My email from Ed

[Warren Dew]

I passionately believe Labour can make a difference, and bring real lasting change on the big issues that people worry about, and we can make that case together.

And that is what differentiates the left from the right these days - the left thinks that if you believe something passionately enough, it will come true by magic, without requiring any actual effort or analysis.

[Warren Dew]

Labour should cut the strings permanently from the unions. They imagine that they can't win without the union money, but I don't think that's true at all.

Is it the money that's important?

In the U.S., the Democrats would never win a major election without the support of organized labor, but it's because of the "volunteers" that labor supplies, not the money.

[MrJonno]

Labour should cut the strings permanently from the unions. They imagine that they can't win without the union money, but I don't think that's true at all.

Is it the money that's important?

In the U.S., the Democrats would never win a major election without the support of organized labor, but it's because of the "volunteers" that labor supplies, not the money.

Most unions in the UK have an automatic Labour party donation that is collected from members in their membership fees, people have to choose to opt out if they want.

The Labour party was born out of a combination of the union movement and more liberal forms of Christianity (yes socialism and Christianity have a long history here, the association with christianity and right is an American concept).

Don't think the Labour party really needs the union money these days as it has its own millionaires supporting it like the conservatives.

As tv advertising isnt allowed with a few exceptions the electoral budgets are tiny compared to Canada never mind the US, Conservatives spent £16 million and Labour £8 million. A single person can fund that campaign and we have had 3rd candidates in the past where the entire national budget has come out of their petty cash

[Rum]

I passionately believe Labour can make a difference, and bring real lasting change on the big issues that people worry about, and we can make that case together.

And that is what differentiates the left from the right these days - the left thinks that if you believe something passionately enough, it will come true by magic, without requiring any actual effort or analysis.

To be clear that quote attributed to me above is a quote from Ed Miliband's group email out to the membership quoted in turn by myself.

..and as to the difference, none of the political parties any longer believe that the means of production of the economy should be in the hands of the people. That went long ago as far as Labour went. The difference therefore is how you handle the income generated from taxes - and how to generate that income to some extent. The Conservative impulse is to keep that as low as possible and let the rich get richer and the rest of us 'benefit' from that and Labour's impulse is a greater degree of redistribution of that income.

[Warren Dew]

I passionately believe Labour can make a difference, and bring real lasting change on the big issues that people worry about, and we can make that case together.

And that is what differentiates the left from the right these days - the left thinks that if you believe something passionately enough, it will come true by magic, without requiring any actual effort or analysis.

To be clear that quote attributed to me above is a quote from Ed Miliband's group email out to the membership quoted in turn by myself.

Sorry. I trimmed the quote button without thinking carefully enough about how the quote would look.

..and as to the difference, none of the political parties any longer believe that the means of production of the economy should be in the hands of the people. That went long ago as far as Labour went. The difference therefore is how you handle the income generated from taxes - and how to generate that income to some extent. The Conservative impulse is to keep that as low as possible and let the rich get richer and the rest of us 'benefit' from that and Labour's impulse is a greater degree of redistribution of that income.

You're talking about policy differences. I think the ontological differences are more important, these days.

Perhaps if Ed becomes Prime Minister, you'll see what I mean. We've already had 5 years to suffer from someone who talks a good talk, then does the exact opposite because he thinks reality is based on what he says, not what he does.

[Strontium Dog]

In the U.S., the Democrats would never win a major election without the support of organized labor, but it's because of the "volunteers" that labor supplies, not the money.

It's a bit like that here. The union money keeps Labour afloat, but at election time the unions operate vast phone banks to canvass voters. In marginal constituencies, voters are being contacted by telephone 2 or 3 times in a month, and that was a big factor in the amount of seats Labour retained last time.

[Tyrannical]

It's a shame that labor unions aren't required to be politically neutral by law.

[Rum]

It's a shame that labor unions aren't required to be politically neutral by law.

Why is that? You think the rich industrialists who fund the right wing parties are politically neutral?

[klr]

It's a shame that labor unions aren't required to be politically neutral by law.

Why is that? You think the rich industrialists who fund the right wing parties are politically neutral?

Touché ...

[Audley Strange]

It's a shame that labor unions aren't required to be politically neutral by law.

Why is that? You think the rich industrialists who fund the right wing parties are politically neutral?

Nice.

[Warren Dew]

It's a shame that labor unions aren't required to be politically neutral by law.

I'd just like to see the value of volunteer labor counted against campaign contribution limits.

[Warren Dew]

It's a shame that labor unions aren't required to be politically neutral by law.

Why is that? You think the rich industrialists who fund the right wing parties are politically neutral?

Rich industrialists fund the BNP? And here I thought they were how the Tories got their money.

[Mallardz]

Mark as phishing scam.

[mistermack]

I still think that Labour should cut it's links with the unions.
If some union guy phoned me, to try to get me to vote labour, I don't think it would have any effect. Unless it was a slight negative.

Every time I hear a labour spokesman lately, I hear "spend spend spend" and all of the worst political correctness.
It's obvious that the party is full of union, it's just not representative of the people I know.
( and most of them are labour voters ).

It's just a shame that the liberals are such shit. They have the chance to stand right in the middle, and steal the best from both sides. But they seem to grab the worst bits of both.

I want a labour party that taxes the rich more, but doesn't blow the money on useless gimmicky "schemes".
I want better border controls. But I've been saying that for the last fifteen years. Now they are starting to say it, but you KNOW that they won't do it. You can tell by the way they say it, it's just vote-grabbing.

There's nothing to attract voters in this country, unless you're a millionaire who only cares about number one.
You always feel that you are just trying to work out who is the least shit, not who is the best option.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

...You always feel that you are just trying to work out who is the least shit, not who is the best option...

Same in Oz.