Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
The problem arises when a coalition with the SNP raises its ugly head. They have a red line. No trident.
It is a valid question to ask what will happen in a Lab (or Con for that matter) SNP coalition.
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
The problem arises when a coalition with the SNP raises its ugly head. They have a red line. No trident.
It is a valid question to ask what will happen in a Lab (or Con for that matter) SNP coalition.
Labour have already made their commitment to Trident clear and have also ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP. Sturgeon can saber rattle all she wants about getting rid of Trident but no mainstream party is going to downgrade our defences to that extent, even if it wanted to. It would make them unelectable for decades. Fallon made a personal attack on Milibands integrity.
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
There's a massive difference between the cost of Health care for tourists than there is for migrants.
Your statement, as far as it goes, must be true. However UKIP have suggested that health tourism is an issue, and that their one policy, leaving the EU, will address the issue.
That is not true. The "issue" in so far as it affects EU movement, does not exist. That is what the figures show, and I cannot imagine what other figures can be produced on that issue to contradict them. Therefore if UKIP persist with their claim it will be mendacious scaremongering.
The respective figures regarding migrants will be harder to obtain, because you'd need the co-operation of the health authorities in all the EU countries. However, UKIP don't have those figures and I think it is immoral to make their lurid claims, which stoke anti-immigrant feelings, absent those figures.
Just as an example, I would bet a lot of money that the Spanish health system spend a lot more on Brits than we do on Spanish migrants; and possibly true of France too, because while there are a lot of French in London now, they are young and educated and likely to be healthy, whereas Brits in France - an awful lot of them -are either retired, or have chosen to exercise their right to go to France for treatment to avoid NHS waiting times.
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
Yes, a desperate smear Ed says. Well, I expect he should know all about those! Everyone remember Labour's very own "special adviser" Damien McBride? But it's not so easy to remember Ed protesting too much when Gordon's henchman was smearing his own party's cabinet ministers and using actual lies rather than merely embellishing the truth.
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
There's a massive difference between the cost of Health care for tourists than there is for migrants.
Your statement, as far as it goes, must be true. However UKIP have suggested that health tourism is an issue, and that their one policy, leaving the EU, will address the issue.
That is not true. The "issue" in so far as it affects EU movement, does not exist. That is what the figures show, and I cannot imagine what other figures can be produced on that issue to contradict them. Therefore if UKIP persist with their claim it will be mendacious scaremongering.
The respective figures regarding migrants will be harder to obtain, because you'd need the co-operation of the health authorities in all the EU countries. However, UKIP don't have those figures and I think it is immoral to make their lurid claims, which stoke anti-immigrant feelings, absent those figures.
Just as an example, I would bet a lot of money that the Spanish health system spend a lot more on Brits than we do on Spanish migrants; and possibly true of France too, because while there are a lot of French in London now, they are young and educated and likely to be healthy, whereas Brits in France - an awful lot of them -are either retired, or have chosen to exercise their right to go to France for treatment to avoid NHS waiting times.
See, you're doing it now. Mixing up tourists and migrants.
What do you consider yourself? I bet the latter.
Do you have health insurance? - as I suspect most Brits migrants living in Europe have. No stats, but purely from the small number I know. Again, I know I would.
You really have no idea of the number of Eastern Europeans now living in the South East. I work and live with it on a daily basis. It really is getting to be a scary percentage.
I'm sure loads are here to better themselves, work hard, pay taxes and not become a drain on the system - but there are loads who have absolutely no intention of adding benefit to this Country.
Something needs to be done to limit the number of economic migrants coming to the UK.
That reads as an incredibly flaky report. On one hand it is using different comparables and later on it says that 30m figure may only be 20% of the real figure !
Great bit of misleading reporting though
There's nothing flaky about the report. The figures are the figures. They were obtained under the FOI law. It's an offence to provide misleading information. The DOH then try to hide their embarassment by suggesting that the figures may not show the true picture, because they are so incompetent at collecting what may be due. The Guardian kindly printed their pathetic excuse.
It's not the report that's flaky.
There's a massive difference between the cost of Health care for tourists than there is for migrants.
Your statement, as far as it goes, must be true. However UKIP have suggested that health tourism is an issue, and that their one policy, leaving the EU, will address the issue.
That is not true. The "issue" in so far as it affects EU movement, does not exist. That is what the figures show, and I cannot imagine what other figures can be produced on that issue to contradict them. Therefore if UKIP persist with their claim it will be mendacious scaremongering.
The respective figures regarding migrants will be harder to obtain, because you'd need the co-operation of the health authorities in all the EU countries. However, UKIP don't have those figures and I think it is immoral to make their lurid claims, which stoke anti-immigrant feelings, absent those figures.
Just as an example, I would bet a lot of money that the Spanish health system spend a lot more on Brits than we do on Spanish migrants; and possibly true of France too, because while there are a lot of French in London now, they are young and educated and likely to be healthy, whereas Brits in France - an awful lot of them -are either retired, or have chosen to exercise their right to go to France for treatment to avoid NHS waiting times.
See, you're doing it now. Mixing up tourists and migrants.
What do you consider yourself? I bet the latter.
Do you have health insurance? - as I suspect most Brits migrants living in Europe have. No stats, but purely from the small number I know. Again, I know I would.
You really have no idea of the number of Eastern Europeans now living in the South East. I work and live with it on a daily basis. It really is getting to be a scary percentage.
I'm sure loads are here to better themselves, work hard, pay taxes and not become a drain on the system - but there are loads who have absolutely no intention of adding benefit to this Country.
Something needs to be done to limit the number of economic migrants coming to the UK.
Well, Ukip would certainly do that. In no time at all our economy would be in such dire straits that they'd all need to go home to improve their prospects.
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
I don't know if I have missed something but doesn't raising the tax threshold benefit all tax payers equally? Or is there a mechanism in place that somehow circumvents this?
Proportionally. Obviously.
Well yes and no. It is the same amount of money whatever your income although a proportionally higher part of poorer peoples income. I think all parties are now racing to raise the lower threshold and I have welcomed this, but it benefits everybody who has an income above the threshold.
So thinking it through it actually does not benefit our poorest workers (income less than £10,600 pa).
Is there a way of helping the poorest earners without also benefiting people who earn more?
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
Yes, a desperate smear Ed says. Well, I expect he should know all about those! Everyone remember Labour's very own "special adviser" Damien McBride? But it's not so easy to remember Ed protesting too much when Gordon's henchman was smearing his own party's cabinet ministers and using actual lies rather than merely embellishing the truth.
Why not just agree that he smearing is wrong? Any smearing by both sides is wrong. The Tories have lost any chance of my vote this election by racing faster and further to the bottom of negative campaigning.
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
I don't know if I have missed something but doesn't raising the tax threshold benefit all tax payers equally? Or is there a mechanism in place that somehow circumvents this?
Proportionally. Obviously.
Is there a way of helping the poorest earners without also benefiting people who earn more?
Yes there is. Make their exploiting employers pay them more money.
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
Yes, a desperate smear Ed says. Well, I expect he should know all about those! Everyone remember Labour's very own "special adviser" Damien McBride? But it's not so easy to remember Ed protesting too much when Gordon's henchman was smearing his own party's cabinet ministers and using actual lies rather than merely embellishing the truth.
Why not just agree that he smearing is wrong? Any smearing by both sides is wrong. The Tories have lost any chance of my vote this election by racing faster and further to the bottom of negative campaigning.
I think the man is being played now. I understand the Mail have done a front page story about his ex girlfriends.
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
Yes, a desperate smear Ed says. Well, I expect he should know all about those! Everyone remember Labour's very own "special adviser" Damien McBride? But it's not so easy to remember Ed protesting too much when Gordon's henchman was smearing his own party's cabinet ministers and using actual lies rather than merely embellishing the truth.
Why not just agree that he smearing is wrong? Any smearing by both sides is wrong. The Tories have lost any chance of my vote this election by racing faster and further to the bottom of negative campaigning.
I think the man is being played now. I understand the Mail have done a front page story about his ex girlfriends.
I agree, it is actually making me look sympathetically at EM!
Surprised that Michael Fallon's comments haven't been brought up today on here. I'm in favour of retaining Trident, as are Labour. Fallon, presumably with the permission of central office, made a pretty transparent attempt to scaremonger based on Miliband standing for election against his brother. Pretty important subject matter to be using to make such a cheap point imo.
Yes, a desperate smear Ed says. Well, I expect he should know all about those! Everyone remember Labour's very own "special adviser" Damien McBride? But it's not so easy to remember Ed protesting too much when Gordon's henchman was smearing his own party's cabinet ministers and using actual lies rather than merely embellishing the truth.
"merely embellishing the truth"...again, Labour are committed to Trident and have ruled out a coalition with the SNP. Where's the truth in what Fallon said to embellish? Even his own colleagues, Philip Hammond in particular, declined to support what was put forward.
Fallon is playing a dirty political game, and will suffer because of it. Last election, guess what? Ruling party had a smear agenda Brown warned by his own party to stop it - plus ca change
But the question still remains, whoever gets into bed with the SNP will face serious issues regarding Trident. As you have said a couple of times Labour are for it - so are the conservatives and Lib Dems (who at least want to look at the chance of cutting down to 3 operational subs if possible.)
16 Mar 2015 Guardian Miliband said: “Labour will not go into coalition government with the SNP. There will be no SNP ministers in any government I lead.”
Within minutes of the lunchtime announcement, the SNP and Tories issued similar statements to say that Miliband’s intervention made no difference on the grounds that he had stopped short of ruling out an informal deal with the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, said that Labour and the SNP would still be able to work together to keep the Tories out of Downing Street. A Conservative spokesperson said: “This changes nothing. Ed Miliband will not rule out a deal with the SNP because he knows it’s impossible to become prime minister without being carried into Downing Street in Alex Salmond’s pocket.”
Sturgeon, who had earlier raised the possibility of forming a “looser arrangement” with Labour that would fall short of a coalition, said Miliband’s remarks made no difference because his speech still left open the possibility of an informal Labour-SNP deal to keep the Tories out of power. Speaking shortly after Miliband’s speech, she told Sky News: “I don’t think what Ed Miliband has just said changes anything very much at all. I have said previously and I have said repeatedly that a formal coalition between Labour and the SNP was highly unlikely. It would not be my preference. So Ed Miliband hasn’t really said anything today that I haven’t said previously.
“That wouldn’t prevent the SNP and Labour working together to keep the Tories out of government. So I don’t think Ed Miliband’s statement today has changed the reality on the ground at all.”
Fallon is playing a dirty political game, and will suffer because of it. Last election, guess what? Ruling party had a smear agenda Brown warned by his own party to stop it - plus ca change
But the question still remains, whoever gets into bed with the SNP will face serious issues regarding Trident. As you have said a couple of times Labour are for it - so are the conservatives and Lib Dems (who at least want to look at the chance of cutting down to 3 operational subs if possible.)
16 Mar 2015 Guardian Miliband said: “Labour will not go into coalition government with the SNP. There will be no SNP ministers in any government I lead.”
Within minutes of the lunchtime announcement, the SNP and Tories issued similar statements to say that Miliband’s intervention made no difference on the grounds that he had stopped short of ruling out an informal deal with the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, said that Labour and the SNP would still be able to work together to keep the Tories out of Downing Street. A Conservative spokesperson said: “This changes nothing. Ed Miliband will not rule out a deal with the SNP because he knows it’s impossible to become prime minister without being carried into Downing Street in Alex Salmond’s pocket.”
Sturgeon, who had earlier raised the possibility of forming a “looser arrangement” with Labour that would fall short of a coalition, said Miliband’s remarks made no difference because his speech still left open the possibility of an informal Labour-SNP deal to keep the Tories out of power. Speaking shortly after Miliband’s speech, she told Sky News: “I don’t think what Ed Miliband has just said changes anything very much at all. I have said previously and I have said repeatedly that a formal coalition between Labour and the SNP was highly unlikely. It would not be my preference. So Ed Miliband hasn’t really said anything today that I haven’t said previously.
“That wouldn’t prevent the SNP and Labour working together to keep the Tories out of government. So I don’t think Ed Miliband’s statement today has changed the reality on the ground at all.”
That's Democracy I guess. If the Conservatives form a coalition with UKIP they will have to horse trade as well as they have had to do with the Lib Dems.
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
Politics aside, he comes accross as that kid who sat in the front of the class and always thought the teacher was talking directly to him. I also get the feeling he is only left wing cos it impressed some one he admired growing up. You can see him smile self congratulatory after everything he says.
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
Superb piece, I have reservations about Miliband but you can't say the bloke is a coward, he has taken on some of the sacred cows that Blair and Brown were terrified of upsetting.
It's funny really in that the Tory press - especially the Murdoch papers - went after Miliband so hard that he could effectively ignore them and have a free hand with policy because there was absolutely nothing to be gained for him in pursuing their support.
Ironically this has made life much tougher for Cameron because he is now facing a LOTO who is happy to play his shots and take risks rather than cowering in fear about how the press will react to a policy.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
I like and respect Cameron but you just get the feeling from the Tory campaign that he is struggling to cut through and that their expectations of Miliband self destructing in the heat of the campaign were utterly wrong.
The UKIP factor really is killing the Tories unless they can get their vote up by 3-4 % in the next couple of weeks then they are bang in trouble.
It doesn't benefit those who earn less than £10,600 pa
Good point.
It also doesn't benefit anyone earning over £100k
I thought the coalition had been reducing the higher rate threshold by an equivalent amount so that the increase in personal allowance did not benefit those on more than about £40k. Perhaps someone can confirm this?
If correct then the Tories have kept quiet about something that cons their traditional supporter base haven't they?
At an income of £121,200 or more you lose your personal allowances - your 'tax free' allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 you earn over £100k.
From £121,200, you pay the basic rate of 20% for the first £31,785 of income then you pay the higher rate at 40% up to £150k and the additional rate at 45% for everything over that.
'Normal tax payers' won't pay the higher rate until they earn £42,385 PA (allowance plus basic rate limit).
The new 'transferable' allowance have now come into effect.
So if your salary isn't in the higher tax band and your spouse or civil partner earns below the £10,600 threshold, then 10% of their tax free allowance can be passed over.
It will therefore up your tax free allowance to £11,660.
A good analysis of Miliband bringing 'old' Labour back into play by the BBC's Robert Peston . He explains why 'new' Labour didn't do anything about non doms.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
Len McCluskey might not agree with you. I get the impression he'll want his pound of flesh.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
Comments
It is a valid question to ask what will happen in a Lab (or Con for that matter) SNP coalition.
That is not true. The "issue" in so far as it affects EU movement, does not exist. That is what the figures show, and I cannot imagine what other figures can be produced on that issue to contradict them. Therefore if UKIP persist with their claim it will be mendacious scaremongering.
The respective figures regarding migrants will be harder to obtain, because you'd need the co-operation of the health authorities in all the EU countries. However, UKIP don't have those figures and I think it is immoral to make their lurid claims, which stoke anti-immigrant feelings, absent those figures.
Just as an example, I would bet a lot of money that the Spanish health system spend a lot more on Brits than we do on Spanish migrants; and possibly true of France too, because while there are a lot of French in London now, they are young and educated and likely to be healthy, whereas Brits in France - an awful lot of them -are either retired, or have chosen to exercise their right to go to France for treatment to avoid NHS waiting times.
What do you consider yourself? I bet the latter.
Do you have health insurance? - as I suspect most Brits migrants living in Europe have. No stats, but purely from the small number I know. Again, I know I would.
You really have no idea of the number of Eastern Europeans now living in the South East. I work and live with it on a daily basis. It really is getting to be a scary percentage.
I'm sure loads are here to better themselves, work hard, pay taxes and not become a drain on the system - but there are loads who have absolutely no intention of adding benefit to this Country.
Something needs to be done to limit the number of economic migrants coming to the UK.
So thinking it through it actually does not benefit our poorest workers (income less than £10,600 pa).
Is there a way of helping the poorest earners without also benefiting people who earn more?
pressreader.com/uk/i-from-the-independent/20150410/283274571264530/TextView
Last election, guess what? Ruling party had a smear agenda Brown warned by his own party to stop it - plus ca change
But the question still remains, whoever gets into bed with the SNP will face serious issues regarding Trident. As you have said a couple of times Labour are for it - so are the conservatives and Lib Dems (who at least want to look at the chance of cutting down to 3 operational subs if possible.)
16 Mar 2015 Guardian
Miliband said: “Labour will not go into coalition government with the SNP. There will be no SNP ministers in any government I lead.”
Within minutes of the lunchtime announcement, the SNP and Tories issued similar statements to say that Miliband’s intervention made no difference on the grounds that he had stopped short of ruling out an informal deal with the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, said that Labour and the SNP would still be able to work together to keep the Tories out of Downing Street. A Conservative spokesperson said: “This changes nothing. Ed Miliband will not rule out a deal with the SNP because he knows it’s impossible to become prime minister without being carried into Downing Street in Alex Salmond’s pocket.”
Sturgeon, who had earlier raised the possibility of forming a “looser arrangement” with Labour that would fall short of a coalition, said Miliband’s remarks made no difference because his speech still left open the possibility of an informal Labour-SNP deal to keep the Tories out of power. Speaking shortly after Miliband’s speech, she told Sky News: “I don’t think what Ed Miliband has just said changes anything very much at all. I have said previously and I have said repeatedly that a formal coalition between Labour and the SNP was highly unlikely. It would not be my preference. So Ed Miliband hasn’t really said anything today that I haven’t said previously.
“That wouldn’t prevent the SNP and Labour working together to keep the Tories out of government. So I don’t think Ed Miliband’s statement today has changed the reality on the ground at all.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32233887
I will concede he can't be accused of not being a proper socialist.
It's funny really in that the Tory press - especially the Murdoch papers - went after Miliband so hard that he could effectively ignore them and have a free hand with policy because there was absolutely nothing to be gained for him in pursuing their support.
Ironically this has made life much tougher for Cameron because he is now facing a LOTO who is happy to play his shots and take risks rather than cowering in fear about how the press will react to a policy.
If Miliband does end up as PM then he will be in an incredible position as he will be there on his terms and nobody else's, he will owe nothing to anybody.
I like and respect Cameron but you just get the feeling from the Tory campaign that he is struggling to cut through and that their expectations of Miliband self destructing in the heat of the campaign were utterly wrong.
The UKIP factor really is killing the Tories unless they can get their vote up by 3-4 % in the next couple of weeks then they are bang in trouble.
Let's be honest, they're hardly going to miss the £40.76 per week tax free entitlement.
If correct then the Tories have kept quiet about something that cons their traditional supporter base haven't they?
From £121,200, you pay the basic rate of 20% for the first £31,785 of income then you pay the higher rate at 40% up to £150k and the additional rate at 45% for everything over that.
'Normal tax payers' won't pay the higher rate until they earn £42,385 PA (allowance plus basic rate limit).
So if your salary isn't in the higher tax band and your spouse or civil partner earns below the £10,600 threshold, then 10% of their tax free allowance can be passed over.
It will therefore up your tax free allowance to £11,660.
Extracts from an interview he did last autumn:
"You know Ed, and I hope this doesn't happen, could get run over by a bus tomorrow, it really wouldn't matter who takes his place."
I ask: "The leadership of the Labour Party doesn't matter?"
"No, what matters is the policies. You know we've been saying this to Ed since he became elected. Labour have got to show they're on the side of ordinary, working people.
"If he does that, he'll be the next prime minster, if he fails to do that, then of course, he'll be defeated and he'll be replaced as the leader."
It is clear from this conversation that the union boss is not entirely behind the Labour Leader Ed Miliband.
In 2010, Ed Miliband won the leadership contest with the help of union backing. So how much influence does Len have?
Does Ed Miliband listen to him? I ask if he sometimes gets a bit threatening and says, "look we're not going to associate with you any more if you don't do as I say?"
"No, never threatening."
I point out that I didn't mean it literally. He does accept he has power and influence: "Yeah, undoubtedly because I am the general secretary of Unite."
So who's on the side of non-working people and unusual working people?