FlyTheNest

RobertSnozers wrote:

mikems wrote:I would caution against predictions about what Corbyn will do as leader as regards particular policies. He won't try and impose his views, in my opinion, and will try to gain consensus for everything. I expect he sees his role more as a Harold Wilson figure, holding the party together from the centre-left and allowing ministers to operate, but as a balanced team, rather than predominantly centre-right, as we have become used to.

At the moment he is laying out his own views and asking for support, but he is not the sort of person to impose his views on anyone, as far as I can tell.

Yes. I can't expressed how impressed I am by his willingness to actually ask members of the party what they think, and happily incorporate the results into policy. It's so refreshingly different from the top-down attitudes of the others. Oh, there's been a degree of 'what's your priority' on this or that, but feedback has generally disappeared into the ether. The other day I got one of these round robin emails from the leadership asking why they think we lost the election. Well, Harriet, perhaps because it takes four bloody months for you to actually ask members things like that?

Absolutely this, Mr. Snozers. When I met him the other week at the Northern Futures launch, he was keen to divert all the praise and thanks he got from everyone who spoke to him into requests for more ideas and responses to those he'd gathered. There is no doubt at all that this is sincerely and absolutely his style, for me. And what a breath of fresh air. Corbyn's identified the disconnect between the PLP and the membership and clearly not only wants it to change, but is embodying this in the way he's gone about his policy ideas and proposals. This isn't "choose a truism that most bothers me from a list". This is reading and thinking and synthesising over 1200 submissions on one issue. Genuinely invigorating and inviting the involvement from newcomers that we could so do with.

I know he's not to everyone's taste and neither am I trying to do down any of the others. I just would hope people recognise that whoever wins, if this involvement and reconnection doesn't happen, it's a disaster for the party.

TobyLatimer wrote:Is Cameron sexy ?

cameronHols_2651356b.jpg

Wash your mouth out!

I'm too sexy for my gut
Too sexy for my gut
My chin
And my butt.

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

mikems wrote:I would caution against predictions about what Corbyn will do as leader as regards particular policies. He won't try and impose his views, in my opinion, and will try to gain consensus for everything. I expect he sees his role more as a Harold Wilson figure, holding the party together from the centre-left and allowing ministers to operate, but as a balanced team, rather than predominantly centre-right, as we have become used to.

At the moment he is laying out his own views and asking for support, but he is not the sort of person to impose his views on anyone, as far as I can tell.

Yes. I can't expressed how impressed I am by his willingness to actually ask members of the party what they think, and happily incorporate the results into policy. It's so refreshingly different from the top-down attitudes of the others. Oh, there's been a degree of 'what's your priority' on this or that, but feedback has generally disappeared into the ether. The other day I got one of these round robin emails from the leadership asking why they think we lost the election. Well, Harriet, perhaps because it takes four bloody months for you to actually ask members things like that?

Absolutely this, Mr. Snozers. When I met him the other week at the Northern Futures launch, he was keen to divert all the praise and thanks he got from everyone who spoke to him into requests for more ideas and responses to those he'd gathered. There is no doubt at all that this is sincerely and absolutely his style, for me. And what a breath of fresh air. Corbyn's identified the disconnect between the PLP and the membership and clearly not only wants it to change, but is embodying this in the way he's gone about his policy ideas and proposals. This isn't "choose a truism that most bothers me from a list". This is reading and thinking and synthesising over 1200 submissions on one issue. Genuinely invigorating and inviting the involvement from newcomers that we could so do with.

I know he's not to everyone's taste and neither am I trying to do down any of the others. I just would hope people recognise that whoever wins, if this involvement and reconnection doesn't happen, it's a disaster for the party.

This is how the Party already works, what do you think the vast policy review undertaken by Ed M was about? It was about members input via the (admittedly dreadful) Your Britain web site

http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..and yes it does work, on housing policy I got a mention in one of the first round consultation documents for an idea I had put forward. Not everything is accepted or becomes policy but all ideas are considered.
The process is there, people need to engage with it to make it work properly.

Given the amount of support Corbyn seemingly has, would excluding him from the ballot by "administrative" means have been that wise a move anyway?

IMO it seems clear it would only have led to a bigger and messier bust-up further down the line.

Non hard-left MPs who nominated JC to "widen the debate" didn't do so out of some frivolous capricious whim - as the narrative now fashionable amongst Blairites asserts - but because they realised that party members were demanding an alternative to the dismal spectacle the leadership election was then presenting.

The relationship between the PLP and the wider party has become hideously disfunctional - and given the general "revolt against the elites" we are seeing throughout the developed world (Trump and Sanders in the US, lots of examples on the continent, indeed the SNP tidal wave is in many ways part of the same thing as is the rise of UKIP) it has been a particularly bad time for this to happen. Whatever the result next month, this needs to be dealt with.

Been at the hospital most of this morning with Mr Ohso, so I'm only just catching up.

From last night.

@55degreesnorth.

I agree with almost everything Corbyn says, but share Hugo's concerns about him being an open goal for the rabid press and the Tories.

We know the press is rabidly right wing. We know the damage they did to Ed and will do to Corbyn.

Why the hell should I be dictated to by those tossers? Am I supposed to run scared and do as I'm told?

I'll vote for whoever I want. Fuck em.

Dan understands

@TobyLatimer

What on earth, in the context of the leadership election, is an intervention? At any rate, let's hope it's one which clears up the problem that AngryAsWell and I are having with regard to her (YC's) radio thing. Yes - that must be what it's all about, now I think it through.

@RobertSnozers and onebuttonmonkey

To be fair to Burnham he, well at the start of the campaign, also spoke of a bottom up approach, not Cameron's interpretation of the phrase i.e listening to the grass roots rather than a dictatorial approach from the leadership. Clegg seemingly forgot that at party conferences for all the talk of LibDem membership deciding policy. It's little wonder they lost so much support besides alignment with and apologies for Tory policy.

I feel that SH and TE have both overlooked Corbyn's reaching out to the electorate; he doesn't strike me as dictatorial. I guess I like his not being constrained by the party whip too, but do wonder how that may affect his leadership. Having said that I've never voted in GEs for the victor so that may just be a reflection on me.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Given the amount of support Corbyn seemingly has, would excluding him from the ballot by "administrative" means have been that wise a move anyway?

IMO it seems clear it would only have led to a bigger and messier bust-up further down the line.

Non hard-left MPs who nominated JC to "widen the debate" didn't do so out of some frivolous capricious whim - as the narrative now fashionable amongst Blairites asserts - but because they realised that party members were demanding an alternative to the dismal spectacle the leadership election was then presenting.

The relationship between the PLP and the wider party has become hideously disfunctional - and given the general "revolt against the elites" we are seeing throughout the developed world (Trump and Sanders in the US, lots of examples on the continent, indeed the SNP tidal wave is in many ways part of the same thing as is the rise of UKIP) it has been a particularly bad time for this to happen. Whatever the result next month, this needs to be dealt with.

I don't think so, no. People wanted Corbyn on the ballot for the same reason they wanted Abbott in 2010. To 'widen the debate. Nobody expected him to win, not his supporters and not Corbyn himself. Example here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the PLP had done its job, and only those candidates with the support of 35 members had been put forward, thereby filtering out the non-viable candidates, we would have had a column monaing about it from Owen Jones, and that would have been it. nobody on here would even be talking about jeremy Corbyn.

As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

ohsocynical wrote:Been at the hospital most of this morning with Mr Ohso, so I'm only just catching up.

From last night.

@55degreesnorth.

I agree with almost everything Corbyn says, but share Hugo's concerns about him being an open goal for the rabid press and the Tories.

We know the press is rabidly right wing. We know the damage they did to Ed and will do to Corbyn.

Why the hell should I be dictated to by those tossers? Am I supposed to run scared and do as I'm told?

I'll vote for whoever I want. Fuck em.

I don't think the press should factor in the decision. The fundamentals are is the candidate presenting credible solutions that could be implemented in the real world. The press will go for anybody, even a Blairite.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Given the amount of support Corbyn seemingly has, would excluding him from the ballot by "administrative" means have been that wise a move anyway?

IMO it seems clear it would only have led to a bigger and messier bust-up further down the line.

Non hard-left MPs who nominated JC to "widen the debate" didn't do so out of some frivolous capricious whim - as the narrative now fashionable amongst Blairites asserts - but because they realised that party members were demanding an alternative to the dismal spectacle the leadership election was then presenting.

The relationship between the PLP and the wider party has become hideously disfunctional - and given the general "revolt against the elites" we are seeing throughout the developed world (Trump and Sanders in the US, lots of examples on the continent, indeed the SNP tidal wave is in many ways part of the same thing as is the rise of UKIP) it has been a particularly bad time for this to happen. Whatever the result next month, this needs to be dealt with.

I don't think so, no. People wanted Corbyn on the ballot for the same reason they wanted Abbott in 2010. To 'widen the debate. Nobody expected him to win, not his supporters and not Corbyn himself. Example here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the PLP had done its job, and only those candidates with the support of 35 members had been put forward, thereby filtering out the non-viable candidates, we would have had a column monaing about it from Owen Jones, and that would have been it. nobody on here would even be talking about jeremy Corbyn.

As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

Oh dear.

I hadn't noticed Corbyns involvement with that lot. Not even vaguely good.

@yahyah

Btw, I was the 'one of our own' who commented on Yvette's overzealous, to my mind, approach to women issues. I did however take cover with 'but what do | know being a bloke'. I was a little upset you took it the way you did. 'And on that note I'd like to say that I had to steer two growing lads' attitude toward the fairer sex as their mother had a stroke and their sister Downs. The youngest can't even remember his Mum before her stroke and let's face it, young lads aren't exactly the kindest of creatures. I believe William Golding once wrote of such things.

I look forward* to Dan Hodges' column on why Yvette Cooper's intervention is bad news for Ed Miliband.


* By "look forward to" I mean "do not look forward to"


Edit: apostrophe. *sigh*

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:@TobyLatimer

What on earth, in the context of the leadership election, is an intervention? At any rate, let's hope it's one which clears up the problem that AngryAsWell and I are having with regard to her (YC's) radio thing. Yes - that must be what it's all about, now I think it through.

'Sit down, please, Labour Party. Your friends and I are very worried about the company you've been keeping recently'

"Intervention" suggests (or tries to suggest) not being directly involved, and somehow above the fray. I don't think a candidate can be represented as any such thing. Still a bit dippy, then, is young Master Hodges.

RobertSnozers wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

Hugo, if I recall correctly, even you turned away from Labour as a result of Iraq, and the Stop The War coalition was a similarly understandable response. Do you think that geopolitics has nothing to do with what's going on in Ukraine? That it's completely down to Putin and nothing at all to do with the US and EU playing cold war 'sphere of influence' power games with Russia's neighbours?

In any case, suggesting Corbyn is directly responsible for this particular article is a bit like suggesting Burnham was responsible for Mid Staffs.

I have a name for that 'religious fervour' by the way. It's called hope.

I strongly disagree.

I marched against the Iraq War. I consider and considered it to be in breach of public international law, and the worst foreign policy mistake of my lifetime.

That does not make the Putin apologists and anti-west nonsense in Stop the War 'understandable' at all. it is pure Bennite nonsense of the worst kind. And no, I don't accept that the EU negotiating a trade deal with Ukraine makes them in anyway responsible for shooting down passenger aircraft and Putin's invasion.

Re 'Major intervention' She might be planning a rerun of the grey lord's 'Back to Basics' in her campaign. Or a revival of the Cones Hotline, 20 years after it was put on ice ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cones ... 01950.html

Apologies for the link to the Fail, but have we had this?

Arise, Sir Vince: Former Lib Dem ministers Cable and Danny Alexander to be knighted in the Dissolution Honours List
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -List.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If ever there were two people that didn't require rewarding for services rendered...

RobertSnozers wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote: This is how the Party already works, what do you think the vast policy review undertaken by Ed M was about? It was about members input via the (admittedly dreadful) Your Britain web site

http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..and yes it does work, on housing policy I got a mention in one of the first round consultation documents for an idea I had put forward. Not everything is accepted or becomes policy but all ideas are considered.
The process is there, people need to engage with it to make it work properly.

Yes, but at the moment it's so obscure and opaque that even if anyone does know how to engage with it, very little appears to happen. Any attempt to engage usually ends up in party members' views being sucked into a vortex of doom and never being seen again. I went to one of those 'Refounding Labour' discussion events and sat on the table to discuss policy. It was the biggest group and everyone was very enthusiastic. Actually, though, we were told, the table wasn't about discussing policy, it was about discussing how the Labour Party should set policy. Several people started to get pissed off, feeling that they were being fobbed off. I tried and tried to get the facilitators to recognise the appetite there was in the room for having a good old debate and brainstorm about policies that could be fed upwards (and, please, receive a response). And why not hold regional and local meetings to do this? Actually harness some of the enthusiasm in the room. It was like we'd all become invisible. Glassy-eyed stares. A bit of a pat on the head, and nothing more... Ever. It wasn't even mentioned in the notes from the meeting.

Corbyn asked people what they thought. Within days, their views were published directly in a policy/discussion document. It's not hard. The Labour party makes it hard.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience at the discussion event, but if it was organised to discuss how Labour should set policy rather than what policies should be set, then its understandable the "how" would be the focus.
I've not had any input into the Corbyn policy discussion, when did that happen? and how valid is it if the majority of the party (the 200,000+ full members) did not have chance to add to it.
The bit I've bolded ("very little appears to happen") - what happened was the 2015 Manifesto.

SpinningHugo wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

Hugo, if I recall correctly, even you turned away from Labour as a result of Iraq, and the Stop The War coalition was a similarly understandable response. Do you think that geopolitics has nothing to do with what's going on in Ukraine? That it's completely down to Putin and nothing at all to do with the US and EU playing cold war 'sphere of influence' power games with Russia's neighbours?

In any case, suggesting Corbyn is directly responsible for this particular article is a bit like suggesting Burnham was responsible for Mid Staffs.

I have a name for that 'religious fervour' by the way. It's called hope.

I strongly disagree.

I marched against the Iraq War. I consider and considered it to be in breach of public international law, and the worst foreign policy mistake of my lifetime.

That does not make the Putin apologists and anti-west nonsense in Stop the War 'understandable' at all. it is pure Bennite nonsense of the worst kind. And no, I don't accept that the EU negotiating a trade deal with Ukraine makes them in anyway responsible for shooting down passenger aircraft and Putin's invasion.

Oddly I find myself entirely agreeing with Hugo on this. That said I wouldn't like to label it as Bennite nonsense. I will call it childish conspiracy drivel that any serious organisation should disown instantly.

If Corbyn doesn't want to be responsible for their output he should cut ties and dissociate himself from it.

As for the comment on MH17 those responsible for that are:

1. Ukraine ATC and 2. Euro control.

If you knowingly route civilian air traffic into a live fire war zone you cannot sensibly expect any other result.

refitman wrote:Apologies for the link to the Fail, but have we had this?

Arise, Sir Vince: Former Lib Dem ministers Cable and Danny Alexander to be knighted in the Dissolution Honours List
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -List.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If ever there were two people that didn't require rewarding for services rendered...

Both fairly dissolute though . . .

Good-afternoon, everyone.
My FlyTheNest habits got derailed while sorting out computer problems, I've been posting elsewhere.

Day before yesterday, a newly incarnated ghast troll told me to leave & come back here.
I responding with a 'no' & that's one word too many I gave in return.
No troll tells me where to post.
I couldn't care less what a troll thinks but love anyone here caring for my conversation.

It's good to read you all.

As I've said before, Corbyn is going to be in huge shit for his views on Russia and NATO in the EU. Because I don't think that the Poles, Latvians etc take too kindly being called American pawns. I reckon they probably see joining NATO differently.

It's like in the 80s on Northern Ireland. Unionists were basically told to shut up and stop getting in the way of a united Ireland. There's a fair bit to be said for a united Ireland, but how giving photo opportunities to Sinn Fein was supposed to help Unionists accept it, God only knows.

refitman wrote:Apologies for the link to the Fail, but have we had this?

Arise, Sir Vince: Former Lib Dem ministers Cable and Danny Alexander to be knighted in the Dissolution Honours List
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -List.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If ever there were two people that didn't require rewarding for services rendered...

New Tories in the Upper House are expected to include multi-millionaire donor and investment banker James Lupton and Scottish lingerie ­entrepreneur Michelle Mone.

Philippa Stroud, a former aide to Iain Duncan Smith; Simone Finn, an adviser to Francis Maude on Whitehall efficiency; Stuart Polak, who is a lobbyist and director of the Conservative Friends of Israel; and the Prime Minister’s longstanding gatekeeper Kate Fall are also expected to be given seats in the Lords.

Mr Cameron's election agent Barry Norton is tipped for a knighthood, while his former deputy chief of staff Oliver Dowden is lined up for a CBE.

The appointments will fuel criticism Mr Cameron is bloating the Upper House with his Tory cronies after figures showed he has dished out peerages at a faster rate than any other Prime Minister.

That's quite some group - lobbyists, hangers on, SpAds and a religious bigot.

Re the Honours List...IIRC there was a bit on this on Today recently that said that the Labour peerage list had gone through with the vetting committee but it was the Tory list that was still being discussed.

Make of that what you will...on matters of quantity and quality...

Ftermoreve all

Twenty Seventeen minutes until the extended registration deadline for Labour membership, affiliation, and supporters, expires. There were 'technical difficulties' this morning which prevented some people from registering so they announced the extension soon after midday, today.

And. Why, oh why, oh why, will 'commentators' not point out that the Conservatives hold Open Primaries for all sorts of selections!? They haven't done it for Leader, yet; but Londoners (if they're on the Electoral Register, here) can sign up and take part in the election for Conservative Candidate for Mayor of London - to be held in September...

Edit for accuracy...

RogerOThornhill wrote:Re the Honours List...IIRC there was a bit on this on Today recently that said that the Labour peerage list had gone through with the vetting committee but it was the Tory list that was still being discussed.

Make of that what you will...on matters of quantity and quality...

I wouldn't put it past him to ennoble Rebekah if he thought he could get away with it, Roger, for services against paedophilia. Then again if Maggie were still here, she'd slap his wrist for thinking it.

In poor taste? I've no doubt it wouldn't pass moderation at the G.

Edit: btw I once read something in Pravda that praised her efforts in this regard and couldn't understand the furore over phone hacking (plus typos in the edit)

Another edit: I see I've quoted from the wrong post, Roger. I had meant the preceding one.

UK lobbying for even weaker EU air pollution laws, leaked papers show
Conservative government argues that already watered-down laws to limit toxic pollution that causes tens of thousands of deaths each year will cause job losses in the coal mining sector

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... apers-show" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Leaked documents show the UK is pushing for watered-down EU air pollution laws to be weakened further, arguing they would cause pit closures leading to substantial job losses and the need to import coal.
The new pollution rules would also be costly, risk energy security, and prevent indigenous coal being used in new power plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the UK warns.

Wait for it, wait for it....

The only leading British politician to publicly make such a strong case for coal has been Jeremy Corbyn...

And it's in!
Obligatory Corbyn hit has been achieved!
Regardless of topic, context or coherence, Corbyn either shares Tory policy or is in negotiations with Cuba.
I'll go check the bike blog now...

I was joking in my initial post.
I thought I was immune to jaw-dropping surprise.
I am not.

How to overtake cyclists – the video all drivers should watch

The Highway code requires vehicles to give cyclists at least as much space as a car - but many cars endanger lives by ignoring this. Chris Boardman features in a new YouTube video that aims to help change that
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ould-watch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Socialism,” wrote the 1970s Chilean politician José Viera Gallo, “can only arrive by bicycle.”

That’s why Jeremy Corbyn cycles everywhere. And come the revolution, prime minister Corbyn will see to it that this land of ours will be festooned with bike paths. Not the usual “crap” ones, oh no, the Corbynite cycleways will be clause IV bike paths, nationalised, surfaced with butter-smooth tarmac and wider than a wide thing.

Until then, we’ve got to make do with less then wholesome conditions, and that means sometimes sharing the road with tonnes of tin driven by texting, speeding, tweeting motorists.

edited to add the following:
I love socialism.
I'm delighted Corbyn wants bike paths, if indeed he's said he does - I've not confirmed this.
If I was supposed to be turned off by Corbyn's love of riding bikes on bike paths, it didn't succeed.
Nationalised bike paths are great - we can negotiate the tarmac part.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Given the amount of support Corbyn seemingly has, would excluding him from the ballot by "administrative" means have been that wise a move anyway?

IMO it seems clear it would only have led to a bigger and messier bust-up further down the line.

Non hard-left MPs who nominated JC to "widen the debate" didn't do so out of some frivolous capricious whim - as the narrative now fashionable amongst Blairites asserts - but because they realised that party members were demanding an alternative to the dismal spectacle the leadership election was then presenting.

The relationship between the PLP and the wider party has become hideously disfunctional - and given the general "revolt against the elites" we are seeing throughout the developed world (Trump and Sanders in the US, lots of examples on the continent, indeed the SNP tidal wave is in many ways part of the same thing as is the rise of UKIP) it has been a particularly bad time for this to happen. Whatever the result next month, this needs to be dealt with.

I don't think so, no. People wanted Corbyn on the ballot for the same reason they wanted Abbott in 2010. To 'widen the debate. Nobody expected him to win, not his supporters and not Corbyn himself. Example here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the PLP had done its job, and only those candidates with the support of 35 members had been put forward, thereby filtering out the non-viable candidates, we would have had a column monaing about it from Owen Jones, and that would have been it. nobody on here would even be talking about jeremy Corbyn.

As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

And you would have carried on leaking support to the Greens, UKIP, Plaid etc. Tony Blair may have won three elections on the trot, but the Blairite Labour party has now lost two. The project is over.

Jeremy Corbyn is a fine Labour MP & I've no qualms supporting him should he win the Labour leadership contest.
I hope Angela Eagle gets the Labour Deputy leadership position.
Regardless of the Labour party leadership outcome(s), I remain a Labour party member & supporter.

And you would have carried on leaking support to the Greens, UKIP, Plaid etc.

That devastating 0.1% Labour to Plaid swing!

Last time I saw Corbyn photographed using transportation he was on a bus - not the private hire kind either.
Corbyn rides a bike, does he?
Good.

"It is a form of religious awakening.

We are at the dawn of the rapture brothers and sisters. Believe!"

[Oh, and death to the heretics.]



There's helpful.

As f**ing usual.

It isn't funny and it isn't clever. You are not funny and you're certainly not half as clever as you think you are.

Just pack it in.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

And you would have carried on leaking support to the Greens, UKIP, Plaid etc.

That devastating 0.1% Labour to Plaid swing!

Well, I figure you cant really lose much more to the SNP, can you? Otherwise I would have thrown them into the mix. So Scotland lost and Wales? Three thousand Plaid voters in Gower meant the constituency went to the tories for the first time in Labour history.

So, sneer away, Tubby, and you will lose the Welsh just like you have the Scots.

RobertSnozers wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience at the discussion event, but if it was organised to discuss how Labour should set policy rather than what policies should be set, then its understandable the "how" would be the focus.

That was exactly the attitude: 'We'll ask you about what we want to ask you and you can shut up about anything else'. A great way to take enthusiastic supporters and turn them into disgruntled ex-supporters.

AngryAsWell wrote: The bit I've bolded ("very little appears to happen") - what happened was the 2015 Manifesto.

Maybe it did, but where was the feedback? Where was the 'you said, we did'? Where were the regular updates on how people's input was contributing to the policy review? This is basic stuff that every organisation is expected to do when it consults, and it's good practice. Just asking people and then four years later coming out with a manifesto that may or not have been influenced doesn't do it. In any case, how much of the manifesto genuinely came from members' input? Nobody can answer that, because the party never told us. Instead we got leaked rumours of a 'dead hand' at the centre blocking things, and stories of party 'enforcers' adding sections in the manifesto at the last minute that the NEC hadn't even agreed to.

Sorry Robert but the policy review was publish on the YB web site annually over 4 years informing people where the review was up to, that's where I was mentioned, in the first year summery of the review. That document (the consolidated review) was then again put to members (via the YB web site) to comment on or suggest further revisions.
An example here
Stability and Prosperity Policy Consultation
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-20 ... ultation-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rinse and repeated till the final review was concluded.
The final review that lead to the manifesto is here:

NATIONAL POLICY FORUM REPORT 2014

http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/e ... t_2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having made submissions I received emails telling me when comments were made on the submission I had submitted.
Could communication be better? Yes it always can & should be, and whoever organised the event you attended should have made the purpose of the event much clearer to avoid the misunderstanding (and bad feelings) that it caused.

Politics is contentious.
Constructive disagreement takes practice.
Give & take, read & listen carefully to the words read or heard.
Ask a lot of questions.
Take a break & walk.
Come back to the discussion.

RobertSnozers wrote:I've had a great idea. Every time someone tells how disastrous Corbyn would be for Labour, I'm going to post 'PROJECT FEAR!!!!' in response.

I've yet to read or hear anything convincing me Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour in the the party's leadership position.
Corbyn turning up in two articles from different sections of a news outlet have me literally laughing out loud.
The man has been in the Labour party since 1983.
Labour managed some great policy & leadership during those years.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Given the amount of support Corbyn seemingly has, would excluding him from the ballot by "administrative" means have been that wise a move anyway?

IMO it seems clear it would only have led to a bigger and messier bust-up further down the line.

Non hard-left MPs who nominated JC to "widen the debate" didn't do so out of some frivolous capricious whim - as the narrative now fashionable amongst Blairites asserts - but because they realised that party members were demanding an alternative to the dismal spectacle the leadership election was then presenting.

The relationship between the PLP and the wider party has become hideously disfunctional - and given the general "revolt against the elites" we are seeing throughout the developed world (Trump and Sanders in the US, lots of examples on the continent, indeed the SNP tidal wave is in many ways part of the same thing as is the rise of UKIP) it has been a particularly bad time for this to happen. Whatever the result next month, this needs to be dealt with.

I don't think so, no. People wanted Corbyn on the ballot for the same reason they wanted Abbott in 2010. To 'widen the debate. Nobody expected him to win, not his supporters and not Corbyn himself. Example here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the PLP had done its job, and only those candidates with the support of 35 members had been put forward, thereby filtering out the non-viable candidates, we would have had a column monaing about it from Owen Jones, and that would have been it. nobody on here would even be talking about jeremy Corbyn.

As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

Oh dear.

I hadn't noticed Corbyns involvement with that lot. Not even vaguely good.

Relgious fervour? Bless you my sons.

citizenJA wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:I've had a great idea. Every time someone tells how disastrous Corbyn would be for Labour, I'm going to post 'PROJECT FEAR!!!!' in response.

I've yet to read or hear anything convincing me Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour in the the party's leadership position.
Corbyn turning up in two articles from different sections of a news outlet have me literally laughing out loud.
The man has been in the Labour party since 1983.
Labour managed some great policy & leadership during those years.

Press manipulation at it's most abhorrent. And Danzuck or whatever his name is can take a hike too. The twat.

Temulkar wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Given the amount of support Corbyn seemingly has, would excluding him from the ballot by "administrative" means have been that wise a move anyway?

IMO it seems clear it would only have led to a bigger and messier bust-up further down the line.

Non hard-left MPs who nominated JC to "widen the debate" didn't do so out of some frivolous capricious whim - as the narrative now fashionable amongst Blairites asserts - but because they realised that party members were demanding an alternative to the dismal spectacle the leadership election was then presenting.

The relationship between the PLP and the wider party has become hideously disfunctional - and given the general "revolt against the elites" we are seeing throughout the developed world (Trump and Sanders in the US, lots of examples on the continent, indeed the SNP tidal wave is in many ways part of the same thing as is the rise of UKIP) it has been a particularly bad time for this to happen. Whatever the result next month, this needs to be dealt with.

I don't think so, no. People wanted Corbyn on the ballot for the same reason they wanted Abbott in 2010. To 'widen the debate. Nobody expected him to win, not his supporters and not Corbyn himself. Example here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the PLP had done its job, and only those candidates with the support of 35 members had been put forward, thereby filtering out the non-viable candidates, we would have had a column monaing about it from Owen Jones, and that would have been it. nobody on here would even be talking about jeremy Corbyn.

As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as leader.

And you would have carried on leaking support to the Greens, UKIP, Plaid etc. Tony Blair may have won three elections on the trot, but the Blairite Labour party has now lost two. The project is over.

I see, so Ed Miliband was a Blairite? I suppose from the perspective of the Bennite left we do all look the same.

In addition to David Miliband (see above) the other person who shares a large slice of the blame for the disaster about to inflict Labour is Tony Blair. The source of that was, and is, Iraq.

Iraq completely discredited Blair. The numbers who still support the Iraq War and Blair's part in it are tiny, but are disproportionately represented in the media (and as AK likes to point out, especially the Times).

Within the UK, that disaster not only brought down Blair eventually, it also fatally undermined that right of the Labour movement. Today, if you label someone a Blairite you associate them with Iraq, disgrace. and failure.

Not all of this is rational of course. Corbyn has disgracefully pandered to those who shout war criminal at Blair.

With the downfall of Blairism in 2007, the stage was set for those who consider themselves 'mainstream Labour' to shine. Unfortunately Brown and Miliband proved rather less successful at winning elections than Blair had been.

So, with Blairism not an option, and the approach of Brown and his younger follower unsuccessful, what was the choice?

Corbyn.

ohsocynical wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: I don't think so, no. People wanted Corbyn on the ballot for the same reason they wanted Abbott in 2010. To 'widen the debate. Nobody expected him to win, not his supporters and not Corbyn himself. Example here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... hip-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the PLP had done its job, and only those candidates with the support of 35 members had been put forward, thereby filtering out the non-viable candidates, we would have had a column monaing about it from Owen Jones, and that would have been it. nobody on here would even be talking about jeremy Corbyn.

As it is, religious fervour has swept the land and we get the Chair of the organisation responsible for this

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/why-the- ... in-ukraine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
as leader.

Oh dear.

I hadn't noticed Corbyns involvement with that lot. Not even vaguely good.

Relgious fervour? Bless you my sons.

Matters spiritual? Oh, lord!

ohsocynical wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:I've had a great idea. Every time someone tells how disastrous Corbyn would be for Labour, I'm going to post 'PROJECT FEAR!!!!' in response.

I've yet to read or hear anything convincing me Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour in the the party's leadership position.
Corbyn turning up in two articles from different sections of a news outlet have me literally laughing out loud.
The man has been in the Labour party since 1983.
Labour managed some great policy & leadership during those years.

Press manipulation at it's most abhorrent. And Danzuck or whatever his name is can take a hike too. The twat.

Incredible, isn't it?
I can't purchase an alternative mass media.
Where's that leave most regular people?
Dependent upon what a few own & control for news.

@citizenJA

Prompted by your remarks on cycling. Potholes are bad enough but even cars have to navigate around metalworks these days, often in newly surfaced roads too. I recently asked my eldest who's still a keen cyclist what it's like avoiding drains and the like in traffic. Which reminds me of a chap I once worked for who used to ride with Mercian Cycle Club, he had thighs like Chris Hoy. My brother still cycles a lot even after back surgery. He used to take his lads on cycling holidays in Europe. I may be mistaken as it could have been another holiday but believe he had to fly back from the Pyrenees once when he couldn't stand any further pain in his left leg.

I don't know how he did it, my cycling days were over after my prolapsed discs. Ten years of agony but my physiotherapists stopped my exercising, limiting me to a few very gentle twists and stretches, saying my own efforts were making things worse. Even though I don't suffer the pain I once did, "Ooh me back" is still a stock phrase and I get a dead leg after a few minutes on my feet. Not that I mind them thinking so, but people must think I smile an awful lot.

'And one for frightful_oik because he may know of where I speak. I once borrowed a bike to cycle home from Derby. Bloody hell, it may not be particularly steep but it seemed a long drag uphill from Swarkestone to Ticknall. Then again, what a bike! It had no gears and you had to stop pedaling to turn corners the front forks were pushed so far back.

ohsocynical wrote:Been at the hospital most of this morning with Mr Ohso, so I'm only just catching up.

From last night.

@55degreesnorth.

I agree with almost everything Corbyn says, but share Hugo's concerns about him being an open goal for the rabid press and the Tories.

We know the press is rabidly right wing. We know the damage they did to Ed and will do to Corbyn.

Why the hell should I be dictated to by those tossers? Am I supposed to run scared and do as I'm told?

I'll vote for whoever I want. Fuck em.

I agree with you. I'm still quite unconvinced by any of them in the round, though.

utopiandreams wrote:@citizenJA

Prompted by your remarks on cycling. Potholes are bad enough but even cars have to navigate around metalworks these days, often in newly surfaced roads too. I recently asked my eldest who's still a keen cyclist what it's like avoiding drains and the like in traffic. Which reminds me of a chap I once worked for who used to ride with Mercian Cycle Club, he had thighs like Chris Hoy. My brother still cycles a lot even after back surgery. He used to take his lads on cycling holidays in Europe. I may be mistaken as it could have been another holiday but believe he had to fly back from the Pyrenees once when he couldn't stand any further pain in his left leg.

I don't know how he did it, my cycling days were over after my prolapsed discs. Ten years of agony but my physiotherapists stopped my exercising, limiting me to a few very gentle twists and stretches, saying my own efforts were making things worse. Even though I don't suffer the pain I once did, "Ooh me back" is still a stock phrase and I get a dead leg after a few minutes on my feet. Not that I mind them thinking so, but people must think I smile an awful lot.

'And one for frightful_oik because he may know of where I speak. I once borrowed a bike to cycle home from Derby. Bloody hell, it may not be particularly steep but it seemed a long drag uphill from Swarkestone to Ticknall. Then again, what a bike! It had no gears and you had to stop pedaling to turn corners the front forks were pushed so far back.

You & I both!
I don't ride a bike; I walk & hike.
The more friends on bikes around me, the better off we all are.
Most of the walking I do these days is urban.
The last time I rode a bike was a painful experience - it wasn't mine, I borrowed it & quickly gave it back.
If I ever ride a bike again, I'd want some professional assistance making sure the bike is adjusted to fit me - nothing fancy, just safe & fit.

Oh good grief:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/stat ... 7779177472

Sam Coates TimesVerified account ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

What dignity, eh.

onebuttonmonkey wrote:Oh good grief:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/stat ... 7779177472

Sam Coates TimesVerified account ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

What dignity, eh.

The Gang of Three.

As I commented yesterday (on Peter Hain's article re Yvette Cooper) - not enough political nous to stand above this. That goes for the three of them.

onebuttonmonkey wrote:Oh good grief:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/stat ... 7779177472

Sam Coates TimesVerified account ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Breaking - the 3 non-Corbyn campaigns getting together to write a letter of complaint to Labour HQ about unfairness at process

What dignity, eh.

The Gang of Three.

As I commented yesterday (on Peter Hain's article re Yvette Cooper) - not enough political nous to stand above this. That goes for the three of them.

Bumboils.