Monday 13th October 2014

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:05 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
gilsey wrote:Martha Carney was unbelievably rude to Caroline Lucas on WaTO. I don't usually listen to it, that reminds me why.

I bought the Times today, first time ever I think, for the NHS mistake front page. If you didn't laugh, you'd cry.
I buy the Sunday Times at the moment.Cheaper than puppy pads and has the most paper for the money.Never read it though.
That's the same rationale as I have when (rarely) buying a newspaper these days! Only it's for going under the cat litter tray in my case. I find that the Telegraph is useful. Should I switch to the Times, do you think?

Well,I had a good look at all the Sundays,and the Times seemed the fattest.I only need to put paper down at night,and it lasts the whole week.Don't know what the pup thinks about Murdoch.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:06 pm

Latest Ashcroft National Poll, 10-12 October: CON 28% (-4), LAB 32% (+2), LDEM 8% (+1), UKIP 19%(+2), GRN 5%(-1).

http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... -poll.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:08 pm

Rebecca wrote:
gilsey wrote:Martha Carney was unbelievably rude to Caroline Lucas on WaTO. I don't usually listen to it, that reminds me why.

I bought the Times today, first time ever I think, for the NHS mistake front page. If you didn't laugh, you'd cry.
I buy the Sunday Times at the moment.Cheaper than puppy pads and has the most paper for the money.Never read it though.

Puppy pee on Murdoch...Like it.

I hope your cat has been behaving since her last adventure...

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:08 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
HindleA wrote:@RobertSnozers thanks for link.
You're welcome. Hope that it's of interest

It is.I happened to be a home help for the Council for some years,and now we receive help(via direct payments to employ people)

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:10 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
While the poll also contains some difficult messages for Miliband on how voters rate the Labour leader personally, the Tory decline leaves him sitting on a four-point lead.

I honestly don't get the Miliband looks weird thing.
Line up Cameron,Osborne,Clegg,Farage,Salmond,Miliband.
Ed is taller,slimmer,more elegant and looks younger than them all.
If you were choosing a date from their photos,seriously,who would you pick?

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:13 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
gilsey wrote:Martha Carney was unbelievably rude to Caroline Lucas on WaTO. I don't usually listen to it, that reminds me why.

I bought the Times today, first time ever I think, for the NHS mistake front page. If you didn't laugh, you'd cry.
I buy the Sunday Times at the moment.Cheaper than puppy pads and has the most paper for the money.Never read it though.

Puppy pee on Murdoch...Like it.

I hope your cat has been behaving since her last adventure...

Not so's you'd notice.
Brought a live bird into my bedroom at 3.30am this morning.Worse than yesterdays mouse.I find them in my ensuite,lovely.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:14 pm

Old Empty is talking about Education today.
Now Gove has gone, he can bully Nicky Morgan into letting him announce her policies. Though perhaps Morgan might be happy to let him make an arse of himself here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... -spot.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

School commissioners will have the power to fire headteachers on the spot and punish bad behaviour, David Cameron has announced.
A new group of experts will be able to implement new uniform codes, change homework policies and remove teachers in schools deemed by Ofsted to be failing, under a policy to be included in the Conservative manifesto.
The measures could affect 500 failing schools and help as many as 100,000 children, the Prime Minister said.

Yeah, I know. Schools have just been freed (at great expense) from LA "bureaucrats". Here they are facing bureaucrats with more drastic powers. If I were a headteacher, I'd steer way clear of these schools. Stay in your leafy school with its gerrymandered intakes.

Mr Cameron said he wanted 1,500 top graduates “signed up” to teach by 2020, putting every child “within reach of first-class teaching”

Which rather suggests he's not recruiting them now. Why should they be first class teachers anyway? And how's he going to get them to work in Hartlepool, Ramsgate, Skegness etc? Going to have to pay them a lot.

Nice money making opportunity here:

The commissioners will have the power to impose new discipline codes, including a “tariff of punishments” for poor behaviour.
They will also be able to hire outside experts to draw up new homework and school uniform policies, and sack failing headteachers and other senior managers.

Just what we need. More consultants. The DfE should do this sort of work in house.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:15 pm

Rebecca wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
While the poll also contains some difficult messages for Miliband on how voters rate the Labour leader personally, the Tory decline leaves him sitting on a four-point lead.
I honestly don't get the Miliband looks weird thing.
Line up Cameron,Osborne,Clegg,Farage,Salmond,Miliband.
Ed is taller,slimmer,more elegant and looks younger than them all.
If you were choosing a date from their photos,seriously,who would you pick?

Exactly. And I've read he's even better in real life, unfortunately he's not very photogenic.

I like Steve Bells cartoons, but think we have him to thank for the 'Panda Eyes' label.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:17 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Old Empty is talking about Education today.
Now Gove has gone, he can bully Nicky Morgan into letting him announce her policies. Though perhaps Morgan might be happy to let him make an arse of himself here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... -spot.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

School commissioners will have the power to fire headteachers on the spot and punish bad behaviour, David Cameron has announced.
A new group of experts will be able to implement new uniform codes, change homework policies and remove teachers in schools deemed by Ofsted to be failing, under a policy to be included in the Conservative manifesto.
The measures could affect 500 failing schools and help as many as 100,000 children, the Prime Minister said.
Yeah, I know. Schools have just been freed (at great expense) from LA "bureaucrats". Here they are facing bureaucrats with more drastic powers. If I were a headteacher, I'd steer way clear of these schools. Stay in your leafy school with its gerrymandered intakes.

Mr Cameron said he wanted 1,500 top graduates “signed up” to teach by 2020, putting every child “within reach of first-class teaching”
Which rather suggests he's got recruiting them now. Why should they be first class teachers anyway? And how's he going to get them to work in Hartlepool, Ramsgate, Skegness etc?

Nice money making opportunity here:

The commissioners will have the power to impose new discipline codes, including a “tariff of punishments” for poor behaviour.
They will also be able to hire outside experts to draw up new homework and school uniform policies, and sack failing headteachers and other senior managers.
Just what we need. More consultants. The DfE should do this sort of work in house.

He, they are in meltdown. Just making a list of anything that sounds positive and will appeal to the faithful.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:24 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
While the poll also contains some difficult messages for Miliband on how voters rate the Labour leader personally, the Tory decline leaves him sitting on a four-point lead.

Ashcroft also did some polling, on the weekend I think that found out that only 20% of the public realised there have been party conferences going on.. After all the bull that surrounded the leaders speeches I found that oddly comforting..

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:27 pm

oh well,off I go with the dogs again in the pouring rain.
One of my wellies has sprung a leak so I'm wearing an unused poo bag over my sock to keep the wet out.
Was sort of hoping that Trixie wouldn't like the rain,but sadly she loves it as much as Charlie.
Then we get home and she jumps onto every sofa and armchair in the house.Very,very naughty!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:29 pm

Rebecca wrote:oh well,off I go with the dogs again in the pouring rain.
One of my wellies has sprung a leak so I'm wearing an unused poo bag over my sock to keep the wet out.
Was sort of hoping that Trixie wouldn't like the rain,but sadly she loves it as much as Charlie.
Then we get home and she jumps onto every sofa and armchair in the house.Very,very naughty!

Enjoy Rebecca and thanks for reassuring us that you would only use an "unused" poo bag

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:31 pm

And note how Cameron has to announce it himself, OhSo.

They have to build him up. Incredible to say, in terms of cross party appeal, he's all they've got.
Yet his own side don't like him.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:35 pm

I'm still annoyed Labour aren't opposing the Eurostar sale at any price. Selling off assets is very unpopular. And the new rail policy has zero credibility if they don't even hang on to the train service they've already got in government.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:35 pm

Just caught the end of Faisal Islam report on the 'blacking-up' at Banbury Folk Festival.

He said that Ed M would probably not be photographed alongside that group so that's perhaps why people accuse him of being 'out of touch' because only a politcally-correct North London liberal would be offended by it whereas everybody else in the country thinks it's fine.

I must have moved to become one of the PC North London set then because I'm gobsmacked that Cameron could have done something as mindless as being photographed alongside a group blacked-up, knowing that it has such negative connotations. The explanations given by the group are one thing but it's the imagery that creates the lasting impression.

Suppose we'll be happy to have re-runs of the Black & White Minstrels next as well as Golliwogs on our jam !

Oh & btw Faisal, in every poll where the question is asked Ed is found to be more 'in touch' than Cameron.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:48 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Interesting chart
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/ ... a1f4921d97" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC 'balance'

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:49 pm

I know Paul has posted about this polling, the Guardian's, but Jesus Christ, the reporting of any Labour leads in the Guardian went past being tedious ages ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 4:58 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
I honestly don't get the Miliband looks weird thing.
Line up Cameron,Osborne,Clegg,Farage,Salmond,Miliband.
Ed is taller,slimmer,more elegant and looks younger than them all.
If you were choosing a date from their photos,seriously,who would you pick?
Exactly. And I've read he's even better in real life, unfortunately he's not very photogenic.

I like Steve Bells cartoons, but think we have him to thank for the 'Panda Eyes' label.

Do you think the "Go to bed with Nigel Farage and wake up with Ed Miliband" thing might be having unintended consequences for people who are rather literal minded and don't think things through clearly? Some people might well think it worth the gamble - no gain without pain, and all!

(Apologies for the cheap remark.)

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:04 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Rebecca wrote: I honestly don't get the Miliband looks weird thing.
Line up Cameron,Osborne,Clegg,Farage,Salmond,Miliband.
Ed is taller,slimmer,more elegant and looks younger than them all.
If you were choosing a date from their photos,seriously,who would you pick?
Exactly. And I've read he's even better in real life, unfortunately he's not very photogenic.

I like Steve Bells cartoons, but think we have him to thank for the 'Panda Eyes' label.
Do you think the "Go to bed with Nigel Farage and wake up with Ed Miliband" thing might be having unintended consequences for people who are rather literal minded and don't think things through clearly? Some people might well think it worth the gamble - no gain without pain, and all!

(Apologies for the cheap remark.)

I reckon Labour should start using the ''Go to bed with Cameron and wake up with Cameron'' analogy, unappealing as much as anything, poking their heads above the duvet could be Osborne, IDS, Gove and Hunt.

Or is that too sickening an image?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:13 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:And note how Cameron has to announce it himself, OhSo.

They have to build him up. Incredible to say, in terms of cross party appeal, he's all they've got.
Yet his own side don't like him.

It's mission creep - the regional commissioners have been in office two months and already they're extending their reach to LA schools and, presumably voluntary aided.

I spy someone who's been reading Blunkett's report and wants to get there first before Labour...of course, it'll be their idea, the very notion that they might have pinched it won't come into it.

I can see these becoming the new LAs except on a grand scale.

The teacher thing is ridiculous - are these people going to be sitting around just waiting for a call? And presumably they're going to have specialists in all areas - early years, primary, secondary, by subject.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:24 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:And note how Cameron has to announce it himself, OhSo.

They have to build him up. Incredible to say, in terms of cross party appeal, he's all they've got.
Yet his own side don't like him.
It's mission creep - the regional commissioners have been in office two months and already they're extending their reach to LA schools and, presumably voluntary aided.

I spy someone who's been reading Blunkett's report and wants to get there first before Labour...of course, it'll be their idea, the very notion that they might have pinched it won't come into it.

I can see these becoming the new LAs except on a grand scale.

The teacher thing is ridiculous - are these people going to be sitting around just waiting for a call? And presumably they're going to have specialists in all areas - early years, primary, secondary, by subject.

Sounded from the DT like these might be fairly recent graduates.

Usual preference for right sort of graduates over experience, in the perverse world of the government?

They're going to have to go into these schools for years to make much difference, I'd have thought.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:27 pm

James O'Brien ‏@mrjamesob 28m28 minutes ago
Cameron's 'blacked up' Morris dancers reference C16th beggars who used soot to mask their shame. Like food bank users might today...

Very apt I'd say...

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:31 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Exactly. And I've read he's even better in real life, unfortunately he's not very photogenic.

I like Steve Bells cartoons, but think we have him to thank for the 'Panda Eyes' label.
Do you think the "Go to bed with Nigel Farage and wake up with Ed Miliband" thing might be having unintended consequences for people who are rather literal minded and don't think things through clearly? Some people might well think it worth the gamble - no gain without pain, and all!

(Apologies for the cheap remark.)
I reckon Labour should start using the ''Go to bed with Cameron and wake up with Cameron'' analogy, unappealing as much as anything, poking their heads above the duvet could be Osborne, IDS, Gove and Hunt.

Or is that too sickening an image?

Yes!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:37 pm

reminded me of this old one from Steve Bell

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:48 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm still annoyed Labour aren't opposing the Eurostar sale at any price. Selling off assets is very unpopular. And the new rail policy has zero credibility if they don't even hang on to the train service they've already got in government.

She's on R5 now

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:52 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm still annoyed Labour aren't opposing the Eurostar sale at any price. Selling off assets is very unpopular. And the new rail policy has zero credibility if they don't even hang on to the train service they've already got in government.
She's on R5 now

Wrong wrong wrong again - sigh and cry.
Completely on the "value for money" aspect, asked if Labour are against selling it "in principal" .... No
WTF!
Here is her statement from Labour Press

NAO should urgently conduct a value-for-money enquiry into sale of Eurostar stake - Creagh
Mary Creagh MP, Shadow Transport Secretary, responding to the government sell-off of its 40% Eurostar stake said:

"Eurostar is a national strategic asset that is set to grow and to return increased profits to the UK taxpayer with new routes to Geneva, Lyon, Marseille and Amsterdam. After the staggering incompetence of the Royal Mail sale fiasco, which lost taxpayers a billion pounds, people will worry that this is yet another rushed and undervalued sell-off.

"City adviser UBS made millions from Royal Mail and is advising on the Eurostar sale. Lord Myners is still conducting his review into government privatisations after Royal Mail, and ministers should await his report before any sale begins.

"The National Audit Office should urgently conduct a value-for-money enquiry before this sale proceeds. We must ensure that taxpayers are not ripped off again by bungling Ministers and poor financial advice from the City."

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 5:53 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm still annoyed Labour aren't opposing the Eurostar sale at any price. Selling off assets is very unpopular. And the new rail policy has zero credibility if they don't even hang on to the train service they've already got in government.
She's on R5 now

She's probably being asked how she'll fund the £300m she would forgo in a sale...

Actually what happened?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:08 pm

Miliband addressing the PLP now, how soon will it be before someone, anonymously of course phones one of his/her press mates?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:09 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm still annoyed Labour aren't opposing the Eurostar sale at any price. Selling off assets is very unpopular. And the new rail policy has zero credibility if they don't even hang on to the train service they've already got in government.
She's on R5 now
She's probably being asked how she'll fund the £300m she would forgo in a sale...

Actually what happened?

Not very much it was only a very brief interview, but sorry to say she compared it to Labour selling part of air traffic control and what a great success that was with the company now a world wide operation. She forgot to add of which we still (I think?) still own 51%. The overall impression was she's against selling it because the price might not be right and the City Bods (she did name them) who made a fortune from royal mail must not be allowed to make another killing.
Very disappointed in her.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:12 pm

Todays Labour Press
Scroll down to
Ministers admit Universal Credit could cost taxpayers an extra £1.25 billion - Reeves
Did I miss that in the MSM ?
http://press.labour.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:14 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Exactly. And I've read he's even better in real life, unfortunately he's not very photogenic.

I like Steve Bells cartoons, but think we have him to thank for the 'Panda Eyes' label.
Do you think the "Go to bed with Nigel Farage and wake up with Ed Miliband" thing might be having unintended consequences for people who are rather literal minded and don't think things through clearly? Some people might well think it worth the gamble - no gain without pain, and all!

(Apologies for the cheap remark.)
I reckon Labour should start using the ''Go to bed with Cameron and wake up with Cameron'' analogy, unappealing as much as anything, poking their heads above the duvet could be Osborne, IDS, Gove and Hunt.

Or is that too sickening an image?

Or as John prescott tweeted "Go to bed with Grant Schapps, wake up with Michael Green"

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:18 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: She's on R5 now
She's probably being asked how she'll fund the £300m she would forgo in a sale...

Actually what happened?
Not very much it was only a very brief interview, but sorry to say she compared it to Labour selling part of air traffic control and what a great success that was with the company now a world wide operation. She forgot to add of which we still (I think?) still own 51%. The overall impression was she's against selling it because the price might not be right and the City Bods (she did name them) who made a fortune from royal mail must not be allowed to make another killing.
Very disappointed in her.

Hi AAW. While one part of me completely agrees with all this, another appreciates this opportunity to dredge up the shambolic Royal Mail sale and argue that the Coalition aren't as sound on economic management as people seem to think they are. Also this approach does avoid Labour having to find the alleged amount Osborne would make from anywhere else in their sums.

So I agree with you but I'm not disappointed with Creagh, if that's possible

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:22 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Todays Labour Press
Scroll down to
Ministers admit Universal Credit could cost taxpayers an extra £1.25 billion - Reeves
Did I miss that in the MSM ?
http://press.labour.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was in the Mirror.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ia ... os-4422016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:24 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: She's probably being asked how she'll fund the £300m she would forgo in a sale...

Actually what happened?
Not very much it was only a very brief interview, but sorry to say she compared it to Labour selling part of air traffic control and what a great success that was with the company now a world wide operation. She forgot to add of which we still (I think?) still own 51%. The overall impression was she's against selling it because the price might not be right and the City Bods (she did name them) who made a fortune from royal mail must not be allowed to make another killing.
Very disappointed in her.
Hi AAW. While one part of me completely agrees with all this, another appreciates this opportunity to dredge up the shambolic Royal Mail sale and argue that the Coalition aren't as sound on economic management as people seem to think they are. Also this approach does avoid Labour having to find the alleged amount Osborne would make from anywhere else in their sums.

So I agree with you but I'm not disappointed with Creagh, if that's possible

I (reluctantly) sort of agree, but just what / when will we hear any passion about anything (other than AndyB) ?

What I mean is I just want one - one would do - where "the cost" is not the bee all and end all of the statement.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:26 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Thank you, relieved that it is not just me who thinks that. All I saw yesterday on Twitter and elsewhere were people banging on about Jones writing "a brilliant piece in the Observer", usually accompanied by the words "as usual"; I found myself somewhat confused, as the piece I read (first time reading the Observer in a month) read almost like a Hodges piece.

Owen Jones seems to have an almost Messianic following who hang on his every word, which I just don't get; he (usually) writes well and he is certainly passionate but, like Russell Brand, at the end of the day I get the feeling he is happier being the maverick voice and rarely offers any constructive solutions. Happy to be educated on this, if somebody is able to convince me that Jones has any substance to go with the style.
Tribalism - I think the complete lack of critical thought in the political/MSM discourse and the shallow 'I've made my mind up and you can't change it' attitude leads to people doing a 'La-la Lansley'.

I do have time for Russel Brand, however - when he skewered Paxo in that interview, his only error was not to have understood the logical progression of his argument ('what's the point in voting?' Insert any one of a number of reasons, all valid...my favourite would be the fact that I live in a constituency with over 50% voting Tory...so where does my vote count?). He is intelligent, has experienced some fairly difficult times (as any addict has) and seems to care. It was telling when the MSM reporting of the interview concentrated solely on the 'why vote' angle, thereby turning him to being another left-wing(ish) voice to be trashed and undermined.
I quite like Russell Brand, as you say he is intelligent, he is a decent (his piece in The Graun when Amy Winehouse died was very powerful) and he articulates his points as well as his adopted persona lets him; but he isn't pretending to be anything more than what he is, and I respect him for that.

Whereas Owen does, he pushes himself as an authentic voice, part of that group who are "considerably more socialist than yow" * ....well, in their eyes at least. I understand he has been challenged to stand for Parliament on a number of occasions, but claims (somewhat sanctimoniously) that he can do more by remaining outside the tent; to my mind he has turned from somebody who genuinely was part of the solution to one who is now part of the problem. Like Hodges (more so probably) his comments can be used by the Right to legitimise some of their attacks on Ed and the Labour Party; the fact that he doesn't seem to care about it suggests he is either not as self aware as he claims to be, or he has decided the cult of Owen Jones must go on - the irony that his Observer article was built around criticism of opportunistic careerism certainly didn't pass me by.

* To be read in the voice of Harry Enfield's nouveux riche Brummie.

Hmm. You'll be unsurprised to hear this, but I'm quite baffled by some of the comments here about Owen Jones. And I say that as someone not remotely tribal about him or anything else, really - I'm too bloody contrary to tribally support anything. I'm a one-man schism, me.

I've some criticisms of him, too (most of all, he's a "someone should so somethingist" at heart - beyond organising, as an end in itself, it all gets a bit vague), but I do think he's a very important voice for how he tries to engage people and suggest there are reasons to be hopeful within a desperately austere and detached political time. He's part of the People's Assembly - an attempt to advocate for his brand of socialism, which I don't find preachy, although I know some do - which is a bigger cause than his own career (or at worse, no different than any other politician). For all his criticisms of Labour, he's up here doing a talk for free that's been organised by my local Labour candidate and both other times I saw him, he fiercely advocated participation in traditional parties - which he's right to say doesn't solely come down to members of any prominence becoming a candidate themselves. I've seen him challenged about why he doesn't stand, but equally, why should he? The left needs strong voices, and it needs ones who speak out when it makes mistakes - even if those voices are sometimes mistaken, too. It certainly seems to have more credibility and license from outside the party machine - were he a candidate, imagine the ammunition that would create?

Also, I've followed Jones' writing whether it was in the Graun or the Independent. and I have to say I don't notice a different editorial slant or ax to grind. What I see is another example of those on the left of the party being increasingly (and to my mind, rightly) disgruntled over the last 6-12 months with some of the announcements made. Now, one of the things we disagree about is how fair - or dangerous - it is to criticise the party at present, and that's fair enough. But the idea that he's ploughing a convenient line of criticism because of the paper to me seems rather inaccurate - it's simply more noticeable that he's speaking out at the moment, and there are more reasons to speak out. And the idea that it's his fans who are tribal about him seems to miss out how those loyal to the party who dislike the more Oweny-types tend to dismiss them - to me, I've seen the criticisms of Owen grow only in proportion to how much he spoke back to his own party. Which suggests that some of his critics are perhaps no better or worse than some of his advocates. Messianic? Hardly. Just passionate about different things.

Anyway, for my part, I find Owen far more engaging and interesting than any party source. And I think he attracts more people into Labour than he drives away from it, even if he isn't to everyone's taste. I'd say Labour have more to learn and gain from him than through candidacy. The party - and its reaction to criticism - looks different from outside than from within, for better and worse. His refusal to follow the line is more than worth the cost of the occasional less-than-brilliant column.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:27 pm

Temulkar wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Just heard that Caroline Lucas is taking legal advice over the debates inclusions. Shouldn't Natalie Bennett be doing this sort of thing? I wonder if Caroline Lucas has regrets over standing down as leader. (Or is it a Green constitutional thing? I'm not au fait with Green internal rules.)

Edited to add -

The SNP are being stupid.
I think the idea was to counter accusations that the Greens were a one woman party, a la Norbert Fromage and the Kippers. NB has improved tremendously behind the mic fortunately. In a debate with the other leaders she is going to do well. Not least being the only woman, but also having a genuine alternative to espouse.

As it happens the party is seeking legal advice, CL just happened to announce it.

There is little to recommend about somebody who made a big thing demanding Ed Miliband apologise for Iraq.

His first act as leader (in his acceptance speech) was to apologise for Iraq. An action he took years before NB decided to wave it around as a Green cause.

So is NB a liar or an incompetent?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:37 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Not very much it was only a very brief interview, but sorry to say she compared it to Labour selling part of air traffic control and what a great success that was with the company now a world wide operation. She forgot to add of which we still (I think?) still own 51%. The overall impression was she's against selling it because the price might not be right and the City Bods (she did name them) who made a fortune from royal mail must not be allowed to make another killing.
Very disappointed in her.
Hi AAW. While one part of me completely agrees with all this, another appreciates this opportunity to dredge up the shambolic Royal Mail sale and argue that the Coalition aren't as sound on economic management as people seem to think they are. Also this approach does avoid Labour having to find the alleged amount Osborne would make from anywhere else in their sums.

So I agree with you but I'm not disappointed with Creagh, if that's possible
I (reluctantly) sort of agree, but just what / when will we hear any passion about anything (other than AndyB) ?

What I mean is I just want one - one would do - where "the cost" is not the bee all and end all of the statement.

I think we may have touched on this the other day. They have their six pledges. Who on the front bench is going to do that passionate stuff on them? Other, as you say, than Burnham who is consistently effective.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:38 pm

I think the fact it's a rail service where they're campaigning on at least the possibility of renationalization, makes it very daft. What could have been a good card in the election is just going to get swatted back with "You didn't even try and keep 40% of Eurostar in public ownership".

Eurostar is profitable. And £300m is not very much at all. And the public really don't like selling stuff off, especially to foreigners.

Think there's a wider winning argument there too. Osborne is cashing in on investment made by the Major government and New Labour.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: the six pledges and passionate leadership

Burnham can clearly lead on health.
I think Hunt possibly has what it takes to be passionate and articulate on the apprenticeships.
I think Ed himself should lead on Green issues.
Then there are the two economy ones - wage growth / regional development and minimum wage / living wage - I guess we currently have Umunna and Balls and that's a problem area.
And finally housing. This is in Emma Reynolds' portfolio, but I don't know much about her apart from she's quite new.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:46 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think the fact it's a rail service where they're campaigning on at least the possibility of renationalization, makes it very daft. What could have been a good card in the election is just going to get swatted back with "You didn't even try and keep 40% of Eurostar in public ownership".

Eurostar is profitable. And £300m is not very much at all. And the public really don't like selling stuff off, especially to foreigners.

Think there's a wider winning argument there too. Osborne is cashing in on investment made by the Major government and New Labour.

Given that the remaining 60% of it is state-owned by the French and Belgian governments it makes no sense strategically to sell it off - esp. if it gets picked up by another government.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:47 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Lonewolfie wrote: Tribalism - I think the complete lack of critical thought in the political/MSM discourse and the shallow 'I've made my mind up and you can't change it' attitude leads to people doing a 'La-la Lansley'.

I do have time for Russel Brand, however - when he skewered Paxo in that interview, his only error was not to have understood the logical progression of his argument ('what's the point in voting?' Insert any one of a number of reasons, all valid...my favourite would be the fact that I live in a constituency with over 50% voting Tory...so where does my vote count?). He is intelligent, has experienced some fairly difficult times (as any addict has) and seems to care. It was telling when the MSM reporting of the interview concentrated solely on the 'why vote' angle, thereby turning him to being another left-wing(ish) voice to be trashed and undermined.
I quite like Russell Brand, as you say he is intelligent, he is a decent (his piece in The Graun when Amy Winehouse died was very powerful) and he articulates his points as well as his adopted persona lets him; but he isn't pretending to be anything more than what he is, and I respect him for that.

Whereas Owen does, he pushes himself as an authentic voice, part of that group who are "considerably more socialist than yow" * ....well, in their eyes at least. I understand he has been challenged to stand for Parliament on a number of occasions, but claims (somewhat sanctimoniously) that he can do more by remaining outside the tent; to my mind he has turned from somebody who genuinely was part of the solution to one who is now part of the problem. Like Hodges (more so probably) his comments can be used by the Right to legitimise some of their attacks on Ed and the Labour Party; the fact that he doesn't seem to care about it suggests he is either not as self aware as he claims to be, or he has decided the cult of Owen Jones must go on - the irony that his Observer article was built around criticism of opportunistic careerism certainly didn't pass me by.

* To be read in the voice of Harry Enfield's nouveux riche Brummie.
Hmm. You'll be unsurprised to hear this, but I'm quite baffled by some of the comments here about Owen Jones. And I say that as someone not remotely tribal about him or anything else, really - I'm too bloody contrary to tribally support anything. I'm a one-man schism, me.

I've some criticisms of him, too (most of all, he's a "someone should so somethingist" at heart - beyond organising, as an end in itself, it all gets a bit vague), but I do think he's a very important voice for how he tries to engage people and suggest there are reasons to be hopeful within a desperately austere and detached political time. He's part of the People's Assembly - an attempt to advocate for his brand of socialism, which I don't find preachy, although I know some do - which is a bigger cause than his own career (or at worse, no different than any other politician). For all his criticisms of Labour, he's up here doing a talk for free that's been organised by my local Labour candidate and both other times I saw him, he fiercely advocated participation in traditional parties - which he's right to say doesn't solely come down to members of any prominence becoming a candidate themselves. I've seen him challenged about why he doesn't stand, but equally, why should he? The left needs strong voices, and it needs ones who speak out when it makes mistakes - even if those voices are sometimes mistaken, too. It certainly seems to have more credibility and license from outside the party machine - were he a candidate, imagine the ammunition that would create?

Also, I've followed Jones' writing whether it was in the Graun or the Independent. and I have to say I don't notice a different editorial slant or ax to grind. What I see is another example of those on the left of the party being increasingly (and to my mind, rightly) disgruntled over the last 6-12 months with some of the announcements made. Now, one of the things we disagree about is how fair - or dangerous - it is to criticise the party at present, and that's fair enough. But the idea that he's ploughing a convenient line of criticism because of the paper to me seems rather inaccurate - it's simply more noticeable that he's speaking out at the moment, and there are more reasons to speak out. And the idea that it's his fans who are tribal about him seems to miss out how those loyal to the party who dislike the more Oweny-types tend to dismiss them - to me, I've seen the criticisms of Owen grow only in proportion to how much he spoke back to his own party. Which suggests that some of his critics are perhaps no better or worse than some of his advocates. Messianic? Hardly. Just passionate about different things.

Anyway, for my part, I find Owen far more engaging and interesting than any party source. And I think he attracts more people into Labour than he drives away from it, even if he isn't to everyone's taste. I'd say Labour have more to learn and gain from him than through candidacy. The party - and its reaction to criticism - looks different from outside than from within, for better and worse. His refusal to follow the line is more than worth the cost of the occasional less-than-brilliant column.

You are right, I'm not surprised. But, actually, I think you've reinforced my point; he is, as you say a "someone should so somethingist" but rarely comes up with anything positive. And I don't entirely agree with your comment that his support for the People's Assembly is "a bigger cause than his own career", I think a large part of his involvement is to do exactly that. And, yes, that is no more than any politician, but isn't that pretty much the thing that defines much of his output, a constant criticism that others are acting cynically; to me, increasingly, Owen's oeuvre is increasingly cynical and opportunistic. I know that my opinion is not popular, Owen walks on water as far as many are concerned, but I just don't buy it; it seems, in this instance, I am the schismatic.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:54 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Re: the six pledges and passionate leadership

Burnham can clearly lead on health.
I think Hunt possibly has what it takes to be passionate and articulate on the apprenticeships.
I think Ed himself should lead on Green issues.
Then there are the two economy ones - wage growth / regional development and minimum wage / living wage - I guess we currently have Umunna and Balls and that's a problem area.
And finally housing. This is in Emma Reynolds' portfolio, but I don't know much about her apart from she's quite new.

Oddly the right person to speak on regional development would be Tristram Hunt, it is his area of expertise. Frankly I'd love to see him reshuffled into a place where he could focus on that, and put somebody else (Hilary Benn or Lisa Nandy?) into Education to spike Morgan's guns. And make more of Sadiq Khan, that has to be part of the way forward.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:55 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Re: the six pledges and passionate leadership

Burnham can clearly lead on health.
I think Hunt possibly has what it takes to be passionate and articulate on the apprenticeships.
I think Ed himself should lead on Green issues.
Then there are the two economy ones - wage growth / regional development and minimum wage / living wage - I guess we currently have Umunna and Balls and that's a problem area.
And finally housing. This is in Emma Reynolds' portfolio, but I don't know much about her apart from she's quite new.

I agree with you on Burnham, Ed M (I think these attacks will finally become counterproductive, to be honest), and that there's an unknown that is Reynolds. I'd hope she's as good as she needs to be - there's plenty of capital to be made here.

Balls wasn't such a problem until the conference, but now he seems to unite left and right in dismay; Umunna particularly weak (although preferable to Reeves, who should be done away with as soon as possible). But Hunt, to me, looks like a disaster. I'm from teaching stock, so perhaps that's just me. But I have to say Hunt has been one of the biggest disappointments - partly for how easy it should be to effectively oppose the Tories, and partly for how wrong he keeps getting it. Swearing an oath, for pity's sake? It's just the comedy icing on a particularly useless cake.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 6:59 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think the fact it's a rail service where they're campaigning on at least the possibility of renationalization, makes it very daft. What could have been a good card in the election is just going to get swatted back with "You didn't even try and keep 40% of Eurostar in public ownership".

Eurostar is profitable. And £300m is not very much at all. And the public really don't like selling stuff off, especially to foreigners.

Think there's a wider winning argument there too. Osborne is cashing in on investment made by the Major government and New Labour.
Given that the remaining 60% of it is state-owned by the French and Belgian governments it makes no sense strategically to sell it off - esp. if it gets picked up by another government.

Bit like this then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or Deutsche Bahn, who run the fleet of glorified milk floats, otherwise know as Arriva Trains Wales.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 7:00 pm

@tobyperkinsmp: Brilliant and passionate speech by @Ed_Miliband to Parliamentary Labour Party tonight brought Comm Rm 14 to its feet.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 7:03 pm

pk1 wrote:@tobyperkinsmp: Brilliant and passionate speech by @Ed_Miliband to Parliamentary Labour Party tonight brought Comm Rm 14 to its feet.

Good.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 7:04 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Re: the six pledges and passionate leadership

Burnham can clearly lead on health.
I think Hunt possibly has what it takes to be passionate and articulate on the apprenticeships.
I think Ed himself should lead on Green issues.
Then there are the two economy ones - wage growth / regional development and minimum wage / living wage - I guess we currently have Umunna and Balls and that's a problem area.
And finally housing. This is in Emma Reynolds' portfolio, but I don't know much about her apart from she's quite new.
I agree with you on Burnham, Ed M (I think these attacks will finally become counterproductive, to be honest), and that there's an unknown that is Reynolds. I'd hope she's as good as she needs to be - there's plenty of capital to be made here.

Balls wasn't such a problem until the conference, but now he seems to unite left and right in dismay; Umunna particularly weak (although preferable to Reeves, who should be done away with as soon as possible). But Hunt, to me, looks like a disaster. I'm from teaching stock, so perhaps that's just me. But I have to say Hunt has been one of the biggest disappointments - partly for how easy it should be to effectively oppose the Tories, and partly for how wrong he keeps getting it. Swearing an oath, for pity's sake? It's just the comedy icing on a particularly useless cake.

Emoticon for wild applause there.

Balls is combative, but people just don't warm to him much (something he shares with No. 11's current incumbent) regardless of his accuracy of prediction or economic skills/knowledge.

Hunt and Umunna can jump off a fucking cliff as far as I'm concerned. Two characters (and Reeves, now I think on) more lacking in actual blood and charisma are hard to imagine as 'leading lights'. The reason their arguments often look like quibbling over details is because they are quibbles over details. Reeves should be saying categorically WCA will be scrapped on day one and something of use and of help put in it's place. Umunna should be saying that Osborne's fucked it up, and it's low wage jobs and scaring the unemployed in self-employment on shit rates that's screwing the tax take, and Hunt should be stating categorically that academies are a shit idea that should never have been countenanced, and that all such schools will return to LEA (democratic) control.

That they can't even dredge up the bottle to argue for three such easy and sensible hits is beyond me. No wonder so many voters don't trust Labour.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 7:15 pm

I see that ICM poll is another body blow for Ed Miliband. Labour are 4 points up (which is big in ICM land). I don't know how he keeps going....

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 7:27 pm

pk1 wrote:@tobyperkinsmp: Brilliant and passionate speech by @Ed_Miliband to Parliamentary Labour Party tonight brought Comm Rm 14 to its feet.

Do you know if its on line anywhere?
Just checked YouTube but its not there yet
Harry Smith's is - bottom right corner

https://www.youtube.com/user/theuklabourparty/videos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Mon 13 Oct, 2014 7:28 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Just heard that Caroline Lucas is taking legal advice over the debates inclusions. Shouldn't Natalie Bennett be doing this sort of thing? I wonder if Caroline Lucas has regrets over standing down as leader. (Or is it a Green constitutional thing? I'm not au fait with Green internal rules.)

Edited to add -

The SNP are being stupid.
I think the idea was to counter accusations that the Greens were a one woman party, a la Norbert Fromage and the Kippers. NB has improved tremendously behind the mic fortunately. In a debate with the other leaders she is going to do well. Not least being the only woman, but also having a genuine alternative to espouse.

As it happens the party is seeking legal advice, CL just happened to announce it.
There is little to recommend about somebody who made a big thing demanding Ed Miliband apologise for Iraq.

His first act as leader (in his acceptance speech) was to apologise for Iraq. An action he took years before NB decided to wave it around as a Green cause.

So is NB a liar or an incompetent?

An admission the Iraq war was wrong is not the same as apologising for it.

Saying we were wrong to undermine the UN, is not the same as saying sorry we started an illegal war that has caused the death of tens of thousands of innocents, the displacement of millions, has caused home grown terrorism, cost billions, and is the catalyst for our current war.

Ed Milliband has never apologised, nor have Labour and it is either intellectual incompetence or deceit to claim they have.