Saturday 16th, and Sunday 17th. May Weekend Edition.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 17 May, 2015 12:47 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:But potentially leaving Europe would be a life-changer. Given the lack of political literacy some of you have described here, I'm very nervous about a referendum. Like the SNP voting to leave in order to gain independence to rejoin; and a potential anti-Cameron backlash which would be a serious cutting off nose to spite face scenario.

Quite so, tinyclanger, take the AV vote for example. Okay it wasn't what many PR proponents wanted but was all that was offered, nevertheless was some small measure of progress. 'And what happened? Too mant voted NO just to give Clegg a bloody nose. I wonder if they're happy now?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 17 May, 2015 12:48 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:If Andy is the candidate of the Left we are shot
Economy, business and immigration – the three areas Burnham says Labour must regain credibility

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/economy-b ... edibility/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh, Mr. Burnham. He wants a referendum on the EU though he wants us to remain in the EU. This isn't a strong, correct action to choose for a leader of the UK at this time. Too expensive, too much upheaval - it's cajoling people who'd not like the result regardless of that result. EU referendum (at this time) is an expensive distraction. Nothing more. I appreciated Ed Miliband recognising this & will support another who does too.

Thing is, we're going to get this whether we like it nor not.

Burnham is correct that the earlier better for two reasons one spoken and the other not.

1. Gets rid of the uncertainty factior which may stop companies investing.
2. It hastens the end of UKIP who are doomed whatever the result. I forget who it was that said they wondered whether UKIP really did want a referendum...as all the time it's left as a maybe, they're relevant. With it over, they're history.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 17 May, 2015 12:53 pm

Mmm I'm off to fix my Firefox installation, something I must do anyway. But as much as I like returning after a thanks I don't appreciate going to my post when making one, I usually use the back key to get to where I was.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 12:57 pm

Can we start collecting knowledge on the consequences of coming out of Europe that we can work with. If we identify some stories we want to tell we can start on that. Are there obvious topics we should cover? Is anyone else already working on this? And perhaps we could start listing where we would want to send stuff out to (eg: the Womens Institute, schools etc).

Am just trying to find out what we collectively already know before I start looking.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:02 pm

“We are enormously proud of you” – university Labour club chairs pen open letter to Miliband

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/we-are-en ... -miliband/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:11 pm

I voted against AV. It wasn't to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose. It was because, despite their opposition to it, it would have benefitted the Tories more than anyone. People would be able to vote UKIP, safe in the knowledge that their second preference was Tory. It would NOT have helped Labour in the vast majority of seats. It is FPTP with a few adjustments. Plus the people who vote for the party that finishes last get more say in the outcome than anyone else.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:13 pm

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ne2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Economic Consequences of Leaving the EU (2014).

I will go through this and pull out main points. And should we collect this stuff in the Left thread or somewhere else?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:15 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ne2014.pdf
The Economic Consequences of Leaving the EU (2014).

I will go through this and pull out main points. And should we collect this stuff in the Left thread or somewhere else?

Maybe make a new thread in Features & Analysis section ? Then its all in one place.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:27 pm

AngryAsWell wrote: Well, we can't stop the referendum now so no point in still opposing it. What I don't like is instead of saying "right we are in this position so lets get on with it" he is back tracking and saying he's been in favour of one for the last half of the parliament. I find that duplicitous.
His three main key areas are

I see those issues as our economic credibility, our relationship with business – which is linked to that – and, thirdly, immigration
Not a word about the disenfranchised or inequality.
Yes, there is time to express more ideas as the election progresses, but I'm not impressed with his priorities.

Correct, his support for an EU referendum is a waste of time - back tracking - as you say. It has no virtue to justify it. It's calculated to begin his leadership bid on a new note, I call it a calculation & nothing more. I'm sick of calculated announcements.

I'd love for any of the Labour party MPs to just get on with it.

We're not going to lie to you. Understand this - you're not going to be happy with a lot of information we need you to understand. A lot of the truth we'll tell you will be surprisingly wonderful, too.

We're going to build council housing, upgrade the public transportation infrastructure throughout the UK, teach people how to build houses, trains, wind turbines, solar panels & teach others how to maintain all that infrastructure, train NHS health care staff & employ them properly, pay for training with a contractual agreement between students & state for the benefit of all parties, abolish the House of Lords, create an elected body of people to take their place.

The only tax we'll collect is a Land Value Tax. That'll be all we need. No other taxes are necessary. Don't freak out, please. Stop throwing stuff at me. We need to tell you why ever increasing house prices in the UK is bad. It's not appropriate for people to fund their own pensions with a property portfolio so we're going to change buy to let laws, implement pension reform & make affordable houses for people to live in with secure tenure so they can learn, work & create productively - take housing out of the economic game.

Stop hollering at me & listen please, because you need to know. There's all kinds of jobs in everything mentioned above. We'd like you to offer you a job paid appropriately doing all the work the UK needs doing. We'd like to thank those people over 65 years old for their work & encourage them to retire with this pension - yes, it's a lot more than what you've been told we could afford. Please take up hobbies.

It's not magic. But it's different from what you've been told about how government & the economic system in the past. Please have chocolate roll. Thank you for settling down & listening.

There are billions of pounds being spent in all kinds of ways to accomplish one goal - that you need to be afraid of what we've just told you & it won't work. Someone pass me the Welsh cakes, please.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:29 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ne2014.pdf
The Economic Consequences of Leaving the EU (2014).

I will go through this and pull out main points. And should we collect this stuff in the Left thread or somewhere else?

I there any mileage in ultimately laying it out like a balance sheet - pros and cons, and how certain pros come together to outweigh a perceived (by some) pro? Am I making sense? Are we intending this for ultimate onward transmission to anywhere or is this purely for internal consumption?

(I am, of course, totally incapable of doing this myself - I'm full of ideas for making work for other people!)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:32 pm

frightful_oik wrote:I voted against AV. It wasn't to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose. It was because, despite their opposition to it, it would have benefitted the Tories more than anyone. People would be able to vote UKIP, safe in the knowledge that their second preference was Tory. It would NOT have helped Labour in the vast majority of seats. It is FPTP with a few adjustments. Plus the people who vote for the party that finishes last get more say in the outcome than anyone else.

Me too. For those self same reasons.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:33 pm

PorFavor wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ne2014.pdf
The Economic Consequences of Leaving the EU (2014).

I will go through this and pull out main points. And should we collect this stuff in the Left thread or somewhere else?
I there any mileage in ultimately laying it out like a balance sheet - pros and cons, and how certain pros come together to outweigh a perceived (by some) pro? Am I making sense? Are we intending this for ultimate onward transmission to anywhere or is this purely for internal consumption?

(I am, of course, totally incapable of doing this myself - I'm full of ideas for making work for other people!)

Good idea....

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:35 pm

... am thinking spreadsheet ...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:38 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:... am thinking spreadsheet ...

Sounds like a plan. If we don't counter some of the more dangerous ideas (ie most of them) that are floating about, I suspect that we'll all have to start thinking "groundsheet".

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:46 pm

I think, in my pros and cons post, I confused pros with cons and vice versa. But people seem to have got my drift, despite that. Thanks. Humour me . . .

(I suppose it depends on which perspective we're coming from with any given issue.)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:47 pm

I don't have a problem with Burnham being behind having the referendum on Europe. I think it's a sensible thing to state. We are going to have a referendum anyway. Labour was just about the only party saying they wouldn't offer one - Greens, Lib Dems both accepted holding one on the basis that they would be arguing to stay in but fundamentally the public have a right to have their say. The Labour position meant that the 'denying democracy' and over controlling line could be used against us. I did hear this on the doorstep (one person, few doorsteps caveats obviously apply there). I think it's better to seize the day about it - take away those negative arguments and get behind working out the good positive reasons to stay in - well away from David Cameron.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 1:51 pm

James Forsyth ‏@JGForsyth 12m12 minutes ago
Some in Ukip imagine that EU referendum defeat would lead to an SNP style surge, that’s what really behind this row http://dailym.ai/1Hlv0PT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eh?

Damn - I might have to actually read that linked Mail piece to try and work out what that means.

Editing to add: Double damn ... this is exactly what we don't need.

The great danger for those outside Ukip who want to quit the EU is that Farage’s party ends up toxifying their cause. I understand that concern among the anti-EU Labour and Tory MPs is so great that they are in talks about setting up a cross-party Out campaign.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:03 pm

anti-EU Labour MPs? Aren't they in the wrong party?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:08 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:anti-EU Labour MPs? Aren't they in the wrong party?

IIRC the 1983 manifesto for Labour had EU exit in it.

The Tories have more Eurosceptics in it yet has taken us further into the EU than any other party. I think labour have changed their stance over the years as they see it as a backstop for denying the Tories all kinds of appalling things e.g. employment law.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:15 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:anti-EU Labour MPs? Aren't they in the wrong party?

There has always been a minority in Labour who are anti-EU, even at the height of Blairism.

The issue is not reducible to simple party politics and never has been.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:21 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I don't have a problem with Burnham being behind having the referendum on Europe. I think it's a sensible thing to state. We are going to have a referendum anyway. Labour was just about the only party saying they wouldn't offer one - Greens, Lib Dems both accepted holding one on the basis that they would be arguing to stay in but fundamentally the public have a right to have their say. The Labour position meant that the 'denying democracy' and over controlling line could be used against us. I did hear this on the doorstep (one person, few doorsteps caveats obviously apply there). I think it's better to seize the day about it - take away those negative arguments and get behind working out the good positive reasons to stay in - well away from David Cameron.

Good point. You're right. Thank you.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:22 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:If Andy is the candidate of the Left we are shot
Economy, business and immigration – the three areas Burnham says Labour must regain credibility

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/economy-b ... edibility/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh, Mr. Burnham. He wants a referendum on the EU though he wants us to remain in the EU. This isn't a strong, correct action to choose for a leader of the UK at this time. Too expensive, too much upheaval - it's cajoling people who'd not like the result regardless of that result. EU referendum (at this time) is an expensive distraction. Nothing more. I appreciated Ed Miliband recognising this & will support another who does too.
Thing is, we're going to get this whether we like it nor not.

Burnham is correct that the earlier better for two reasons one spoken and the other not.

1. Gets rid of the uncertainty factior which may stop companies investing.
2. It hastens the end of UKIP who are doomed whatever the result. I forget who it was that said they wondered whether UKIP really did want a referendum...as all the time it's left as a maybe, they're relevant. With it over, they're history.

Another good post helping me understand. Thank you again.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:39 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:anti-EU Labour MPs? Aren't they in the wrong party?
There has always been a minority in Labour who are anti-EU, even at the height of Blairism.

The issue is not reducible to simple party politics and never has been.

Dennis Skinner is anti-EU I believe.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:42 pm

frightful_oik wrote:I voted against AV. It wasn't to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose. It was because, despite their opposition to it, it would have benefitted the Tories more than anyone. People would be able to vote UKIP, safe in the knowledge that their second preference was Tory. It would NOT have helped Labour in the vast majority of seats. It is FPTP with a few adjustments. Plus the people who vote for the party that finishes last get more say in the outcome than anyone else.

I'm not sure I agree, frightful_oik. You speak of UKIP and Tory whereas many typical but younger Labour voters chose UKIP, indeed there is one I know who despite my protestations is now a UKIP, well let's say activist I'm not sure exactly, over immigration rather than racist views. 'And that's in South Derbyshire like you. I don't think his views are entirely limited to immigration though, like SNP there's an element of sticking two fingers up to the established parties.

I don't know about Labour this time around but feel they'd have done better in 2010 and possibly the next election when you consider how split the left leaning vote is. I feel fear and hatemongering won it for the Tories this time. I'm not sure what can be done about this but there is something profoundly wrong with how low they stooped and what it says of government.

Neither do I agree with your last point with the larger share tending toward two parties and the lesser shares establishing the greater consensus. Of course living in a quantum universe anything is possible. Having said that I agree that AV was a very poor offer and not what's required. I don't know but it may have been the constituency link that limited options without a complete overhaul.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:43 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Well, we can't stop the referendum now so no point in still opposing it. What I don't like is instead of saying "right we are in this position so lets get on with it" he is back tracking and saying he's been in favour of one for the last half of the parliament. I find that duplicitous.
His three main key areas are

I see those issues as our economic credibility, our relationship with business – which is linked to that – and, thirdly, immigration
Not a word about the disenfranchised or inequality.
Yes, there is time to express more ideas as the election progresses, but I'm not impressed with his priorities.
Correct, his support for an EU referendum is a waste of time - back tracking - as you say. It has no virtue to justify it. It's calculated to begin his leadership bid on a new note, I call it a calculation & nothing more. I'm sick of calculated announcements.

I'd love for any of the Labour party MPs to just get on with it.

We're not going to lie to you. Understand this - you're not going to be happy with a lot of information we need you to understand. A lot of the truth we'll tell you will be surprisingly wonderful, too.

We're going to build council housing, upgrade the public transportation infrastructure throughout the UK, teach people how to build houses, trains, wind turbines, solar panels & teach others how to maintain all that infrastructure, train NHS health care staff & employ them properly, pay for training with a contractual agreement between students & state for the benefit of all parties, abolish the House of Lords, create an elected body of people to take their place.

The only tax we'll collect is a Land Value Tax. That'll be all we need. No other taxes are necessary. Don't freak out, please. Stop throwing stuff at me. We need to tell you why ever increasing house prices in the UK is bad. It's not appropriate for people to fund their own pensions with a property portfolio so we're going to change buy to let laws, implement pension reform & make affordable houses for people to live in with secure tenure so they can learn, work & create productively - take housing out of the economic game.

Stop hollering at me & listen please, because you need to know. There's all kinds of jobs in everything mentioned above. We'd like you to offer you a job paid appropriately doing all the work the UK needs doing. We'd like to thank those people over 65 years old for their work & encourage them to retire with this pension - yes, it's a lot more than what you've been told we could afford. Please take up hobbies.

It's not magic. But it's different from what you've been told about how government & the economic system in the past. Please have chocolate roll. Thank you for settling down & listening.

There are billions of pounds being spent in all kinds of ways to accomplish one goal - that you need to be afraid of what we've just told you & it won't work. Someone pass me the Welsh cakes, please.

If only someone would get on with it, CitizenJ/A, if only...

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:47 pm

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 15m15 minutes ago
Has anyone suggested switching the Labour Party off and switching it back on again yet?

Hah. Rentoul has actually written something I find funny ... there's a first.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:48 pm

I think an overview of the pros and cons of leaving the EU is a good idea....but there are some things nobody can ever know.

I'm thinking about things like - one-off regeneration grants and support for projects in deprived areas (we get a lot of help in Wales, for example); trade tariffs, which we don't pay now being members; hassles UK workers in the EU might have because there is no free movement any more; and any future price we might have to pay if want back in, eg. having to use the Euro or whatever.

I imagine some EU politicians would be glad to see the back of us, when you think of all the UKIP MEPs pratting about there.....plus there is some resentment of the UK because of the special treatment we get not being in the Eurozone. And we do, whatever Nigel says.

The world is a complicated and often ruthless place. We need to have partners, and we need to part of the way power is spread about in the world. The UK is a very tiny country, whose influence is waning. We still punch above our weight in some ways, but we really aren't as good as we think we are. (By "we" I mean people like TCBBAC and those behave as though we still had an Empire) I also can't help wondering what would happen if the Scots split off from the UK altogether - and it's daft to pretend that it couldn't happen - and they apply for EU membership and get it?

What worries me about this referendum - especially if we have it next year - is that whatever TCBBAC says about wanting to stay in, he and his henchmen are so fucking incompetent, especially on anything to do with the EU (as we have seen with the non-veto-veto and the lies about his renegotiation of the rebate) that we'll end up leaving when we wanted to stay.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:48 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:anti-EU Labour MPs? Aren't they in the wrong party?
There has always been a minority in Labour who are anti-EU, even at the height of Blairism.

The issue is not reducible to simple party politics and never has been.
Dennis Skinner is anti-EU I believe.

Gisela Stuart is another.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sun 17 May, 2015 2:56 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:anti-EU Labour MPs? Aren't they in the wrong party?
There has always been a minority in Labour who are anti-EU, even at the height of Blairism.

The issue is not reducible to simple party politics and never has been.

I revere Tony Benn. I have to reconcile his distrust of the EU with my own opinion it's best the UK not to leave it now. I'm okay with changing my opinions when I'm presented with good reason for doing so. I may be wrong supporting the UK's continued membership within the EU; I've not been convinced it's wrong yet.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:01 pm

CER wrote:In any case, Britain would find it difficult to avoid EU regulation even if it left the club. Outside the Union, the UK would lose access to the single market unless it signed up to EU rules. Membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) would resolve little. This group, which includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, has full access to the single market, but must sign up to all of its rules despite having little say in their drafting. The Swiss relationship is not much better: while it has a set of bilateral accords to give it access to some parts of the single market, it must regularly update its standards to match those of the EU, or risk a suspension of access.http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ne2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am working on spreadsheet and will post it elsewhere when it's done, but thought this was quite persuasive (am imagining saying it to my folks' neighbours). (Apologies to those who know all this already).

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:08 pm

All this talk of EU highlights some of my own ignorance of the matter although favouring membership that's largely built on my ideals of international cooperation than any in-depth knowledge of its machinations, otherwise known as ignorance. Pretty poor form really when I consider that amongst the young it is not only Kippers who question the cost versus benefits of membership.

It's a pity I didn't get on better with my father because he once held some EFTA Secretary of Trade and Industry position for Wales, not sure what exactly. So although we've moved on, he presumably knew a lot more about it. Too late to ask now.

Edit: ha, I've just noticed that I'm doubly ignorant.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:16 pm

On the Labour leadership.....I am so annoyed about the whole thing.

The facts are that the media, manipulated by Crosby and the usual vested interests, won the election for the Tories. Cameron and Osborne are not popular, and their reputation as a safe pair of hands is completely manufactured and manifestly untrue.
Labour lost the 2015 election the minute the coalition was formed - the Tory high command and the moneyed people behind it started with the propaganda from day one. It began in the Rose Garden with the crapola about having to form a stable government to avoid a massive crash.
It was a set-up, the rationale was as untrue then as it is now, and Labour did nothing to argue about it.

I joined Labour, after 3 years of watching Miliband, not because I liked what Labour were saying (especially with regard to social security) but because I could see that he had kept the party pretty much together through a difficult time, and because he offered the hope that Labour could move towards the left in time if he could get into office.
Ed was hoist by his own petard to a degree - he did not want to engage in the petty arguments and the nonsense about Labour crashing the economy, but instead he kept plugging away at what he wanted to do rather than be negative. That's what sunk him, IMHO, along with the hideous characterisations of him in the press.
It's too late now to turn the clock back, and it's too late to make a fuss about why Labour didn't do more to defend its record and fight the Tories' nonsense about their handling of the economy. That's the reason why people think the Tories are competent, despite all the evidence clearly showing that they are not.

Ed was the best Labour leader since Smith, in my view. If he was standing again, I think he'd get lots of votes. Maybe enough to win. But he isn't, and as he is the reason why I joined - and, I suspect, quite a few others - unless the party gets better candidates (or the existing ones show a bit of oomph) I may not be able to support it.
If Cooper wins, I'm definitely off. They are all being too conciliatory, too wet, for my liking. And I do not, for one second, buy Umunna's reason for going - he watched what happened to Ed and if he wasn't expecting the same he is simply stupid. I think he has been advised to wait a bit for a time when he has a better chance of success. He knows he's too Blairite for now.

If some of the people standing for deputy moved up a notch, I might feel differently.......

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:30 pm

the leadership candidates are indeed extremely disappointing. plus they need to be getting on with dealing with the damm tories. I think they are seriously missing the point of a) the role of the opposition and b) the role of the leadership. It is not to redesign the manifesto according to who is leading the party, since that suggests that the party does not really stand for anything.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:32 pm

utopiandreams wrote:I'll report an observation I've made this morning. For some reason after a Firefox update FTN is not loading up, neither was my bank so probably an issue with Firefox. Anyway having come here using Chrome i find than when I thank someone I'm automatically returned to the post I thanked after a few seconds without clicking my way back. Anybody else?

Just in case no-one else has already responded, that's normal behaviour for Chrome and Safari on OS X and iOS. I can't speak for other operating systems. I'd try re-installing Firefox or reverting to the previous version – or sticking with Chrome just for FTN and, possibly, your bank.

Edit: I see that @Ohso had already answered. Snap!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:42 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:the leadership candidates are indeed extremely disappointing. plus they need to be getting on with dealing with the damm tories. I think they are seriously missing the point of a) the role of the opposition and b) the role of the leadership. It is not to redesign the manifesto according to who is leading the party, since that suggests that the party does not really stand for anything.

It doesn't help that the main event so far has been a f***ing Progress jamboree

Still, we shouldn't despair too much - real party members will have a chance to hold them to account in the next few months. I expect they will.

(it was how Ed made much of his reputation last time, don't forget)

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:47 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:The whole thing about fox hunting is a great big sneery class ridden up yours to ordinary people who don't like it and the politicians who got it banned. A 'we're here and your can't do a thing about it' kind of sneer.

I can't see that Nicola is unable to see that. Ha! Isn't it great to be ~~British~~ English*.

*i always find English a term difficult to apply to myself. This is not uncommon, I think, among many of us with one or more parents from elsewhere. Perhaps because this was strenuously objected to by my peers as a young teen. And just as much by neighbours in later years. I always refused to fill ethnicity boxes. I worry about small things like this, not for me, but for our collective future.
Me too. In practice the "English" identity is built around the world war period of the public school. Henry Fowler (lexicographer) wrote of "English" superiority to the "British matron, parent and public" (that's us).

Edited to add: coincidentally a piece saying the same in the G today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -ravilious" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm going to state the obvious on the above concerns. My chief worry is that, given the whol wider devolution issue, and that the term British may well become degraded, what are people who were born and raised in England to be called if terming yourself English can be a cause of conflict. T see no such difficulty in being Scottish or Welsh. Oddly overseas there isn't a problem, because everyone from the UK tends to get called English sometimes with an admiration that seems wholly undeserved.

I keep returning in my head to the increasing numbers of people who really do buy into the crowded island stuff, and whose nationalism is a very thin veneer for xenophobia and outright racism, that tendency that without acknowledging it all our major parties pander to to some degree (ours too, if we are Labour supporters, Edstone, mugs, immigration statements were my major differences with Ed).

It just doesn't bode well. I'm really very worried that the politics of appeasement play to the worst tendencies in our society, that many very reasonable, educated and broad minded people do not understand the terrifying nature of racism when you come face to face with it, and therefore dismiss such concerns. Having seen at firsthand the steps a society takes towards internal conflict, my observation then was that people do not understand what they are seeing and remove themselves into safe denial states. My observation now is that England specifically, but maybe also the entire UK is further down that road than my other home was 40 years ago, by quite a long way. I was brought up to be very thick skinned about racism on a personal level as a means of survival and to avoid psychological damage. In other words, you ignored it, got on with life, and made sure you and yours were properly equipped for life, educated, self aware and very egalitarian. I have to say though that these last things offer no protection once certain boundaries have been passed, especially institutional ones. Saying such things gives me no pleasure, I just wish they were heard. I'm also aware that in a nation such as England, in particular, that the outsider can be absolutely anyone, including utterly indigenous people. That was the lesson of my mums home country. I've since watched such conflicts in other places, paying a lot of attention to the things that motored them. There are plenty. I'm just saying there are patterns, they are readable, and being able to see them gives cause for concern. History doesn't really seem to record the times societies draw back from such a brink, but if anyone does have any such examples they would be worth examining.

To ensure no one reading this can misinterpret this analysis, it is well documented that others, well outside of any obvious targets can be drawn into being scapegoats, victims, whatever term fits the situation best. These include the weak and sick, dissidents, religious groups that protect people from harm, pressure groups, outsiders of any kind, politicians in opposition, journalists who report actual events, people who collude with any of the previous, homeless or itinerant people, well, the list goes on. So this is in no way an attack on Englishness, which I have a very great love of in its best iterations. Which are also fairly diverse. This is a good country that's taken a wrong turn. Power and politics notwithstanding. They do not define us. We are better than that.

I'm also thinking a lot about opposition. What it means to oppose. What is needed. What worked before. But am always aware I may overstep the mark and people's toes may accidentally trodden on. But also that meandering words can trigger associations and lateral thinking, and take us to places where small solutions lie.

Not sure whether I read an article about how the Tories won the election here or elsewhere, last nights reading sources are a little hazy. It was very instructional. Their tactics are working, they must be very sure of themselves, but nevertheless they are playing with fire and that's dangerous. So the prize must be great. (I'm rejecting the cheap labour pool theory. I've never seen a country less ready or willing for it than ours. I've yet to see any 'good' work appear, the definition of good here being 'that which helps improve our condition'. We are a bit like the biblical birds of the field without the religious insurance, in contrast to the east we are skill-less.) Or it could just be insane.

Haven't read the linked article yet, it will be interesting to do so. Thank you.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:50 pm

ephemerid wrote:On the Labour leadership.....I am so annoyed about the whole thing.

The facts are that the media, manipulated by Crosby and the usual vested interests, won the election for the Tories. Cameron and Osborne are not popular, and their reputation as a safe pair of hands is completely manufactured and manifestly untrue.
Labour lost the 2015 election the minute the coalition was formed - the Tory high command and the moneyed people behind it started with the propaganda from day one. It began in the Rose Garden with the crapola about having to form a stable government to avoid a massive crash.
It was a set-up, the rationale was as untrue then as it is now, and Labour did nothing to argue about it.

I joined Labour, after 3 years of watching Miliband, not because I liked what Labour were saying (especially with regard to social security) but because I could see that he had kept the party pretty much together through a difficult time, and because he offered the hope that Labour could move towards the left in time if he could get into office.
Ed was hoist by his own petard to a degree - he did not want to engage in the petty arguments and the nonsense about Labour crashing the economy, but instead he kept plugging away at what he wanted to do rather than be negative. That's what sunk him, IMHO, along with the hideous characterisations of him in the press.
It's too late now to turn the clock back, and it's too late to make a fuss about why Labour didn't do more to defend its record and fight the Tories' nonsense about their handling of the economy. That's the reason why people think the Tories are competent, despite all the evidence clearly showing that they are not.

Ed was the best Labour leader since Smith, in my view. If he was standing again, I think he'd get lots of votes. Maybe enough to win. But he isn't, and as he is the reason why I joined - and, I suspect, quite a few others - unless the party gets better candidates (or the existing ones show a bit of oomph) I may not be able to support it.
If Cooper wins, I'm definitely off. They are all being too conciliatory, too wet, for my liking. And I do not, for one second, buy Umunna's reason for going - he watched what happened to Ed and if he wasn't expecting the same he is simply stupid. I think he has been advised to wait a bit for a time when he has a better chance of success. He knows he's too Blairite for now.

If some of the people standing for deputy moved up a notch, I might feel differently.......

At the moment, I'm stuck on - non of the above.

I'd like just one of them to say they believed in and supported the direction Ed was taking them That their problem was immigration, that finding a stronger policy might bring their core voters back into the fold. That they'd do some tweaks here and there like the Mansion tax but on the whole not mend what didn't need fixing.

Did they all stand behind him with fingers crossed hoping he'd come unstuck? Not believing what they were telling us? Not sure I'd trust any of them yet.

I think I'd prefer a newbie. Fresh. Not having been got at. Not jaded. Not had time to be drawn into a clique.

Not going to happen.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:55 pm

ephemerid wrote:On the Labour leadership.....I am so annoyed about the whole thing.

The facts are that the media, manipulated by Crosby and the usual vested interests, won the election for the Tories. Cameron and Osborne are not popular, and their reputation as a safe pair of hands is completely manufactured and manifestly untrue.
Labour lost the 2015 election the minute the coalition was formed - the Tory high command and the moneyed people behind it started with the propaganda from day one. It began in the Rose Garden with the crapola about having to form a stable government to avoid a massive crash.
It was a set-up, the rationale was as untrue then as it is now, and Labour did nothing to argue about it.

I joined Labour, after 3 years of watching Miliband, not because I liked what Labour were saying (especially with regard to social security) but because I could see that he had kept the party pretty much together through a difficult time, and because he offered the hope that Labour could move towards the left in time if he could get into office.
Ed was hoist by his own petard to a degree - he did not want to engage in the petty arguments and the nonsense about Labour crashing the economy, but instead he kept plugging away at what he wanted to do rather than be negative. That's what sunk him, IMHO, along with the hideous characterisations of him in the press.
It's too late now to turn the clock back, and it's too late to make a fuss about why Labour didn't do more to defend its record and fight the Tories' nonsense about their handling of the economy. That's the reason why people think the Tories are competent, despite all the evidence clearly showing that they are not.

Ed was the best Labour leader since Smith, in my view. If he was standing again, I think he'd get lots of votes. Maybe enough to win. But he isn't, and as he is the reason why I joined - and, I suspect, quite a few others - unless the party gets better candidates (or the existing ones show a bit of oomph) I may not be able to support it.
If Cooper wins, I'm definitely off. They are all being too conciliatory, too wet, for my liking. And I do not, for one second, buy Umunna's reason for going - he watched what happened to Ed and if he wasn't expecting the same he is simply stupid. I think he has been advised to wait a bit for a time when he has a better chance of success. He knows he's too Blairite for now.

If some of the people standing for deputy moved up a notch, I might feel differently.......

Many thanks Ephie – you’ve said very clearly more or less what I’ve been thinking and I was beginning to wonder if it was just me!

I think we’re being (have been) sold a big lie. Labour did not lose the election because of its policies, nor did it lose because they didn’t talk to, listen to and react to voter concerns and raise the abject failures of the Coalition. They lost because the media and those who own them used lies, propaganda and misinformation to make sure that most voters were unaware of the Coalition failures, were fed a constant diet of hatred of difference, within an underlying cultural lie that the Labour party could never really be in charge because they are not our natural leaders. The media stole the election and I find it really scary that nobody seems to think this is a big thing. I think it demonstrated that we are no longer a functioning democracy.

Everything now seems to have shifted into a great pretence that the result was based on rational decisions made by an informed electorate. The labour party have been taught they must fall into line and the analysis and reporting of the election completely ignores just how dangerously undemocratic the process was.

The main reason that I haven’t posted this week is that I’m deeply depressed that what can be so clearly seen is being swept away in another great lie. As far as I can see democracy has been debased in the furtherance of profit for the few and there is no real outcry.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 17 May, 2015 3:56 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:I freely admit I don't understand the Scotland scenario - the visceral hatred that seems to be very much aimed at Labour. I have no idea how it will go in the future ... all very unknown ... but probably best that nothing re Scotland is relied upon and let Labour in Scotland try to do what it thinks it needs to.

I keep meaning to get back in touch with some friends who live and work in Scotland - in the countryside outside Glasgow - to see where they are with it all. I have absolutely no idea what their politics might be now - should be interesting.
We are now so far behind in the large majority of Scottish seats that it would take an earthquake to win back more than 2 or 3.

We have to think about how to win Nuneaton.

That doesn't meant that Scottish Labour (either the party or the voters) should simply be abandoned, though.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:00 pm

fedup59 wrote:
Many thanks Ephie – you’ve said very clearly more or less what I’ve been thinking and I was beginning to wonder if it was just me!

I think we’re being (have been) sold a big lie. Labour did not lose the election because of its policies, nor did it lose because they didn’t talk to, listen to and react to voter concerns and raise the abject failures of the Coalition. They lost because the media and those who own them used lies, propaganda and misinformation to make sure that most voters were unaware of the Coalition failures, were fed a constant diet of hatred of difference, within an underlying cultural lie that the Labour party could never really be in charge because they are not our natural leaders. The media stole the election and I find it really scary that nobody seems to think this is a big thing. I think it demonstrated that we are no longer a functioning democracy.

Everything now seems to have shifted into a great pretence that the result was based on rational decisions made by an informed electorate. The labour party have been taught they must fall into line and the analysis and reporting of the election completely ignores just how dangerously undemocratic the process was.

The main reason that I haven’t posted this week is that I’m deeply depressed that what can be so clearly seen is being swept away in another great lie. As far as I can see democracy has been debased in the furtherance of profit for the few and there is no real outcry.

Yes. I understand your concern. This is why I've been thinking about a) a popular compaign to implement Leveson b) an alternative to the Sun and Mail for sports news c) pressure to reclaim the BBC and d) the Labour party telling some simple stories now - they need to do the Liam Byrne equivalent and start with the stories now that they want to rely on later in the run up to GE2020.

I realise none of these things are simple, but they have to be done. As you say, it feels at the moment that with the press and public broadcaster we have - and the fact that our politicians will happily lie even in the face of the evidence - we do not really live in much of a democracy.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:05 pm

When I say Labour's problem was immigration, I don't mean clamping down hard by ejecting people or being racist. I mean trying to find a way to get it through ex-Labour voter's thick heads that there are ways we can live and work together without anyone suffering or being picked on.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:28 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/m ... ittingdale" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is adding to my seethefest. One way or another we'd better get demanding changes to press regulation. It was Thatcher and Murdoch that started this; it's time it came to an end.

JustMom · Post by **JustMom** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:29 pm

I hate that no one is sticking up for the fact that labour didn't overspend in their last government,it's almost as if they are afraid of the argument.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:32 pm

There's a lot of mentions of the 'emergency' budget on twitter - I remember reading on here that its later than the 2010 budget. Can FTN tweet out something about this, since the 'emergency' wording used isn't really correct, but will imply they 'have to' make cuts.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:46 pm

Just read on Twitter Jamie Reed? is going to stand.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Sun 17 May, 2015 4:52 pm

JustMom wrote:I hate that no one is sticking up for the fact that labour didn't overspend in their last government,it's almost as if they are afraid of the argument.

I think the majority, including the leadership candidates and journalists, don't understand the argument.

If the tories go ahead with their manifesto, over the next few years they're going to demonstrate conclusively that you can't cut your way out of a deficit. Unfortunately a lot of innocent people are going to get badly hurt in the process.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 17 May, 2015 5:05 pm

@LadyCentauria

Thanks but fixed now.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 17 May, 2015 5:08 pm

Reed is well known for his support of the nuclear industry. Sellafield is in Copeland and the nuclear industry is the main employer in the area. He has frequently referred to the "17,000 individual interests" that he has in the future of the nuclear industry

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Sun 17 May, 2015 5:13 pm

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/policy/w ... 84.article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Exclusive analysis of government data by Inside Housing using the government’s website Stat-Xplore shows 11,449 tenants living in social housing are set to be hit by Conservative plans to remove housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA).
The figure excludes single parents, who would be exempt from the change.
The removal of housing benefit from young jobseekers would potentially put around £69m of annual social household rental income under threat,

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sun 17 May, 2015 5:23 pm

JustMom wrote:I hate that no one is sticking up for the fact that labour didn't overspend in their last government,it's almost as if they are afraid of the argument.

I agree, JustMom, but it takes more than a Q&A type session when those who think they did merely raise their voices to shout others down. Documentaries by respected parties (not parliamentary ones) or possibly even better docudramas. Can Kathy come home yet? They could carry messages through to their conclusion assuming they avoided the froth and spittle they may attract.

Not that I've read TV reviews, but could you imagine if let's say Melanie Philips were to write one on such a broadcast?