Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

And that is why we won't vote New Labour in again.

At least Cameron, Osborne & Co are on track for putting things pretty much back on the right track.

And 'God help us!' if we were to ever get a New Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition government.

LATEST POLL PROJECTION 26/07/2014

44 Labour Seat Majority.


UKPR POLLING AVERAGE
32 36 8

LAB 36%

CON 32%

LIB/DEM 8

Exclusive: Cameron’s Big Society in tatters as charity watchdog launches investigation into claims of Government funding misuse26/july/2014

The organisation was given at least £2.5 million of National Lottery funding and public-sector grants despite having no record of charitable activity
OLIVER WRIGHT Author Biography POLITICAL EDITOR Saturday 26 July 2014

David Cameron’s flagship Big Society Network is being investigated by the Charity Commission over allegations that it misused government funding and made inappropriate payments to its directors – including a Tory donor.

Which Tories have this Public money in their bank accounts?????????????

Read @lisanandy 's letter asking for an investigation into links between the Big Society Network & the Tories here http://press.labour.org.uk/post/92918224654/lisa-nandy-mps-letter-asking-for-an-investigation-into …

Lisa Nandy MP’s letter asking for an investigation into links between the Big Society Network and the Conservatives

Lisa Nandy MP, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Civil Society, has written to Sir Jeremy Heywood asking for an urgent investigation into the links between the Big Society Network, Mr Rose, and the Conservative party.

Below is the text of the letter sent to Sir Jeremy Heywood yesterday, and also the text of the letter that Lisa Nandy MP sent to David Cameron earlier this week in which she expresses concern over the discovery that the Cabinet Office has wasted large sums of Government funding questionable ‘Big Society Network’ projects which ended in failure.

Letter to Sir Jeremy Heywood:

25th July 2014

Dear Sir Jeremy,

I am writing following my letter to the Prime Minister regarding the damning National Audit Office’s report on grants made to the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation. I asked how it was possible for the Cabinet Office to break its own rules on the allocation of grants when funding the Society Network Foundation’s programmes and called for a full investigation into allegations that undue pressure was placed on the Big Lottery Fund and others to provide funding for the Big Society Network’s projects.

However since writing to the Prime Minister, it has come to light that the Co-founder and Chairman of the Big Society Network, Mr Martyn Rose, is also a Conservative party donor. According to the Electoral Commission’s records, Mr Rose donated in excess of £50,000 through his company Martyn Rose Limited during the six month period between December 2009 and June 2010.

When Mr Rose’s relationship with the Conservative party is taken into consideration with the serious allegations that the Government was pressuring organisations to fund the Big Society Network’s programmes, it is clear that there are questions to answer. It is a deeply concerning state of affairs.

I would therefore ask if you could urgently investigate the links between the Big Society Network, Mr Rose, and the Conservative party.

I have attached a copy of my letter to the Prime Minister for your information.

Yours sincerely,

Lisa Nandy MP
Shadow Minister for Civil Society



Letter to Prime Minister:

23rd July 2014

Dear Prime Minister,

By now you will have seen the damning National Audit Office report regarding grants made to the Big Society Network and Society Network Foundation.

I hope you were as concerned as I was to discover that the Cabinet Office has wasted large sums of government funding on questionable projects which ended in such failure. It is extraordinary that millions of pounds have been squandered, especially in this current climate where funding is scarce and many charitable organisations are fighting for survival.

I would urge you to set up an immediate investigation into how the Cabinet Office so clearly broke its own rules, and whether undue pressure was put on the Big Lottery to award funding to the Big Society Network and Society Network Foundation. I’m sure you will be keen to ascertain how these two key aspects of your flagship ‘Big Society’ policy could have fallen into such disrepute particularly considering you personally launched the Big Society Network in No. 10 just four years ago. Since NAO’s investigation was published other worrying allegations have come to light that undue pressure was also put on the organisation, NESTA, to provide money to the Big Society Network. Again I urge you to set up an investigation into whether such practices took place at the heart of your Government.

This episode has caused a great deal of concern among the public and the charity sector. I am certain this will damage public confidence in the Government. I would therefore ask for your personal assurances that you will fully commit to finding out how such practices were allowed to take place and I would be grateful for an urgent response to the following questions:

Will there be an investigation into the Cabinet Office’s behaviour that addresses why the Cabinet Office broke its own rules and whether Ministers put undue pressure on the Big Lottery Fund?
Did Ministers put pressure on any other organisations, including NESTA, to fund the Big Society Network or the Society Network Foundation?
Why was the criteria changed to allow organisations that had existed for less than two years to receive funding from the Cabinet Office and will this now be reversed?
Why was a second payment of £98,700 made to the Society Network Foundation in October 2012, despite the fact that the Cabinet Office was aware the project was failing?
Did a Minister authorise the second payment for the Get In project, and on what basis was that decision taken?
Why didn’t the Cabinet Office investigate how its initial payment to the Society Network Foundation for the Get In project had been spent, and why was no account taken of the fact that – at the time the second payment was made – the project was in surplus of £60,800?
What steps is the Government taking to recover the £119,900 of taxpayers’ money it has wasted through the Get In project?
Yours sincerely,


Lisa Nandy MP

Shadow Minister for Civil Society

Where do they think the money will ultimately come from?




Local councils propose 'Tesco tax' on large supermarkets to raise revenue

Derby city council leads calls for levy of up to 8.5% on large retail outlets, with money to be reinvested in local community


Shane Hickey


theguardian.com, Saturday 26 July 2014 11.26 BST


Local councils have asked the government to give them new powers to tax large supermarkets under a system similar to that already in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

A group of 20 local councils have backed what has been dubbed a "Tesco tax" in order to increase revenues which they say would be invested in the local community.

Derby city council has called for the right to impose a levy on large supermarkets, which it says could earn the local authority an estimated £2m a year.

The BBC reports that anorther 19 local authorities are in favour of the tax.



More: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/26/local-councils-tesco-tax-large-supermarkets-increase-revenues

Ober Ik heb Eels in mijn soep.

Wheres MAX with is thought for the night??????

Look forward to it.

Update - Labour lead at 1
by YouGov in Political Trackers and Politics
Sun July 27, 2014 6 a.m. BST

Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 25th July - Con 35%, Lab 36%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%;

What does that poll translate into probable seat numbers?

One ahead is probably a small majority for Labour or a hung parliament. The interesting part of the polls is that UKIP are stuck at a level that gives them no seats. If UKIP stays at this level then it will become clear to the public that no MPs is a wasted vote. Many commentators have said that they expect their vote to collapse in the GE. The factor that may decide the election is where will those votes go when they abandon UKIP.

Fair enough.

Any idea what 8% will do the limp/dims?

The Libs will still do well. It is for the same reasons that UKIP will do badly. The polls are an indication of the country wide average. The figures for UKIP do not give enough support for MPs on average. UKIP have no traditional support in specific seats. They have very little infrastructure in the constituencies. Their party machinery is almost non existent.

The Libs are very well organised at a local level. They have lists of people promising to vote Lib on the day. The local party goes out and reminds those people to vote and even takes them to the polls. I used to do that when I campaigned for them years ago. The Libs have traditional seats and their support is contained in specific seats. They can get large falls in support across the country and lose few seats.

The reason for the above is first past the post system we have. If there was proportional voting then UKIP would get a large number of seats and the Libs would get very few.

There is a precedent for this problem. Their was a breakaway group that left Labour in 1981. They called themselves the SDP (Social Democratic Party). They were hugely popular and fought several elections including one jointly with the Libs. The electoral system in the UK prevented them from getting anywhere. This was even though they started out with several MPs when they left Labour. They finally admitted defeat in 1988 and merged with the Libs, which is why the Liberal Party is now called the Liberal Democratic Party.

A depressing stastic for UKIP is that the SDP polled over 50% in late 1981. In the 1983 election the SDP got just 6 MPs.

Max dont listen to that waffle from Hays, he hasnt a clue. From the poll of polls after todays poll Labour will have a majority of 44 seats.

What you do look for and this is key how the marginals are going and last week Ashcrofts poll showed Labour with an increasing 8% lead.

How on earth Hays thinks the UKIP vote is falling whilst the polls show it is standing steady, God knows.

He makes it up as he goes along.

Still 9 months Hays to the GE.

ps, Hays says UKIP wont get a single seat!!!!!!!!!!!! oh yes Hays so what about Nigel himself.

Id say thats a 100% certainty.

gf

You are wrong as usual. The web site you get the majority from is

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

If you look carefully, you will see that it hasn't been updated since 23 July. It doesn't even show Friday's lead of 3 and not today of 1. Their methodology doesn't take account of of specific seats. It just uses an overall average, which I have shown above is wrong.

The state and its spending needs shrinking back.