The Greens got a million votes? As in a whole million? Better go back and prepare for government then.

I don’t know who Dan Hodges is but I don’t recognise the Labour Party he speaks of. IME what remains of the left within the Labour Party has pretty much given up. Former active left-wingers in the Labour Party that I previously knew have mostly simply drifted away, those who remain appear to be realistic enough to realise that there isn’t much chance of the party being won back.

Besides, the right-wing cabal who control the Labour Party would never allow such a thing to happen. The whole process is geared to smoothly pass the baton from one New Labour clone to the next, with the minimum amount of fuss.

Only MPs can nominate the candidates, not anyone else in the party, and in this election it will require 35 MPs. There is no reason for this at all beyond ensuring that everything is stacked against those hostile to New Labour/Blairites/aspirational tories/whateveryouwanttofeckingcallthem.

I don’t know who Dan Hodges is

really?

practically Labour royalty!

practically Labour Blairite royalty!

Not going to be on Ernie’s xmas card list.

The Greens got a million votes? As in a whole million? Better go back and prepare for government then.

Yes good point. The Greens got half the amount of votes a party which less than 2 weeks ago was in the government got.

They might not quadruple their vote again in the next 5 year like they did in the last 5 but if they just double it that could allow them to be a coalition partner in the next government.

Good point thanks for making it 🙂

Dan Hodges -> google -> “He regularly writes a column for The Daily Telegraph and is said to be David Cameron’s favourite columnist”

Which probably helps to explain why I’ve never read anything by him, although tbf as a rule I don’t read Guardian columnists either, I find the whole business of being a columnist a little strange.

And it would appear that Dan Hodges isn’t currently a member of the Labour Party, that lack of commitment certainly suggests ‘Blairite royalty’. I wonder if he’s paid his 3 quid for a supporters vote ?

Ernie, I thought the Greens didn’t go in for coalition, even if some Party left of Labour was found to do a deal with?

They might not quadruple their vote again in the next 5 year like they did in the last 5 but if they just double it that could allow them to be a coalition partner in the next government.

or you compare against UKIP

how many votes did UKIP get?

How many second places?

How do the Greens compare?

Is a little confirmation bias occurring here with your expectations of the Green breakthrough???

or you compare against UKIP

how many votes did UKIP get?

What’s your point…….that the Greens can’t possibly improve their vote because UKIP did better ?

😆

.

Scamper –

“Unless we break free of tribal politics and work together to fight austerity, and promote crucial, common-sense climate policies, we’re faced with an incredibly bleak political future. For the sake of all those who’ll suffer most at the hands of the Tories, we must rethink our relations and recognise the importance of our common ground.

That should include shared platforms and case-by-case electoral pacts, to build a strong progressive alliance to challenge the Tories over the next five years.”

Caroline Lucas May 9, 2015

http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/caroline-cross-party-progressives-must-work-together

Quite an about turn From what the Leader of the Greens was saying 2 days earlier, although nothing wrong with that with a new election cycle. That’s the easy bit in the left of labour revolution.

Tristram Hunt speech interesting

http://www.demos.co.uk/press_releases/the-forward-march-of-labour

Thanks ninfan interesting speech indeed.

On a bit of a tangent I am not sure the people of Liverpool or Manchester would agree London is the sporting capital of the UK 😉

I’d like to see a female leader, and that looks more and more likely, but how the Neanderthals running the unions will react will be interesting, as will how a female party leader’s handling of them.

The General Secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, is very much a woman.

Another one down. Anyone would think this was an unattractive job.

We lost our shadow chancellor … but most people thought we had lost our balls before the election

Liz Kendell 😀

Guardian Link: fantasy that the country has moved the the left

and the party should back any successful school, regardless of its structure

Blimey, we might be getting somewhere at last

Dammit my two nominations have withdrawn from the leadership contest …

Ok … keep calm more entertainers please … 😆

Good to see man of the people Andy Burnham is the latest MP to be caught in the dubious expenses list –

Andy Burnham rents out his own flat in London for profit and puts the other fly in London he lives in on expenses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11627101/Andy-Burnham-claims-17000-a-year-on-expenses-for-London-flat.html

The only folk interested on this thread are the right whingers

what is dubious about it ? Do you have another 5 minutes to explain?
He was forced to do it due to rule changes and will happily revert if the rules allow. He broke no laws nor no rules.
All we have is some right whingers flinging mud at a labour leader candidate on here and in a tory broadsheet for not breaking some rules.
Is that the best dirt they managed to drag up on him?
Andy Burnham he does what parliament says he has to…..damnig eh 5 minutes…damning.

Does the flat have a duck house, or need it’s moat cleaning?

He stayed true to his roots Binners and he charged them £12 k for stone cladding and a Skip for the back yard

what is dubious about it ? Do you have another 5 minutes to explain?
He was forced to do it due to rule changes and will happily revert if the rules allow. He broke no laws nor no rules.

So he could live in the property he owned and pay the mortgage out his salary like most people do. Or he move into a rented flat and have the taxpayer pay his housing costs instead.

He may not have broken the rules but that doesn’t make it right.

MPs have to have two homes [ one at westminster and one in their constituency] and the state pays for one of them as they are doing here. Most people dont have to do this in work and its the reason we cover it for MP’s. If you object to that bit then fair enough but you only seem to object to him doing what every MP[ including the millionaires] , with two homes, who claims is doing. I imagine almost every MP is doing this [ claiming expenses for one property]

Given the rule change I assume it means they can only rent somewhere and not buy two [ benefit in kind??] but I am happy to be corrected.

Its just a really crap politically motivated attempt at a smear.

Fair point if he was claiming for one in Leigh and owned one in London, or v-v

But these are both in central London!

Whoosh

Read the link understand the point being made.

MPs have to have two homes [ one at westminster and one in their constituency]

Funny how he didn’t need the second one until the taxpayer wouldn’t pay his mortgage. MPs need a second home only if their constituency is outside London.

Just greed. I’d rather have MPs that did what was right not what they could get away with within the rules.

Just greed. I’d rather have MPs that did what was right not what they could get away with within the rules.

+1

it is another fudge they should have clamped down on when they tightened the rules. He just wants to be another MP made into a property Millionaire by the taxpayer, just like lots of others on all sides of the house

MPs used to get morgatge payments for 2nd properties this was disallowed you could only get expenses to rent. Those MPs who already had bought homes decided to rent them out on the open market or even in some cases to other MPs then rent a property for themselves. A lot of these properties had mortgages on them so the only other thing would happen is once the rules changed then MPs would have sold up and rented anyway. Makes almost no difference to tax payers.

Steady now dont be spoiling the right wing frothing by introducing some facts to the debate and explaining the situation to them

Funny how he didn’t need the second one until the taxpayer wouldn’t pay his mortgage.

What do you think they were paying his second mortgage on 😆
CLUE: his second home 🙄
he did need a second home didnt he and the rules preclude him owning it he can only rent. He had no choice but to rent somewhere

MPs need a second home only if their constituency is outside London.

Actually not true [ 20 miles or one hours commute – it should be the case though] Given his is 200 miles away just north of Manchester [ ok its in greater Manchester] I am not sure why you said this. 😕

Just greed. I’d rather have MPs that did what was right not what they could get away with within the rules.

Greed claiming rent 😕
What exactly do you think is right then? all MPs pay for two homes out of salary? Many poeple get work expenses this is one MPs get . If you dislike it change the rule rather than ibject to one of hundreds who does this.

He just wants to be another MP made into a property Millionaire by the taxpayer

Given he rents somewhere at taxpayers expenses it does not strike me as an effective method of achieving this. The desire to score a politically motivated point has led to some rather amusing statements.That is just brilliant

There is much in politics to dislike but this really is desperation tactics here How many Mps do you think do this ?
You are getting cross at someone not breaking the rules and not making any money just because you dislike the party he represents.

I am very far from being a supporter of Andy Burnham but the criticism of his arrangements viz his flat seem to me entirely misplaced.
The point of the second home allowance is to compensate MPs whose constituency is a given distance from Westminster for costs incurred by dint of their becoming an MP and as a result incurring additional living expenses.
Expecting Andy Burnham to stop renting out his London flat that he has bought personally would cause him additional cost as a result of a loss of rental income and that cannot be right (why should he incur such a cost just because he decided to buy a flat in London whereas any other MP who owns a second home outside of London, or has the equivalent value other forms of investment, does not suffer a cost?).
Indeed he would be entirely within his rights to sell the London flat immediately thus making the entire argument irrelevant.

Indeed he would be entirely within his rights to sell the London flat immediately thus making the entire argument irrelevant.

He could have done it when they changed the rules. But he didn’t.

Instead he rents out the expensive capital asset acquired via public funds and accommodates himself down the road funded by the taxpayer. If he sells he gets hit by capital gains tax.

This happens across party lines as a legacy of the expenses scandals and stinks.

The point of the second home allowance is to compensate MPs whose constituency is a given distance from Westminster for costs incurred by dint of their becoming an MP and as a result incurring additional living expenses.

Agreed, so why does he need two properties in London?

What additional expenses is he incurring?

The system is designed to cover the additional cost of having to live in two different places – If he owned a flat in London and rented one in Leigh, or vice versa, and spent time at both, then nobody would raise an eyebrow, that’s what it’s for – instead Burnham is living in one flat for free and renting the other out.

ninfan – Member
What additional expenses is he incurring?

The system is designed to cover the additional cost of having to live in two different places – If he owned a flat in London and rented one in Leigh, or vice versa, and spent time at both, then nobody would raise an eyebrow, that’s what it’s for – instead Burnham is living in one flat for free and renting the other out.

Ok lets consider this you get a new job at a company that requires you to carry out duties at two locations that are beyond commuting distance from each other. You already have a dwelling at one of those locations which you rent out as an investment. Are you saying upon getting this job you should either be forced to sell this property or lose the rent income from it?

why does he need two properties in London?

He does not need two – do you [ or all the other Tories here] have a problem with property ownership all of a sudden

He can only claim rent so he got the second one so he would not be out of pocket on account of his work commitments as he could no longer claim for the mortgage
What he does with his property is his business. It appears the Tories on here want to be all state interventionist and to deny a person the right to own property as its unfair. Have you all undergone an epiphany? In that case welcome aboard comrades

instead Burnham is living in one flat for free and renting the other out.

And?

Even if he sells the other one the State saves not one penny and it costs the state not one penny for him to own two flats or fifty two flats.
What is your point caller?

What is your point caller?

I’m not following either the thread’s latest resurrection nor the Telegraph’s “story” with regards to Andy Burnham’s accommodation arrangements (neither of which grabs me as likely to be interesting) but judging by who the poster is I suspect his point is that Labour politicians are all money-grabbing hypocrites.

While in contrast Tory politicians, of which he is an ardent supporter, are genuine and honest individuals who are selflessly committed to serving others, no matter what the personal cost to themselves is.

Am I right big and daft……..is that your point ?

Well, according to Ipsos MORI, Stewart Lewis is in with a shot!

Source

😀

I think it should be Jeremy Corbyn.

I mean love him or hate him he was pretty successful on Top Gear right?

His odds have gone from 100/1 to 12/1 in a couple of days. Even at 12/1 I think he’s a good bet. If there is any type of public debate Andy will get flustered and Yvette will bore.

Its all a bit vauxhall conferenece aint it? Or early rounds of the F.A cup and the proper candidates will get involved at a later stage.

Andy Burnham SHOULD be the Leader but it’ll be Yvette Cooper. All the warmth of a house without a roof on a rainy winter day.