Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Tories flip-flop on housing announcement (as reported in Inside Housing):
A “new generation of homes for social rent” promised by the Conservatives will be at affordable rent levels which can be up to 80% of the market rate, the housing minister has admitted.
The Conservatives recently surprised many in the housing sector with an announcement that they would strike deals with councils and associations to help them build a “new generation of homes for social rent” citing the loss of 300,000 social rented homes compared to 20 years ago.
But, in an exclusive interview with Inside Housing this week Gavin Barwell admitted the new council homes would in fact be at affordable rents, which can be up to 80% of market rate.
Asked if the new homes would be let at “low level council rents”, he replied: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”
Social rents, set according to government formulas, are typically much lower than affordable rates, especially in high rent areas.
The government has not funded them through its programmes since 2010, when George Osborne slashed housing funding as part of his austerity drive.
Social rents typically require higher initial government investment from grant, but affordable rents have been criticised for driving up the benefit bill and locking low-income tenants out of social housing.
In the interview, Mr Barwell also cast doubt on whether a high-value asset levy for councils will still be used to fund the Right to Buy for housing associations - a key manifesto pledge from 2015 which was left out of the document published last month.
He said: “As and when we move to national roll-out [of the Right to Buy extension] that’s a decision we’ll take with the chancellor.”
However, he said the Conservatives remain committed to giving housing association tenants the right to buy their home.
We should not be surprised that old soldiers who survived WW2 and somehow won (thank you USA) are perturbed by the nuke issue. They recall we were very unprepared for war in the 1930's and will probably always think having a nuclear arsenal will protect the UK. It is a very old fashioned viewpoint that will always be churned out by the scaremongering right wing press. We all know that Corbyn would never press the nuke button but his hands are tied by Labour party policy which currently states they support Trident. Thus he has to fudge the issue as best he can. Yesterday he did mention cyber attacks, which are a very real danger to us all but almost invisible, so Trident is pretty much useless as a deterrent.
I have been enjoying myself all this past week by looking on line at newspaper headlines. I am so pleased that we have such a free right wing press in our country!
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Hypothetical I know. However I sometimes imagine a world where Trade Unions had never existed and wonder what it would be like. Would there be any employment legislation at all?
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
The trade union relationship with labour is the one thing I don't like about the party
The relationship with the Trades Unions is the foundation of Labour's existence and history. All very transparent funding, NEC representation and a key voice in electing the leader of the party that represent the labour movement and the rights and protection of workers who make up the vast majority of the population. Compare that with where the tories have got their £6.5m - all vested interest in personal gain from the very top (I use the word advisedly) of the food chain.
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Unfortunately these polls can be quite unreliable, the differences between them is too substantial. Also it isn't uncommon for the polls to be manipulated, as a campaigner, the campaigning must continue until the booths close.
I thought people on minimum wage were unable to pay rent or feed their families so unless these small businesses were estate agents or Tescos I can't see how it would help them?
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
Hmmm. Good piece on R4 about this yesterday. Not as clear cut as the spin doctors would like us all to believe.
What did they say on R4?
The 'politicshome' piece says their information is taken directly from 'Electoral Commission' data?
Sorry couldn't hunt it down on Google.
It's the fella who does the daily bit where they see if the various claims, promises and acusations each lot concoct actually add up. He's pretty unbiased tbf.
Some very selective reckoning on Labours figures, but then they are all at it.
Unfortunately these polls can be quite unreliable, the differences between them is too substantial. Also it isn't uncommon for the polls to be manipulated, as a campaigner, the campaigning must continue until the booths close.
I think what the polls may be suggesting is that Labour needs a high turnout. Especially from youngsters and ethnic minorities. The interesting thing is how they will get them out - if it is something you can do things to affect.
Unfortunately these polls can be quite unreliable, the differences between them is too substantial. Also it isn't uncommon for the polls to be manipulated, as a campaigner, the campaigning must continue until the booths close.
no, polls tend to be reliable, it's the way people interpret and predict from the polls that can be unreliable. Look at a group of polls rather than just one and the truth tends to be in the medium of all of them.
Brexit was polled to win by a fraction and people thought they'd be a swing back to the status quo in the voting booth which never happened.
Polls showed that hillary was to win the popular vote and did win it by about 3 million
I'm not getting too excited over the polls, look how wrong they got it with Brexit. End of the day, the only true opinion is the one in the voting booth when they write their cross on that piece of paper
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
The trade union relationship with labour is the one thing I don't like about the party
The relationship with the Trades Unions is the foundation of Labour's existence and history. All very transparent funding, NEC representation and a key voice in electing the leader of the party that represent the labour movement and the rights and protection of workers who make up the vast majority of the population. Compare that with where the tories have got their £6.5m - all vested interest in personal gain from the very top (I use the word advisedly) of the food chain.
I appreciate that but to me it's as an extreme as the example you give. It may be transparent but I don't like any group regardless of who they support, having that much sway
Polls can be unreliable, but the major ones certainly aren't fixed
Lol no they're very reliable, any proof they aren't?
Well, they are carried out by major companies that conduct tons of surveys such as market research for multinational companies. That is their source of income. They probably lose money in election polls, and have everything to lose in terms of their reputation since there is so much scrutiny. If they fixed them their entire multimillion pound business would go out of the window. Not worth it.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Comments
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/86437/excl-tories-rake-over-£5m-just
The 'politicshome' piece says their information is taken directly from 'Electoral Commission' data?
A “new generation of homes for social rent” promised by the Conservatives will be at affordable rent levels which can be up to 80% of the market rate, the housing minister has admitted.
The Conservatives recently surprised many in the housing sector with an announcement that they would strike deals with councils and associations to help them build a “new generation of homes for social rent” citing the loss of 300,000 social rented homes compared to 20 years ago.
But, in an exclusive interview with Inside Housing this week Gavin Barwell admitted the new council homes would in fact be at affordable rents, which can be up to 80% of market rate.
Asked if the new homes would be let at “low level council rents”, he replied: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”
Social rents, set according to government formulas, are typically much lower than affordable rates, especially in high rent areas.
The government has not funded them through its programmes since 2010, when George Osborne slashed housing funding as part of his austerity drive.
Social rents typically require higher initial government investment from grant, but affordable rents have been criticised for driving up the benefit bill and locking low-income tenants out of social housing.
In the interview, Mr Barwell also cast doubt on whether a high-value asset levy for councils will still be used to fund the Right to Buy for housing associations - a key manifesto pledge from 2015 which was left out of the document published last month.
He said: “As and when we move to national roll-out [of the Right to Buy extension] that’s a decision we’ll take with the chancellor.”
However, he said the Conservatives remain committed to giving housing association tenants the right to buy their home.
We all know that Corbyn would never press the nuke button but his hands are tied by Labour party policy which currently states they support Trident. Thus he has to fudge the issue as best he can. Yesterday he did mention cyber attacks, which are a very real danger to us all but almost invisible, so Trident is pretty much useless as a deterrent.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Only tax commitment the Tories will make is the one to cut corporation tax even further.
However I sometimes imagine a world where Trade Unions had never existed and wonder what it would be like.
Would there be any employment legislation at all?
It's the fella who does the daily bit where they see if the various claims, promises and acusations each lot concoct actually add up. He's pretty unbiased tbf.
Some very selective reckoning on Labours figures, but then they are all at it.
Better off asking Mystic Meg.
Brexit was polled to win by a fraction and people thought they'd be a swing back to the status quo in the voting booth which never happened.
Polls showed that hillary was to win the popular vote and did win it by about 3 million