[Archived] Part Of New Labour'S Election Strategy

[yoda]

Get Gloria De Piero elected in a safe seat

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254518/Gloria-De-Piero-lined-Hoons-seat.html

now hands up, who would!

[yoda]

the bbc today

Chancellor Alistair Darling has welcomed revised GDP figures

well theres one who would then

[Paul]

Do you have a point here? If it's a political one then be aware the Conservative party are taking a similar approach with female candidates. The major difference being the Daily Mail won't be publicising the fact or at least will present the item with a different slant.

[yoda]

Do you have a point here? If it's a political one then be aware the Conservative party are taking a similar approach with female candidates. The major difference being the Daily Mail won't be publicising the fact or at least will present the item with a different slant.

Then it should be highlighted,

jobs for the boys or girl in this case

politics are a sham in the UK at the moment

[Paul]

Then it should be highlighted,

It is highlighted - for The Tories by The Guardian / Independent, for Labour by The Mail / Telegraph. It has always been so and probably always will be. This is the problem with the media in this country, there is no balance. Stick a picture of an attractive woman in the paper and turn it into a minor story for the blue rinse brigade.

jobs for the boys or girl in this case

Cameron is doing exactly the same thing and there are Tory constituencies who are equally unhappy about the selection procedures and female only lists. You have to read a different paper for this story.

politics are a sham in the UK at the moment

True

[sleepyjack]

Do you have a point here? If it's a political one then be aware the Conservative party are taking a similar approach with female candidates. The major difference being the Daily Mail won't be publicising the fact or at least will present the item with a different slant.

The Daily Mail's slant is always a salacious one, trumping even their ridiculous politics. See the hilarious Buff The Banana with Paul Dacre.

Regarding De Piero, she's been a Labour Party member for 15 years and campaigned for them before her media career. It's not the cleverest of moves to just throw her into an election, but it's hardly unexpected. Political parties could take dumps on each other's lawns and it wouldn't make the front pages.

Personally I'd have Wayne Bridge take over Labour; that's the election in the bag.

(edit: did I say del Piero? Wrong forum...)

[Paul]

Anne Marie Morris is the conservative candidate for Newton Abbot. According to her the Conservatives have placed 80 female candidates in "winnable " seats. Jobs for the girls? The following is a recennt letter to the Times

Women in the Conservative Party

Anne Marie joins other women Conservative Parliamentary candidates challenging in signing a letter to The Times challenging allegations made about the number of women selected to fight seats at the next General Election.

Dear Sir,

We are writing to challenge the facts and underlying tone that informed your article on women in the Conservative Party yesterday (April 28th).

First the facts. You state 69 of selected parliamentary candidates are women. In fact eighty women have been selected, most of us selected in winnable constituencies. If the Conservatives are elected with an overall majority of just one seat we will have 55 Conservative women MPs. More than a threefold increase over the current number of 17 women MPs.

Your article makes the point that there is only one female Conservative member of the European Parliament (MEP). The party recognises that this gross under representation is unacceptable and has taken steps to remedy the situation in the forthcoming European elections. David Cameron insisted that when our MEP candidates were selected the woman with the highest number of votes in each region would automatically secure the slot below the sitting MEP on the list.

The results of this intervention will be clear after the European elections. We estimate that seven women will be elected as Conservative MEPs and the number could be even greater. Thus the situation with regard to female Conservative representation in Brussels will be dramatically improved after June 4th.

Finally on facts, you state that there are three women on the board of the Conservative Party when there are in fact four. Female board representation in the Conservative Party is a great deal better than it is in the vast majority of British publicly quoted companies.

With so many facts awry it is not surprising that the overall tone of the piece was unduly negative; gratuitously undermining of the very real advances made within the party under David Cameron’s leadership. To dismiss the number of women in the Shadow Cabinet as ‘just seven’ is ludicrous. As you yourselves state within the current Conservative Parliamentary Party there are only seventeen women. It is a sign of how committed to women’s advancement David Cameron is that more than 40% of our women MPs are in the Shadow Cabinet.

There is more to be done of course to increase female representation at all levels of public life. The Conservative Party have overhauled its selection procedures and made great strides in the selection of women candidates. We have a greater challenge ahead and that is to encourage more women to come forward to stand for election. A cause not helped by the distorted version of the truth that appeared in your columns yesterday.

Yours sincerely,

Margot James

Priti Patel

Helen Grant

Andrea Leadsom

Harriett Baldwin

Jane Ellison

Amber Rudd

Lorraine Fullbrook

Anne Marie Morris

[yoda]

Well it looks like the next election is going to be sold using sex then

[Paul]

Well it looks like the next election is going to be sold using sex then

Just publishing the photographs and an MB poll would be quicker and cheaper..............

[thenodrog]

May as well carry this topic forward.....

Whilst Millibands tub thumping may appeal to the more impressionable I was way less than impressed. This was the speech of a career politician and NOT a leader of merit. Someone who appears to have misunderstood the requirements of a British Prime Minister. He's like the weak kneed kid in the playground who as soon as a scrap kicks off goes to ground in surrender. We want a leader who will stand toe to toe with opponents and slug it out. Sod a saving money policy by scratting around the energy companies and the housing market how about getting out there in the brave new world and damned well making some. There is plenty about thats for sure. This country needs a hunter killer in a sharp suit not a parsimonious housewife counting pennies in a pinny.

Diddy David's two main were targets Housing and Energy which brings me to one or two immediate observations....

1. Housing

Milliband reckons that Labour will one day act as some latter day Robin Hood by making ever more houses for the poor and taking land off developers who don't develop it immediately. Has he considered that more houses mean falling house prices? Effectively as most individuals wealth is in bricks and mortar he is effectively proposing to devalue everybodies retirement pot / life savings. Coming on the back of the last Labour PM robbing peoples pensions and with ever more people living past 65 that is not the wisest political move I would suggest.

Furthermore I'm sure that if property prices fall there will be even less incentive for property developers to build at a loss. A proper leader would be asking why with a continually falling indigenous population why we need to build any more homes at all? By definition new houses can only be for immigrants and economic migrants can't they?

Not finished with all that he's attacking the one recent policy that is eminently sensible, the bedroom tax. Never mind the people who will have to move out to smaller council houses or pay extra but is not the bedroom tax a fair and obvious first move to solve what he described frequently as the housing 'crisis'? To provide homes for young families? Am I right to suspect that Little David sees this as another Poll Tax scenario to discredit and derail a sound policy by constant mud slinging.

Verdict ......Fail

2. Energy....

The BIg 5 companies in this country in order of market share are as follows...... Please note the dates that they were sold off to foreign owners and consider who formed the government at the time.

Centrica... British Gas PLC demerged on 17 February 1997 to form two separate companies: Centrica plc and BG plc.

In January 2006, it was rumoured that the Russian state-owned utility company Gazprom was seeking a takeover of Centrica. This created controversy in the media, while the Department for Trade and Industry stated any deal would be subject to "intense scrutiny". Tony Blair announced in April that he would not block any potential deal.

^EDF EDF Energy Customers (trading as EDF Energy) is wholly owned by the French state-owned EDF SA (Électricité de France) and was formed in 2002 following the acquisition and mergers of Seeboard PLC (formerly the South Eastern Electricity Board), London Electricity Plc (formerly the LEB), SWEB Energy Plc (formerly the South Western Electricity Board).

In 2009, EDF Energy took control of the UK nuclear generator, British Energy buying share capital from the government. This made EDF Energy one of the UK's largest generators, as well as the largest distribution network operator.

Eon / Powergen Powergen was formed in 1989 as a PLC which was wholly owned by the UK government and acquired about 50% of the CEGB generating capacity. ^] Sixty per cent of Powergen was sold to private investors in 1991, followed by the remaining 40% in March 1995. It expanded considerably by acquiring the east Midlands Electricity in 1998 and the supply business of TXU Energy 2002. Powergen was eventually taken over itself by the German company E.ON an acquisition which was completed in January 2002.

Npower RWE npower plc (trading as npower) is a UK-based electricity and gas supply generation company, formerly known as Innogy plc. As Innogy plc it was listed on the Stock Exchange and was a constituent of the FTSE 100. In 2002 it was acquired by RWE of Germany and was subsequently renamed RWE npower plc. It is considered as one of the "Big Six", which dominate the gas and electricity market in the UK.

Scottish Power..... On 28 Nov 2006 the board of Scottish Power agreed to a 11.6 billion takeover bid from Spanish energy firm Iberdrola. The offer was approved on 30 March 2007 creating Europe's third largest utility company.

Verdict... Fail

Now I'm no economist and I may be barking up the wrong tree but I seem to rem many warnings given at the time of Blairs tenure about our future vulnerability to spiralling energy costs and future shortages. I didn't hear all his speech but did little David refer to Blair and Browns contribution to todays situation at all? Am I alone or was anybody actually less than impressed by the rest of Millibands jingoism laced bull?

[Guest Norbert]

It seems we are starting to import Berlosconi's selection methods when it comes to MPs.

As for the energy companies, they are a disgrace pure and simple. Once they were all privatised, the prices were bound to rocket upwards, and foreign companies will move in and have our country over a barrel. And a lot of these companies have state backing (e.g. EDF, Gazprom), and/or have interests in both the supply of fuel, and the generation of power.

[Alex Rover]

Interesting that Ed Balls and then Ed Miliband in interviews both slightly squirmed at the words and avoided answering the question that they were 'of the left' and socialist.

[T.J.Newton]

May as well carry this topic forward.....

Whilst Millibands tub thumping may appeal to the more impressionable I was way less than impressed. This was the speech of a career politician and NOT a leader of merit. Someone who appears to have misunderstood the requirements of a British Prime Minister. He's like the weak kneed kid in the playground who as soon as a scrap kicks off goes to ground in surrender. We want a leader who will stand toe to toe with opponents and slug it out. Sod a saving money policy by scratting around the energy companies and the housing market how about getting out there in the brave new world and damned well making some. There is plenty about thats for sure. This country needs a hunter killer in a sharp suit not a parsimonious housewife counting pennies in a pinny.

Diddy David's two main were targets Housing and Energy which brings me to one or two immediate observations....

1. Housing

Milliband reckons that Labour will one day act as some latter day Robin Hood by making ever more houses for the poor and taking land off developers who don't develop it immediately. Has he considered that more houses mean falling house prices? Effectively as most individuals wealth is in bricks and mortar he is effectively proposing to devalue everybodies retirement pot / life savings. Coming on the back of the last Labour PM robbing peoples pensions and with ever more people living past 65 that is not the wisest political move I would suggest.

Furthermore I'm sure that if property prices fall there will be even less incentive for property developers to build at a loss. A proper leader would be asking why with a continually falling indigenous population why we need to build any more homes at all? By definition new houses can only be for immigrants and economic migrants can't they?

Not finished with all that he's attacking the one recent policy that is eminently sensible, the bedroom tax. Never mind the people who will have to move out to smaller council houses or pay extra but is not the bedroom tax a fair and obvious first move to solve what he described frequently as the housing 'crisis'? To provide homes for young families? Am I right to suspect that Little David sees this as another Poll Tax scenario to discredit and derail a sound policy by constant mud slinging.

Verdict ......Fail

2. Energy....

The BIg 5 companies in this country in order of market share are as follows...... Please note the dates that they were sold off to foreign owners and consider who formed the government at the time.

Centrica... British Gas PLC demerged on 17 February 1997 to form two separate companies: Centrica plc and BG plc.

In January 2006, it was rumoured that the Russian state-owned utility company Gazprom was seeking a takeover of Centrica. This created controversy in the media, while the Department for Trade and Industry stated any deal would be subject to "intense scrutiny". Tony Blair announced in April that he would not block any potential deal.

^EDF EDF Energy Customers (trading as EDF Energy) is wholly owned by the French state-owned EDF SA (Électricité de France) and was formed in 2002 following the acquisition and mergers of Seeboard PLC (formerly the South Eastern Electricity Board), London Electricity Plc (formerly the LEB), SWEB Energy Plc (formerly the South Western Electricity Board).

In 2009, EDF Energy took control of the UK nuclear generator, British Energy buying share capital from the government. This made EDF Energy one of the UK's largest generators, as well as the largest distribution network operator.

Eon / Powergen Powergen was formed in 1989 as a PLC which was wholly owned by the UK government and acquired about 50% of the CEGB generating capacity. ^] Sixty per cent of Powergen was sold to private investors in 1991, followed by the remaining 40% in March 1995. It expanded considerably by acquiring the east Midlands Electricity in 1998 and the supply business of TXU Energy 2002. Powergen was eventually taken over itself by the German company E.ON an acquisition which was completed in January 2002.

Npower RWE npower plc (trading as npower) is a UK-based electricity and gas supply generation company, formerly known as Innogy plc. As Innogy plc it was listed on the Stock Exchange and was a constituent of the FTSE 100. In 2002 it was acquired by RWE of Germany and was subsequently renamed RWE npower plc. It is considered as one of the "Big Six", which dominate the gas and electricity market in the UK.

Scottish Power..... On 28 Nov 2006 the board of Scottish Power agreed to a 11.6 billion takeover bid from Spanish energy firm Iberdrola. The offer was approved on 30 March 2007 creating Europe's third largest utility company.

Verdict... Fail

Now I'm no economist and I may be barking up the wrong tree but I seem to rem many warnings given at the time of Blairs tenure about our future vulnerability to spiralling energy costs and future shortages. I didn't hear all his speech but did little David refer to Blair and Browns contribution to todays situation at all? Am I alone or was anybody actually less than impressed by the rest of Millibands jingoism laced bull?

Jeez fella, you need to find a hobby, seems you have way to much time on your hands.

[jim mk2]

May as well carry this topic forward.....

Now I'm no economist and I may be barking up the wrong tree but I seem to rem many warnings given at the time of Blairs tenure about our future vulnerability to spiralling energy costs and future shortages. I didn't hear all his speech but did little David refer to Blair and Browns contribution to todays situation at all? Am I alone or was anybody actually less than impressed by the rest of Millibands jingoism laced bull?

Bloody hell Gordon, a 12-year-old has a better grasp of the problems facing the economy than your politically skewed rant.

Of course we need more houses - the population will be 70m plus in the next ferw decades, where are they all going to ive ? As for your precious house prices, have you ever considered the damage rising hous prices have done to the economy over the past 40 years and how silly it is that people think they can get rich just by staring at the wallpaper ?

As for the power companies they were privatised by your precious Tories in the 1980s and later sold off in by their friends in the City to foreign investors. Or had you forgotten that ?

[Paul]

I'm not a great fan of Milliband, we probably got the wrong one and find his speech at the Labour conference over-rehearsed. His reluctance to answer questions the following day (today) was unfortunate to say the least.

However there is a serious issue with energy prices for the majority of the population and it needs to be tackled BUT I see this Labour policy as a vote-catcher. I'm not at all sure it's the solution to ever increasing energy costs. It would be far better if Labour offered a serious energy policy designed to reduce prices with the cooperation of the energy companies. One thing which does seem entirely wrong is the energy companies are both the generators and the suppliers and effectively sell the wholesale product to themselves which they then retail to us - seems to me there are two profit elements there.

As for the rest of theno's energy post while it's very interesting to read the history of each company but it was Margaret Thatcher who sold off the utility companies, created the market and set us down this road. Interestingly she did this partly with the intention of creating competition in the market place and I suspect she would not approve of the current cartel-like situation we have now.

As for housing there can be no doubt we need new houses, in particular social housing which is unlikely to influence house prices as those using social housing are unlikely to be able to afford to buy. Regardless of the politics since 1980 2 million council houses have been sold off and 350,000 built. This has to be addressed either by the private sector building and renting or social housing from the government / local authority.

The UK population has been growing, not declining, since the 1970s and 2012 saw the highest number of UK births for 40 years. These people have to live somewhere, today and in the future.

Falling house prices could be an issue but it's more likely to impact on those with mortgages than those who look on property as a retirement pot / savings as older people will have paid off their mortgages. Personally I've never really understood the retirement pot idea. My house is worth 16-17 times what I paid for it. Can I get at the money? No. Therefore the value is irrelevant unless I downsize. I suppose there is equity release but I discussed this with a friend in his 70s last weekend. He may have to go for equity release - the charges are outrageous and a clear case of finance companies exploiting those who have no other options. Appalling. The real value to the money tied up in a house is what the kids receive when one dies.

Another aspect of house ownership versus renting is how one copes at retirement. I know Europe has a much higher rental market and it would be interesting to know how they provide for retirement. As I see it the major benefit of buying a house is hopefully at retirement one owns the property and therefore has much reduced outgoings.

I know my pension wouldn't fund rent so I'd be going to the state for support - so is it better to build new homes now for people to buy or provide state support for house rental in retirement? That seems to be the choice. It will put one hell of a burden on the tax payer if we suddenly have to find housing benefit for millions more pensioners in 30-40 years time.

[T.J.Newton]

As if one politician or political party is really any different from the next, there all just puppets.

[thenodrog]

I'm not a great fan of Milliband, we probably got the wrong one and find his speech at the Labour conference over-rehearsed. His reluctance to answer questions the following day (today) was unfortunate to say the least.

However there is a serious issue with energy prices for the majority of the population and it needs to be tackled BUT I see this Labour policy as a vote-catcher. I'm not at all sure it's the solution to ever increasing energy costs. It would be far better if Labour offered a serious energy policy designed to reduce prices with the cooperation of the energy companies. One thing which does seem entirely wrong is the energy companies are both the generators and the suppliers and effectively sell the wholesale product to themselves which they then retail to us - seems to me there are two profit elements there.

As for the rest of theno's energy post while it's very interesting to read the history of each company but it was Margaret Thatcher who sold off the utility companies, created the market and set us down this road. Interestingly she did this partly with the intention of creating competition in the market place and I suspect she would not approve of the current cartel-like situation we have now.

As for housing there can be no doubt we need new houses, in particular social housing which is unlikely to influence house prices as those using social housing are unlikely to be able to afford to buy. Regardless of the politics since 1980 2 million council houses have been sold off and 350,000 built. This has to be addressed either by the private sector building and renting or social housing from the government / local authority.

The UK population has been growing, not declining, since the 1970s and 2012 saw the highest number of UK births for 40 years. These people have to live somewhere, today and in the future.

Falling house prices could be an issue but it's more likely to impact on those with mortgages than those who look on property as a retirement pot / savings as older people will have paid off their mortgages. Personally I've never really understood the retirement pot idea. My house is worth 16-17 times what I paid for it. Can I get at the money? No. Therefore the value is irrelevant unless I downsize. I suppose there is equity release but I discussed this with a friend in his 70s last weekend. He may have to go for equity release - the charges are outrageous and a clear case of finance companies exploiting those who have no other options. Appalling. The real value to the money tied up in a house is what the kids receive when one dies. Only If the nursing home hasn't got there first!

Another aspect of house ownership versus renting is how one copes at retirement. I know Europe has a much higher rental market and it would be interesting to know how they provide for retirement. As I see it the major benefit of buying a house is hopefully at retirement one owns the property and therefore has much reduced outgoings.

I know my pension wouldn't fund rent so I'd be going to the state for support - so is it better to build new homes now for people to buy or provide state support for house rental in retirement? That seems to be the choice.

It will put one hell of a burden on the tax payer if we suddenly have to find housing benefit for millions more pensioners in 30-40 years time.

I doubt there'll be enough tax payers around by that time.

[Paul]

I'm hoping to go quickly rather than hang around in a bath chair!

[thenodrog]

As for the power companies they were privatised by your precious Tories in the 1980s and later sold off in by their friends in the City to foreign investors. Or had you forgotten that ?

No Jim. Neither have I forgotten the numerous promises made by various labour politicians in the early 80's to renationalise them all once they got back in power. What happened to all that?

[jim mk2]

....probably because right wingers such as yourself would have accused them of being "same old Labour". As an example, just look at the headlines in Wednesday's right wing press for the hysterical reaction to Ed Miliband's speech.

Labour did nationalise Railtrack when it failed in the private sector but to take back into public control all the utllity companies scandalously sold off during the 1980s (selling off the family silver according to MacMillan) to bribe voters with a few free shares would cost more than the country can afford now - however desirable it may be.

[Al]

No Jim. Neither have I forgotten the numerous promises made by various labour politicians in the early 80's to renationalise them all once they got back in power. What happened to all that?

Seems like a pretty weak defence to me to say that the opposition has failed to put right what you got wrong in the first place.

[jim mk2]

According to the right Labour also failed to regulate the financial sector properly and therefore is to blame for the excesses of the banks that led to the financial crisis of 2008-9. This conveniently forgets that the Conservatives presided over the 1980s Big Bang that let unfettered financial capitalism off the leash and came to juddering halt with the banking collapse and the fact that Cameron when in opposition derided the Labour government for regulating the City too much and called for regulations to be eased. I note Osborne has been in Brussels recently trying to stop the EU placing a cap on bankers' bonuses - which just goes to show that some parties besides having no morals also never learn that they might actually be applauded by the general public for hammering down on the City.

[Baz]

The biggest vote winner, and easiest way to sort out the hole in the economy, is to sort out the tax situation, which Osbourne promised to do 3 years ago. I'd like to know if I can pay my taxes in monaco, whilst taking all the benefits of living in the UK, (free healthcare etc)

If Labour were to come up with a viable way of doing that, they'd win the election, or at least be the largest party.

[T.J.Newton]

If one of them could guarantee that my taxes would be spent efficiently and productively instead of all jusy going to the banks to cover the invinite amount of interest they're owed, then id consider voting for them.

[Al]

Just using all the tax money in the UK instead of sending it abroad would win my vote together with no immigration unless they can prove that they can support themselves.