Saturday 9th, Sunday 10th May 2015

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 8:55 pm

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes · 5 hrs5 hours ago
On the right/left Miliband thing: blind testing of Labour policies found them overwhelmingly more popular than Con. Policy wasn't the issue

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 8:55 pm

Night night, PF.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 8:57 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
pk1 wrote: And not forgetting also that polling is barely credible at the moment !

Exactly.
Oh agree entirely - only posted to show polling already started. Doesn't even say if this is Labour members or general population.

I actually think that the polling industry should shut down and go away. Until they can demonstrate their work is in any way accurate they are simply a tool to manipulate the population. Their industry body should serve a cease and desist order.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:00 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes · 5 hrs5 hours ago
On the right/left Miliband thing: blind testing of Labour policies found them overwhelmingly more popular than Con. Policy wasn't the issue

That is a key point. I accept some of Hugo's comments around rental market reform, in that the market intervention aspects (and implications) weren't fully thought through. Energy freeze was however fine as it was only ever intended as a stop-gap to underpin the separation of generation and retail (essential in my view).

A bigger issue is why those policies weren't able to cut through in discussion. Once the SNP shit started there was zero discussion on policy and even less on Tory policy.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:04 pm

Some more random noise to amuse or avoid, since others of you post of culinary matters. I'm especially pleased that I prepared fresh coleslaw when my eldest brought his daughter to visit her Grandad yesterday. Apparently she loves me, not that I'd ever have guessed. She never knew her paternal grandmother or maternal grandfather, but Mummy was visiting Grannie who is currently being attended by our wonderful NHS. Fuck you Cameron with your tales of Ivan. Yes I mean you, Dave, not your dearly departed son. (Digital Tourettes?)

She was fascinated by pictures of her father, uncle and auntie as children. and her ever beautiful grandmother. She didn't need telling who the funny man in some of the pictures was. Isn't facial recognition a wonderful thing? Even though we can program computers to work heuristically there are some things for which they are inappropriate, the WCA being a case in point. I love and have worked with computers. One thing they are not and that is decision makers. Please not autonomous drones choosing life or death. Get a grip people!

Where was I? Oh yes stoned and alone, too lazy to cook. Sorry I mustn't forget to apologise to rebeccariots too. I stated at the Graun some time back that I would give up dairy should badger culling not desist. I have yet to do so and used to pride myself on keeping my word. What now> The Tories are back in power. I shall shut up now, catch you later. To quote the ever popular, Nota Bene, we shall see.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:05 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes · 5 hrs5 hours ago
On the right/left Miliband thing: blind testing of Labour policies found them overwhelmingly more popular than Con. Policy wasn't the issue
That is a key point. I accept some of Hugo's comments around rental market reform, in that the market intervention aspects (and implications) weren't fully thought through. Energy freeze was however fine as it was only ever intended as a stop-gap to underpin the separation of generation and retail (essential in my view).

A bigger issue is why those policies weren't able to cut through in discussion. Once the SNP shit started there was zero discussion on policy and even less on Tory policy.

And they were even able to get away with refusing to identify where 12 billion of cuts would come from ... whilst saying Labour couldn't be trusted. I don't remember anyone hauling them over the coals for their lack of trust on issues such as saying they wouldn't raise VAT which they then did, or reorganise the NHS which they then did. Very little policy, very little scrutiny.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:06 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes · 5 hrs5 hours ago
On the right/left Miliband thing: blind testing of Labour policies found them overwhelmingly more popular than Con. Policy wasn't the issue
That is a key point. I accept some of Hugo's comments around rental market reform, in that the market intervention aspects (and implications) weren't fully thought through. Energy freeze was however fine as it was only ever intended as a stop-gap to underpin the separation of generation and retail (essential in my view).

A bigger issue is why those policies weren't able to cut through in discussion. Once the SNP shit started there was zero discussion on policy and even less on Tory policy.

And that's it in a nutshell, time and again I was screaming at the TV (I'm sure others were a well) "Talk about policy!!! but when ever any one was on a program it was all - you will have to do deals with SNP.... admit it! At one point I thought they were trying to demand assurances that Ed would promise not to even look in SNP's direction, it got so bad.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:08 pm

Toby Helm ‏@tobyhelm 2m2 minutes ago
Tony Blair tells Labour: return to the centre ground to win again http://gu.com/p/48979

Inevitable I suppose.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:13 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:I was genuinely surprised that we did not have any more civil unrest after the 2011 riots. I suspect that once this mob really get into their stride that may not be the case this time around; when people have nothing left to lose then prison is no deterrent.

Deterrent, TGS. Not in the slightest this lot seem intent on making it attractive. Starving and homeless in the outside world. Fed, sheltered and medically attended should you give up all rights, working for a pittance for the appointed corporates that administer the legal and prison service. Welcome to Tory Britain.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:13 pm

Seems Sky are reporting that about 100 protesters in London today...
Really? So why did they need so many police ?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:18 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:I was genuinely surprised that we did not have any more civil unrest after the 2011 riots. I suspect that once this mob really get into their stride that may not be the case this time around; when people have nothing left to lose then prison is no deterrent.

And if May does let Boris loose with the water cannons, that'll be like a red rag to a bull. Which is why I imagine she hasn't okayed it yet.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:18 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Toby Helm ‏@tobyhelm 2m2 minutes ago
Tony Blair tells Labour: return to the centre ground to win again http://gu.com/p/48979
Inevitable I suppose.

How does he define the centre ground?

I don't think Miliband was particularly left wing. Cameron is on the fringe of right wing lunacy.

I also think Blair is way more to the right than he ever was as leader. Besides which he is working as a PR guy for actual murdering actual dictators.

How fucked up is his sense of normality? He has no idea what normal life is like.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:19 pm

pk1 wrote:Bloody hell, I did a double-take when I saw this image !

@dodsmonitoring
Which parties came second across the country? Contact @dodspeople for more info on the data behind this map. #GE2015

Good to see that Scotland is so progressive - no Tories at all there then.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:28 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Seems Sky are reporting that about 100 protesters in London today...
Really? So why did they need so many police ?

The Met were crucified (rightly) for their lack of police presence during the rioting; the accusation was that they were happy to kettle peaceful demonstrators, but anybody who might fight back, not a chance. Since then they have massively overpoliced any demonstration (remember the ridiculous sight of all those brave policemen facing down a handful of vicious thugs in wheelchairs at Westminster Cathedral?) to avoid any such accusations; the question remains though, if push came to shove and something really big kicked off, would they put their lives on the line to defend a Government that has been cutting their own pay and conditions?

And with that happy thought I bid you all a good night.

Edited to add- a couple of people said earlier that Rusty would be delighted to read the bickering. Don't forget, most Government departments don't work on weekends.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:34 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes · 5 hrs5 hours ago
On the right/left Miliband thing: blind testing of Labour policies found them overwhelmingly more popular than Con. Policy wasn't the issue
That is a key point. I accept some of Hugo's comments around rental market reform, in that the market intervention aspects (and implications) weren't fully thought through. Energy freeze was however fine as it was only ever intended as a stop-gap to underpin the separation of generation and retail (essential in my view).

A bigger issue is why those policies weren't able to cut through in discussion. Once the SNP shit started there was zero discussion on policy and even less on Tory policy.
And they were even able to get away with refusing to identify where 12 billion of cuts would come from ... whilst saying Labour couldn't be trusted. I don't remember anyone hauling them over the coals for their lack of trust on issues such as saying they wouldn't raise VAT which they then did, or reorganise the NHS which they then did. Very little policy, very little scrutiny.

Not to mention the other uncosted freebies chucked out late in the campaign.

If Labour had done that, it would have been on every front page and lead all the news.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:45 pm

Ok, the wing of the party I belong to has had someone express the point more clearly than me on the policy mix

"policies, even if individually popular, that, taken together, send us too far left."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

When you cast your vote for leader in September think this.

NOT what "who would I most like to see as leader?"

NOT (even) "who would SpinningHugo most like to see as leader?": I vote Labour come what may.

Think

"Which person is most likely to persuade someone who voted Tory last time to vote Labour?"

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:48 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound 7m7 minutes ago
See Sunday Times for Liz Kendall on "truly terrible result”. Warns Labour has “far too little” to say to middle-class voters.

Oh gawd or whoever ... I'm fed up already.

Editing to add: I hadn't seen your post when I posted this Spinning Hugo ... but how apt, eh.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:50 pm

Ok, the wing of the party I belong to has had someone express the point more clearly than me on the policy mix

"policies, even if individually popular, that, taken together, send us too far left."

I can't see this really. I think the rail policy was OK, but if it had proposed renationalization of train companies, perhaps more people would have voted for us.

Some positive stuff was done on business this time- prioritizing business rates over corporation tax for cuts. Not leftwing, just seemed sensible and would be popular. When there's a popular policy, it gets passed over.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:51 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Toby Helm ‏@tobyhelm 2m2 minutes ago
Tony Blair tells Labour: return to the centre ground to win again http://gu.com/p/48979
Inevitable I suppose.
How does he define the centre ground?

I don't think Miliband was particularly left wing. Cameron is on the fringe of right wing lunacy.

I also think Blair is way more to the right than he ever was as leader. Besides which he is working as a PR guy for actual murdering actual dictators.

How fucked up is his sense of normality? He has no idea what normal life is like.

Yes, I know you think that. But see the result.

Everyone here would snatch my hand off if I offered them a Blair government over what we have got.

Or even no government at all, just steady state.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:52 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Ok, the wing of the party I belong to has had someone express the point more clearly than me on the policy mix

"policies, even if individually popular, that, taken together, send us too far left."
I can't see this really. I think the rail policy was OK, but if it had proposed renationalization of train companies, perhaps more people would have voted for us.

Some positive stuff was done on business this time- prioritizing business rates over corporation tax for cuts. Not leftwing, just seemed sensible and would be popular. When there's a popular policy, it gets passed over.

No, they really would not.

It is not the individual policies. It is the aggregate. If your policy mix is lots of free ponies, each individual one may poll well, but together they give the wrong impression.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:54 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Ok, the wing of the party I belong to has had someone express the point more clearly than me on the policy mix

"policies, even if individually popular, that, taken together, send us too far left."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

When you cast your vote for leader in September think this.

NOT what who would I most like to see as leader.

NOT (even) "who would SpinningHugo most like to see as leader: I vote Labour come what may.

Think

"Which person is most likely to persuade someone who voted Tory last time to vote Labour?"

When my vote is cast it will be for the candidate who can reach out to the midlands, south east of England, I can't go through what happened on Thursday a third time against an average bunch of politicians, namely the Tory party. Labour is losing votes UKIP, losing votes that normally would be theirs, a fair proportion would never vote Tory but see no shame in voting for UKIP. That has too be confronted in areas like South Wales, the industrial midlands and the north.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 09 May, 2015 9:55 pm

I think renationalizing train companies would have been easy to understand and popular. In terms of the mix, there's other stuff that could be dropped. I see your point about some of the rental stuff, for example.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:01 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tizme1 wrote:

I didn't find your post curt yahyah. I'm afraid though I can't agree that Greens need to apologise for being anti austerity. And which ever way you slice it Labour were proposing austerity - just not as much as the Tories. Again, I can not accept blame for the harm that is going to be done to people, including myself actually. Labour did not persuade the electorate. This wasn't due to anything said by Natalie. Imo it was partly due to not dealing with Liam Byrne's stupid 'joke' note 5 years ago. And not dealing with the 'Labour crashed the economy' crap 5 years ago. I went to virtually all the local hustings and often, Matt was being attacked as though Labour was still in government and the main attacks were over the economy. He didn't have any answer for it - just like Labour haven't for the last five years. At at least five of the hustings, Harrington and Nick Lincoln [UKIP] used the Labour only put the tax up in the last month rubbish. Not once did Matt deal with it. On one occasion I put my hand up to tackle it myself because I was so fed up with hearing it but I wasn't called to speak.
I agree with you about Labour not coming up with a convincing answer to the 'crashed the economy' lie. That was probably the thing that hurt them most grievously. However, it is simply not a case of 'whichever way you slice it, Labour were proposing austerity'. Labour wanted to eliminate the current deficit in the next parliament but borrow to invest. The IFS said that because it was unclear how much Labour proposed to borrow, and indeed the performance of the economy, there might not have to be any cuts at all. The IFS also pointed out that the 'anti-austerity' SNP would be spending less than Labour by the fifth year of the parliament. The notion that Labour was for austerity and the Green/Plaid/SNP axis was not simply Is. Not. True. Yet I didn't see Natalie Bennett tearing into Nicole Sturgeon over their cuts.

As I've said repeatedly tonight, I want the leftwing parties to work together and stop taking chunks out of each other, but we have to do that from a position of honesty.

Hooray for that.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:03 pm

Oh gods! Gove as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor! Grayling is Leader of the HoC... Nicky Morgan Edu Sec AND Equalities Minister, then expected that Mark Harper will be Chief Whip.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:08 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:Oh gods! Gove as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor! Grayling is Leader of the HoC... Nicky Morgan Edu Sec AND Equalities Minister, then expected that Mark Harper will be Chief Whip.

Gove.... Well, there is no justice. I thought that department couldn't be more badly served than under Grayling. I was wrong.

Editing to add: Any lawyers, peeps in the legal business who voted Tory ... well, there you are - as we say in Wales.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:11 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Seems Sky are reporting that about 100 protesters in London today...
Really? So why did they need so many police ?

The Met were crucified (rightly) for their lack of police presence during the rioting; the accusation was that they were happy to kettle peaceful demonstrators, but anybody who might fight back, not a chance. Since then they have massively overpoliced any demonstration (remember the ridiculous sight of all those brave policemen facing down a handful of vicious thugs in wheelchairs at Westminster Cathedral?) to avoid any such accusations; the question remains though, if push came to shove and something really big kicked off, would they put their lives on the line to defend a Government that has been cutting their own pay and conditions?

And with that happy thought I bid you all a good night.

Edited to add- a couple of people said earlier that Rusty would be delighted to read the bickering. Don't forget, most Government departments don't work on weekends.

One demonstration I went on was the March 26th 2011 'March for the Alternative' which ended at Hyde Park. Shortly before the end, a friend and I stepped out of the march and sat down on the pavement to have a cigarette [yeah yeah I know]. This wasn't because we were tired. It was because we wanted a smoke and didn't want to accidentally 'catch' anyone else with our lighted cigarettes. Anyway, a sergeant came up to us and assuming we were tired, told us there wasn't far to go now. We struck up conversation and I told him he should be marching with us. He said that many off duty police were indeed on the march and many that were on duty, were with us in spirit.

Among other things, I organised a petition against Lansley's bill. One Saturday when we were collecting signatures in the town centre, I approached a couple of coppers and asked them to sign. They replied they couldn't while on duty. So I told them where I'd be collecting signatures later in the week and if they were off duty, they could come and sign it then. Much to my surprise they did turn up and sign it.

So, on the basis of that anecdotal evidence Grim, I'm inclined to think they wouldn't be all that keen to lay their lives on the line if something big kicked off. Of course Thatcher never made the mistake this lot have made. She made damn sure of keeping the Police on board by upping their pay.

Btw this comment you made last night and I got to read this afternoon, was the first thing to make me laugh for over 24 hours so thank you.

"Blimey, listen to us all. 12 hours ago we were all ready for a Dignitas group booking and now we're planning a comeback tour".

And goodnight.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:13 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Inevitable I suppose.
How does he define the centre ground?

I don't think Miliband was particularly left wing. Cameron is on the fringe of right wing lunacy.

I also think Blair is way more to the right than he ever was as leader. Besides which he is working as a PR guy for actual murdering actual dictators.

How fucked up is his sense of normality? He has no idea what normal life is like.

Yes, I know you think that. But see the result.

Everyone here would snatch my hand off if I offered them a Blair government over what we have got.

Or even no government at all, just steady state.

No they wouldn't. They would take a Blair 97 government right now.

Nobody would touch the discredited shambles that is Blair 2015. He isn't grounded in reality anymore.

He is far to the right of where he started, which is my point.

For the record I was a Blairite up until just about the end, when I realised (like Maggie before him that he had list the plot).

Again the right wing of the Labour Party needs to articulate what they think the pitch should be. Bland phrases like the centre ground and we need to be less left wing don't cut it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:15 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:Oh gods! Gove as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor! Grayling is Leader of the HoC... Nicky Morgan Edu Sec AND Equalities Minister, then expected that Mark Harper will be Chief Whip.
Gove.... Well, there is no justice. I thought that department couldn't be more badly served than under Grayling. I was wrong.

Editing to add: Any lawyers, peeps in the legal business who voted Tory ... well, there you are - as we say in Wales.

Does Gove have any knowledge about law?

I know this is hard to believe but he would at least be better than Grayling.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:18 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Ok, the wing of the party I belong to has had someone express the point more clearly than me on the policy mix

"policies, even if individually popular, that, taken together, send us too far left."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

When you cast your vote for leader in September think this.

NOT what "who would I most like to see as leader?"

NOT (even) "who would SpinningHugo most like to see as leader?": I vote Labour come what may.

Think

"Which person is most likely to persuade someone who voted Tory last time to vote Labour?"

There's nothing in your mans article that I didn't get from ED. Moving forward to a more equal society.
Business must also pay its way and whilst he and you think business must have all it asks for, I think business should calculate "profit" after all expenses, including a living wage work force, are catered for, not pay out bonuses and dividends then split what's left on zero-hour contracts and have the government pick up the benefit tab in low pay tax credits.
I will vote for whoever I think will take Ed's project and polices forward.
If that's not your poster boy or girl - so be it.

No vote till September??? we need someone before that or the tory's steal the march again! Have a word in someone's ear please

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:26 pm

Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk · 10m10 minutes ago
Michael Gove is going to scrap the Human Rights Act. (The most depressing sentence I’ve typed this week? There’s lots of competition…)

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:26 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Ok, the wing of the party I belong to has had someone express the point more clearly than me on the policy mix

"policies, even if individually popular, that, taken together, send us too far left."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_tw

When you cast your vote for leader in September think this.

NOT what who would I most like to see as leader.

NOT (even) "who would SpinningHugo most like to see as leader: I vote Labour come what may.

Think

"Which person is most likely to persuade someone who voted Tory last time to vote Labour?"
When my vote is cast it will be for the candidate who can reach out to the midlands, south east of England, I can't go through what happened on Thursday a third time against an average bunch of politicians, namely the Tory party. Labour is losing votes UKIP, losing votes that normally would be theirs, a fair proportion would never vote Tory but see no shame in voting for UKIP. That has too be confronted in areas like South Wales, the industrial midlands and the north.

I agree with that but I think the idea we can fix this by changing the leader is wrong. That will help with say a Jarvis (but not a CU) but the more fundamental things are:

Fix the SNP issue somehow. Even Blair would have lost with that millstone round his neck in the South and Midlands.

Organise and reconnect with UKIP communities in all of Labours target seats and its core areas. This is best done through local councillors, clinics, events. Don't just do nothing and assume they will turn up on polling day. Ernst is a model to emulate here. This community is about to be hammered by benefits cuts (tax credits), they will need help and advice. That way maybe on polling day they will see the value of Labour and actually turn up.

Sure include a middle class pitch as well, but in reality until they experience real pain they will carry on voting Tory.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:27 pm

Harry Leslie Smith ‏@Harryslaststand 7h7 hours ago
Don't ever say you were never warned May 8th Telegraph article calls for NHS privatisation http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/115 ... e-NHS.html … #NHS #GE2015

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:29 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk · 10m10 minutes ago
Michael Gove is going to scrap the Human Rights Act. (The most depressing sentence I’ve typed this week? There’s lots of competition…)

First he has to create a British Bill of rights.....

Good luck agreeing that.

Then he has to get it through the commons, good luck with that. There are still a few sensible Tories who will vote that down.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:29 pm

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 11m11 minutes ago
Gove brings problems as justice secretary but far fewer than Grayling. Can imagine him cutting prison numbers & devolving power to governors

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 8m8 minutes ago
He'll also be tasked with scrapping the human rights act, of course, so let's not go getting the champaign out.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:31 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk · 10m10 minutes ago
Michael Gove is going to scrap the Human Rights Act. (The most depressing sentence I’ve typed this week? There’s lots of competition…)
First he has to create a British Bill of rights.....

Good luck agreeing that.

Then he has to get it through the commons, good luck with that. There are still a few sensible Tories who will vote that down.

Are you sure about that?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:32 pm

Karl Turner retweeted
Joanne Cecil ‏@JoanneCecil 18m18 minutes ago
Gove?! All teachers breathe a sigh of relief. Anyone involved in Justice recoils in horror. Grayling was just the warm up act.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:35 pm

John MannVerified account
‏@JohnMannMP My Boris test: can a Labour leadership hopeful beat Boris Johnson in 2020. So Liz Kendall. Who thinks so?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:42 pm

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound · 31 mins31 minutes ago
Is she running for leader? @leicesterliz "Yes I am considering it. But we don’t just need a new face. We need a fundamentally new approach.”

No we don't Liz we really really don't, we need stability and forward looking progression with Ed manifesto

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:44 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tizme1 wrote:

I didn't find your post curt yahyah. I'm afraid though I can't agree that Greens need to apologise for being anti austerity. And which ever way you slice it Labour were proposing austerity - just not as much as the Tories. Again, I can not accept blame for the harm that is going to be done to people, including myself actually. Labour did not persuade the electorate. This wasn't due to anything said by Natalie. Imo it was partly due to not dealing with Liam Byrne's stupid 'joke' note 5 years ago. And not dealing with the 'Labour crashed the economy' crap 5 years ago. I went to virtually all the local hustings and often, Matt was being attacked as though Labour was still in government and the main attacks were over the economy. He didn't have any answer for it - just like Labour haven't for the last five years. At at least five of the hustings, Harrington and Nick Lincoln [UKIP] used the Labour only put the tax up in the last month rubbish. Not once did Matt deal with it. On one occasion I put my hand up to tackle it myself because I was so fed up with hearing it but I wasn't called to speak.
I agree with you about Labour not coming up with a convincing answer to the 'crashed the economy' lie. That was probably the thing that hurt them most grievously. However, it is simply not a case of 'whichever way you slice it, Labour were proposing austerity'. Labour wanted to eliminate the current deficit in the next parliament but borrow to invest. The IFS said that because it was unclear how much Labour proposed to borrow, and indeed the performance of the economy, there might not have to be any cuts at all. The IFS also pointed out that the 'anti-austerity' SNP would be spending less than Labour by the fifth year of the parliament. The notion that Labour was for austerity and the Green/Plaid/SNP axis was not simply Is. Not. True. Yet I didn't see Natalie Bennett tearing into Nicole Sturgeon over their cuts.

As I've said repeatedly tonight, I want the leftwing parties to work together and stop taking chunks out of each other, but we have to do that from a position of honesty.

Again I think it was a case of Labour pursuing the middle ground. They never actually made the case that they may not have to cut anything, because they were afraid to make the case for borrowing. Constantly they sought to reassure that they 'took the deficit seriously'. Ed Miliband frequently stated he was probably the first Labour leader to seek office on the promise of no additional spending, that a Labour government would find savings, and they would make cuts. The problem with that was it didn't persuade anyone either way. As I've said many times, I like Ed. I thought he was the right choice as Labour leader but, somehow he didn't cut across enough in the end. Yes part of that is due to the media, but Labour knew they'd have the bulk of the media against them. They should have dealt with the 'economy' issue way back and not tried to appease.

I have seen/heard Natalie arguing against the SNP cuts but I do accept to the best of my recollection, it wasn't in the debates. But lets face it, if Labour had made their case, nothing Natalie said would have affected that. From a Green perspective [even a Green like me who respects Miliband] all that came across was he was still going to follow the neoliberal path but he would be less harsh on those least well off. That would of course have been preferable, but it isn't actually the way I think things should be run.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:46 pm

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 12m12 minutes ago
Gove is, by and large, a decentraliser. And he's smart. Those two things alone put him above Grayling. Also he's not mad.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:50 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Mark Ferguson ‏@Markfergusonuk · 10m10 minutes ago
Michael Gove is going to scrap the Human Rights Act. (The most depressing sentence I’ve typed this week? There’s lots of competition…)
First he has to create a British Bill of rights.....

Good luck agreeing that.

Then he has to get it through the commons, good luck with that. There are still a few sensible Tories who will vote that down.
Are you sure about that?

For something this barking, probably.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:57 pm

Pat_ JFT96 ‏@Pat_167 · 1 min1 minute ago
Bedroom Tax to hit a million more people as Tories launch 100-day welfare blitz http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pu ... ar_twitter …

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:58 pm

Possibly the best ever comment I've seen BTL on LDV

Stan 9th May '15 - 7:57pm
This is like ADHD, when faced witha difficult problem find something else to do. Whenver we face difficult times we take out our constitution and play with it. That is constitutional masturbation, nothing less.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-time ... 45856.html

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:00 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Just reading the LL Who might be next? and saw this below the line
"Doug Smith • an hour ago
Dan Jarvis: "Difficult to pin down ideologically". Jarvis is a vice-chair of Progress - i.e. he's on the Blairite hard-Right of the Labour Party."
I didn't know that, and not keen on going backwards

Doug Smith is a troll - ignore them.

Jarvis, if he is anything, is old style Labour right - not a smooth Blairite.

I am not totally sold on him as our next leader yet, but he is worth consideration IMO.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:02 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Pat_ JFT96 ‏@Pat_167 · 1 min1 minute ago
Bedroom Tax to hit a million more people as Tories launch 100-day welfare blitz http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pu ... ar_twitter …

Unbelievably depressing.

And the list of policies / measures that they want to bring in as fast as they can set out at the end of the article is terrifying.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:08 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Chair and Vice-chairs of Progress
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about- ... r-patrons/

John Woodcock MP was on some program knocking Ed last night, he's one of the "where were you in the campaign?" I complained of earlier. So are many on that list

Tbf to him he was defending his own Barrow seat - which he nearly lost with the "SCARY SCOTS" thing gaining even more traction locally than the norm with Trident such a big issue. I know Labour people across the party spectrum who have met/worked with him and think he is OK.

He has also had well documented personal problems - for that reason alone I was delighted he got back in.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:08 pm

Sorry about this folks

Dave Jones
‏@WelshGasDoc Hearing a rumour from a well placed source that Shapps is going to Health.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:15 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Sorry about this folks
Dave Jones
‏@WelshGasDoc Hearing a rumour from a well placed source that Shapps is going to Health.

Mr How To Get Stinking Rich ... should be a perfect fit for all the creaming off that's going to be done asap. Sick in every sense.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:19 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:The single most significant criterion for leader we should use is

"Who do the Tories not want us to elect?"

and if that points at a 'Blairite', suck it up.
Out of interest Hugo who do you think that would be?

Well, this much I think will get uniform agreement. I would prefer someone untainted by the recent past. I would also prefer a woman, not least because Cameron is poor at dealing with women (a common trait of public schoolboys).

In the best of all possible worlds, I would like.

AJ to stand, explicitly saying he was doing so on an interim basis and would stand down after two years.

That isn't going to happen. So, I would like Stella Creasy. The choice not to promote her looks like a deliberate snub, someone protecting their own position.

But, her personal circumstances may make that impossible.

So, failing that, I would go for Umunna. I suspect I am the only one on this board who would choose him, but he is the one the Tories don't want.

Failing him, Liz Kendall.

Last time we elected the leader the Tories wanted. We must not do that again.

Genuinely don't rate Umunna - nothing to do with him being "Blairite" or otherwise.

A shiny metropolitan professional politician type really isn't what Labour needs right now anyway.

Re Creasy - more than one person has claimed she was actually offered a SC place, but turned it down. Depends who you believe, as so often......

PS the Johnson thing is what I ideally wanted to happen after 2010 (and I have told you this before) His ship really has sailed now, though.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 11:22 pm

Mark Leftly ‏@MLeftly 6m6 minutes ago
Indy on Sun: @janemerrick23 scoop: Hunt set to run for leadership, Cooper to announce within 2 days, Jamie Reed thinking about it...