Stoner - Member
Harriet has a brilliant idea:
As well as Labour Party members and affiliated supporters like union members, people who pay £3 to become a "registered supporter" can also vote in the contest to replace Mr Miliband.Now, guys, if I give you each £3 you can all vote for Yvette and I can make a killing on my bet, right? OR failing that I'll settle for you voting for Diane Abbott, because I would laugh myself to an early grave.
Excellent! I can vote for Labour Leader. I shall vote for Chukka - make no mistake or Tristram - Baron von commy. Yvette or Mrs Balls might be fine but the entertainment value might not be as good. The rest do not have enough determination but if Diane Abbott go for it then I shall vote for her coz she is very determine and a determine Labour leader is good for entertainment ...
Wooohoo! 😆
Labour! Labour! Labour!
£3 a [s]bet[/s] vote and you register online. That's not open to voter fraud much eh ?
£3? I reckon that's a vote someone with deep pockets could comfortably buy! Farcical.
The tories certainly sell their principles for a much higher price
What what
Its a daft rule
Stella Artois - reassuringly expensive. You get what you pay for in this life 😉
Not sure what the GMB is trying to achieve with its statement's today regarding withdrawing Labour's funding. Guaranty you we'll see those rolled out by the Tories for the 2020 GE campaign
Vote early and vote often comrades. Nice to see the unions being as helpful as ever to the Labour cause.
"We'll pick the labour party leader thanks, or we'll take our ball home. So there!"
I'm sure the right wing press won't be reminding everyone of that on a daily basis once the Fuhrer has been duly anointed 🙄
@binners, I read about it in the Guardian, I really do wonder what these people are thinking making such public statements. Behind the scenes is one thing but saying so publicly is bonkers.
Nice to see the unions being as helpful as ever to the Labour cause.
'ere you go binners. SPiteful right wing press for you 😉
[img]
:large[/img]
Your mate Burnham is Red Ken's chosen one I believe Binners.
Is Andy Burnham the chosen one of the people of Stafford?
I can't believe that the Labour leadership with their "thank you now **** off" attitude is still prepared to take money from the trade unions, have they no shame ?
Unite gave the Labour Party £3.6m in the 6 months before the general election. That's £3.6m to a bunch of Tory-lites who couldn't even win an election ffs.
The sooner the trade unions stop funding the Labour Party and let it go as bankrupt as its "policies" are then the better imo.
Sadly too many people still see the Conservative Party as the problem when real problem is the Labour Party. As long as people carry on thinking that the Labour Party is the solution and don't recognise the fact that it's the problem then no one can really expect anything to progress.
It really is time that unions like Unite changed their rules to allow the political fund to be used beyond just supporting the Labour Party. Financially supporting individuals in the Labour Party is one thing but blanket support for the whole party is plain ridiculous. And why should Scottish trade unions support the Labour Party if their members don't ? It's just a matter of time before the rule changes occur imo.
I am always uncomfortable when there is a government - of any party - without organised and effective opposition.
The sort of things Labour pushed through - IMHO the worst being Gordon Brown's pension tax credit grab which adversely affected a huge number of ordinary people - should have been blocked by effective opposition or, at the very least, been seized upon for immediate condemnation, but the Conservative of the time were virtually absent.
Hariett Harmon is right, Mclusky is bluffing about withdrawing funding. A new party left of Labour would have a zero chance of being elected, zero. its just far too powerful an argument for the tories / Lib Dems to make that any new left wing party is "hard line" and anti aspirational. Union membership has dwindled and whilst they still have significant financial clout it's nothing like it was. They might not like it but the Unions are going to have to work with the Labour Party pretty much as it is. They need to swallow humble pie and acknowledge that they pushed through the wrong candidate. David might have won.
A new party left of Labour would have a zero chance of being elected, zero.
Because of course Scotland proved that 10 days ago. And the Greens proved that in the rest of the UK by quadrupling their vote since 2010 to over a million.
As I've said before the British public, even Tory voters, are to the left of Labour when it comes nationalisation, the single most defining tenet of what is right or left.
Mclusky is bluffing about withdrawing funding
It's not up to him. Unlike the Labour Party the trade unions are democratic organisations. Len McCluskey cannot change rules or make new ones up.
I like Dan Hodges' turn of phrase on this one 🙂
Labour needs this. For years – decades in fact – seismic philosophical, political and ideological differences within the party have been hidden away behind a gradually crumbling façade of “unity”. Gaping wounds have been left to fester. Old scores allowed to go unsettled.
The time to settle them has arrived. Instead of unity, Labour now needs a period of vicious disunity. The gangs must gather. Guns or knives. An old fashioned turf war, with blood on the sidewalk. And, most importantly of all, a winner. A clear winner, someone whom people will rally to and follow. Who wouldn’t want to belong to the Jets!
Obviously, he's not after the same blood on the floor as you, Ernie, but you've got to agree with the sentiment 😉
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/whateveryouwantto****ingcallthem.
I don't know who Dan Hodges is
really?
practically Labour royalty!
practically [s]Labour[/s] 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 -> [i]"He regularly writes a column for The Daily Telegraph and is said to be David Cameron's favourite columnist"[/i]
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 UKIPhow many votes did UKIP get?
What's your point.......that the Greens can't possibly improve their vote because UKIP did better ?
😆
.
Scamper -
[i]"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."[/i]
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.
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.
[img] 
[/img]
Another one down. Anyone would think this was an unattractive job.
[i]We lost our shadow chancellor ... but most people thought we had lost our balls before the election[/i]
Liz Kendell 😀
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/21/liz-kendall-labour-leadership-election ]Guardian Link: fantasy that the country has moved the the left[/url]
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:
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.
