Cameron will 100% get in again, this time without the need for the Lib Dems, come the next election the economy will be growing again, tax cuts will be given to the middle classes, the debt will be almost non existent, the tabloids will destroy Ed

 

I think Cameron will get in with a majority of about 70

 

Well, taking into account the fact you overestimated the Tories' results this year by 100 seats, looks like we can take from your prediction that Labour will be in next time with a comfortable majority!

Also, I hope the rumours that Ed is offering David the shadow chancellorship are wrong. Balls NEEDS that spot, he would be spectacular. I'd be quite happy for David to stay shadow foreign secretary.

Well, taking into account the fact you overestimated the Tories' results this year by 100 seats, looks like we can take from your prediction that Labour will be in next time with a comfortable majority!

 

Just because I got one thing wrong doesn't mean I get everything wrong ;)

 

The election result was unfortunate but I remember the stick I got in the run up to 1992 when I said Major would win the election when every pundit and workmate said Kinnock had it in the bag, I was right :)

Just because I got one thing wrong doesn't mean I get everything wrong ;)

 

The election result was unfortunate but I remember the stick I got in the run up to 1992 when I said Major would win the election when every pundit and workmate said Kinnock had it in the bag, I was right :)

 

Your conclusion is completely illogical. If the Tories couldn't win this time, Labour are obviously the clear favourites to win next time, given they'll have a leader who is by any measure more likeable than Gordon Brown, they'll be free from the shackles of 13 years of government, they won't have to fight against another mainstream economically-progressive party and of course they'll be up against a government who've destroyed the economy and public services and sent unemployment spiralling.

By the way, I like what Phil Woollas has to say about this:

 

it is argued that unions cant advise their members how to vote but the press can tell their readers who to vote for

Also, given the close margin of victory, it's arguable that it was actually support from Blair and Mandelson that lost it for David. David's decision to help Diane Abbott onto the ballot paper, thus bringing a load of hard-lefties into voting who might not otherwise have done (almost all of whom would've made Ed their Mili-preference), was a bit of an unforced error aswell.

But a lot of those were union members who are not members of the Labour party, union members are probably a mixture of all 3 parties so why should a tory or a lib dem get a vote in deciding who becomes Labour leader ?

 

If 30,000 more MEMBERS had voted for Ed then that is fine

 

I am delighted at the result, best possible result for the tories bar Diane Abbott winning the leadership so I have no complaints about the result but the system labour have is retarded

Only members who pay the political levy get a vote. So, while they may not be Labour Party members, they are at least supporters.

I wonder what the answers of "mainstream Britain" would be to the question "who will replace the rich/big businesses/bankers when they have all left the country to go to nations with lower tax"

Right. Boris Johnson claimed the 50% top rate of tax would drive 9,000 City workers to Switzerland: the rate of workers leaving fell by 9 per cent. Clearly not all these bankers are quite so eager to sniff out the cheapest place to live and work. I don't know about you Craig, but I'd think that these people are human too, and prefer to fit their money around their lives rather than their lives around their money.

Just because I got one thing wrong doesn't mean I get everything wrong ;)

 

The election result was unfortunate but I remember the stick I got in the run up to 1992 when I said Major would win the election when every pundit and workmate said Kinnock had it in the bag, I was right :)

The next election won't be like 1992. It'll be more like 1983 had the Labour-SDP split and the Falklands War both not happened - which would've led to a Labour government given Thatcher was massively unpopular until the Falklands War due to high inflation and unemployment. Unless Cameron can find a war that can actually help his standing amongst the populace and that he can win decisively in six or fewer weeks, we're almost certainly getting Labour in at the next election if the economy remains tanked.

Cameron will 100% get in again, this time without the need for the Lib Dems, come the next election the economy will be growing again, tax cuts will be given to the middle classes, the debt will be almost non existent, the tabloids will destroy Ed

 

I think Cameron will get in with a majority of about 70

You'd think that, but we're going pretty much the same way as Japan in the 90s by the looks of the confidence figures so far, and that's before the main cuts have even been announced. If that happens, a Labour return is pretty much guaranteed, to say nothing of a landslide.

 

(P.S., didn't the tabloids destroying Gordon do such a fine job?)

But a lot of those were union members who are not members of the Labour party, union members are probably a mixture of all 3 parties so why should a tory or a lib dem get a vote in deciding who becomes Labour leader ?

 

If 30,000 more MEMBERS had voted for Ed then that is fine

 

I am delighted at the result, best possible result for the tories bar Diane Abbott winning the leadership so I have no complaints about the result but the system labour have is retarded

Because only members who opt into the political levy got a vote. I don't see why a member would pay the political levy for a union that was affiliated with Labour if they were a Tory - these are all supporters of the Party, if not members as I said earlier.

By the way, I like what Phil Woollas has to say about this:

 

it is argued that unions cant advise their members how to vote but the press can tell their readers who to vote for

Indeed, but Phil Woolas? Really? :(

Because only members who opt into the political levy got a vote. I don't see why a member would pay the political levy for a union that was affiliated with Labour if they were a Tory - these are all supporters of the Party, if not members as I said earlier.

I've tried saying that several times but you know what Craig is like with facts. If he doesn't like them he ignores them. If he doesn't know them he makes them up. I'm surprised he isn't a Sun journalist.

Indeed, but Phil Woolas? Really? :(

You'd have thought that the Labour leadership would have advised him to maintain silence until the outcome of his court case is known.

I've tried saying that several times but you know what Craig is like with facts. If he doesn't like them he ignores them. If he doesn't know them he makes them up. I'm surprised he isn't a Sun journalist.

 

What happens with someone who is a member of the union and pays this levy and is also a member of the Labour party does he get TWO votes ?

What happens with someone who is a member of the union and pays this levy and is also a member of the Labour party does he get TWO votes ?

Indeed, this is nothing new. I'm not going to defend it, and would prefer one-member-one-vote (but not because of the affiliates situation - mainly because of the situation whereby an MP's vote is worth 608 times that of a member because they get their own college).

 

On the subject, it is AFFILIATES, not unions. Unions make up about half of the affiliates section, which also includes the Fabian Society, LGBT Labour, etc.etc. - so it's not a case of Ed being in 'the pocket of the unions'.

What happens with someone who is a member of the union and pays this levy and is also a member of the Labour party does he get TWO votes ?

Yes, and if they're also an MP they get three. It's nothing to do with me but I would have thought one member, one vote - with, perhaps, a way of giving levy payers who are not members half a vote - would be more sensible.

I'd have affiliate members who pay the political levy become automatic members, in all honesty...

I'd have affiliate members who pay the political levy become automatic members, in all honesty...

How much is the levy?

How much is the levy?

I think it varies, but the TSSA have it at 3.5% of their subscription, and membership for LGBT Labour was £8 when I joined - but I WAS unwaged/student (the equivalent to join Labour is £1 in the first year - except I've paid that for two...)