Saturday 9th, Sunday 10th May 2015

[tinyclanger2]

You have to allow for the anger. I've never seen or heard our normally nondescript neighbour express himself as he did - out of the blue - to us yesterday. We had no idea of his politics before - he never gave a hint of it. He is now so disgusted with 'this country' he just wants to get out of it and away from the people who voted this government in.

Absolutely there is anger.

But MPs tweeting stuff like this are idiots.

On election night Kinnock was blaming the electorate as 'deluded'.

Well, you aren't going to win by blaming the electorate. You make the problem worse.

Agree MPs can't blame the electorate. I also think there is merit in getting back out there and doing almost the reverse / rewind of the election canvassing - going to the non voters, againsts and undecideds - and having a discussion about what does and doesn't matter to them.

Getting this started now, to my mind is critical - more important than the leadership. Labour should get a proper caretaker and get on with proper work while it works out what to do in the longer term. We don't have time for how things have been done in the past.

[AngryAsWell]

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

Someone like Eoin Clarke has his heart in the right place, but he is basically a fool.

If you want to win back the 15m people who voted for other parties, you don't start by insulting them.

This is where you and your man are making a big mistake
Ed didn't lose because people didn't like the policies or didn't like Ed. He lost because of the massive last ditch "The Scott's are coming" campaign and the split of the left vote. Whoever paid for the greens to stand in every constituency has a lot to answer for. I've spoken to friends in a lost marginal, one voted tory and one green. Both are kicking themselves and ardently wishing they could cancel the election and have a re run. The tory didn't realise how close the seat was (face palm) and voted tory because she thought it would send a message to Ed not to get to close to the SNP (!) she really thought he would win and this was her way of objecting to the SNP. The other (green) is first time voter and had been told that it was the number of votes counted that would win the seat and the more Green votes they got would "send a message" (god how I wish these message senders would just use email!) that people wanted a more green outlook. She is also devastated now she understands how things really work. Both these people really wanted and expected Ed to be PM. Both are non political, in that they only think about politics at the election.
I'm reading similar story's all over the web.
If your man really wants to help Labour he needs to analyse what actually happened rather than making assumptions based on bland numbers that tell no story.

[Willow904]

Dave Jones ‏@WelshGasDoc · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Dan Jarvis' voting record: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25067/ ... tral/votes … Also works very hard in the House too http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25067/ ... ey_central …

Thanks for the links. This guy seems to be the only option for a clean break from the Blair/Brown past so I'm seriously considering him. Useful to get a sense of where he stands.

[Willow904]

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 5m5 minutes ago
One of ironies of Tory opposition to Lords reform: there’s a huge Lib-Lab blocking majority (315 peers to Con 224). One to watch folks

A small silver ... or should that be ermine ... lining?

Oh thanks for this. I'd already come to the conclusion that the House of Lords was our last hope of defence against the worst excesses of this govt but was worried Cameron had stuffed it too full of his cronies to help us. I'd completely forgotten just how many of those "cronies" were actually appeasement appointments for the Libdems. It's actually a huge relief for me to see those numbers, so thank you from a now slightly less alarmed person!

[RogerOThornhill]

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 5m5 minutes ago
One of ironies of Tory opposition to Lords reform: there’s a huge Lib-Lab blocking majority (315 peers to Con 224). One to watch folks

A small silver ... or should that be ermine ... lining?

And given that they only have a majority of 12 in the HoC they will find it far more difficult getting legislation through than last time (albeit that the more wacky ideas git binned by the LibDems).

All is not lost...

NB I was thinking about Cameron moving on and a Tory leadership contest. That won't be until after 11th November 2018...

[Willow904]

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

Someone like Eoin Clarke has his heart in the right place, but he is basically a fool.

If you want to win back the 15m people who voted for other parties, you don't start by insulting them.

This is where you and your man are making a big mistake
Ed didn't lose because people didn't like the policies or didn't like Ed. He lost because of the massive last ditch "The Scott's are coming" campaign and the split of the left vote. Whoever paid for the greens to stand in every constituency has a lot to answer for. I've spoken to friends in a lost marginal, one voted tory and one green. Both are kicking themselves and ardently wishing they could cancel the election and have a re run. The tory didn't realise how close the seat was (face palm) and voted tory because she thought it would send a message to Ed not to get to close to the SNP (!) she really thought he would win and this was her way of objecting to the SNP. The other (green) is first time voter and had been told that it was the number of votes counted that would win the seat and the more Green votes they got would "send a message" (god how I wish these message senders would just use email!) that people wanted a more green outlook. She is also devastated now she understands how things really work. Both these people really wanted and expected Ed to be PM. Both are non political, in that they only think about politics at the election.
I'm reading similar story's all over the web.
If your man really wants to help Labour he needs to analyse what actually happened rather than making assumptions based on bland numbers that tell no story.

Exactly this. The Tories tricked everyone with their manipulative Tory controlled polls. The polls weren't a mistake, they were deliberate. They told the story the Tories wanted to be told, the story that told Labour leaners they could be indulgent because Ed would be PM anyway and it told Tory leaners they really needed to get out and vote because it was too close to be complacent. We, as a nation, have been well and truly stitched up by the most unprincipled, cheating scum who have ever taken government and that's before we even get on to the role of our shockingly partisan press that campaigned on behalf of the Tory party with more vigour and commitment than many Tory MPs.

Foftunately, I believe in Karma. Their duplicity will catch up with them sooner or later. Let's all work together and make it sooner.

[tinyclanger2]

Let's all work together and make it sooner.

Yes.

[AngryAsWell]

Tom Watson MP for Deputy Leader

[AngryAsWell]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wh ... ur-5670094

The Mirror seems to be going with Dan for leader

[AngryAsWell]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 19 hrs19 hours ago
A democratic system that gives 1 party with 4.7% 56 seats while 2 other parties with 16.4% get 2 seats must be reviewed #royalcommission

[ohsocynical]

News from the #ProgressiveAlliance and Anti-Austerity Bloc of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and allies in the UK Parliament. Events, meetings, protests
More on the London Occupy
https://twitter.com/AntiAusterityUK?lang=en-gb

I find that a bit ironic or is it me being over sensitive?

I'm just staggered.

The oh so lefty Axis, under Sturgeon, told people to vote in a way that made sure the Tories got into power and now they are going to start protesting.
Un flippin' believable.
Do they not have brains ?

I despair, I really do.

I try to reason with myself because it's not good to be so angry for so long, and then I read something like that.

I haven't moved on at all and doubt I will as the Cons press home all their evil policies.

I am still of the opinion that a large portion of the public has been stupid.

On Twitter some were saying it's the politicians fault...I said people were told about the NHS. What did they think was going to happen if Tories got in?
Your choice. Make a decision, live with it, but don't come grizzling to me if it goes pearshaped.

There are many who were reluctant to vote for a Labour party which had begun to take us back to the 'old style' left, hence the UKIP vote as well as the Tory swing.

To us, or to me anyway, it wasn't left, right, or middle. It was simply about being a decent human being trying to protect those less well off, but people are selfish. Thursday's results are proof. They voted for themselves. Not for the greater good.
Decency doesn't get you elected, as we've just found out. We/they/whoever blew it.

It's not a thought I like, but I reckon the only way Labour will get in again is if they turn more right wing, concentrate on the middle class and sneak in kinder policies once they have their feet under the table.

I'm no good at judging who'd be best as new leader. I prefer kind, gentle people, but that's the last thing that'll get Labour into power, so I'll probably opt for the one who comes across as the biggest bastard [and male.]

[pk1]

Tom Watson MP for Deputy Leader

Another attention-seeker is not what I would choose to fund.

[AngryAsWell]

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 19 hrs19 hours ago
A democratic system that gives 1 party with 4.7% 56 seats while 2 other parties with 16.4% get 2 seats must be reviewed #royalcommission

Hang on, didn't Ashcroft tweet that the boundary changes/cut in seats should be done as a matter of priority?

Yes.....

[AngryAsWell]

Tom Watson MP for Deputy Leader

Another attention-seeker is not what I would choose to fund.

Agree a bit too self centred for me.

[Eric_WLothian]

I was out yesterday afternoon and evening, so have only just caught up with yesterday’s posts. I see there were questions raised over the SNP’s position. I haven’t read all today’s posts yet, so apologies if I’m duplicating what others have said.

Firstly a few words about my background. I was born in Yorkshire but came to Scotland half a century ago. Most (40+ years) of my working life I was a Civil Servant (now retired). I joined the Scottish Office as a trainee programmer (anybody remember Cobol?) and remained there, latterly in IT management.

Secondly, a brief history of Scottish administration. Here, I might be stating what other inhabitants of the board are familiar with, if so – sorry for being patronising. The Scottish Office was a little known department especially outwith Scotland which had sub-departments: agriculture & fisheries; home and health; education; economic development. The department was the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, assisted by junior ministers for the four departments. Each year, the SoS would join all other UK ministers in bidding for funding. This was awarded as a block grant which he could allocate as he saw fit. When devolution came, the Scottish Office became the Scottish Executive – the administrative arm of the Scottish Parliament which was a separate body. The SE and SP were rebranded as the Scottish Government by the SNP (although I think they had cross party support).

The Scottish Parliament was originally designed to be consensual rather than confrontational. It was expected, through PR, to have coalitions, regulated by cross-party committees. A single-party majority has swept these concepts away. Funding was, of course, much the same as that for the Scottish Office – block grants.

Devolution worked reasonably well when we had Lib/Lab coalitions which were broadly in line with the UK government. The first three FMs were experienced ex-Westminster ministers and (imo) the decline of Scottish Labour was exacerbated by a string of inexperienced, weak leaders, which led to the SNP minority government. (The 2011 SNP majority was due mainly to the collapse of the LibDems). Jim Murphy should (I think) stay as leader. Yet another change before the SE could be a disaster.

The SNP are basically a one-policy party. Their raison d’etre is independence, whatever the cost. Personally, I believe that nationalism and socialism are mutually exclusive and that their overall track record in Holyrood is right-wing. There is a big difference between populist policies (SNP) and socialist policies (Lab). In many ways the behaviour of the SNP and the Tories is identical – keep telling the lies and eventually they become the perceived truth.

I will repeat what I’ve said before – the SNP are not Scotland, and do not represent the majority of the Scottish electorate. 46% of a 50% turnout in the last SE; 50% of a 70% turnout at the GE.

I can’t explain the huge swing in Scotland – imo it’s completely irrational. I do, however, believe it was Murdoch, with or without direct contact with the Tory and SNP leadership, who swung the result. We know that Salmond is a Murdoch supporter and that Cameron mixes in Murdochian circles. I have no doubt that Sturgeon’s real preference is a Tory government in Westminster, so that she can continue the “government we didn’t vote for” mantra. Equally, I don’t think she foresaw winning 56 seats. She wanted “a stronger voice in Westminster”. She basically copied the Labour manifesto, which would have locked her into supporting a Labour minority government. Because of the effect of the Sun(English edition)/Tory scaremongering, she’s proved that without a Labour government she has no voice in Westminster.

What happens now? The Tories will implement the Smith Commission recommendations. They will, I think, press on with FFA in order to save on money heading North via the Barnett formula. In doing so they will prove that Scotland will need higher taxes and/or less public services to make the books balance. If I’m right, one can only hope that it becomes clear before the SE, and that the SNP are forced into producing a credible budget proposal in the run up the SE.

[AngryAsWell]

I was out yesterday afternoon and evening, so have only just caught up with yesterday’s posts. I see there were questions raised over the SNP’s position. I haven’t read all today’s posts yet, so apologies if I’m duplicating what others have said.

Firstly a few words about my background. I was born in Yorkshire but came to Scotland half a century ago. Most (40+ years) of my working life I was a Civil Servant (now retired). I joined the Scottish Office as a trainee programmer (anybody remember Cobol?) and remained there, latterly in IT management.

Secondly, a brief history of Scottish administration. Here, I might be stating what other inhabitants of the board are familiar with, if so – sorry for being patronising. The Scottish Office was a little known department especially outwith Scotland which had sub-departments: agriculture & fisheries; home and health; education; economic development. The department was the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, assisted by junior ministers for the four departments. Each year, the SoS would join all other UK ministers in bidding for funding. This was awarded as a block grant which he could allocate as he saw fit. When devolution came, the Scottish Office became the Scottish Executive – the administrative arm of the Scottish Parliament which was a separate body. The SE and SP were rebranded as the Scottish Government by the SNP (although I think they had cross party support).

The Scottish Parliament was originally designed to be consensual rather than confrontational. It was expected, through PR, to have coalitions, regulated by cross-party committees. A single-party majority has swept these concepts away. Funding was, of course, much the same as that for the Scottish Office – block grants.

Devolution worked reasonably well when we had Lib/Lab coalitions which were broadly in line with the UK government. The first three FMs were experienced ex-Westminster ministers and (imo) the decline of Scottish Labour was exacerbated by a string of inexperienced, weak leaders, which led to the SNP minority government. (The 2011 SNP majority was due mainly to the collapse of the LibDems). Jim Murphy should (I think) stay as leader. Yet another change before the SE could be a disaster.

The SNP are basically a one-policy party. Their raison d’etre is independence, whatever the cost. Personally, I believe that nationalism and socialism are mutually exclusive and that their overall track record in Holyrood is right-wing. There is a big difference between populist policies (SNP) and socialist policies (Lab). In many ways the behaviour of the SNP and the Tories is identical – keep telling the lies and eventually they become the perceived truth.

I will repeat what I’ve said before – the SNP are not Scotland, and do not represent the majority of the Scottish electorate. 46% of a 50% turnout in the last SE; 50% of a 70% turnout at the GE.

I can’t explain the huge swing in Scotland – imo it’s completely irrational. I do, however, believe it was Murdoch, with or without direct contact with the Tory and SNP leadership, who swung the result. We know that Salmond is a Murdoch supporter and that Cameron mixes in Murdochian circles. I have no doubt that Sturgeon’s real preference is a Tory government in Westminster, so that she can continue the “government we didn’t vote for” mantra. Equally, I don’t think she foresaw winning 56 seats. She wanted “a stronger voice in Westminster”. She basically copied the Labour manifesto, which would have locked her into supporting a Labour minority government. Because of the effect of the Sun(English edition)/Tory scaremongering, she’s proved that without a Labour government she has no voice in Westminster.

What happens now? The Tories will implement the Smith Commission recommendations. They will, I think, press on with FFA in order to save on money heading North via the Barnett formula. In doing so they will prove that Scotland will need higher taxes and/or less public services to make the books balance. If I’m right, one can only hope that it becomes clear before the SE, and that the SNP are forced into producing a credible budget proposal in the run up the SE.

Thank you for that

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

@Spacedone and yahyah

I hope to continue seeing your presence here.

@Eric_WLothian

Thank you.


Edited to add yahyah's name

[Tizme1]

Meanwhile, the Green party’s only MP is proposing that progressive parties work together in future to beat Conservative candidates rather than splitting the votes in key seats. Caroline Lucas, who was re-elected for Brighton Pavilion, said she was backing the move after witnessing progressive politicians such as the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, in neighbouring Lewes, being voted out. Baker lost by just over 1,000 votes to Tory candidate Maria Caulfield. The Green candidate, who stood little chance of victory, picked up 2,784 votes.

Lucas said: “The system is wrong and we should have electoral reform, but that could be some time coming. So we need other ways to work together in a progressive alliance. Where it is appropriate, only one progressive candidate could stand in a seat – a sort of electoral pact. Cooperation during the EU referendum campaign could be the start of it.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-strategy

Hallelujah. A bit of common sense emerging? Just hope it lasts through to the next election and doesn't vanish in ridiculous headline lines of attack as per the norm. I've been thinking about the options for such co-operation around here after looking at our figures. We can't do that again.

The irony of Lucas saying what we had been saying all along .......

Did Ed Miliband suggest this to the Greens and other parties? No he didn't. Are Labour leaders suggesting it now? Not so far as I'm aware. Why, why, why, must it be the Greens and others that bow to Labour? Why the fuck can't Labour understand they don't have a god given right to Green votes? If they want our votes, there has to be an compromise on both sides.

[tinyclanger2]

Eric - thanks for that.

[Tizme1]

Meanwhile, the Green party’s only MP is proposing that progressive parties work together in future to beat Conservative candidates rather than splitting the votes in key seats. Caroline Lucas, who was re-elected for Brighton Pavilion, said she was backing the move after witnessing progressive politicians such as the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, in neighbouring Lewes, being voted out. Baker lost by just over 1,000 votes to Tory candidate Maria Caulfield. The Green candidate, who stood little chance of victory, picked up 2,784 votes.

Lucas said: “The system is wrong and we should have electoral reform, but that could be some time coming. So we need other ways to work together in a progressive alliance. Where it is appropriate, only one progressive candidate could stand in a seat – a sort of electoral pact. Cooperation during the EU referendum campaign could be the start of it.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-strategy

Hallelujah. A bit of common sense emerging? Just hope it lasts through to the next election and doesn't vanish in ridiculous headline lines of attack as per the norm. I've been thinking about the options for such co-operation around here after looking at our figures. We can't do that again.

To late, we have lost not just the election but the best, most honest, lovely PM we could have had in decades. We have no one to take his place, they have split us asunder, the party now will be driven back to the right no matter what we try to do. We have lost, they have broken my heart.
This is the point I made late night, Ed Balls lost his seat to just over 400 votes, the Green candidate took 2000 votes.
They knew, they knew that they stood not a snow balls hope in hell of taking these seats yet stood in them anyway knowing they were taking vital marginal votes and therefore letting in the torys, and that people would suffer because of their actions.
I can never understand or forgive them for this act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-dam vandalism.
Others can do what they want, I want nothing to do with them.

Actually the Greens took 1,264 which came primarily from the Lib dems. And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

[frightful_oik]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-strategy

Hallelujah. A bit of common sense emerging? Just hope it lasts through to the next election and doesn't vanish in ridiculous headline lines of attack as per the norm. I've been thinking about the options for such co-operation around here after looking at our figures. We can't do that again.

The irony of Lucas saying what we had been saying all along .......

Did Ed Miliband suggest this to the Greens and other parties? No he didn't. Are Labour leaders suggesting it now? Not so far as I'm aware. Why, why, why, must it be the Greens and others that bow to Labour? Why the fuck can't Labour understand they don't have a god given right to Green votes? If they want our votes, there has to be an compromise on both sides.

Fair point.

[tinyclanger2]

I would actively encourage deleting the sentence. We need a bit of rustigheid. As the Dutch would say.

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone. I've taken the time to read the thread from where I left it to rest yesterday.

[pk1]

And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

[SpinningHugo]

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

Someone like Eoin Clarke has his heart in the right place, but he is basically a fool.

If you want to win back the 15m people who voted for other parties, you don't start by insulting them.

This is where you and your man are making a big mistake
Ed didn't lose because people didn't like the policies or didn't like Ed. He lost because of the massive last ditch "The Scott's are coming" campaign and the split of the left vote. Whoever paid for the greens to stand in every constituency has a lot to answer for. I've spoken to friends in a lost marginal, one voted tory and one green. Both are kicking themselves and ardently wishing they could cancel the election and have a re run. The tory didn't realise how close the seat was (face palm) and voted tory because she thought it would send a message to Ed not to get to close to the SNP (!) she really thought he would win and this was her way of objecting to the SNP. The other (green) is first time voter and had been told that it was the number of votes counted that would win the seat and the more Green votes they got would "send a message" (god how I wish these message senders would just use email!) that people wanted a more green outlook. She is also devastated now she understands how things really work. Both these people really wanted and expected Ed to be PM. Both are non political, in that they only think about politics at the election.
I'm reading similar story's all over the web.
If your man really wants to help Labour he needs to analyse what actually happened rather than making assumptions based on bland numbers that tell no story.

No,

No doubt the SNP scare lost votes.

But, it was a failure of leadership that lost us Scotland, and we should have been in such a strong position that even the SNP story didn't matter. One of the reasons it had so much traction was because voters didn't trust Miliband to stand up to the SNP.

Miliband had enormous advantages

(i) collapse of Lib Dems
(ii) rise of Ukip
(iii) years of austerity and incompetence.

Next time the first two will be missing, and we'll have had boundary changes.

Miliband was an unequivocal disaster.

[citizenJA]

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

I think this is funnier than hell. Nothing wrong with it.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=51725#p51725

edited to add the post image link

[Tizme1]

I would actively encourage deleting the sentence. We need a bit of rustigheid. As the Dutch would say.

Possibly and I did think quite hard about it. But I do feel it needed to be said even if I don't usually like indulging in insults. Otherwise I'd basically be saying it's OK to insult me.

[letsskiptotheleft]

And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

Choice between Hunt or Umunna, I would go for Hunt, between Hunt or Jarvis, my choice would be Jarvis. For me, my choice of deputy would be Creasy, both are a break from the past, Jarvis, born in Nottingham, represents a Yorkshire seat, went to uni in Aberwystwth, then of course the army. PPE bullshit can't be thrown at him.

I wish it wasn't the case that a background when Labour leader is so scrutinised, Tories seem to get away with it for some reason.

[SpinningHugo]

And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

Choice between Hunt or Umunna, I would go for Hunt, between Hunt or Jarvis, my choice would be Jarvis. For me, my choice of deputy would be Creasy, both are a break from the past, Jarvis, born in Nottingham, represents a Yorkshire seat, went to uni in Aberwystwth, then of course the army. PPE bullshit can't be thrown at him.

I wish it wasn't the case that a background when Labour leader is so scrutinised, Tories seem to get away with it for some reason.

no possibility we can go for Hunt, surely?

[tinyclanger2]

And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

So (to misquote Withnail and I) How do we make it happen? How can we, Labour members and other concerned citiznes, best intervene to stop a small handful of professional labour politicians just making the situation worse?

[tinyclanger2]

I would actively encourage deleting the sentence. We need a bit of rustigheid. As the Dutch would say.

Possibly and I did think quite hard about it. But I do feel it needed to be said even if I don't usually like indulging in insults. Otherwise I'd basically be saying it's OK to insult me.

I am learning (rather late in the day) that there is a difference between one wanting to say something, and it actually needing to be said. Or at least there might be different and better ways to say it.

Anyroad. Sod it. Let's build the Grand Coalition of the Left and get these buggers dealt with. Starting with making sure the "Labour leadership" don't cock it up more than they have to.

[citizenJA]

And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

So (to misquote Withnail and I) How do we make it happen? How can we, Labour members and other concerned citiznes, best intervene to stop a small handful of professional labour politicians just making the situation worse?

Text message or tweet the FTN choice to the Labour party.

[tinyclanger2]

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

I think this is funnier than hell. Nothing wrong with it.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=51725#p51725

edited to add the post image link

I agree both that it is quite entertaining, and that it probably isn't the ideal thing for a Labour MP to be tweeting.

[letsskiptotheleft]

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

Choice between Hunt or Umunna, I would go for Hunt, between Hunt or Jarvis, my choice would be Jarvis. For me, my choice of deputy would be Creasy, both are a break from the past, Jarvis, born in Nottingham, represents a Yorkshire seat, went to uni in Aberwystwth, then of course the army. PPE bullshit can't be thrown at him.

I wish it wasn't the case that a background when Labour leader is so scrutinised, Tories seem to get away with it for some reason.

no possibility we can go for Hunt, surely?

I have a lot of time for Hunt, wish he had landed a few blows on Gove, but overall he did a decent job in education brief, my fear is that he would have "posh bastard" thrown at him repeatedly. But I wouldn't be be too disappointed if he was elected. I stand by Creasy though, she may not play the game, may not schmooze with fellow MPs, but I have no problem with her being fiercely ambitious.

[pk1]

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.[/quote]

So (to misquote Withnail and I) How do we make it happen? How can we, Labour members and other concerned citiznes, best intervene to stop a small handful of professional labour politicians just making the situation worse?

At this stage, I'm not sure but I don't think we can.

According to

@vincentmoss
Labour leadership candidates each need support of 35 of Lab's 232 MPs (15% of PLP) = max no. of candidates is 6. Will need early momentum

so it's only after they have been chosen that we would get a vote. Thanks to Ed though, our votes will mean as much as the votes of MP's, trade unions etc.

Anatoly probably can tell us much more about the process.

[citizenJA]

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

I think this is funnier than hell. Nothing wrong with it.

http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=51725#p51725

edited to add the post image link

I agree both that it is quite entertaining, and that it probably isn't the ideal thing for a Labour MP to be tweeting.

Why not?

[citizenJA]

Choice between Hunt or Umunna, I would go for Hunt, between Hunt or Jarvis, my choice would be Jarvis. For me, my choice of deputy would be Creasy, both are a break from the past, Jarvis, born in Nottingham, represents a Yorkshire seat, went to uni in Aberwystwth, then of course the army. PPE bullshit can't be thrown at him.

I wish it wasn't the case that a background when Labour leader is so scrutinised, Tories seem to get away with it for some reason.

no possibility we can go for Hunt, surely?

I have a lot of time for Hunt, wish he had landed a few blows on Gove, but overall he did a decent job in education brief, my fear is that he would have "posh bastard" thrown at him repeatedly. But I wouldn't be be too disappointed if he was elected. I stand by Creasy though, she may not play the game, may not schmooze with fellow MPs, but I have no problem with her being fiercely ambitious.

I agree about Hunty. I know he was born into a title but he works for living.

[citizenJA]

I would actively encourage deleting the sentence. We need a bit of rustigheid. As the Dutch would say.

Possibly and I did think quite hard about it. But I do feel it needed to be said even if I don't usually like indulging in insults. Otherwise I'd basically be saying it's OK to insult me.

I am learning (rather late in the day) that there is a difference between one wanting to say something, and it actually needing to be said. Or at least there might be different and better ways to say it.

Anyroad. Sod it. Let's build the Grand Coalition of the Left and get these buggers dealt with. Starting with making sure the "Labour leadership" don't cock it up more than they have to.

Well said.

[citizenJA]

This is where you and your man are making a big mistake
Ed didn't lose because people didn't like the policies or didn't like Ed. He lost because of the massive last ditch "The Scott's are coming" campaign and the split of the left vote. Whoever paid for the greens to stand in every constituency has a lot to answer for. I've spoken to friends in a lost marginal, one voted tory and one green. Both are kicking themselves and ardently wishing they could cancel the election and have a re run. The tory didn't realise how close the seat was (face palm) and voted tory because she thought it would send a message to Ed not to get to close to the SNP (!) she really thought he would win and this was her way of objecting to the SNP. The other (green) is first time voter and had been told that it was the number of votes counted that would win the seat and the more Green votes they got would "send a message" (god how I wish these message senders would just use email!) that people wanted a more green outlook. She is also devastated now she understands how things really work. Both these people really wanted and expected Ed to be PM. Both are non political, in that they only think about politics at the election.
I'm reading similar story's all over the web.
If your man really wants to help Labour he needs to analyse what actually happened rather than making assumptions based on bland numbers that tell no story.

No,

No doubt the SNP scare lost votes.

But, it was a failure of leadership that lost us Scotland, and we should have been in such a strong position that even the SNP story didn't matter. One of the reasons it had so much traction was because voters didn't trust Miliband to stand up to the SNP.

Miliband had enormous advantages

(i) collapse of Lib Dems
(ii) rise of Ukip
(iii) years of austerity and incompetence.

Next time the first two will be missing, and we'll have had boundary changes.

Miliband was an unequivocal disaster.

It's a shame you've reverted to the default anti-Miliband position. I think the real disaster would be if we ignored the good things achieved under Miliband and only see the loss. To take your points:

i) this helped the Tories as much as it helped Labour, as it turned out. As many former LibDem voters went for the Tories in marginal seats as Labour
ii) Far more traditional Labour voters switched to Ukip than anyone gave credit for. This cost us most of the Tory-Lab marginals
iii) the narrative of Tory competence and Labour incompetence was bedded in before Miliband was elected. Not saying Ed (and, frankly, his shadow cabinet as it's not just the leader's job) couldn't have done more to overturn it but it's much harder to break an established narrative months down the line. And the Blairites insisting that Labour should admit to mistakes it never made didn't exactly help.

Thank you, RobertSnozers.

[letsskiptotheleft]

John Ashworth calling for leadership "contest" to go well into September.


Here we go again, mistakes from 5 years ago being repeated.

[Tizme1]

And UKIP took 7,951 That is where Labour's problem is - if only you and they would realise it. Meanwhile, by hurling abuse at Greens, you are risking any chance of a future where we fight together to get rid of the Tories. Which is indeed an act of selfish, self important, sheer bloody don't-give-a-damn vandalism.

I was just about to delete that last sentence because it doesn't help the situation. But that would yet again be me bowing to Labour sensitivities. Maybe I need to say it so you realise there is strength of feeling on both sides and you can't expect everything the way you want it.

I agree with you Tiz. Abuse hurling in any direction is spectacularly unhelpful - but let's not pretend it is all one way. We are all capable of flinging insults & I've seen it (and probably participated in it too) both on here & on twitter but it achieves nothing except to increase feelings of acrimony toward others.

Ukip is a problem for Labour & I'm not sure how we should deal with that. I think they have developed into less of a EU-out party but into one where the traditional working classes feel wanted +/- understood.

It's going to take a leader who can convince those Ukip voters as well as the middle-class Tory voters who used to vote Labour & I suggest a team that is led by a non-Londoner with a non-Londoner as deputy would go a long way to regaining those votes.

Jarvis as Leader with Eagle as Deputy looks damn good to me.

I agree regarding abuse hurling but on balance I felt this was one occasion when I couldn't just suck it up.

UKIP voters are incredibly hard to get through to. But it's not a lost cause. As I said, in the local elections, in the ward I was standing in the vote was for two councillors due to a by election. At least one of my votes came from someone who also voted for one of the UKIP candidates. We had two candidates and so did they so if they were confirmed UKIP voters they could have voted UKIP twice. Our names weren't near each other on the ballot paper so it wasn't an error. It could of course have been a case of the voter in question having a personal liking or connection to either me or the UKIP candidate. It could have been tactical in the sense of not wanting any of the main stream parties. Or who knows. Thing is it indicates that not all UKIP voters are lost.......

As to who should be the new Labour leader, I don't know. Not my place to say really. Frankly I wish Miliband could have stayed. I understand why he resigned but still find it regrettable. Oddly one of my Green colleagues feels he should have stayed and that he let people down by resigning. I disagree with her. The press attacks would have been even more vitriolic if that is possible. One solution possibly would be him standing for the leadership again but I guess he won't do that.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Eoin Clarke is an idiot who does more harm than good.

There's tribal and there's making a tit of yourself.

[citizenJA]

Eoin Clarke is an idiot who does more harm than good.

There's tribal and there's making a tit of yourself.

He's not an elected member of anything, is he?

[citizenJA]

five Tory winters
god damn

[tinyclanger2]

Any point at all in writing an open letter to the Labour party (and getting it signed by the membership and celebrity backers) to the effect that we cannot afford them to repeat the mistakes of the past, and that the party "leadership" needs to urgently consult its membership on next steps and above all AVOID THE VACUUM that the Tories and Press filled last time with their own bleeding "narrative"?

[pk1]

I have a lot of time for Hunt, wish he had landed a few blows on Gove, but overall he did a decent job in education brief, my fear is that he would have "posh bastard" thrown at him repeatedly. But I wouldn't be be too disappointed if he was elected. I stand by Creasy though, she may not play the game, may not schmooze with fellow MPs, but I have no problem with her being fiercely ambitious.

I can't see what so many do about Creasy. Her bio, according to wiki, shows she can be called 'posh' too.

Born at Sutton Coldfield, she is the daughter of Cambridge graduates Philip Creasy and Corinna (née Martin), both active Labour Party members; her father is a trained opera singer and her mother a teacher.[4] Creasy has aristocratic family connections on her mother's side, including the Howards, Earls of Carlisle (through whom she is related to Polly Toynbee), the Cayzer family and the present (9th) Viscount Gort, her fourth cousin.[5][6]

After spending her early childhood in Manchester, the family moved to Colchester where Creasy attended Colchester County High School for Girls, a grammar school.[4] Although she had initially failed the Eleven-plus, her family's move south gave her a second chance.[4] Creasy attended Magdalene College, Cambridge, where she read Social and Political Sciences before pursuing postgraduate studies at London School of Economics.

In 2006, having already started work as a parliamentary researcher, she completed her thesis entitled Understanding the lifeworld of social exclusion, receiving a PhD degree from the University of London in Social Psychology.[7] Dr Creasy also received the Richard Titmuss Award for her academic psychology papers.

My husband is not particularly interested in politics but on Newsnight ages ago, Creasy was on with a payday lender guy & my husband's reaction to her was that she should stop shouting & stop talking all over the host & the lender.

I found myself agreeing with him (not always a given !) & it's noticeable how since her victory against the PDL's, she has been anonymous. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw/heard her.

Just as well we don't all share the same opinion isn't it - how boring would that be ! Democracy's a bitch at times isn't it

[citizenJA]

Any point at all in writing an open letter to the Labour party (and getting it signed by the membership and celebrity backers) to the effect that we cannot afford them to repeat the mistakes of the past, and that the party "leadership" needs to urgently consult its membership on next steps and above all AVOID THE VACUUM that the Tories and Press filled last time with their own bleeding "narrative"?

Your's is an excellent idea.

[ohsocynical]

The irony of Lucas saying what we had been saying all along .......

Did Ed Miliband suggest this to the Greens and other parties? No he didn't. Are Labour leaders suggesting it now? Not so far as I'm aware. Why, why, why, must it be the Greens and others that bow to Labour? Why the fuck can't Labour understand they don't have a god given right to Green votes? If they want our votes, there has to be an compromise on both sides.

Fair point.

Somewhere on Twitter [I'm not on there so much at presentso didn't pay attention] I thought I saw that a Labour politician said there had been talks with the minor parties...]Could have been Chucka or whatever his name is]

[Tizme1]

I would actively encourage deleting the sentence. We need a bit of rustigheid. As the Dutch would say.

Possibly and I did think quite hard about it. But I do feel it needed to be said even if I don't usually like indulging in insults. Otherwise I'd basically be saying it's OK to insult me.

I am learning (rather late in the day) that there is a difference between one wanting to say something, and it actually needing to be said. Or at least there might be different and better ways to say it.

Anyroad. Sod it. Let's build the Grand Coalition of the Left and get these buggers dealt with. Starting with making sure the "Labour leadership" don't cock it up more than they have to.

Lets go for the 'third way' and agree that maybe I needed to say it?

Totally agree with regards building the Grand Coalition. Have to say though it was tried to some extent with the Coalition of Resistance after the 2010 election. The basic premise of that being anyone but a Tory could be included. Indeed a number of Labour and Greens were involved including Caroline Lucas and some Labour MPs such as John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. And yours truly.

[RogerOThornhill]

Miliband had enormous advantages

(i) collapse of Lib Dems
(ii) rise of Ukip
(iii) years of austerity and incompetence.

I don't think any of those particularly worked in labour's favour this time.

1. LibDem seats were nearly all going to go in favour of the Tories - or SNP in Scotland
2. UKIP are a populist party and could simply steal policies from Labour that made it looked like they were appealing to all e.g. bedroom tax, zero hours contracts, NHS. That's what populist parties do - borrow from everyone else.
3. "Clearing up labour's mess" and "there's no money left" (sic) were always going to be trump cards. They won't be able to use those in 2020.

Miliband was an unequivocal disaster.

So you keep saying - s'getting a tad boring now.


Given the number of messes that have been left behind, Cameron with a small majority is probably thinking that this is actually going to be far tougher than the last 5 years. They have to deliver and can't rely on blaming the last government