FlyTheNest

ohsocynical wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote: You have to allow for the anger. I've never seen or heard our normally nondescript neighbour express himself as he did - out of the blue - to us yesterday. We had no idea of his politics before - he never gave a hint of it. He is now so disgusted with 'this country' he just wants to get out of it and away from the people who voted this government in.

Absolutely there is anger.

But MPs tweeting stuff like this are idiots.

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

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

But the electorate have the power. They're the ones that put the cross on the bit of paper. They're the ones who should have the fucking sense to know when they're being lied to, sold a pup, having the wool pulled over their eyes.
They're the ones who are too fucking greedy or prejudice to know they're cutting off their noses to spite their face.

Of course it's the bloody stupid electorate.

frightful_oik wrote:

pk1 wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:
I hope we're not going to get a new direction, message and leader mostly based on what is fed back from southern English constituencies and the voices given most prominence by the media though ... that's part of my fear now. There are probably very different responses from across the country ... the things I heard most frequently as negatives about Labour generally were Blair, Iraq, not in touch with us, immigration.

I think that's partly what my post about not electing Londoners was about.

Labour is seen to be governed by a team of Londoners who have no 'life' experience beyond Westminster. They speak with the same accent as southern England, not a solitary voice in the senior party from the regions.

Andy Burnham?

frightful_oik wrote:

pk1 wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:
I hope we're not going to get a new direction, message and leader mostly based on what is fed back from southern English constituencies and the voices given most prominence by the media though ... that's part of my fear now. There are probably very different responses from across the country ... the things I heard most frequently as negatives about Labour generally were Blair, Iraq, not in touch with us, immigration.

I think that's partly what my post about not electing Londoners was about.

Labour is seen to be governed by a team of Londoners who have no 'life' experience beyond Westminster. They speak with the same accent as southern England, not a solitary voice in the senior party from the regions.

Andy Burnham?

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Chris Leslie will no doubt take over Ball's brief, does anyone expect any major changes apart from that?

Another fall out from Thursday has been the effectiveness of social media, Labour won that hands down, but were we living in a bubble of our own making, the twitter campaigns, were they ultimately a pile of self indulgent crap?!

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

frightful_oik wrote:

pk1 wrote: I think that's partly what my post about not electing Londoners was about.

Labour is seen to be governed by a team of Londoners who have no 'life' experience beyond Westminster. They speak with the same accent as southern England, not a solitary voice in the senior party from the regions.

Andy Burnham?

A scouser of course. And Michael Dugher is from Yorkshire, Ed Balls (who I personally will miss) is a Norwich lad and has no problem remembering which football team he supports, Rosie Winterton is also from Yorkshire as are the Eagle sisters, Chris Leslie and Gloria de Piero, Ivan Lewis and Lucy Powell are from Manchester, Mary Creagh was sent from Coventry, Owen Smith (who should have a think about the leadership imo) is from Lancashire, Jon Trickett is a Leeds lad. It may be the perception pk1, but it isn't the reality. Let us hope their voices are the ones we now hear, to help shoot yet another MSM fox.

pk1 wrote: Mid-Staffs.

I know I know but it's precisely what would be uttered by every single bloody journalist & political commentator from the day he was elected until the day he resigns in 2020, following yet another Labour defeat

Tonibel wrote:Eric. Thanks for your informative post.
pk I agree about Jarvis and Eagle. I would like to see Angela stand but I'm afraid she would get a hammering from the rw press. Dan is probably better able to withstand it.
I have been very impressed with Chris Leslie though,he comes over well in interviews.

AngryAsWell wrote:If Chuka Umunna thinks appearing side by side with Peter Mandelson on Andrew Neil was a good move I don't trust his ability at all

AngryAsWell wrote:daina gregory ‏@chandnidaina · 4 mins4 minutes ago
'Ed Miliband, is planning to offer his services to the next Labour leader and will not abandon frontline politics.' #ThankYouEd #milifandom

Hope that's true!

pk1 wrote:

Tonibel wrote:Eric. Thanks for your informative post.
pk I agree about Jarvis and Eagle. I would like to see Angela stand but I'm afraid she would get a hammering from the rw press. Dan is probably better able to withstand it.
I have been very impressed with Chris Leslie though,he comes over well in interviews.

I love Chris Leslie. He always seems to turn up for interviews whereas his adversary refuses or does so by tv link only. He was on Murnaghan today & spoke of the massive cuts to come & he actually specified "social security" not 'welfare' - hoorah !

frightful_oik wrote: The problem with the electorate is that the loudest voices belong to the most ignorant.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:If Chuka Umunna thinks appearing side by side with Peter Mandelson on Andrew Neil was a good move I don't trust his ability at all

Still nobody from the reformist wing has any vision as to what reform means. Hint bashing the unions isn't the answer. Supporting ZHC, predatory land lords and non Doms is also not the answer.

Set out a policy vision or piss off. Mindless sound bites about new Labour or education are just shit.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

pk1 wrote: Mid-Staffs.

I know I know but it's precisely what would be uttered by every single bloody journalist & political commentator from the day he was elected until the day he resigns in 2020, following yet another Labour defeat

I made the same point yesterday and it won't matter how many times anyone explains the facts - it'll still be there. Just like the 1,400 deaths.

AngryAsWell wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Message for Tory Ukip Voters.jpg

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

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

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

More than 20 pupils face moving schools halfway through their GCSE studies after a free school in Stockport announced its closure is moving forward by a year.

Stockport Technical School, a 14 to 19 free school sponsored by Stockport College that opened in an office block in September 2013, announced in March that it would close in 2016, citing disappointing recruitment levels caused by the lack of a permanent building.

The DfE are now working with the council to ensure alternative school places are found for all pupils to aid a smooth transition.

AngryAsWell wrote:

pk1 wrote:

Tonibel wrote:Eric. Thanks for your informative post.
pk I agree about Jarvis and Eagle. I would like to see Angela stand but I'm afraid she would get a hammering from the rw press. Dan is probably better able to withstand it.
I have been very impressed with Chris Leslie though,he comes over well in interviews.

I love Chris Leslie. He always seems to turn up for interviews whereas his adversary refuses or does so by tv link only. He was on Murnaghan today & spoke of the massive cuts to come & he actually specified "social security" not 'welfare' - hoorah !

I mentioned up there some ware I'd like Chris to stand, not seen any mention of him doing so though

RogerOThornhill wrote:

pk1 wrote: Mid-Staffs.

I know I know but it's precisely what would be uttered by every single bloody journalist & political commentator from the day he was elected until the day he resigns in 2020, following yet another Labour defeat

I made the same point yesterday and it won't matter how many times anyone explains the facts - it'll still be there. Just like the 1,400 deaths.

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Our new Justice Secretary, hope Khan or Keir Starmer, if fast tracked smgrind him into the ground.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... nging.html

RogerOThornhill wrote:Meanwhile...

Free school blames EFA for early closure

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/free-school-bl ... y-closure/

More than 20 pupils face moving schools halfway through their GCSE studies after a free school in Stockport announced its closure is moving forward by a year.

Stockport Technical School, a 14 to 19 free school sponsored by Stockport College that opened in an office block in September 2013, announced in March that it would close in 2016, citing disappointing recruitment levels caused by the lack of a permanent building.

and who has to help out?

The DfE are now working with the council to ensure alternative school places are found for all pupils to aid a smooth transition.

Labour need to take a good long look at their policies but don't ditch them on the basis that "we lost so everything was wrong" - some were very right.

And it really bugs me that the free school policy will just continue and move ahead...and this will continue to happen.

"Down with this sort of thing"

seeingclearly wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:

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

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

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

You post just highlights how little ordinary apolitical people know about the mechanics of government. Most haven't a clue, and can just about understand that there's local government and central government. I've come across apparently educated and intelligent people who can't understand the reality of opposition, or that if a Labour council delivers huge curs then that's not as a result of a Labour decision in Westminster, but a Tory decision. When explained they shake their heads disbelievingly, and you know you've wasted your breath. But still hope it will register at some point. Being involved with a very large group online this kind of stuff comes up all the time. These are people used to quick repartee but give them something factual and they often struggle with it. Today many will be cheering on the anti austerity stuff very uncritically. I'm of the opinion that voters did in fact deliver this terrible result, and as your post suggest, not from malice or any other form of ill will, but from ignorance, and sometimes - I'm trying hard not to offend - stupidity. The latter because very often when facts are explained you get a response of, well you are entitled to your opinion! Even links don't work with this, it's exactly the same as if you try to discuss freedom of speech or racism. A pat answer that absolves people from thinking.

So really there needs to be a movement to help people understand government and politics, as a nation we are woefully under informed on basic things and over informed on any nonsense you can think of. So anyone who could think of a solution to this problem, this side of Maoist reeducation, and propaganda free, and a way to get it to people and communities in ways that are creative, would be making a huge difference. If this doesn't happen I can only see abysmal out comes for the foreseeable future.

Tessa Jowell ‏@TessaJowell
Tessa Jowell retweeted GeorgeMonbiot
Rubbish. Labour wins when we appeal to everybody. Country rejected us, should be no-one we don't seek to win back

GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot
The voters #Labour needs to reclaim are not those who have gone to the Tories - a mug's game. They are those who stayed at home.

Mark Ferguson retweeted
LabourList @LabourList · 43m 43 minutes ago
Update: Miliband aide says reports that former leader will seek return to Shadow Cabinet this year are "not true" http://labli.st/1EZDH1x

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Speaking of Tessa .....

Tessa Jowell ‏@TessaJowell
Tessa Jowell retweeted GeorgeMonbiot
Rubbish. Labour wins when we appeal to everybody. Country rejected us, should be no-one we don't seek to win back

GeorgeMonbiot @GeorgeMonbiot
The voters #Labour needs to reclaim are not those who have gone to the Tories - a mug's game. They are those who stayed at home.

AndrewSparrow ‏@AndrewSparrow 4m4 minutes ago
Shirley Williams says constituency party funding rules allowed big party like Tories to buy the election - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... 027795c793 …

rebeccariots2 wrote:

She also told us that she was on the 'left' of her party ... and she's not going to stand for leader.

PorFavor wrote: Sadiq Khan should stop being self-indulgent and buckle down to working in the arena in which he can do the most good.

AngryAsWell wrote:

seeingclearly wrote:

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

You post just highlights how little ordinary apolitical people know about the mechanics of government. Most haven't a clue, and can just about understand that there's local government and central government. I've come across apparently educated and intelligent people who can't understand the reality of opposition, or that if a Labour council delivers huge curs then that's not as a result of a Labour decision in Westminster, but a Tory decision. When explained they shake their heads disbelievingly, and you know you've wasted your breath. But still hope it will register at some point. Being involved with a very large group online this kind of stuff comes up all the time. These are people used to quick repartee but give them something factual and they often struggle with it. Today many will be cheering on the anti austerity stuff very uncritically. I'm of the opinion that voters did in fact deliver this terrible result, and as your post suggest, not from malice or any other form of ill will, but from ignorance, and sometimes - I'm trying hard not to offend - stupidity. The latter because very often when facts are explained you get a response of, well you are entitled to your opinion! Even links don't work with this, it's exactly the same as if you try to discuss freedom of speech or racism. A pat answer that absolves people from thinking.

So really there needs to be a movement to help people understand government and politics, as a nation we are woefully under informed on basic things and over informed on any nonsense you can think of. So anyone who could think of a solution to this problem, this side of Maoist reeducation, and propaganda free, and a way to get it to people and communities in ways that are creative, would be making a huge difference. If this doesn't happen I can only see abysmal out comes for the foreseeable future.

The one who voted toy still insists that her "one vote" did not make a difference. Literally, I suppose she is right on that as the seat was lost on more than one, but the flawed logic floors me!
How to get over this problem?
Politics needs to be a compulsory subject in schools, and maybe even moving to compulsory voting? Not sure about that, but if people learn about politics perhaps they may participate a little more ?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

PorFavor wrote: Sadiq Khan should stop being self-indulgent and buckle down to working in the arena in which he can do the most good.

If Sadiq stays as Shadow Justice Secretary then why not move Yvette Cooper (MSc in Economics) to Shadow Chancellor and Keir Starmer to Shadow Home Secretary?

Shadow Foreign Secretary?

How about Dan Jarvis and then we can see what he's about?

rebeccariots2 wrote:

AndrewSparrow ‏@AndrewSparrow 4m4 minutes ago
Shirley Williams says constituency party funding rules allowed big party like Tories to buy the election - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... 027795c793 …

Yes I heard her say that on Radio 4 ... and wondered why the Lib Dems had allowed Cameron to get away with raising the amount that could be spent on campaigns to such an obscene level then?

She also told us that she was on the 'left' of her party ... and she's not going to stand for leader.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

PorFavor wrote: Sadiq Khan should stop being self-indulgent and buckle down to working in the arena in which he can do the most good.

If Sadiq stays as Shadow Justice Secretary then why not move Yvette Cooper (MSc in Economics) to Shadow Chancellor and Keir Starmer to Shadow Home Secretary?

Shadow Foreign Secretary?

How about Dan Jarvis and then we can see what he's about?

yahyah wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

PorFavor wrote: Sadiq Khan should stop being self-indulgent and buckle down to working in the arena in which he can do the most good.

If Sadiq stays as Shadow Justice Secretary then why not move Yvette Cooper (MSc in Economics) to Shadow Chancellor and Keir Starmer to Shadow Home Secretary?

Shadow Foreign Secretary?

How about Dan Jarvis and then we can see what he's about?

Am back, as PK tempted me with that shortbread. Hope there's some left.


Jarvis studied International Politics and Strategic Studies at Aberyswyth, and got an MA in Conflict, Security & Development at King's College London so is surely qualified for Shadow Foreign Sec?