but I can state on my childrens life and indeed the life of every person in my family that I am unaware of any such "plan of attack" to my knowledge it's only been referred to here on VT courtesy of left foot forward reposts .. I don't actively visit the tory party web site ( though i did during the last election to view the manifesto as I also did the libs and labour party ) and tbh I've not seen it referenced on any of the news sites that I visit ( usually whatever comes up on google news ).. perhaps the poster would be decent enough to withdraw the "liar" comment ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 seems it's not just in England where the institutional vote over rides the democratic vote JOHANN Lamont yesterday began her first full day as the new leader of Scottish Labour After the result was revealed on Saturday, it emerged that her closest rival for the job, MSP Ken Macintosh, had received more votes from the grassroots than she had. The former teacher and MSP for Glasgow Pollok, received 51 per cent of the total vote, winning marginally more votes among MSPs, MEPs and MPs. But it was the huge support from affiliated unions that clinched it for her. Macintosh, the MSP for East Renfrewshire, who got 40 per cent of the total vote, was supported by 17.7 per cent of party members’ votes, compared with Lamont’s 12.2 per cent. But he won only 8.8 per cent of the union vote, while 21.8 per cent voted for his rival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 ...because I don't think Labour deserves to run the country for the foreseeable future after the disastrous reins of Blair and Brown. Nor do I. Though to be honest my mentality is that "deserving" to run the country is not how I vote. I don't think any of the parties "deserve" a go. If I'm honest, I base it on being least bad - Like having to let someone out of prison, you'd pick the thief over the murderer, but that doesn't mean the thief "deserves" to be let out. I also don't think there's actually much difference, really, between Labour and Tory in terms of what they do. There's enough of a difference to make an impact on a lot of people, but I see them as only about 5% different from each other. That said, the tories are the worse of the two (or 3 if you count the LDs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 seems it's not just in England where the institutional vote over rides the democratic vote The piece you quote directly contradicts your assertion. It says she got an overall majority, and won two of the three electoral colleges. Yet you assert that "the institutional vote", by which you mean the unions, overrides the others. It's demonstrably untrue, you clearly know it to be untrue, and yet you say it anyway. Further, Blandy has explained that union members vote as individuals, not en bloc, and yet you imply that this group is institutional and not democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 And in other news the X-Factor isn't rigged either A complaint from the left was that Ashcroft money was used to influence the election funny that influence only works when it's used by anything Tory related.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 That's a bonkers post, Tony. Surely you don't mean it? How can thousands of individual voters, each of whom pay a tiny sum each week or month to donate to Labour and thus get a very small vote in a Election done uder ERS rules, compare to one bloke who donates hugh sums, millions and millions and gets huge influence as a result without being open, without there being any election or any democratic process at all? That's just truly a bizarre thing to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 but continues the attempt to take away any discussion regarding the relative merits of the leaders and the parties views so whilst I'm waiting for you to engage and answer my questions from a few pages back about who you think should replace Ed or indeed if he is doing a good job , perhaps you could post regarding the relative merits of the Tory party and it's leader David Cameron ahhh thought so ... We have a Tory thread , surely you can take your crib sheet over to that thread and thus leave this one to a discussion about the labour party and who may or may not replace Ed ... I see Balls is getting quite vocal and making his play , I reckon he may have shot his bolt too early .. suppose a lot depends on if he can convince the Unions to back him I suppose the other burning question this thread raises though ... Is deflection the new Hypocrisy More deflection eh Tony? Teflon coated too :-) I didn't see your previous question, I can't remember it but you must have written it - I do have a job you know. Going on what you have written that is such a loaded question, who should replace Milliband would therefore mean that I wanted him replacing? As it stands he is leading the Labour party. Cameron is a marketing man, Miliband is not. Cameron (backed by the millions that Ashcroft and co have specifically earmarked for this) uses soundbite and spin to try and avoid any questioning of policies and actions. Milliband does not have that luxury and even if he did it would be better if he was judged on what he thought not on how he looked in an airbrushed poster. What's this rubbish re a crib sheet? As said, unlike some who are active Tory party members and hold office as Tory elected political figures, I am nothing more that a keen watcher and listener to all aspects of political chat. As said many times, the Labour party (not any individual) still as its main principles and policies things that are of benefit for me, my family and what I see as of benefit for society in general. See Tony, like many Tory supporters you spent ages on here going on about this and that re the Tory party when they were in opposition. Interestingly now that they have got into number 10, rules that you wanted in place re how they operated and how we discuss them are conveniently forgotten or answered with a "ahh but Labour". Maybe if you were consistent we could avoid this repeated post of me pointing out how you deflect and hypocrisy on certain points. It aint hard. As said previously I find it very interesting the Tory supporters apparent mass interest in this subject, the fact that a leading Tory in certain circles started this thread and that an agenda of attacking the unions seems to be the undercurrent, and as said it conveniently fits in with a lot of what Tory HQ has supposedly - according to Internet blogs etc - been telling the party faithful to do. Why no thread re Who would be the next LibDem (if they exist) or the next Tory / UKIP / SNP leaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyjsg Posted December 21, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 21, 2011 As said previously I find it very interesting the Tory supporters apparent mass interest in this subject, the fact that a leading Tory in certain circles started this thread and that an agenda of attacking the unions seems to be the undercurrent, and as said it conveniently fits in with a lot of what Tory HQ has supposedly - according to Internet blogs etc - been telling the party faithful to do. This made me laugh alot. It's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy... Do you think people follow you home and watch you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 As said previously I find it very interesting the Tory supporters apparent mass interest in this subject we also have all posted in the Christmas thread does this mean elf HQ has been lobbying us ?? ( we all post in all the bolitics threads not just this one btw) Why no thread re Who would be the next LibDem Well we have a "Condem" thread and I did indeed post in that very thread that Huhne appeared to be making a play for leader , i didn't feel it warranted it's own thread but I'm happy to do so if you wish That's a bonkers post, Tony. Surely you don't mean it? How can thousands of individual voters, each of whom pay a tiny sum each week or month to donate to Labour and thus get a very small vote in a Election done uder ERS rules, compare to one bloke who donates hugh sums, millions and millions and gets huge influence as a result without being open, without there being any election or any democratic process at all? That's just truly a bizarre thing to say well it was someone defending labour that brought Ashcroft up in this thread so i had to assume there was some form of direct correlation , else why bring him up ?? At the time of the leadership election Radio 5 live had union member listeners phoning in saying they had been receiving multiple phone calls and letters from their Union steering them towards voting for Ed ....I don't know if those calls were funded with the £100k Unite donated for example or if those calls were coming from another fund but the consensus was that Ed was where they were being steered towards I don't doubt those people had freedom to vote where they wanted aspect as you outlined previously ..in much the same way that people in constituency where Ashcrofts money was spent on pushing the Tory candidate it was still down to an individuals persons choice when it came to putting their "X" .... so no not bizarre at all in my opinion ....I was trying to show the influence that money had (ie the Unions and Ashcroft if you like) maybe I didn't explain it as well as I intended but I was waiting at the airport for the family to get back from Hungary and time wasn't on my side interestingly Unite then donated £770,247.50 the day Ed was elected leader ,now I do like a good conspiracy but timing is everything isn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thanks for expanding. I still don't think the comparison is valid. Lord Ashcroft, a single non-UK domiciled individual, threw millions at targetted marginal seats in the last General election, in order to try and affect the results in those places, to get a tory MP in each one. He also obviously threw millions into central Tory HQ. A single person being able to influence the outcome of a national election via his wealth. This is not the same as Union(s) with collected money from their multitude of individual members funding various MPs expenses in internal party elections, or indeed passing on those individual donations to Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 that's fair enough ... out of interest Pete /anyone .. do you think that Unite (or whoever) should have been able to use funds (which I assume were raised by donations from it's members ) to fund a leadership contestant ..should it have donated equally to all of them / not at all for example ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 That's a good question. I think that any/all candidates who in essence "signs up" to sharing the aims of the Union, should be able to be funded by the Union. By the aims - I mean things like defending workers’ jobs and conditions and so on and to share the aim of having Labour policies which bring workers protection, security, equality and all those good thing. Where I'm less comfortable, I suppose, is where (hypothetically) a Union might have an aim of having Labour policy set or changed in an area where it's got little or nothing to do with the Union's members - an example might be, say, support for, I dunno, stuff in Nicaragua, South Africa, Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or Israel or wherever. While I might share (or not) the Union views on such matters, I don't know that the Union should be able to wield influence on Gov't/(currently opposition) policy in these areas in the same way or to the same extent as they should in terms of looking after their members rights. It might be seen as a necessary thing to counter, say the way Barclay's (or whoever) have influence, but it makes me uncomfortable, because I want my Union leadership to concentrate on the thing the Union was formed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 that's fair enough ... out of interest Pete /anyone .. do you think that Unite (or whoever) should have been able to use funds (which I assume were raised by donations from it's members ) to fund a leadership contestant ..should it have donated equally to all of them / not at all for example ... You put it as though they ought to be impartial. I would say instead that they have a clear duty to their members to assess the stances of the various candidates and form a judgement on which will be most similar to the union's stance, and recommend that person to the members. The same as they have a duty to carry out assessments and make recommendations on which court cases to fight, which pay deals to accept, and so on. But they should be fully accountable for those decisions. Examples of where power was wielded without appropriate responsibility include the electricians' union ages ago (that was fine by the popular press, as it was a right-wing clique which ran it), and more recently the appalling Roger Lyons in what was then MSF. The unions are not without blemish, but in terms of openness and accountability in respect of how they seek to influence their chosen political party, they are on a different planet to Ashcroft and the hedge fund billionaires who instruct the Tory party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2011 I swear you are a closet Labourite at times Gareth Nah just a left leaning (with bits of right assuming there's no actual centre) free thinker, who hates the concept of political parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You put it as though they ought to be impartial. at leadership election time then yes I guess I am saying that ... surely the fairest way would have been to donate an equal amount to all the candidates (well maybe less to Balls as he clearly can't count and wouldn't have noticed :winkold:) I would say instead that they have a clear duty to their members to assess the stances of the various candidates and form a judgement on which will be most similar to the union's stance, and recommend that person to the members. I've no idea how they work in that regard ... was it a ballot amongst members on who they should back or did a few of the top dogs in unite make that decision on behalf of it's members and then cough up the £100k ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts