Tuesday 12th May 2015

[ohsocynical]

Good morning all.

Seems the chickietroll felt compelled to post on one of the other threads. It followed me around on CIF for a while on topics related to social security. I'm aware that TGS had a similar problem with another one.
I wonder - should we ban them, ignore them, or what? I'm inclined to think they'll be back under different names if we ban them; I'm not sure what the answer is. I could do without these morons, personally.

1) Draw strength from them. They're trying to stop us do what we do. On a fairly fundamental level they are threatened by us. As Swarthlander says, it shows what we're up against.

2) Ignore. Do not respond. Ever. It's what they want. Their only sad, bitter pleasure in life is knowing that they've riled someone. Don't give them the satisfaction. It's like dealing with a child - ignore bad behaviour and reward good.

The experts opinion on trolls such as we are getting, is that they have a mental illness. Given that they probably don't realise it and we don't know exactly who they are so they could be offered help, it's best we just leave them alone.

I think the idea of putting them in the pub might work. A bit like a padded cell only kinder.

[RogerOThornhill]

Morning all.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 9m9 minutes ago
Unions will have to get backing of 50% of members before calling a strike - @sajidjavid @BBCr4today

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 10m10 minutes ago
Employers will be allowed to bring in agency workers during strikes - @sajidjavid @BBCr4today

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 11m11 minutes ago
Strikes in essential public services will be banned unless 40% of union members back them - @sajidjavid

I see.
No. To pass these laws is contemptible.

I assume then that the police can ignore their PCCs as most of them were voted in by under 20% of the electorate.

No?

[AngryAsWell]

As Eric is around I'm posting this again from last night. What do you think the SNP would do?

"The link I posted above to British Influence ( http://www.britishinfluence.org/info ) has made me think (doing a lot of that today) its a cross party group with MP's from all party's joining together to campaign to stay in the EU.
Question
Will the very pro-EU SNP join with them? Its a powerful group, been working for ages and (as can be seen from the email I posted) are on-the-marks-ready-to-go.
I think SNP are on a sticky wicket if they join, and an equally stick one if they don't..."

[PorFavor]

Good morning.

I see rustychicken (or maybe - "he who shouldn't be named") can't stay away. I suggest to Admin that you allow his account to remain open. His posts show, in detail, his sociopathic difficulties and are a fine example of what we have to organise against.

The last few days on FTN have shown that this community (I'm trying to not get too sycophantic) is and can be a force for good. It is a shining shield against the utter drivel that comes from the general MSM.

I hope we can do something with Robert's idea of a co-ordinated blog/twitter, even a small(ish) voice can make a difference.



Now I've got that of my chest I have to go and shovel chicken shit. The little buggers are dirty sods.

Read you later.

That's more or less what I said yesterday - so, obviously, I agree with you. Grit in the oyster, and all that.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

[Lonewolfie]

Morning all.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 9m9 minutes ago
Unions will have to get backing of 50% of members before calling a strike - @sajidjavid @BBCr4today

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 10m10 minutes ago
Employers will be allowed to bring in agency workers during strikes - @sajidjavid @BBCr4today

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 11m11 minutes ago
Strikes in essential public services will be banned unless 40% of union members back them - @sajidjavid

I see.
No. To pass these laws is contemptible.

Morevetingtoons all...

Had hoped to be around today a bit (and still may be) but, having started to read through, it appears I have to leave already (work-related, not troll or FTN )....

I look forward to the thresholds being increased for all elections in public life then....starting with the PCCs.

...and WTF happened in here last night? There's custard everywhere and what appears to be the remains of a smoked dippychuckup, rusting in its' own juice

...and b***** hell it's busy in here - difficult to keep up, but snap RoT re PCCS....and the 'British Influence' thing is the brain(?)child a pro-EU Tory MP...so not sure if it's good or bad, other than that it'll be more 'difficult thinking' for TCC.

TTFN

[PorFavor]

@Tizme

I saw your post yesterday (in response to SpinningHugo) to the effect that if we're meant to get behind "them" now, for the greater good, why were they not prepared to do the same for "us" for the same reason. I agreed (and still do) wholeheartedly but somehow neglected to say so. It's all very one-way traffic, isn't it?

[AngryAsWell]

@Tizme

I saw your post yesterday (in response to SpinningHugo) to the effect that if we're meant to get behind "them" now, for the greater good, why were they not prepared to do the same for "us" for the same reason. I agreed (and still do) wholeheartedly but somehow neglected to say so. It's all very one-way traffic, isn't it?

That was my question to Hugo, not Tizme's ....

I've been thinking a lot to day.
Mainly about what Hugo has had to say, and one comment in particular he made which was (along the lines of)
"Any one of you here today would prefer a Tony Blair government to the one we have now..." and he is right as far as I'm concerned (minus the war)
That's what has been playing on my mind.
First, and in retrospect, why didn't "right wing Labour" apply the same rule? That any Labour is better than no Labour? Why didn't they get behind Ed, instead of sniping from the side lines, and ensure he got elected?
Hugo if you read this would you be so kind as to answer that for me ? thanks.
Looking forward
Hugo's statement still stands.
Tonight people are going to bed hungry, will be struggling to find money to pay the bedroom tax, and telling their kids sorry but no, I can't afford it. "It" being anything from a bar of chocolate to a new coat or pair of shoes, come winter they will be cold and hungry. The NHS is on the point of no return and ...well I don't have to list every thing, you all know anyway. And for those reasons, and starting from the position we are in now, then yes, I would prefer a TB gov to this lot - but that doesn't mean I want one. I feel like I'm backed into a corner with no way out. Either we accept a right wing leader or right wing Labour will again join the rabid press and make sure, as they did by not supporting Ed (till too late to make a difference) whoever it is fails.
This is what is being done and I can't see a way round it.

[Willow904]

Morning all.

I see.
No. To pass these laws is contemptible.

What percentage of potential voters actually voted?
What percentage of voters voted Conservative?

According to Charlotte Church in an article someone linked yesterday, 24% of eligible voting population voted Tory so no public sector strikes for them, they didn't get the 40% of total possible votes and therefore do not have an adequate mandate to endanger our precious public services.

Btw could the stolen ballot papers have been used to rig postal voting in key marginals as that's the conspiracy theory going round? I'm sure someone here has the knowledge to clarify whether poss, it's just I can't remember ballot papers being stolen in this way before. Why were these ballots ever left unattended? I'd rather not have these suspicions, conspiracy theories distract from real issues, so I'm hoping someone will put my mind at rest. As far as I'm aware it's still a police matter.

[gilsey]

It would be good if the shadow cabinet could be given some homework by Harman. Send them all off to read Krugman, Blanchflower and Wren-Lewis and test them on it afterwards, so when the GDP figures are poor, every single opposition spokesman can explain why.

It's quite clear that the electorate outside Scotland didn't buy the anti-austerity message, no wonder, Labour weren't even trying to sell it. They should, and they have a decent story to tell of Darling's short-lived recovery. That will be ancient history in a couple of years time, but the tories will give them plenty of new stories to work with.

[ephemerid]

Ephemerid
This sort of stuff is going on all over the place. People are setting up all sorts of groups and co-ops but we don't hear much about them. I'm thinking that if FTN could maybe bring things like this to the site/blog/whatever we decide, people who visit the site could see that there is hope and there is action and it is possible to get things done in a spirit of community co-operation and engagement.

Wind turbines & solar panels on the south facing areas. Do you think Pickles would allow it? Apologies, I don't know if that person has been given a new assignment.

Community building is difficult work but it's the way.

None of their business, JA.

It's a devolved matter - but for some things, as the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is one of our National Parks, the planning would have to be approved; many things like windfarms are not approved, but a low-lying solar park might be as long as it was tucked away a bit. Using the land to grow things would pose less of a problem.

[citizenJA]

Morning all.

I see.
No. To pass these laws is contemptible.

What percentage of potential voters actually voted?
What percentage of voters voted Conservative?

Published results from the BBC:

66.1% of the electorate voted
36.9% voted Tory

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

That just isn't good enough, Tories, is it.
No.

[gilsey]

the postwar consensus is being eroded by this government,

More like blown out of the water, I'd say.

[PorFavor]

@Tizme

I saw your post yesterday (in response to SpinningHugo) to the effect that if we're meant to get behind "them" now, for the greater good, why were they not prepared to do the same for "us" for the same reason. I agreed (and still do) wholeheartedly but somehow neglected to say so. It's all very one-way traffic, isn't it?

That was my question to Hugo, not Tizme's ....

I've been thinking a lot to day.
Mainly about what Hugo has had to say, and one comment in particular he made which was (along the lines of)
"Any one of you here today would prefer a Tony Blair government to the one we have now..." and he is right as far as I'm concerned (minus the war)
That's what has been playing on my mind.
First, and in retrospect, why didn't "right wing Labour" apply the same rule? That any Labour is better than no Labour? Why didn't they get behind Ed, instead of sniping from the side lines, and ensure he got elected?
Hugo if you read this would you be so kind as to answer that for me ? thanks.
Looking forward
Hugo's statement still stands.
Tonight people are going to bed hungry, will be struggling to find money to pay the bedroom tax, and telling their kids sorry but no, I can't afford it. "It" being anything from a bar of chocolate to a new coat or pair of shoes, come winter they will be cold and hungry. The NHS is on the point of no return and ...well I don't have to list every thing, you all know anyway. And for those reasons, and starting from the position we are in now, then yes, I would prefer a TB gov to this lot - but that doesn't mean I want one. I feel like I'm backed into a corner with no way out. Either we accept a right wing leader or right wing Labour will again join the rabid press and make sure, as they did by not supporting Ed (till too late to make a difference) whoever it is fails.
This is what is being done and I can't see a way round it.

Sorry - I read it this morning when I was catching up on what I'd missed last night. I think your comment appeared as a quote within a quote wrapped in a quote and I got confused. So - I agree with you!

[DonutHingeParty]

Labour needs to be careful of lots of things in the coming months. What do you think our comfort blanket is? I'm pretty sure it's probably very different for several groups ... and that's part of the problem.

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

[PorFavor]

Just had some bloke come to my door asking if I believed in a God who cared for all of us. I said no, quite forcefully (but politely). He then asked me why I held that view to which I'm afraid I replied, "I'd have thought it was bloody obvious."

I see Nepal has had another earthquake\strong aftershock, by the way.

Rant over.

[citizenJA]

Ephemerid
This sort of stuff is going on all over the place. People are setting up all sorts of groups and co-ops but we don't hear much about them. I'm thinking that if FTN could maybe bring things like this to the site/blog/whatever we decide, people who visit the site could see that there is hope and there is action and it is possible to get things done in a spirit of community co-operation and engagement.

Wind turbines & solar panels on the south facing areas. Do you think Pickles would allow it? Apologies, I don't know if that person has been given a new assignment.

Community building is difficult work but it's the way.

None of their business, JA.

It's a devolved matter - but for some things, as the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is one of our National Parks, the planning would have to be approved; many things like windfarms are not approved, but a low-lying solar park might be as long as it was tucked away a bit. Using the land to grow things would pose less of a problem.

I love Wales.
I think I've mentioned that several times over the course of our friendship.
A collectively operated wind turbine(s) keeps the lights on in our communities.
The wind is always blowing somewhere.
The only bill is for its maintenance, connectivity, any storage & the labour going into keeping it running for everyone.
It can happen.
I've got to get my walking shoes on & go forth, friends.
I'll be back later today to read more good ideas.
love
cJA

[AngryAsWell]

@Tizme

I saw your post yesterday (in response to SpinningHugo) to the effect that if we're meant to get behind "them" now, for the greater good, why were they not prepared to do the same for "us" for the same reason. I agreed (and still do) wholeheartedly but somehow neglected to say so. It's all very one-way traffic, isn't it?

That was my question to Hugo, not Tizme's ....

I've been thinking a lot to day.
Mainly about what Hugo has had to say, and one comment in particular he made which was (along the lines of)
"Any one of you here today would prefer a Tony Blair government to the one we have now..." and he is right as far as I'm concerned (minus the war)
That's what has been playing on my mind.
First, and in retrospect, why didn't "right wing Labour" apply the same rule? That any Labour is better than no Labour? Why didn't they get behind Ed, instead of sniping from the side lines, and ensure he got elected?
Hugo if you read this would you be so kind as to answer that for me ? thanks.
Looking forward
Hugo's statement still stands.
Tonight people are going to bed hungry, will be struggling to find money to pay the bedroom tax, and telling their kids sorry but no, I can't afford it. "It" being anything from a bar of chocolate to a new coat or pair of shoes, come winter they will be cold and hungry. The NHS is on the point of no return and ...well I don't have to list every thing, you all know anyway. And for those reasons, and starting from the position we are in now, then yes, I would prefer a TB gov to this lot - but that doesn't mean I want one. I feel like I'm backed into a corner with no way out. Either we accept a right wing leader or right wing Labour will again join the rabid press and make sure, as they did by not supporting Ed (till too late to make a difference) whoever it is fails.
This is what is being done and I can't see a way round it.

Sorry - I read it this morning when I was catching up on what I'd missed last night. I think your comment appeared as a quote within a quote wrapped in a quote and I got confused. So - I agree with you!

Just re read that - I came across as quite curt, that was not my intent - sorry

[Eric_WLothian]

As Eric is around I'm posting this again from last night. What do you think the SNP would do?

"The link I posted above to British Influence ( http://www.britishinfluence.org/info ) has made me think (doing a lot of that today) its a cross party group with MP's from all party's joining together to campaign to stay in the EU.
Question
Will the very pro-EU SNP join with them? Its a powerful group, been working for ages and (as can be seen from the email I posted) are on-the-marks-ready-to-go.
I think SNP are on a sticky wicket if they join, and an equally stick one if they don't..."

I really don't see how they could justify not campaigning to stay in the EU - they banged on about it so much during the run up to the referendum. After the noise they made, I don't even think abstaining/not campaigning is an option.

As you say though, they have a problem. It would (because of their support for the EU) be advantageous to their ultimate goal of independence if the UK voted to leave - an excuse for another referendum.

Having said that, as far as I know, there is no firm evidence that Scotland is more (or less) pro-EU than E/W/NI. We have a Ukip MEP. I have no doubt that if the vote in Scotland is different to the rest of the UK (in either direction), it will be seized on as an excuse for another independence referendum (The SNP are not averse to U-turns when it suits them).

The possibility of an independent Scotland in the EU and the rest of the UK outside it (or vice versa) is a nightmare scenario. A closed border would be inevitable to maintain EU security.

[AngryAsWell]

Labour needs to be careful of lots of things in the coming months. What do you think our comfort blanket is? I'm pretty sure it's probably very different for several groups ... and that's part of the problem.

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

I agree with all of that, not sure I can add to it

[ephemerid]

It would be good if the shadow cabinet could be given some homework by Harman. Send them all off to read Krugman, Blanchflower and Wren-Lewis and test them on it afterwards, so when the GDP figures are poor, every single opposition spokesman can explain why.

It's quite clear that the electorate outside Scotland didn't buy the anti-austerity message, no wonder, Labour weren't even trying to sell it. They should, and they have a decent story to tell of Darling's short-lived recovery. That will be ancient history in a couple of years time, but the tories will give them plenty of new stories to work with.

It's my view they need to do a LOT of homework, gilsey.

Times without number I watched Select C'tee hearings, Urgent Questions, long-winded debates etc. and very few opposition MPs had a clue about the legislation behind the lies they were being told and thus had no effective rebuttal.

The apparent inability of Labour to correct the impression that the crash was their fault is pathetic, really - I think most of us agree.
By the time Mervyn King hit the headlines saying exactly that, it was far too late.
On spending, there is no question that they spent a lot in office - but rather than shouting from the rooftops that they had to rebuild crumbling hospitals and schools after decades of Tory neglect, they just sat there.

I have seen no evidence in what they say that really understand what has happened to social security - the only one who does his homework on that is Stephen Timms, who has been very effective in debate; but Reeves and Green were both hopeless.
If Reeves really understands how the system works, she isn't communicating that understanding at all.

I hope Harriet is able to sort them all out - the new ones will be keen to learn, but some of the older ones will think they know it all when they manifestly don't.
I expect incompetence and a knowledge vacuum from Tories, and we'll see a lot more of it; but to oppose effectively, especially while they wait to get a new leader, Labour MPs need to be on top of their game and tough with it to show the Tories that they know what's what and will argue their corner.

[PorFavor]

Labour needs to be careful of lots of things in the coming months. What do you think our comfort blanket is? I'm pretty sure it's probably very different for several groups ... and that's part of the problem.

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

I agree (I seem to be in an agreeable mood this morning. Although the bloke who came to the door earlier may beg to differ.)

However, apart from your point about PMQs (how would that be achieved to our advantage?) I thought that that was what we'd just done. Where do you feel we fell short? Was it a presentation problem? Where does the press fit in?




Edited to add an "r"

[AngryAsWell]

As Eric is around I'm posting this again from last night. What do you think the SNP would do?

"The link I posted above to British Influence ( http://www.britishinfluence.org/info ) has made me think (doing a lot of that today) its a cross party group with MP's from all party's joining together to campaign to stay in the EU.
Question
Will the very pro-EU SNP join with them? Its a powerful group, been working for ages and (as can be seen from the email I posted) are on-the-marks-ready-to-go.
I think SNP are on a sticky wicket if they join, and an equally stick one if they don't..."

I really don't see how they could justify not campaigning to stay in the EU - they banged on about it so much during the run up to the referendum. After the noise they made, I don't even think abstaining/not campaigning is an option.

As you say though, they have a problem. It would (because of their support for the EU) be advantageous to their ultimate goal of independence if the UK voted to leave - an excuse for another referendum.

Having said that, as far as I know, there is no firm evidence that Scotland is more (or less) pro-EU than E/W/NI. We have a Ukip MEP. I have no doubt that if the vote in Scotland is different to the rest of the UK (in either direction), it will be seized on as an excuse for another independence referendum (The SNP are not averse to U-turns when it suits them).

The possibility of an independent Scotland in the EU and the rest of the UK outside it (or vice versa) is a nightmare scenario. A closed border would be inevitable to maintain EU security.

I was wondering specifically whether they would join with an all party group after the "Labour are red torys" sloganizing during and after the referendum. I think it would be hard for them to justify standing on the same platform with torys, but at the same time this cross-party group is well organised, and has been for several years. It would be quite costly for them to set up an independent campaign just because they wouldn't work with another party, and not as effective. But the hypocrisy of joining would be something to see.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Good morning all.

Seems the chickietroll felt compelled to post on one of the other threads. It followed me around on CIF for a while on topics related to social security. I'm aware that TGS had a similar problem with another one.
I wonder - should we ban them, ignore them, or what? I'm inclined to think they'll be back under different names if we ban them; I'm not sure what the answer is. I could do without these morons, personally.

1) Draw strength from them. They're trying to stop us do what we do. On a fairly fundamental level they are threatened by us. As Swarthlander says, it shows what we're up against.

2) Ignore. Do not respond. Ever. It's what they want. Their only sad, bitter pleasure in life is knowing that they've riled someone. Don't give them the satisfaction. It's like dealing with a child - ignore bad behaviour and reward good.

The experts opinion on trolls such as we are getting, is that they have a mental illness. Given that they probably don't realise it and we don't know exactly who they are so they could be offered help, it's best we just leave them alone.

I always assumed with our particular troll (let us call it Cerberus for convenience) that it was down to inadequacies in the bedroom department.

[DonutHingeParty]

Labour needs to be careful of lots of things in the coming months. What do you think our comfort blanket is? I'm pretty sure it's probably very different for several groups ... and that's part of the problem.

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

I agree (I seem to be in an agreeable mood this morning. Although the bloke who came to the door earlier may beg to differ.)

However, apart from your point about PMQs (how would that be achieved to our advantage?) I thought that that was what we'd just done. Where do you feel we fell short? Was it a presentation problem? Where does the press fit in?

Edited to add an "r"

There's an article in the Telegraph today from Bryony Gordon which isolates the point I'm trying to make:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... osers.html

Tony Blair brought in John Prescott to get angry whilst he rode above it, serene, majesterial, beatific. Both Eds were forced into Mr Angry mode, meaning that they appeared often hysterical, dissembling, petty. Zero Hours contracts, Bedroom Tax, NHS. Yes, those things were important, but they became everything. The first one wasn't explained well and the second only affected London constituencies, establishing Labour as out of touch metropolitan elites. Even the Mansion tax establishing that 2 million was a respectable price for a property was incredibly alienating to those whose houses weren't worth a tenth of that. The party were so desperate to try and push and promote Ed Miliband as a leader that the party as a whole wasn't given a chance to breathe. Labour appeared a one trick pony with no coherent plans, only tinkering at the edges. Never mind that despite claiming their policies were unrealistic in 2010 Osborne had ended up adopting them. Never mind that despite promising to be judged on the triple A credit rating he promptly lost it - Labour were pushing a message of "Look at how bad they are" without making sure that they were scrupulous about protecting their own record.

What did the media do? What they always do - look for stories that sell papers.

[utopiandreams]

I expect I'm not alone, but you know that smug feeling of having told 'em so? Why is it I feel so glum?

[DonutHingeParty]

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

I agree (I seem to be in an agreeable mood this morning. Although the bloke who came to the door earlier may beg to differ.)

However, apart from your point about PMQs (how would that be achieved to our advantage?) I thought that that was what we'd just done. Where do you feel we fell short? Was it a presentation problem? Where does the press fit in?

Edited to add an "r"

There's an article in the Telegraph today from Bryony Gordon which isolates the point I'm trying to make:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... osers.html

Tony Blair brought in John Prescott to get angry whilst he rode above it, serene, majesterial, beatific. Both Eds were forced into Mr Angry mode, meaning that they appeared often hysterical, dissembling, petty. Zero Hours contracts, Bedroom Tax, NHS. Yes, those things were important, but they became everything. The first one wasn't explained well and the second only affected London constituencies, establishing Labour as out of touch metropolitan elites. Even the Mansion tax establishing that 2 million was a respectable price for a property was incredibly alienating to those whose houses weren't worth a tenth of that. The party were so desperate to try and push and promote Ed Miliband as a leader that the party as a whole wasn't given a chance to breathe. Labour appeared a one trick pony with no coherent plans, only tinkering at the edges. Never mind that despite claiming their policies were unrealistic in 2010 Osborne had ended up adopting them. Never mind that despite promising to be judged on the triple A credit rating he promptly lost it - Labour were pushing a message of "Look at how bad they are" without making sure that they were scrupulous about protecting their own record.

What did the media do? What they always do - look for stories that sell papers.

Oh, and the way Labour handled Scotland was absolutely shameless. Labour lost the election at Falkirk, if you ask me, and after that was simply bailing out the boat to slow down the sinking of the party. Sharing a platform with Better Together definitely didn't help - Labour should have had their own Unionist argument in much the same way as they refused to share a platform with Clegg over AV.

[frightful_oik]

1) Draw strength from them. They're trying to stop us do what we do. On a fairly fundamental level they are threatened by us. As Swarthlander says, it shows what we're up against.

2) Ignore. Do not respond. Ever. It's what they want. Their only sad, bitter pleasure in life is knowing that they've riled someone. Don't give them the satisfaction. It's like dealing with a child - ignore bad behaviour and reward good.

The experts opinion on trolls such as we are getting, is that they have a mental illness. Given that they probably don't realise it and we don't know exactly who they are so they could be offered help, it's best we just leave them alone.

I always assumed with our particular troll (let us call it Cerberus for convenience) that it was down to inadequacies in the bedroom department.

I'm sure most trolls suffer from feelings of inadequacy. That said, if trolls feel inadequate, it does show some self-awareness on their part.

[DonutHingeParty]

Chukka Umunna's standing!

He needs to get a running mate from the traditional wing of the party - Andy Burnham or Alan Johnson would be good.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Dominic Cummings has written a long piece on the complications of Gove getting rid of the HRA.

On the Referendum #1: Gove and the Human Rights Act – cool yer boots, man

https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2 ... boots-man/

Too long to quote from but an interesting read.

Cummings is mad as a bag of frogs, but always worth a read.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Chukka Umunna's standing!

He needs to get a running mate from the traditional wing of the party - Andy Burnham or Alan Johnson would be good.

Still won't vote for him. Metropolitan elite playboy with limited charisma the Mail will have a field day. UKIP Labour won't vote for him.

Edited to add, AJ is just useless.

[WelshIan]

Do we have any good analysis about this election's polling data failure? I didn't trust the polls; I've said that before the election. However, I didn't realise we were being systematically lied to - 'margin of error is within standard deviation' my a**.

The industry has set up an investigation.
Patrick Sturgis, Professor of Research Methodology and Director of the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, is going to lead the the inquiry.
The rest of the panel to be announced in due course.

This article is good:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... ere-near-b

and it relates the predictions from this (this article was written before the election):
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/05/shy-to ... 2015.html/

Here are the key findings:

Opinion polls at British general elections are usually biased against the Conservatives and in favour of Labour. In 10 of the last 12 elections, the Conservative vote share has been underestimated and in 9 of the last 12, Labour’s share has been overestimated. The spread between the two has been biased in Labour’s favour in 9 of the last 12 elections, including 5 of the last 6.
At the last general election in 2010, both the Conservatives and Labour were underestimated by the polls, with the Liberal Democrats overestimated. My analysis of polling internals from 2010 suggests that this incident was a one-off, rather than an end to the traditional pattern of bias.
In terms of risk factors, the unusual fluidity of the electorate in the 2010-2015 parliament may have severely blunted the effectiveness of some of the adjustments introduced after 1992. This is a very significant concern for pollsters, some of whom have even gone on record to say so.
Every one of the 16 opinion polls with a comparable election in the last two years has seen a pro-Labour bias in terms of the spread. This has closely matched the period during which the Labour lead was falling.
There are other warning signs – conflicting poll internals, as was the case in 1992, plus intelligence to suggest that things on the ground are not going as the polls suggest they ought to.
In an attempt to quantify the shy Tory effect and/or the potential for late swing, I’ve created three statistical models, all of which significantly outperform “face value” opinion poll numbers in historical tests. The first model is based on adjusted topline numbers, the second uses polling internals and the third uses only real votes. All three suggest that the Conservatives will achieve a much stronger result than current polling averages or forecasts suggest.
While none of these models are guaranteed to be “right”, the second and third in particular highlight significant anomalies in the relationship between current opinion poll topline numbers and “fundamental” measures that have historically been extremely strong predictors of election outcomes. It is possible that the changes in the political landscape since 2010 have caused previously very strong patterns to break down. But it is also possible – for reasons that will be discussed – that the changes have reduced the accuracy of opinion polling, particularly the effectiveness of some of the changes introduced in the 1990s.

I would say that the investigation would come to broadly the same conclusion as the above.

[Eric_WLothian]

I was wondering specifically whether they would join with an all party group after the "Labour are red torys" sloganizing during and after the referendum. I think it would be hard for them to justify standing on the same platform with torys, but at the same time this cross-party group is well organised, and has been for several years. It would be quite costly for them to set up an independent campaign just because they wouldn't work with another party, and not as effective. But the hypocrisy of joining would be something to see.

They were prepared to work with a minority "Red Tory" government. Apart from that, they went on about "Scotland sitting at the top table" and the SNP being "a greater voice for Scotland". I just can't see how they can dodge being part of the pro-EU debate with whoever else is on the platform. (subject to Rupert's agreement, of course).

Hypocrisy is not a problem!

I really think the election result for the SNP could be a Pyrrhic victory.

[Willow904]

Labour needs to be careful of lots of things in the coming months. What do you think our comfort blanket is? I'm pretty sure it's probably very different for several groups ... and that's part of the problem.

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

I think a declaration of core Labour values would be very useful. People keep asking what Labour stands for. We don't need a conversation about it, we're all in agreement on the basic tenets you set out above, but it would be good to have something as a basic reference point, on the Labour website, like a permanent pledge card, to point to when people who don't know what Labour is for, ask the question. Scouts and Brownies sign up to basic core values when they join. I don't see any reason why Labour shouldn't do something similar.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

The experts opinion on trolls such as we are getting, is that they have a mental illness. Given that they probably don't realise it and we don't know exactly who they are so they could be offered help, it's best we just leave them alone.

I always assumed with our particular troll (let us call it Cerberus for convenience) that it was down to inadequacies in the bedroom department.

I'm sure most trolls suffer from feelings of inadequacy. That said, if trolls feel inadequate, it does show some self-awareness on their part.

Or simply reacting to years of being bullied (the only reasonable explanation for Osborne as well).

[Eric_WLothian]

Btw could the stolen ballot papers have been used to rig postal voting in key marginals as that's the conspiracy theory going round? I'm sure someone here has the knowledge to clarify whether poss, it's just I can't remember ballot papers being stolen in this way before. Why were these ballots ever left unattended? I'd rather not have these suspicions, conspiracy theories distract from real issues, so I'm hoping someone will put my mind at rest. As far as I'm aware it's still a police matter.

Wouldn't the names on the stolen papers make it a tad difficult to use them outwith the constituency they were printed for?

[Swarthlander]

Email to Labour Party members... (posted here for those who aren't)

This election result was bitterly disappointing for our party. But I want to thank you for your support and set out how we will go forward.

Our task now is fourfold. Our first priority is to form the most effective, determined opposition we possibly can. People are looking to us now to challenge the Tories every step of the way — and we have 232 passionate, committed Labour MPs who are going to do exactly that.

Second, we must remain stable and united as we reflect and begin to rebuild.

Thirdly, we need a proper analysis of our result at this election — a result we were not expecting. I have commissioned a careful exploration of the facts to begin to answer this question. And we will listen to you as members and to the public.

Fourthly, we will elect our new leader and deputy leader. The leadership election will be held under the new one-person-one-vote rules agreed earlier this year, which will make it the fairest, most inclusive leadership election this party has ever had. We will be finalising the timetable for the election later this week, and we'll let you know as soon as we have more details.

Thank you. Though we are deeply disappointed not to be in government, we will come back — together.

Harriet

Harriet Harman
Acting Leader of the Labour Party

21,945 new members and counting

[mikems]

Re FTN and blogs. I'm sure some of you must have visitied Democratic Underground, a US site for supporters of the Democratic party. They started a bit like FTN, but have no grown to be a significant alternative media site. Perhaps we should aim to emulate their achievments?

[AngryAsWell]

Btw could the stolen ballot papers have been used to rig postal voting in key marginals as that's the conspiracy theory going round? I'm sure someone here has the knowledge to clarify whether poss, it's just I can't remember ballot papers being stolen in this way before. Why were these ballots ever left unattended? I'd rather not have these suspicions, conspiracy theories distract from real issues, so I'm hoping someone will put my mind at rest. As far as I'm aware it's still a police matter.

Wouldn't the names on the stolen papers make it a tad difficult to use them outwith the constituency they were printed for?

They were blank ones...fresh from the printers

Oops - the names of the candidates! - sorry not functioning properly

[mikems]

Very much agree with Willow there. Labour no longer has an aim for society and cannot really explain what it is for in the longer term. We used to be aiming for socialism, but that was dropped long ago and nothing has ever replaced it, except for idiocies like the third way which really means opposing workers interests and hopes.

I think we should again aim for democratic socialism and we should develop all our policies with that in mind, just as the tories do in their destructive drive to a corrupt society dominated by them.

[PorFavor]

Labour needs to be careful of lots of things in the coming months. What do you think our comfort blanket is? I'm pretty sure it's probably very different for several groups ... and that's part of the problem.

Our comfort blanket is a default position of antagonism towards the Tories for their own sake. It's a divisive, angry, polarising vilification of the middle ground that defies people to position themselves as for or against - which, though it might play well on the battlefield, frightens those to whom politics is a two minute article on the evening news.

Over the next five years we need to pull back on the tubthumping rhetoric, and to offer calm, forensic dissections of the policies that we think are so wrong. To position ourselves as compassion that comes from the people, and not an angry "Boo; Tories!" mob with pitchforks and torches. I think whoever is elected should refuse to play the PMQ game and treat Cameron with respect, using their questions as originally intended, rather than as grandiose attempts to get onto the evening news.

Some people might say this is quisling capitulation, but I think that it is the only way that we can win back the centre ground - the people who don't obsessively pore over policy and political speeches, but believe that the Free Market doesn't have all the answers.

So the first question to ask is: Is there still a reason for the party to exist? How is Labour's offer to the nation different from the Tories?

I believe the answer is a resounding yes: Regardless of who the leader is, these are the guiding principles that should differentiate the party.

We believe the free market does not regulate itself, and that as elected representatives of the people, the state has a role to play in preventing people from being exploited.

We believe that no-one makes money in this country without the effort of those earning far less. Thereby it is right for those with wealth to pay for the health, education and protection of those who cannot afford it for themselves.

We believe that it is not a sin to be sick or unemployed, and those who find themselves as such should be supported, not punished.

We believe that Britain needs a strong economy in the long term, and that borrowing to invest is not a sin.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, and that it is they who are disadvantaged by preferential treatment being given to larger corporations.

That's my initial thoughts, what would others add?

I think a declaration of core Labour values would be very useful. People keep asking what Labour stands for. We don't need a conversation about it, we're all in agreement on the basic tenets you set out above, but it would be good to have something as a basic reference point, on the Labour website, like a permanent pledge card, to point to when people who don't know what Labour is for, ask the question. Scouts and Brownies sign up to basic core values when they join. I don't see any reason why Labour shouldn't do something similar.

Yes - we could call it Clause 4.

[mikems]

The other thing I wanted to say after these days of pain, is that we need to be much braver. When we are confronted with a corrupt and complicit media that refuses to debate policy proposals and insists on forcing narratives on us, we should call it for what it is - an attempt to smother democratic debate in the interests of the richest and most corrupt.

The tories have dishonestly done this for decades, and now reap the rewards as the media thinks it is its duty to parrot tory party propaganda, rather than inspire real debate.

We must call them on it, every time it happens, which, at the moment, is all the f*cking time.

[Tonibel]

Could ftn have a kind of 'troll pit',
similar to the pub, or maybe part of the pub,
like a 'pub bore' thread,
And move/archive offending posts there.
Could be useful a evidence, if someone continues stalking behaviour, but also some of the views he so eloquently makes, should be addressable, and are a good reminder of what we face.
(& Gd.Morning)

Now that is what I call a plan. Excellent idea.

We can get them out of our hair but keep the proof as expressed.

Seconded. Great idea

I'll drink to that.
Sorry ivenever provided any snacks. I can make a date and walnut loaf (nice with ketchup) and bring some Twiglets, only a few weeks past their sellby

[Tonibel]

Could ftn have a kind of 'troll pit',
similar to the pub, or maybe part of the pub,
like a 'pub bore' thread,
And move/archive offending posts there.
Could be useful a evidence, if someone continues stalking behaviour, but also some of the views he so eloquently makes, should be addressable, and are a good reminder of what we face.
(& Gd.Morning)

Now that is what I call a plan. Excellent idea.

We can get them out of our hair but keep the proof as expressed.

Seconded. Great idea

I'll drink to that.
Sorry ivenever provided any snacks. I can make a date and walnut loaf (nice with ketchup) and bring some Twiglets, only a few weeks past their sellby

[seeingclearly]

As we were talking about community stuff and getting involved on a local level, this is some of what Show and I are doing.

We have a community hospital called Bronllys here in a beautiful setting in the Brecon Beacons National Park. Its' NHS functions are being run down, and there are moves afoot for various private developments etc. over time.
Bronllys offers various outpatient clinics, physio, and elderly care/stroke rehab/convalescence; the idea seems to be to wind all this down and sell off the estate - and the estate is absolutely huge, with some sold off already.

Some good people have got together and want to form a CIC to save it - the idea is to have a wellbeing park, with some of the existing health care to continue with NHS input; to extend rehab services to include recovery from acute mental illness and substance misuse; to have some development of private homes on leasehold, affordable co-owned homes, rental properties, and possibly some hostel-type accommodation for people who are recovering who might be able to rent a home there in time. The ideas also include using some of the land to grow food, with the aim of being better than self-sufficient for people on site but also to be able to market some produce. The people who kicked this off have already been working with the Welsh government and the NHS - the hope is that the group might stall any more sell-offs until their proposals are looked at in more detail.

The reason why I'm telling you all this is to show how local opposition to something can be turned into something positive. Protesting about the closure and sell-off is nothing more than venting if there is no proposal for something different to back it up.
As with many of these things, simply protesting won't change anything - the healthcare landscape has changed as it inevitably does; and the need in this case is not pouring more money into a service that is past its sell-by date, but to keep the good parts that still work and add whatever else can help to sustain it and bring more of the community into supporting it. Better that than another private estate.

This sort of stuff is going on all over the place. People are setting up all sorts of groups and co-ops but we don't hear much about them.
I'm thinking that if FTN could maybe bring things like this to the site/blog/whatever we decide, people who visit the site could see that there is hope and there is action and it is possible to get things done in a spirit of community co-operation and engagement.

The ideas for Bronilys sound great. I'd love something like that near me, people would encounter it during treatment, and become engaged with it in the longer term. That kind of thinking is exactly what's needed to build cohesion and weather storms. Tory thinking is extremely destructive of such ideas, to the point that often solutions based input simply gets ignored, but put something tangibly beneficial that becomes self supporting in place and people will engage. It's like anti-cynicism treatment when you find such things!

There's nothing big like that here, but there are smaller more specialist ventures. I'm convinced the real world factor is the important bit. People are so used to the loss of services and just real things that work properly within their social domain that they turn off to engagement with things that have no visible presence. So here the things that are working as a fab cycle group, doing safe rides, training lobbying for routes, etc., it's their visible presence that's changing things. A permaculture group with real land hard won from their council, offering growing sessions and various events but also a seed bank which is more like a collective library of seeds you can take out, return add seeds. Providing a good reason to stay engaged. Right now there doesn't seem to be one, but most of the eighties and nineties there was a huge and brilliant food cooperative, I wish it still existed, people pay fortunes now for things we used to take for granted, it was, in terms of input incredibly cheap at the price, three hours of weighing and packing and networking a month! I have seen a veg box co-op recently, and a bakery.

But there it's starting to be far more consumer based rather than contribution based, which is I think why I found your post about Bronilys so great. If you put in the effort, something different happens from the quick addictive buzz of consumption. Gardeners will know this. It's much more reflective, rewarding, fulfilling. Really all the things that run counter to the non-societies and non-communities that A&E being put into place. If you need a grassroots place yo start it's got to be there. Even for politics. Otherwise everything is disposable, even people.

When people talk community orchards I say, yay, but I'm not seeing any emerge. Or not yet. It's why I'm deeply suspicious of the leftness of Scotland! Show me the real change.... Tbh, even the greens - as a party, mind, I'm stating this as a reality not a criticism, I know there are individual people out there doing great environmental stuff - seem a long way from this. I'm talking about building thing, not just sticking a finger in the dam, or rescuing things before it's too late. Making things manifest. Good things. I hope Bronilys goes from strength to strength. An area of the nation that has history in terms of that.

[PorFavor]

Th Clause 4 thing wasn't a smart-arse comment, by the way. Obviously it would need editing (I could do that!) and updating but the general thrust holds true today as much as it ever did.

[Swarthlander]

...The other thing I wanted to say after these days of pain, is that we need to be much braver. When we are confronted with a corrupt and complicit media that refuses to debate policy proposals and insists on forcing narratives on us, we should call it for what it is - an attempt to smother democratic debate in the interests of the richest and most corrupt.

I agree and it could start by Labour spokespeople being a bit more agressive during interviews and not allow themselves to be side-tracked or talked over.

Also when the Party eventually decides where it's going, those that brief against the Party message need kicking up-the-ass.

[StephenDolan]

Chuka, please no no no.

[frightful_oik]

...The other thing I wanted to say after these days of pain, is that we need to be much braver. When we are confronted with a corrupt and complicit media that refuses to debate policy proposals and insists on forcing narratives on us, we should call it for what it is - an attempt to smother democratic debate in the interests of the richest and most corrupt.

I agree and it could start by Labour spokespeople being a bit more agressive during interviews and not allow themselves to be side-tracked or talked over.

Also when the Party eventually decides where it's going, those that brief against the Party message need kicking up-the-ass.

I really agree with this.

[AngryAsWell]

Chuka, please no no no.

Have put a few links in Features and Analysis - he has his own "page" along with Liz Kendall