Saturday 9th, Sunday 10th May 2015

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:00 pm

I apologise if this comes across as 'gloating' in any way. It's not meant to. But I do think Galloway ran a very nasty campaign against Naz Shah and I'm glad she won despite that.

: Galloway Loses Bradford West.jpg (48.81 KiB) Viewed 7239 times

Do you think I might be emerging into the angry phase now?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:01 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · 22h 22 hours ago
If anyone cares at this point, I'm gunning (geddit?) for Dan Jarvis as leader. Labour needs someone who can kill Cameron with his bare hands
Thank you Martin Rowson. Managed to make me smile - even today.

I'm so glad I'm not the only person consigning that fate unto Cameron.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:01 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Angela Eagle is articulate, experienced & she's a lesbian.
Where I've come from, being gay & standing for public office usually ain' no thing.
Does it matter here in the UK?
No not to me
Not to me either.
I've got to know how things are in order to know what is best to do.
I've lived in my home, my country, the UK, for years.
What I don't know about my country, the UK, remains a lot.

Doesn't seem to have hindered Ruth Davidson!

Edited to add: ...any more than being a Tory.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:05 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: No not to me
Not to me either.
I've got to know how things are in order to know what is best to do.
I've lived in my home, my country, the UK, for years.
What I don't know about my country, the UK, remains a lot.
Doesn't seem to have hindered Ruth Davidson!

Eagle has an excellent sense of humour.
Davidson as leader of Scottish Tories is simply a joke.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:07 pm

Morevterthing all – and thank you all very much for your very welcome company, and posts, during The Event!

I know, now, what time I fell asleep last night 'cause of the posts that were still showing on my laptop when I woke up this morning. So thanks for a great poem from Ohso and all the other posts from around 10-ish and later. On waking, I worked out what day it was, downed a cuppa (not even flicking the telly or radio on!) and grabbed a slice of toast then headed down to the yard to help with morning-stables, hug my darling T and bury my tears in her mane, then did my bit for National Ponies' Bum-Scratching Day. So now I'm refreshed, have watched Dateline London (good but I recommend having sponges handy to hurl at Janet Bloody Daley!) and have re-organised things so I can see the telly (Badminton Cross-Country Day on BBC Red Button) and the iMac, and sent an email of thanks to Ed Miliband, I shall head back to page 1 of today and read from the start. I'll be hitting an imaginary thanks button whilst trying not to hit 'report' by mistake...

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:07 pm

It looks like Perterborough elected a right arsehole...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05 ... _hp_ref=uk

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:08 pm

ohsocynical wrote:@PK
Sorry about your sad news.

@CitizenJ/A
Did you find the link you were looking for?

The rest of you beautiful people.
So many times over the last few days, I've found myself trying to click like!
Your posts have been uplifting, insightful and encouraging and just plain lovely, so consider yourselves well and truly clicked.

And I'm still angry!

You too, Osho.

I'm still angry too.

Plus, while I'm here, you posted yesterday something about social media, something like it not being as 'relevant' or something as 'they fancy.' Sorry, can't remember you're exact words and I don't want to trawl back through 19 pages

We were driving behind a bus this morning, on our way back home from a shopping trip. The poster on the back of the bus stated:

"The ad on this bus has been seen by more people than have used social media today." or words to that affect.

I don't know whether it's true or not, but you may have a point re: social media. Plus, when I saw it, it made me think of you and your comment.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:09 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:Morevterthing all – and thank you all very much for your very welcome company, and posts, during The Event!

I know, now, what time I fell asleep last night 'cause of the posts that were still showing on my laptop when I woke up this morning. So thanks for a great poem from Ohso and all the other posts from around 10-ish and later. On waking, I worked out what day it was, downed a cuppa (not even flicking the telly or radio on!) and grabbed a slice of toast then headed down to the yard to help with morning-stables, hug my darling T and bury my tears in her mane, then did my bit for National Ponies' Bum-Scratching Day. So now I'm refreshed, have watched Dateline London (good but I recommend having sponges handy to hurl at Janet Bloody Daley!) and have re-organised things so I can see the telly (Badminton Cross-Country Day on BBC Red Button) and the iMac, and sent an email of thanks to Ed Miliband, I shall head back to page 1 of today and read from the start. I'll be hitting an imaginary thanks button whilst trying not to hit 'report' by mistake...

LadyCentauria, you're an example to us all. I'm happy to know you.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:10 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:On reflection if he isn't a rabid Blairite it has to be Jarvis.

Why, because we have to energise the UKIP tendency on the left and Jarvis will do that.

The rest are identikit politicians of various strengths and weaknesses and ideologies.

Can you imagine Paxman asking Jarvis if he was tough enough?

He'll have to be good. He has to go even lower on the social scale to claw back those voters who now they've voted for UKIP in a GE will find it a lot easier next time which means he has to be anti-single mother, imigrants.

Further up the social scale he has to encourage those who voted Tory because LibDems were toast, who begrudge their taxes going on scroungers and layabouts and believe Labour are still being too generous. [They do. Honestly]
It means he has to continue with the clamp down on the ill, disabled, etc. who through no fault of their own, depend more on the State.
It's appalling that the Great British publc is incapable of separating the two.

I've not put it very well. Except to add, not sure they'll ever be able to claw back and keep voters from such a broad spectrum.

Blair appealed to the middle and lower middle class for his vote, but did manage to look after those less well off, although he tightened the rules and made claiming harder.
He lost a lot of the traditional Labour vote though and I read somewhere they never really returned to the fold, although I suspect Ed clawed some of them back, it was not enough to count.

I wouldn't take a bet on it, but reckon whoever takes over will concentrate less on those at the bottom and we'll see a rise in UKIP.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:12 pm

citizenJA wrote:
daydreamer wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I know next to nothing of Dan Jarvis but my instinct is that if Labour are looking for 'something completely different' he would probably fit the bill. He would be very hard for the MSM to attack, being one of 'our boys', which would be extremely useful for Labour as the unremitting media onslaught on Ed was a big factor in his failure to win.
Hi Willow,

Good point, the media would look a bit hypocritical attacking one of 'our boys' Many of the MSM, tabloids especially have made a point of supporting the armed services.

He may, as Yahyah points out put off green inclined voters and those alienated by the party's involvement in Iraq. However, it doesn't necessary follow that he'd be someone keen to get us involved in military 'adventures' (though it is a risk). He might actually be more inclined not to commit our troops so readily to oversea's interventions having seen what war is really like on the ground. He'll be more aware of the human cost, I would think. He might also understand better the need to have a plan for what needs to happen once the war is won, something missing from Iraq etc.

Yes, the media onslaught of Ed was a big factor in his failure, even though at the end many started warming to him, being able to see the real person behind the media manipulation, it was still not enough. (I still like Ed, the scum media won't change my mind about him). But even if it's Jarvis, (or anyone), they'll still come under an onslaught. Don't forget it is the same for any Labour leader. Historically, a lot of good leaders have failed to win for Labour, and the media have played a large part in this.
Yep. You're just about as correct as you could be. What the hell do we do.

I don't know what we do citizen. The odds are always stacked against Labour. It always seems to take more of an effort to make it to government.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:13 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Not to me either.
I've got to know how things are in order to know what is best to do.
I've lived in my home, my country, the UK, for years.
What I don't know about my country, the UK, remains a lot.
Doesn't seem to have hindered Ruth Davidson!
Eagle has an excellent sense of humour.
Davidson as leader of Scottish Tories is simply a joke.

I've heard a few non-Tories up here grudgingly admit (pre-Murphy) that she was the best of the opposition leaders. FWIW, seems she may be well thought of in the Tory party as well:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... h-davidson

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:15 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:On reflection if he isn't a rabid Blairite it has to be Jarvis.

Why, because we have to energise the UKIP tendency on the left and Jarvis will do that.

The rest are identikit politicians of various strengths and weaknesses and ideologies.

Can you imagine Paxman asking Jarvis if he was tough enough?

The Telegraph (yeah, I know) claim insiders say he has no political hinterland, but that Progress are willing to shape him to achieve their ends, and re-claim the party back for Blairism.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:17 pm

@rebeccariots2

Thanks for the Martin Rowson tip-off, I've been thinking something along those lines. Do you think a plea of self-defence would wash?

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:18 pm

pk1 wrote:Thanks everyone but the bad news is not mine. The bad news belongs to my ex-husband & to my children. They are the ones hurting with that news, not me. I hurt for my boys because as a Mum, that's what we do

My hurt is for the loss of a damn good man that had a vision for the country in which we all have a share & a country in which each was as worthy as the other.

It feels as though it will be a long long time before we get anything like that.

My thoughts too, PK.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:20 pm

@Eric_ WLothian

Ruth Davidson struck me, through the campaign, as a half-decent human being.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:20 pm

Swarthlander wrote:It looks like Perterborough elected a right arsehole...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05 ... _hp_ref=uk

"Arsehole" is too mild a word for Jackson.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:20 pm

Good afternoon

Thank you for your kind birthday wishes

Bit of a quiet day as teacher wife is helping at a 'Family Fun Day' at the school - not much 'fun' for her I imagine

Coming over to Liverpool next week with some friends - solid Labour territory - followed by a trip to Wolves via the Wirral which went back all Labour last week so there is no stopping in any Tory constituencies!

I wonder what Ed's plans are now - will he do a Hague and stay in politics. If so he can be a real benefit for any leader - the intellectual drive, passion and decency may well say him up well to be a power behind the throne

A charismatic leader with a good team behind him (and who is prepared to listen), preferably one with no baggage from the pe-2010 Government

The MSM need a hook and we shouldn't give them one - most of the candidates are too easily attacked and put us on the back foot to begin with

What we want is a Blair but without the weakness - someone who can act like a Trojan Horse and then do what Blair didn't do and really take on the vested interests

This Government is going to do severe damage and the next Government has to be one from the left - and the only option is Labour-led. There needs to be better co-operation and dialogue between all those who oppose the Tories - the sniping and untruths about each other should stop. There is no need to agree on everything but we can behave like adults when we don't. The time to do this is now, in opposition - and the Government does not have a great majority.

I will not forgive any party in 2020 who puts ideological purity and short-term interest in front of the necessary removal of the Tories - that includes Labour and their choice of leader is the starting point

I can accept a Jarvis-type figure as he may be the best route back to Government in 2020 - it is senseless that we treat elections as Presidential but I think it is one of the many failings of our electorate

The Tories have no good candidates to replace the useless Cameron - the ones they talk about are all failures, it is just they have been lucky

There are opportunities for us - EU referendum, the mischief making of the SNP and the Tory leadership election are known areas where the Tories will be under pressure - nevermind the problems they have ignored or stoked up over the last 5 years!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:23 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:It looks like Perterborough elected a right arsehole...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05 ... _hp_ref=uk

"Arsehole" is too mild a word for Jackson.

But you see, some of that must have shown while he was canvassing and the like. Yet they still voted for him.

Sorry, but it's the public who are the arseholes...

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:24 pm

Swarthlander wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Just reading the LL Who might be next? and saw this below the line
"Doug Smith • an hour ago
Dan Jarvis: "Difficult to pin down ideologically". Jarvis is a vice-chair of Progress - i.e. he's on the Blairite hard-Right of the Labour Party."
I didn't know that, and not keen on going backwards
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about- ... r-patrons/

Yep! Maybe not a good choice afterall.

Yes, Swarthlander, it's in the link you posted to the Telegraph

Progress have already got their claws into him, so if you are a member of the party and get a vote on the new leader don't vote for Jarvis, it'll destroy what Ed has being trying to build over the last five years and take us back to the past. It'll do Labour real damage in the long run.

We need to boycott Sainsbury's. Their malign influence over our party is destroying it. I'm with Ernst on this.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:25 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Just reading the LL Who might be next? and saw this below the line
"Doug Smith • an hour ago
Dan Jarvis: "Difficult to pin down ideologically". Jarvis is a vice-chair of Progress - i.e. he's on the Blairite hard-Right of the Labour Party."
I didn't know that, and not keen on going backwards
He has John Mann's backing though and that guy is no Blairite.

I guess that's where the "difficult to pin down ideologically" comes in.

He is ticking more and more boxes for me. He's academically bright enough, with a degree in International Politics and Strategic Studies from Aberystwyth University - not Oxbridge significantly - comprehensive school - just so much of the usual bollocks is dealt with from the get go, it's hard to resist. And I went to Swansea Uni myself so have a bit of a soft spot for other Welsh uni alumni. The Progress connection is an issue for me, though, I have to admit. Then again, Ed Balls was a Labour and Co-operative MP but I'm not sure he ever really lived up to that tag so, like RobertSnozers, I think it's worth being wary of easy labels.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:27 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 1h 1 hour ago
Hearing Mary Creagh is throwing her hat into the ring for Labour leader. More hats thrown than a fight in a hat shop at this rate
Now she is good. Always on top of her brief. Very good speaker - articulate, well briefed as I said, and can properly do passion.

Jarvis and Creagh - could be a good team?

Not Jarvis, Rebecca (progress Blairite, and I say that has one of his constituents), even though sadly he fits the criteria of having had a job outside politics.

Creagh sounds a better bet.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:29 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:I sympathise CJ/A

I haven't read a paper, watched the news on TV or even looked at Twitter. I still can't bear it. And if I start talking about it to Mr Ohso, I get a huge knot of anger build up in my chest.

I suppose it'll get better, but I can't get through, round or over it at present.
Hello, ohsocynical. This is a tough time, isn't it? And just as I thought the Labour Party was turning the corner. It's not only that we've lost an inspirational leader, but it seems likely that we will lose the values that he stood for. That's a double blow.

Yeah, it's this double blow I'm struggling with.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:29 pm

Happy Birthday to howsillyofme1!!! Cake! Balloons!! Massive

!!!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:29 pm

PorFavor wrote:@rebeccariots2

Thanks for the Martin Rowson tip-off, I've been thinking something along those lines. Do you think a plea of self-defence would wash?

Crime passionel more appropriate I think PF. Or perhaps that should even be 'cream passionel' - he's that slimy.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:30 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

CAKE IS OFF. THERE IS NO JUSTICE, JUST ME.

This is a brilliant signature, TGS. Thank you. My husband brought us all chocolate & biscuits. Please help yourselves.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:31 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:It looks like Perterborough elected a right arsehole...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05 ... _hp_ref=uk

"Arsehole" is too mild a word for Jackson.
But you see, some of that must have shown while he was canvassing and the like. Yet they still voted for him.

Sorry, but it's the public who are the arseholes...

A fair number of the population of Peterborough are exactly that, something I know from personal experience. The Tories have been losing seats in the city, both to Labour and UKIP; in this instance he was obviously saved by the Kippers. Doesn't like being criticized either, I'd lay money he has blocked all of those tweeters by now.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:32 pm

daydreamer wrote:
Swarthlander wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Just reading the LL Who might be next? and saw this below the line
"Doug Smith • an hour ago
Dan Jarvis: "Difficult to pin down ideologically". Jarvis is a vice-chair of Progress - i.e. he's on the Blairite hard-Right of the Labour Party."
I didn't know that, and not keen on going backwards
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about- ... r-patrons/

Yep! Maybe not a good choice afterall.
Yes, Swarthlander, it's in the link you posted to the Telegraph Progress have already got their claws into him, so if you are a member of the party and get a vote on the new leader don't vote for Jarvis, it'll destroy what Ed has being trying to build over the last five years and take us back to the past. It'll do Labour real damage in the long run.

We need to boycott Sainsbury's. Their malign influence over our party is destroying it. I'm with Ernst on this.

Re Sainsbury's...I used to go in there orginally because it was the nearest supermarket. Then when we had an Aldi open I only used to go to Sainsbury's to get the cat food, and the bits and pieces I couldn't get at Aldi's. Now Aldi have extended their range, I rarely use Sainsburys except for a few items from their pharmacy and to get my Roses Lime Juice. It used to be heaving whenever you went in there, but these days you can get straight through the checkout, and you never see people with their trolleys stacked high.

I read the other day that they'd posted a loss for the year....Not surprised. But that'll be because of Aldi. Not because of their politics.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:36 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:This might be a look if people want to get a look at what Dan Jarvis stands for

https://www.waterstones.com/book/why-vo ... 1849547345

Foreword by Ed Miliband. Let's not forget that Ed appointed him to some pretty senior shadow cabinet posts so they obviously have a fair amount ideologically in common. I'm not saying Jarvis is definitely our man, just that we shouldn't discount him on the basis if a label that might not even be very accurate.

I have to say I find labels like Blairite increasingly unhelpful. There are people like Andy Burnham who are denounced as Blairite, but Burnhakpm absolutely believes in a publicly owned and run NHS, so he's all right be me.

Edit - link to his speeches and articles http://www.danjarvismp.co.uk/news/speeches-articles

Thanks Robert, I shall look at your links.

You make good points and maybe the label isn't helpful, but Jarvis is a vice chair of Progress that's not in doubt (see their own literature), and I'm sorry, but for many of us it's too close to what came before. Progress too, is the right wing of the party, which many of us are not. I, and I think many others, just don't want a re-run of the Blair years. Like PF says we don't want to lose the policies and values Ed has given Labour. That's a real risk with Progress, as many of them clearly didn't like the direction Ed was trying to take the party in.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:39 pm

PorFavor wrote:@Eric_ WLothian

Ruth Davidson struck me, through the campaign, as a half-decent human being.

I apologise for my ignorant comment about Ruth Davidson. I don't know enough about her to call her a 'joke' & I ask your pardon.
Davidson, a gay woman, leader of the Scottish Tory party.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:40 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: What we want is a Blair but without the weakness - someone who can act like a Trojan Horse and then do what Blair didn't do and really take on the vested interests

I'm going to ask what may seem to be a stupid question - but here goes -

How would we know that that was what that "someone" was? S\he would have to keep their true intentions a closely guarded secret from absolutely everyone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:43 pm

citizenJA wrote:
PorFavor wrote:@Eric_ WLothian

Ruth Davidson struck me, through the campaign, as a half-decent human being.
I apologise for my ignorant comment about Ruth Davidson. I don't know enough about her to call her a 'joke' & I ask your pardon.
Davidson, a gay woman, leader of the Scottish Tory party.

No, not at all. No problem. She could be a complete idiot on closer examination. My impression of her is purely superficial.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:44 pm

Some more Rowson - to keep our peckers up (as my mum used to say ....).

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful. 1) without LibDems to shield him, Dave is now at the mercy of foaming backbenchers who hate him more than we do

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 2) Richard Desmond just pissed a million quid up against the wall for no observable result

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 3) the LibDems have reaped the nemesis they deserved. Clegg's taken them back to Thorpe numbers of MPs

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 4) Tiny chance Labour might quickly work out it's time to be post-Blair & post-Brown & start listening to us

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 5) those SNPers will make Dave's life a fucking misery, or their constituents will lynch them

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 6) @PeterTatchell has, 33 years on, finally been avenged against the duplicitous creep Hughes

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 7) um... We're not in prison or dead... Yet. And even in prison there's still hope. Meanwhile, fuck 'em!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:46 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Some more Rowson - to keep our peckers up (as my mum used to say ....).

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful. 1) without LibDems to shield him, Dave is now at the mercy of foaming backbenchers who hate him more than we do

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 2) Richard Desmond just pissed a million quid up against the wall for no observable result

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 3) the LibDems have reaped the nemesis they deserved. Clegg's taken them back to Thorpe numbers of MPs

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 4) Tiny chance Labour might quickly work out it's time to be post-Blair & post-Brown & start listening to us

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 5) those SNPers will make Dave's life a fucking misery, or their constituents will lynch them

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 6) @PeterTatchell has, 33 years on, finally been avenged against the duplicitous creep Hughes

Martin Rowson @MartinRowson · May 8
Reasons to be cheerful 7) um... We're not in prison or dead... Yet. And even in prison there's still hope. Meanwhile, fuck 'em!

Thanks! I'm not too sure about 1), though.

daydreamer · Post by **daydreamer** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:47 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:On reflection if he isn't a rabid Blairite it has to be Jarvis.

Why, because we have to energise the UKIP tendency on the left and Jarvis will do that.

The rest are identikit politicians of various strengths and weaknesses and ideologies.

Can you imagine Paxman asking Jarvis if he was tough enough?
He'll have to be good. He has to go even lower on the social scale to claw back those voters who now they've voted for UKIP in a GE will find it a lot easier next time which means he has to be anti-single mother, imigrants.

Further up the social scale he has to encourage those who voted Tory because LibDems were toast, who begrudge their taxes going on scroungers and layabouts and believe Labour are still being too generous. [They do. Honestly]
It means he has to continue with the clamp down on the ill, disabled, etc. who through no fault of their own, depend more on the State.
It's appalling that the Great British publc is incapable of separating the two.

I've not put it very well. Except to add, not sure they'll ever be able to claw back and keep voters from such a broad spectrum.

Blair appealed to the middle and lower middle class for his vote, but did manage to look after those less well off, although he tightened the rules and made claiming harder.
He lost a lot of the traditional Labour vote though and I read somewhere they never really returned to the fold, although I suspect Ed clawed some of them back, it was not enough to count.

I wouldn't take a bet on it, but reckon whoever takes over will concentrate less on those at the bottom and we'll see a rise in UKIP.

I hope you're wrong, but expect your right, as those nearer the bottom are less likely to vote, and votes are what you need to win. It's clear Labour will have to make some compromises, as you can't be all things to all men.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:49 pm

Chris Hedges, US political journalist.
'If you want change, you'll have to destroy the system'.
Hedges is non-violent.
If we're giving up Sainsbury's, how about we think on doing a full retreat into allotment gardens, raising chickens, pooling our resources, setting up our own clinics & declining to need what Tories insist upon selling to us?
That's a way of destroying the system.
Decline to use or rely on it.
Standing together.

I offer this merely as an idea. It's certainly not a new one.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:51 pm

George Eaton @georgeeaton · 33m 33 minutes ago
Angela Eagle could run for Labour deputy leadership on joint ticket with Andy Burnham, says source.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:51 pm

I've not had the heart to look at who lost what but my husband tells me UKIP only have one seat & Farage didn't get it.
Just how well (or not) did UKIP do, please, that Labour needs to concentrate on winning that vote?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:51 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 33m 33 minutes ago
Angela Eagle could run for Labour deputy leadership on joint ticket with Andy Burnham, says source.

Hey.
I rather like that.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:51 pm

Where's that "thanks" button?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:53 pm

JK Rowling shuts down bullying Twitter trolls with one brilliant tweet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... icn=puff-1

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:54 pm

Although I think Angela Eagle should set her sights just a tad higher . . . . .

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 2:57 pm

PorFavor wrote:Where's that "thanks" button?

You rock.

I haven't felt this good since Thursday night, not knowing what I'd wake to discover when I staggared out of into a nightmare election result.
To you all
Thank you

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:00 pm

PorFavor wrote:Although I think Angela Eagle should set her sights just a tad higher . . . . .

Well, yeah.
But it's got symmetry, a joint leadership (is that right, am I reading that right?), you know what I mean?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:00 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:On reflection if he isn't a rabid Blairite it has to be Jarvis.

Why, because we have to energise the UKIP tendency on the left and Jarvis will do that.

The rest are identikit politicians of various strengths and weaknesses and ideologies.

Can you imagine Paxman asking Jarvis if he was tough enough?
He'll have to be good. He has to go even lower on the social scale to claw back those voters who now they've voted for UKIP in a GE will find it a lot easier next time which means he has to be anti-single mother, imigrants.

Further up the social scale he has to encourage those who voted Tory because LibDems were toast, who begrudge their taxes going on scroungers and layabouts and believe Labour are still being too generous. [They do. Honestly]
It means he has to continue with the clamp down on the ill, disabled, etc. who through no fault of their own, depend more on the State.
It's appalling that the Great British publc is incapable of separating the two.

I've not put it very well. Except to add, not sure they'll ever be able to claw back and keep voters from such a broad spectrum.

Blair appealed to the middle and lower middle class for his vote, but did manage to look after those less well off, although he tightened the rules and made claiming harder.
He lost a lot of the traditional Labour vote though and I read somewhere they never really returned to the fold, although I suspect Ed clawed some of them back, it was not enough to count.

I wouldn't take a bet on it, but reckon whoever takes over will concentrate less on those at the bottom and we'll see a rise in UKIP.

Or, better still, to make the case why we shouldn't begrudge such people. After all, it only takes a few minutes to have a stroke or be given a poor diagnosis and prognosis.
He is certainly someone I'd like to stand to find out what his values are.
Biggest downer I can find is that he supports F*rest, (sorry for swearing).
Otherwise he seems ok.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:02 pm

Also, it would be funny if Cameron went off on one of his pink-faced rants at him. 'You're weak and useless'. Next day Cameron comes in with a big shiner.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:02 pm

Chair and Vice-chairs of Progress
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/about- ... r-patrons/

John Woodcock MP was on some program knocking Ed last night, he's one of the "where were you in the campaign?" I complained of earlier. So are many on that list

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:03 pm

citizenJA wrote:Chris Hedges, US political journalist.
'If you want change, you'll have to destroy the system'.
Hedges is non-violent.
If we're giving up Sainsbury's, how about we think on doing a full retreat into allotment gardens, raising chickens, pooling our resources, setting up our own clinics & declining to need what Tories insist upon selling to us?
That's a way of destroying the system.
Decline to use or rely on it.
Standing together.

I offer this merely as an idea. It's certainly not a new one.

Except they keep nicking the allotments back in order to build on them.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:04 pm

jesus christ almighty
my husband just gave me the breakdown of vote share here in Stoke-on-Trent
oh god

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:07 pm

daydreamer wrote:
yahyah wrote:It's giving me a new headache tbh.

In this media age do we go more by head than heart ?

Jarvis comes across well from what I've seen, and if we are leaching votes in the North someone who won't get written off by people who've shifted to UKIP must be an advantage.

But Jarvis would wind up the green leaners, because of his military background.
Don't know where he stands within Labour either...if anyone does would you mind sharing your views please ?

Would like a strong woman other than Cooper to consider, but she has too much baggage.

We don't have the luxury of the small parties, we need a leader who people of all types/ages/social groups will listen to.
Afternoon Yahyah,

I'm not enthused by most of the candidates standing. I feel Labour will end up going backwards, to Blairism again. Jarvis does indeed come across well, and seems a committed local MP.

Do you mean he won't get written off by people who've moved to UKIP because of his military background or because his constituency is in the North (though, of course, he was parachuted in from somewhere down south. Not that it's a problem, he seems to be doing a good enough job, only in that it might affect how new UKIP/old Labour voters react to him)?

Even though he's my MP I'm ashamed to say that I don't know where he stands in the party, i.e. left or right, Blairite? etc. I'll have to look at his voting record/interviews he's done.

I agree with you about Cooper, and I certainly don't want Umunna.

I'll be blunt.

I think Jarvis will appeal to a certain type of [usually] male who has certain concepts about what it is to be a man. The media onslaught used the idea of Ed as geek, helpless, wet etc.
Hard to do that with a man with Jarvis's background.

Please don't shout at me anyone....I, and my husband, loved Ed and his way of doing things but think we have to look at what will appeal to other non committed Labour voters in 2020.
The media's nasty behaviour will not get any better in that time.

Does anyone know where Jarvis stands within Labour's political spectrum ?

I think it was PorFavor who said yesterday we need to play dirty now.
Not necessarily dirty, which may imply cheating, but we've got to adapt to the conditions of the game. You don't turn up for ice hockey wearing a ball gown.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 09 May, 2015 3:08 pm

frightful_oik wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:On reflection if he isn't a rabid Blairite it has to be Jarvis.

Why, because we have to energise the UKIP tendency on the left and Jarvis will do that.

The rest are identikit politicians of various strengths and weaknesses and ideologies.

Can you imagine Paxman asking Jarvis if he was tough enough?
He'll have to be good. He has to go even lower on the social scale to claw back those voters who now they've voted for UKIP in a GE will find it a lot easier next time which means he has to be anti-single mother, imigrants.

Further up the social scale he has to encourage those who voted Tory because LibDems were toast, who begrudge their taxes going on scroungers and layabouts and believe Labour are still being too generous. [They do. Honestly]
It means he has to continue with the clamp down on the ill, disabled, etc. who through no fault of their own, depend more on the State.
It's appalling that the Great British publc is incapable of separating the two.

I've not put it very well. Except to add, not sure they'll ever be able to claw back and keep voters from such a broad spectrum.

Blair appealed to the middle and lower middle class for his vote, but did manage to look after those less well off, although he tightened the rules and made claiming harder.
He lost a lot of the traditional Labour vote though and I read somewhere they never really returned to the fold, although I suspect Ed clawed some of them back, it was not enough to count.

I wouldn't take a bet on it, but reckon whoever takes over will concentrate less on those at the bottom and we'll see a rise in UKIP.
Or, better still, to make the case why we shouldn't begrudge such people. After all, it only takes a few minutes to have a stroke or be given a poor diagnosis and prognosis.
He is certainly someone I'd like to stand to find out what his values are.
Biggest downer I can find is that he supports F*rest, (sorry for swearing).
Otherwise he seems ok.

I think Ed did a damn good job of saying we shouldn't begrudge those less well off and he was going to fight for them.

All it did was drive more greedy sods to vote Ukip or Tory.