Saturday 16th, and Sunday 17th. May Weekend Edition.

[ephemerid]

Thank you seeingclearly for that post - and fedup for the expression "hatred of difference".

All that stuff buys into very dangerous politics - it's not just in the UK, either. It's on the rise elsewhere too.

What it comes to is people drifting about, rudderless - and I think that's down to the utter failure, worldwide, of neo-liberalism.

We - and the governments we elect - are owned. In the odd places where the suits aren't in charge, they've got isolationist religious regimes which are not above using the suits when they've got a few weapons to buy. The media are owned. Our land is owned. We are owned.

The only thing that has changed over that past 30 years or so, as far as I can see, is that this has got worse; no wonder people buy into divide-and-rule rhetoric, nationalism, protectionism, and all the evil prejudice that goes with them.
On a smaller scale, the "othering" of people bothers me a lot. There has been a discernible increase in casual racism, people are not longer afraid to express prejudice and that has a knock-on effect; disability hate crime hasn't just gone up because the reporting is better; and anyone whose face doesn't fit for some reason or another gets demonised - look what happened to Christopher Jefferies.

When we were nattering on the "Left" thread, and here on the main DP boards, we have been talking a lot about localism. For me, that is where the change will come - I have to be the change I want to see, even if it's only on a small scale and nobody outside my immediate circle notices.

After the war, when most of the good things about this country were built, there was a spirit of change in the air - the class system needed a fright, people didn't want a return to the pre-war status quo, and wanted to co-operate and work together after being through hell.
We can't have a Blitz thank goodness - but boy do we need a shake-up in this country.

We are at a constitutional crossroads, in my view. The Tories are on the cusp of losing our allies and friends in Europe and losing Scotland.
They will dismantle as much of the welfare state as they can, and they will trash the economy for their own ends.

I'm not seeing Labour leadership candidates offering anything new or hopeful.

The coalition government radicalised me - the sheer effrontery of subverting the wishes of left-leaning liberals like me (especially when the LibDems campaigned on a leftish platform) by going into coalition with the Tories with such indecent haste infuriated me; this last election has been an appalling reminder of why Leveson was so important in a context much wider than the scope of the original enquiry.

I appreciate that Labour is wounded; I understand why Ed felt the right thing to do was to resign - but without him or someone who has his integrity, Labour will end up being Tories in pink ties again and if that happens they'll get no support from me in a general election.
I can and will continue to support Welsh Labour in our national elections; and at least here Matthew hasn't stopped calling himself a socialist, a trades unionist, and a member of Co-operative Labour, and he'll do so again if he is selected for another go.

Forgive me, friends.
I think my despondency (negative) has taken over from my anger (positive) today - not helped by the increasing number and viciousness of thousands of posts on CIF on any thread to do with cuts.
I'm also a bit daunted by what is being attempted at Bronllys - I'm doing some research for the team now, and I'm getting more scared as time goes on......

[ohsocynical]

From a report for two young boys to be taken into care. It's a true story, so I've not put the names or location in.

The father, ---------- a chimney sweep died in a fit in 1902. The mother afterwards married a bricklayer's labourer, who at present is so crippled with rheumatism as to be unable to work. He belongs to a club, but has been ill so long he receives only 7s a week, which is half pay. Out of this money, 4s has to be paid for rent.

The mother is subject to very bad fits and was recently in one twenty four hours, and she is unable to earn anything to support the family. The boy ----- had nearly finished his school term and might have got work but had no proper clothes or shoes.

The mother and her husband are both sober and respectable people and much sympathy was felt for them by the Rev -------who wrote to us on their behalf, as knowing them well.

It doesn't seem so far away now does it.

[SpinningHugo]

the leadership candidates are indeed extremely disappointing. plus they need to be getting on with dealing with the damm tories. I think they are seriously missing the point of a) the role of the opposition and b) the role of the leadership. It is not to redesign the manifesto according to who is leading the party, since that suggests that the party does not really stand for anything.

It doesn't help that the main event so far has been a f***ing Progress jamboree

Still, we shouldn't despair too much - real party members will have a chance to hold them to account in the next few months. I expect they will.

(it was how Ed made much of his reputation last time, don't forget)

Indeed so.

And how great that turned out.

[frightful_oik]

Agreeing with what others have said. If you're a political party, you can't just abandon your values going in search of some mythical middle ground. You have to stand by your values and wait for the electorate to come to you. Meanwhile you work using whatever means you have to explain both your values and point out the Tories' weaknesses. Another Blairite compromise will finish Labour for a long time. It will NOT get my vote because they will all be the same.

[thatchersorphan]

#FightForYourRights twitterstorm called for in half hour http://45storm.weebly.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[utopiandreams]

... The removal of housing benefit from young jobseekers would potentially put around £69m of annual social household rental income under threat,

My major concern with this is that it probably exemplifies another false premise, typical of most of Cameron's argument. You can see why I've queried the strength of his Oxford First, you simply cannot get away with it in more technical or scientific branches (not politics, but I have rubbed shoulders with some Oxford professors).

The argument as presented portrays youngsters leaving parents to establish their own home whilst claiming benefits. I expect there are none doing so whilst claiming JSA and relatively few working then applying for HB to leave home. Typical of Cameron, Osborne and their batman IDS, use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What they fail to say is that youngsters who have already worked and had the wherewithall to move on shall be in a very precarious position should they for any reason lose their job.

Edit: I forget myself, only should Mummy and Daddy not be rich enough to support them.

[citizenJA]

the leadership candidates are indeed extremely disappointing. plus they need to be getting on with dealing with the damm tories. I think they are seriously missing the point of a) the role of the opposition and b) the role of the leadership. It is not to redesign the manifesto according to who is leading the party, since that suggests that the party does not really stand for anything.

I don't know what to suggest to make it better.
I want to have this conversation here with you all, that's why I've posted 'I don't know' - I want to thrash out what's best now.
'Dealing with damn Tories'
Jeepers, you tell me, I have no idea at this juncture.
Nearly 2 million more people voted Tory than they voted Labour. WTF?
15,727,526 registered voters didn't vote. WTF????

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=77" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Agreeing with what others have said. If you're a political party, you can't just abandon your values going in search of some mythical middle ground. You have to stand by your values and wait for the electorate to come to you. Meanwhile you work using whatever means you have to explain both your values and point out the Tories' weaknesses. Another Blairite compromise will finish Labour for a long time. It will NOT get my vote because they will all be the same.

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Whoever is selected, from the names currently known and bandied about I suspect it could well be a short term leader. None induce any great enthusiasm from where I stand, and that includes Burnham, I groaned when heard "I can reunite the country" statement.

Jarvis when ruling himself out mentioned something along the lines of "now isn't the time" who is to say 2 years down the line it isn't, Starmer will no doubt be fast tracked, he did, after all lead an organisation comparable to a government department. That's my take anyway.

[citizenJA]

There's a lot of mentions of the 'emergency' budget on twitter - I remember reading on here that its later than the 2010 budget. Can FTN tweet out something about this, since the 'emergency' wording used isn't really correct, but will imply they 'have to' make cuts.

Two Budgets in four months from the same Chancellor raises questions about what he’s planning - Chris Leslie
Chris Leslie MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, responding to George Osborne’s announcement there will be a Budget in July, said:

“Two Budgets in four months from the same Chancellor raises questions about what he’s planning. The country cannot afford a sharp turn to the right - that would hardly be consistent with a ‘long-term plan’. We need a balanced approach and a focus on building a more productive economy.”

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1191006 ... m-the-same" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinyclanger2]

Agreeing with what others have said. If you're a political party, you can't just abandon your values going in search of some mythical middle ground. You have to stand by your values and wait for the electorate to come to you. Meanwhile you work using whatever means you have to explain both your values and point out the Tories' weaknesses. Another Blairite compromise will finish Labour for a long time. It will NOT get my vote because they will all be the same.

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

I think the point is that Clegg would have done the LibDems a favour by accepting that he was closer to the Tories than he was to his own party. We don't need the same thing happening to Labour.

The Labour party needs to bear in mind that - like any other political party - it is there to represent the wishes of its electorate/membership. If the members of the party predominantly wish Labour to remain in line with the principles that attract them, it would do well to heed that or render itself irrelevant

[RogerOThornhill]

Whoever is selected, from the names currently known and bandied about I suspect it could well be a short term leader. None induce any great enthusiasm from where I stand, and that includes Burnham, I groaned when heard "I can reunite the country" statement.

Jarvis when ruling himself out mentioned something along the lines of "now isn't the time" who is to say 2 years down the line it isn't, Starmer will no doubt be fast tracked, he did, after all lead an organisation comparable to a government department. That's my take anyway.

If they're going to go for a short term solution if the two obvious candidates aren't yet ready for it, then the time to have a new contest would be at the time the Tories will change theirs as the press will be all over that like a rash and doubt that Labour will be noticed that much.

I did say that wouldn't happen until after 11th November 2018 for obvious reasons. Might happen earlier if either referendum (assuming another Scotland one) doesn't go Cameron's way but I'll plump for late 2018 or early 2019.

[frightful_oik]

Agreeing with what others have said. If you're a political party, you can't just abandon your values going in search of some mythical middle ground. You have to stand by your values and wait for the electorate to come to you. Meanwhile you work using whatever means you have to explain both your values and point out the Tories' weaknesses. Another Blairite compromise will finish Labour for a long time. It will NOT get my vote because they will all be the same.

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

Noble's got fuck all to do with it. If you stand for something, you don't budge. As SS is cut to the bone, you would hope that more people would see the benefits of your viewpoint.

[utopiandreams]

Hurry up lads and ladesses, I've just turned telly on and flicked to channel list. You've only got a few minutes till William and Kate - The Movie is on.

[SpinningHugo]

Agreeing with what others have said. If you're a political party, you can't just abandon your values going in search of some mythical middle ground. You have to stand by your values and wait for the electorate to come to you. Meanwhile you work using whatever means you have to explain both your values and point out the Tories' weaknesses. Another Blairite compromise will finish Labour for a long time. It will NOT get my vote because they will all be the same.

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

Noble's got fuck all to do with it. If you stand for something, you don't budge. As SS is cut to the bone, you would hope that more people would see the benefits of your viewpoint.

Nuneaton and Swindon, where we need to win, are not populated by quite so many people who share your viewpoint as you might hope.

Vote for someone you could see a Tory voting for.

[frightful_oik]

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

Noble's got fuck all to do with it. If you stand for something, you don't budge. As SS is cut to the bone, you would hope that more people would see the benefits of your viewpoint.

Nuneaton and Swindon, where we need to win, are not populated by quite so many people who share your viewpoint as you might hope.

Vote for someone you could see a Tory voting for.

Clearly not or TCC would not have won. Times change.

[ohsocynical]

Agreeing with what others have said. If you're a political party, you can't just abandon your values going in search of some mythical middle ground. You have to stand by your values and wait for the electorate to come to you. Meanwhile you work using whatever means you have to explain both your values and point out the Tories' weaknesses. Another Blairite compromise will finish Labour for a long time. It will NOT get my vote because they will all be the same.

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

I think the point is that Clegg would have done the LibDems a favour by accepting that he was closer to the Tories than he was to his own party. We don't need the same thing happening to Labour.

The Labour party needs to bear in mind that - like any other political party - it is there to represent the wishes of its electorate/membership. If the members of the party predominantly wish Labour to remain in line with the principles that attract them, it would do well to heed that or render itself irrelevant

I remember when I was a LibDem being quite happy with the thought they'd be in the middle preventing excesses from the Tories in particular. I knew they wouldn't win outright, but after Iraq, and Blair starting to court private healthcare albeit in a small way, I couldn't in all honesty vote Labour. By voting LibDem I thought they would be a stabilising influence especially as the Tories looked like getting in.

In retrospect, I read they'd already done a deal with the Tories.
It taught me that principles and beliefs mean very little nothing when there's a chance of gaining some power.

I never got that particular vibe from Ed. It was bloody brilliant.

[tinyclanger2]

The country didn't listen to us (or likely didn't hear us but it feels the same), the last thing Labour party members and voters need now is Labour not listening. If we have nothing to lose that will prove a potentially irreversible problem for Labour.

edited to add:
Moreover, I genuinely don't understand why the Labour right wouldn't rather be moderate Tories than stay with Labour. It honestly puzzles me - but I am quite naive.

[citizenJA]

the leadership candidates are indeed extremely disappointing. plus they need to be getting on with dealing with the damm tories. I think they are seriously missing the point of a) the role of the opposition and b) the role of the leadership. It is not to redesign the manifesto according to who is leading the party, since that suggests that the party does not really stand for anything.

It doesn't help that the main event so far has been a f***ing Progress jamboree

Still, we shouldn't despair too much - real party members will have a chance to hold them to account in the next few months. I expect they will.

(it was how Ed made much of his reputation last time, don't forget)

Indeed so.

And how great that turned out.

Yes, great indeed.

Ed Miliband held the Labour party together, increased Labour party membership making it the largest political party in the UK, increased the Labour party's vote share by 1.5% since the 2010 election, inspired & motivated many people on this site to join due to his integrity & motivation. Ed Miliband wanted Scotland to remain part of the UK & urged Scottish people to vote NO. Ed Miliband fully supported allowing the Scottish people to have their referendum deciding this. Miliband didn't get to choose what question the Scottish people would answer. Dave Cameron did. Miliband's conviction suited Dave Cameron who had his own reasons for keeping Scotland in the UK - none benefiting the people or country. The Tories having already lost all but one MP in Scotland, it wasn't an electoral risk for the Tories to do whatever the hell they wanted following Scotland choosing to remain in the UK. The Labour party was blamed for supporting Tory policy - that's unfortunate because it's a lie. Regardless, 40 Labour party MPs lost their Scottish constituencies to SNP MPs. The Labour party wasn't returned to government in the 2015 GE.

[rebeccariots2]

I watched a bit of the Progress Q & A Panel video before we went out ... Jess Assato, Stella Creasy, Dan Jarvis and Owen Jones fielding the questions.

I found myself thinking - now if this was a line up fronting the Labour party I'd be pretty happy (I don't mean to include Owen Jones in that as he's not going to be an MP obvs). They had energy, straightforward language, clear connections with their constituents and communities ... it was refreshing.

So - whilst Progress may bring out the oh no factor in some of us - if this might be more typical of our future, it doesn't look too bad to me.

[PorFavor]

Very noble.

Since 1966, how many times has the Labour party won a majority as big as Cameron's when not led by Tony Blair?

Sticking to our principles is of great comfort no doubt as social security is cut to the bone.

Noble's got fuck all to do with it. If you stand for something, you don't budge. As SS is cut to the bone, you would hope that more people would see the benefits of your viewpoint.

Nuneaton and Swindon, where we need to win, are not populated by quite so many people who share your viewpoint as you might hope.

Vote for someone you could see a Tory voting for.

In the same way that the Conservatives choose their leader according to who they think a Socialist might vote for, you mean? Tell you what - let the Conservatives go first. Then I'll consider considering it.

[SpinningHugo]

It doesn't help that the main event so far has been a f***ing Progress jamboree

Still, we shouldn't despair too much - real party members will have a chance to hold them to account in the next few months. I expect they will.

(it was how Ed made much of his reputation last time, don't forget)

Indeed so.

And how great that turned out.

Yes, great indeed.

Ed Miliband held the Labour party together, increased Labour party membership making it the largest political party in the UK, increased the Labour party's vote share by 1.5% since the 2010 election, inspired & motivated many people on this site to join due to his integrity & motivation. Ed Miliband wanted Scotland to remain part of the UK & urged Scottish people to vote NO. Ed Miliband fully supported allowing the Scottish people to have their referendum deciding this. Miliband didn't get to choose what question the Scottish people would answer. Dave Cameron did. Miliband's conviction suited Dave Cameron who had his own reasons for keeping Scotland in the UK - none benefiting the people or country. The Tories having already lost all but one MP in Scotland, it wasn't an electoral risk for the Tories to do whatever the hell they wanted following Scotland choosing to remain in the UK. The Labour party was blamed for supporting Tory policy - that's unfortunate because it's a lie. Regardless, 40 Labour party MPs lost their Scottish constituencies to SNP MPs. The Labour party wasn't returned to government in the 2015 GE.

He lost.

Badly.

[tinyclanger2]

Hugo:

1) Ed will not participate in the 7 way debate
2) Ed will be PM

I'm always interested in your views, and actually appreciate your blunt discourse, but there is a badly behaved part of me (I say "part") which moves me to mention that your accuracy does not always match your certainty.

[citizenJA]

The country didn't listen to us (or likely didn't hear us but it feels the same), the last thing Labour party members and voters need now is Labour not listening. If we have nothing to lose that will prove a potentially irreversible problem for Labour.

Timetable announced for Labour Leader and Deputy Leader elections
Labour today announces the timetable for the election of its new Leader and Deputy Leader, following a meeting of the National Executive Committee.
The full leadership election timetable, as agreed today by the NEC, is as follows:

Friday 15 May Election Period Opens

Monday 8 June PLP Nomination Hustings for Leader

Tuesday 9 June PLP Nomination Hustings for Deputy Leader

Tuesday 9 June PLP Nominations Open

12 noon Monday 15 June PLP Nominations (Leader) Close

12 noon Wednesday 17 June PLP Nominations (Deputy Leader) Close

Wednesday 17 June Hustings period opens

12 noon Friday 31 July Supporting Nominations Close

12 noon Wednesday 12 August Last date to join as member, affiliated supporter, or registered supporter

Friday 14 August Ballot mailing despatched

12 noon Thursday 10 September Ballot closes

Saturday 12 September Special conference to announce result

MAY 13, 2015
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1188671 ... and-deputy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Soon, you’ll be able to vote for the next leader and deputy leader of our party.
Below is a guide to how and when it will happen. If you have any questions not answered here, get in touch with us at the email address at the bottom and we’ll try to get back to you.

1. Each member has one vote to cast for their choice of Leader and another for their choice of Deputy Leader
Unlike previous leadership elections, this election will be held on a one-person-one-vote basis. There are three sets of people who can vote:
1) Labour Party members
2) Affiliated supporters — people who’ve signed up as a Labour Party supporter through one of our affiliated organisations or unions
3) Registered supporters — people who’ve registered that they support the Labour Party by signing up online and paying a one-off minimum fee of £3

2. The nomination process for Leader and Deputy Leader officially starts on 15 May. Nominations close on 15 June (Leader) and 17 June (Deputy Leader).
Anyone that wants to be a candidate for the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Labour party needs to be nominated by 35 MPs.
MPs can nominate their preferred candidates for Leader and Deputy Leader from 9 June — you can track the progress of each candidate on our website where we’ll update the nominations at 12.30pm and 5.30pm each day. Nominations close on 15 June (Leader) and 17 June (Deputy Leader).
There will be more information to come later on how Constituency Labour Parties can make a supporting nomination.
From early June, the names and bios of any MPs putting themselves forward for nomination will be hosted on our website.

3. Candidates to be Leader will be announced on 15 June and candidates for Deputy Leader will be announced on 17 June
We’ll send all members an email on 15 June to let you know who’s in the running to be Leader, and to give as many members as possible the chance to watch the different candidates speak, there will be a hustings in Scotland, Wales, and every region of England — we’ll email you details of your nearest hustings once the dates have been set.
Likewise we'll send all members an email on 17 June to tell you the candidates for Deputy Leader. Candidates for both positions will be on our website.

4. We must receive your votes by 12pm on Thursday 10 September for them to count
Voting ballots will be sent out on Friday 14 August. You’ll be able to vote by post or online.

5. Our next Leader and Deputy Leader will be announced on 12 September
We’ll announce the results a Special Conference on 12 September, as well as on our website and via email. If you’re interested in attending the Special Conference, we’ll provide full details nearer the time.

Got a question that isn’t answered here?
If you can’t find an answer to your question, email us at leadership2015@labour.org.uk and we’ll try to get back to you.
Join the fight for a fairer Britain

29,103 people have already joined our party since the election, ready to stand with us to oppose this government and fight for the Labour values of fairness, equality and social justice. Every new member makes our party stronger. Will you be the next one to join us? It takes just two minutes.

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how ... uty-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Noble's got fuck all to do with it. If you stand for something, you don't budge. As SS is cut to the bone, you would hope that more people would see the benefits of your viewpoint.

Nuneaton and Swindon, where we need to win, are not populated by quite so many people who share your viewpoint as you might hope.

Vote for someone you could see a Tory voting for.

In the same way that the Conservatives choose their leader according to who they think a Socialist might vote for, you mean? Tell you what - let the Conservatives go first. Then I'll consider considering it.

You think Cameron won the leadership because he was perceived as a Thatcherite ultra, or because he presented himself as a moderate who could win?

You have to choose who you think can win, not who you would prefer in the best of all possible worlds to be PM.

We just had a stark demonstration of what happens if you act on the latter instinct.

[citizenJA]

Indeed so.

And how great that turned out.

Yes, great indeed.

Ed Miliband held the Labour party together, increased Labour party membership making it the largest political party in the UK, increased the Labour party's vote share by 1.5% since the 2010 election, inspired & motivated many people on this site to join due to his integrity & motivation. Ed Miliband wanted Scotland to remain part of the UK & urged Scottish people to vote NO. Ed Miliband fully supported allowing the Scottish people to have their referendum deciding this. Miliband didn't get to choose what question the Scottish people would answer. Dave Cameron did. Miliband's conviction suited Dave Cameron who had his own reasons for keeping Scotland in the UK - none benefiting the people or country. The Tories having already lost all but one MP in Scotland, it wasn't an electoral risk for the Tories to do whatever the hell they wanted following Scotland choosing to remain in the UK. The Labour party was blamed for supporting Tory policy - that's unfortunate because it's a lie. Regardless, 40 Labour party MPs lost their Scottish constituencies to SNP MPs. The Labour party wasn't returned to government in the 2015 GE.

He lost.

Badly.

Ed Miliband has been returned to Parliament. He's the Labour MP for Doncaster North having received 52.4% share of the total vote; an increase of +5.1%.

Ed Miliband has resigned the Labour party leadership position following the Labour party defeat in the 2015 GE.

You argue.

Badly.

[ohsocynical]

Britain Elects
‏@britainelects

Should Britain replace the Human Rights Act with a 'British Bill of Rights'? (YouGov / 14 - 15 May):

Yes - 48%
No - 24%

Bloody hell

[rebeccariots2]

Britain Elects
‏@britainelects
Deposits lost by party (#GE2015):
LAB - 3
CON - 18
UKIP - 79
LDEM - 341
GRN - 442

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Nuneaton and Swindon, where we need to win, are not populated by quite so many people who share your viewpoint as you might hope.

Vote for someone you could see a Tory voting for.

In the same way that the Conservatives choose their leader according to who they think a Socialist might vote for, you mean? Tell you what - let the Conservatives go first. Then I'll consider considering it.

You think Cameron won the leadership because he was perceived as a Thatcherite ultra, or because he presented himself as a moderate who could win?

You have to choose who you think can win, not who you would prefer in the best of all possible worlds to be PM.

We just had a stark demonstration of what happens if you act on the latter instinct.

And you think one of your precious Progressites would have done a better job? If The Other Brother had won the leadership election he would not have been able to hold the disparate elements of the party together half as well as Ed, so he would have been trying to deal with a party at war with itself as well as the same barrage of attacks from the MSM as Ed received - actually those attacks would have been worse, because he had real baggage they could focus on, whereas most of the Ed attacks were fictional constructs.

So don't get all high and mighty Hugo. As has been pointed out by others you are wrong just as often as you are right; and, in this instance, you are utterly wrong imo.

[rebeccariots2]

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 2m2 minutes ago
In addition to feeling a burning shame on being beaten by a very poor government, next Labour leader should be angry...

[tinyclanger2]

If Labour keep looking at the wrong problem they are never going to come to the right solution. The problem was not Ed and it was not the manifesto, it was the cynical Tory use of the Liam Byrne's note, the bias of the BBC and rest of the press, the response of Scotland to the shared "no" platform (that WAS a mistake and should never be repeated), the fact that the Tories are better and more barefaced at simply lying, and the fear of a fictitious SNP/Labour coalition.

These are the problems that Labour needs to find a way around. The leader in this respect is not the issue.

[AngryAsWell]

Hugo
I asked a few day ago (following your "we would all prefer Tony Blair's government than what we have now" post,) why it is that those on the right of the party suggest that others with different Labour views should get behind a right(ish) wing candidate because they would be "better".
I ask why, when we had a candidate a little on the left(ish) side of the party, why it is that your half of the party didn't accept Ed and get behind him? The shadow cabinet was - to be frank - appalling, and when they could be bothered to go on TV or in the press you get RR making naïve slip ups that guaranteed the press jumping on them and the party. Only Chris Leslie (and Burnham to an extent) seemed to give a dam.
A bit more explanation of policy and a bit more anger about injustice from them would have helped hold and win the marginals we lost.
As would tacking the SNP issue openly.
edit to and & Caroline Flint was very good as well

[tinyclanger2]

Britain Elects
‏@britainelects

Should Britain replace the Human Rights Act with a 'British Bill of Rights'? (YouGov / 14 - 15 May):

Yes - 48%
No - 24%

Bloody hell

Seethe. Seethe. Seethe. I can just hear TCC saying it.

[AngryAsWell]

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 2m2 minutes ago
In addition to feeling a burning shame on being beaten by a very poor government, next Labour leader should be angry...

Funny I just mentioned anger in the post I was writing as you posted this !

[SpinningHugo]

And you think one of your precious Progressites would have done a better job? .

Yes, I do. Indeed I am certain of it. I don't think we could have held Scotland, but I do think that with a better leader with a better policy mix we would not have scared off the English, and would have made enough progress in the places we need to win (Nuneaton Swindon etc) to now be in government. A majority? Probably not, but keeping the Tories out is the prime objective.

Can I prove that?

No of course not, as I have no ability to run the counterfactual in a controlled experiment. However we do have some pretty strong indications from history, looking at every election since 1966, as to how it is Labour can win.

We should have done much much better in 2015. I won't list off again the huge advantages we had (and won't have next time).

One of the problems of the internet is that we tend to congregate in areas with people with like minded views. You see that BTL on the Graun. You never see serious Tories there, just a few trolls winding people up. This makes it too easy to think that a majority of people share our mindset. Something like that seems to have afflicted us in 2015. We don't worry enough about what people in Nuneaton think, and only started worrying that they may not agree with us in sufficient numbers when it is too late.

I was angry with those who elected Ed Miliband in 2010 (I still am if honest). I thought it was a terrible mistake, and said so loudly at the time. I had thought he was our Ian Duncan Smith, elected for who he was not and leading the party to disaster.

But perhaps the truth is worse. Perhaps parties need to lose three times before they plump for the electable leader. Perhaps he was not Ian Duncan Smith but William Hague?

If so, that makes Burnham....

[TheGrimSqueaker]

And you think one of your precious Progressites would have done a better job? .

Yes, I do. Indeed I am certain of it.

Then you are delusional.

[AngryAsWell]

And you think one of your precious Progressites would have done a better job? .

Yes, I do. Indeed I am certain of it. I don't think we could have held Scotland, but I do think that with a better leader with a better policy mix we would not have scared off the English, and would have made enough progress in the places we need to win (Nuneaton Swindon etc) to now be in government. A majority? Probably not, but keeping the Tories out is the prime objective.

Can I prove that?

No of course not, as I have no ability to run the counterfactual in a controlled experiment. However we do have some pretty strong indications from history, looking at every election since 1966, as to how it is Labour can win.

We should have done much much better in 2015. I won't list off again the huge advantages we had (and won't have next time).

One of the problems of the internet is that we tend to congregate in areas with people with like minded views. You see that BTL on the Graun. You never see serious Tories there, just a few trolls winding people up. This makes it too easy to think that a majority of people share our mindset. Something like that seems to have afflicted us in 2015. We don't worry enough about what people in Nuneaton think, and only started worrying that they may not agree with us in sufficient numbers when it is too late.

I was angry with those who elected Ed Miliband in 2010 (I still am if honest). I thought it was a terrible mistake, and said so loudly at the time. I had thought he was our Ian Duncan Smith, elected for who he was not and leading the party to disaster.

But perhaps the truth is worse. Perhaps parties need to lose three times before they plump for the electable leader. Perhaps he was not Ian Duncan Smith but William Hague?

If so, that makes Burnham....

Well why were they not out and about shouting for Labour then? You don't have to be in the shadow cabinet to put the Labour message out. But instead they joined the lambasting of the right wing press and got digs in from the sides.
If we want a joined up party each side has to walk to the middle, not one side do all the giving.

[rebeccariots2]

Jamie Reed ‏@jreedmp 2m2 minutes ago
In addition to feeling a burning shame on being beaten by a very poor government, next Labour leader should be angry...

Funny I just mentioned anger in the post I was writing as you posted this !

When I posted it I hadn't seen / he hadn't posted the rest in the series of consecutive tweets ... he's obviously very angry about things ... he calls it a self inflicted defeat.

I like Jamie Reed's humour and tweeting style - I have no idea about his broader views, postition, appeal. Let's see what, if anything, develops of his leadership bid. I'm guessing he's very much an outsider at the present time.

But I'm trying - and it is trying - to keep an open mind until the field is settled and all the pitches are made.

[citizenJA]

SpinningHugo
You have to choose who you think can win, not who you would prefer in the best of all possible worlds to be PM.

'Have to' Ouch, the command, SH, the command...it's your style & I accept that. What you choose to do is your decision. Others will decide their own 'have to'. Currently, in order to be democratically represented in the UK, we've got to collectively choose a political party in sufficient numbers to give that party enough seats to form a majority government. Or not. We've returned minority governments too. It's healthy for us to talk about the best possible MP. I like that we do this here. It may turn out we don't get all that we want but that's human relationships - a compromise, negotiation - that's politics.

I think Cameron won leadership because we live in a corrupt democracy.

It doesn't have to remain this way.
I work for better representation.
Some days I'm more optimistic than other days. That's normal.

WW2 & the loss of colonial outposts after that war helped turn this country into a fine social democracy with a functional social security provision system I'm proud of. The wealthy few got scared & well they should be. Rich or poor it's only the one life any of us have.

The environment is providing us all with a 'good problem'. We've chemically altered the atmosphere & the consequences cause dramatic weather changes. It's not war, it's adaptation & life surviving in a volatile experiment. Like in war time, we all band together to survive these changes. There are many of us & that'll be helpful in a world without single crops using phosphates to deplete the earth & feed us in a way unsustainable. Permaculture. Local energy production. Zero-carbon housing using recycled materials.

[citizenJA]

Britain Elects
‏@britainelects

Should Britain replace the Human Rights Act with a 'British Bill of Rights'? (YouGov / 14 - 15 May):

Yes - 48%
No - 24%

Bloody hell

Seethe. Seethe. Seethe. I can just hear TCC saying it.

Step away from the poll, tinyclanger2, come away, my friend...polls are dumb. Polls aren't used for wholesome purposes.

[SpinningHugo]

Hugo
I asked a few day ago (following your "we would all prefer Tony Blair's government than what we have now" post,) why it is that those on the right of the party suggest that others with different Labour views should get behind a right(ish) wing candidate because they would be "better".
I ask why, when we had a candidate a little on the left(ish) side of the party, why it is that your half of the party didn't accept Ed and get behind him? The shadow cabinet was - to be frank - appalling, and when they could be bothered to go on TV or in the press you get RR making naïve slip ups that guaranteed the press jumping on them and the party. Only Chris Leslie (and Burnham to an extent) seemed to give a dam.
A bit more explanation of policy and a bit more anger about injustice from them would have helped hold and win the marginals we lost.
As would tacking the SNP issue openly.
edit to and & Caroline Flint was very good as well

I don't think this is either fair or true. The numbers of Blairites under the bed undermining the party from within was tiny. Evil Blairites like Murphy or Kendall didn't cause us to lose. Indeed, trying to blame those other than those who just led the party to the disaster of 10 days ago seems to me to be to ignore reality.

If you are asking whether I could have done more, I probably could, and will do next time whoever is leader. I don't want Burnham, I think we'll make no progress at all under him, but next time I will go out canvassing.

[ephemerid]

Hugo -
I am perfectly well aware that my social security (and yes, this really IS fucking personal, actually) will be cut to the bone if I am in fact able to hang on to any of it (says, she, months without a payment or an explanation, just like many others) and I am perfectly well aware that sticking to my principles is not going to feed me or keep me warm.

You may think it's clever to pass such execrable remarks, but it is not clever and it is not funny for those of us who have already suffered and have every expectation that we will suffer more. A bit of humanity and common sense would not go amiss - and, actually, I think there really IS something noble about sticking to a principle.

With people of real nobility in terms of integrity, whatever circumstances they were born into, we get the Attlees, the Bevans, the people who stuck to their principles and refused to give up. We get people who will find a way because they have the will, we get people who will support them and do their damnedest to make it work. We get focus, hard work, sheer determination, and we get fucking results.

With people who have none, however highly born and full of their own self-importance they may be, we get preferment, corruption, lies and propaganda. We get a government run by people in thrall to money and the people who manipulate it for their own ends. We get personal debt dressed up as freedom; freedom dressed up as the one thing we must aim for when in fact it is nothing more than financial shackles. We get people who are selfish, people who are prejudiced, people who have forgotten how to share and how to build together for a better future.

Blair was Thatcher in a frock with a smiley face and a red rosette. No, we didn't know it at the time, and no I cannot forgive him for it.
If that's the only way to win elections in this benighted country, no thanks. I'd rather we had a revolution, frankly.

"Very noble". That remark is one of your worst, Hugo, and lord knows its got some competition.

It does you no credit, and has the effect of putting me off anything else you write. A snide, nasty own goal.

[citizenJA]

If Labour keep looking at the wrong problem they are never going to come to the right solution. The problem was not Ed and it was not the manifesto, it was the cynical Tory use of the Liam Byrne's note, the bias of the BBC and rest of the press, the response of Scotland to the shared "no" platform (that WAS a mistake and should never be repeated), the fact that the Tories are better and more barefaced at simply lying, and the fear of a fictitious SNP/Labour coalition.

These are the problems that Labour needs to find a way around. The leader in this respect is not the issue.

Outstanding, this post! Thank you!

[citizenJA]

Hugo
I asked a few day ago (following your "we would all prefer Tony Blair's government than what we have now" post,) why it is that those on the right of the party suggest that others with different Labour views should get behind a right(ish) wing candidate because they would be "better".
I ask why, when we had a candidate a little on the left(ish) side of the party, why it is that your half of the party didn't accept Ed and get behind him? The shadow cabinet was - to be frank - appalling, and when they could be bothered to go on TV or in the press you get RR making naïve slip ups that guaranteed the press jumping on them and the party. Only Chris Leslie (and Burnham to an extent) seemed to give a dam.
A bit more explanation of policy and a bit more anger about injustice from them would have helped hold and win the marginals we lost.
As would tacking the SNP issue openly.
edit to and & Caroline Flint was very good as well

I don't think this is either fair or true. The numbers of Blairites under the bed undermining the party from within was tiny. Evil Blairites like Murphy or Kendall didn't cause us to lose. Indeed, trying to blame those other than those who just led the party to the disaster of 10 days ago seems to me to be to ignore reality.

If you are asking whether I could have done more, I probably could, and will do next time whoever is leader. I don't want Burnham, I think we'll make no progress at all under him, but next time I will go out canvassing.

That's a good idea. So will I. I'll do more canvassing for Labour.

[AngryAsWell]

Hugo
I asked a few day ago (following your "we would all prefer Tony Blair's government than what we have now" post,) why it is that those on the right of the party suggest that others with different Labour views should get behind a right(ish) wing candidate because they would be "better".
I ask why, when we had a candidate a little on the left(ish) side of the party, why it is that your half of the party didn't accept Ed and get behind him? The shadow cabinet was - to be frank - appalling, and when they could be bothered to go on TV or in the press you get RR making naïve slip ups that guaranteed the press jumping on them and the party. Only Chris Leslie (and Burnham to an extent) seemed to give a dam.
A bit more explanation of policy and a bit more anger about injustice from them would have helped hold and win the marginals we lost.
As would tacking the SNP issue openly.
edit to and & Caroline Flint was very good as well

I don't think this is either fair or true. The numbers of Blairites under the bed undermining the party from within was tiny. Evil Blairites like Murphy or Kendall didn't cause us to lose. Indeed, trying to blame those other than those who just led the party to the disaster of 10 days ago seems to me to be to ignore reality.

If you are asking whether I could have done more, I probably could, and will do next time whoever is leader. I don't want Burnham, I think we'll make no progress at all under him, but next time I will go out canvassing.

I'm not saying they are "evil", but its odd that Kendall has only appeared once or twice on news programs (she did a QT, I think and maybe a Marr) but now sees fit to stand as leader of a party she did not actively get out and about to support when she had the chance to.
(and by actively I mean get on the news and radio)

[SpinningHugo]

Hugo
I asked a few day ago (following your "we would all prefer Tony Blair's government than what we have now" post,) why it is that those on the right of the party suggest that others with different Labour views should get behind a right(ish) wing candidate because they would be "better".
I ask why, when we had a candidate a little on the left(ish) side of the party, why it is that your half of the party didn't accept Ed and get behind him? The shadow cabinet was - to be frank - appalling, and when they could be bothered to go on TV or in the press you get RR making naïve slip ups that guaranteed the press jumping on them and the party. Only Chris Leslie (and Burnham to an extent) seemed to give a dam.
A bit more explanation of policy and a bit more anger about injustice from them would have helped hold and win the marginals we lost.
As would tacking the SNP issue openly.
edit to and & Caroline Flint was very good as well

I don't think this is either fair or true. The numbers of Blairites under the bed undermining the party from within was tiny. Evil Blairites like Murphy or Kendall didn't cause us to lose. Indeed, trying to blame those other than those who just led the party to the disaster of 10 days ago seems to me to be to ignore reality.

If you are asking whether I could have done more, I probably could, and will do next time whoever is leader. I don't want Burnham, I think we'll make no progress at all under him, but next time I will go out canvassing.

I'm not saying they are "evil", but its odd that Kendall has only appeared once or twice on news programs (she did a QT, I think and maybe a Marr) but now sees fit to stand as leader of a party she did not actively get out and about to support when she had the chance to.
(and by actively I mean get on the news and radio)

She was junior Shadow Health Minister. Why would you expect her to have a high profile?

If you are going to criticise anyone on the 'right' of the party, I'd single out Tristram Hunt. The Education policy was ridiculously bland, and no effort was made to sell it.

Education, Education, Education is a better message than "X Number of Days to save he NHS".

the latter is bullshit, and people know it.

[AngryAsWell]

Hugo
I asked a few day ago (following your "we would all prefer Tony Blair's government than what we have now" post,) why it is that those on the right of the party suggest that others with different Labour views should get behind a right(ish) wing candidate because they would be "better".
I ask why, when we had a candidate a little on the left(ish) side of the party, why it is that your half of the party didn't accept Ed and get behind him? The shadow cabinet was - to be frank - appalling, and when they could be bothered to go on TV or in the press you get RR making naïve slip ups that guaranteed the press jumping on them and the party. Only Chris Leslie (and Burnham to an extent) seemed to give a dam.
A bit more explanation of policy and a bit more anger about injustice from them would have helped hold and win the marginals we lost.
As would tacking the SNP issue openly.
edit to and & Caroline Flint was very good as well

I don't think this is either fair or true. The numbers of Blairites under the bed undermining the party from within was tiny. Evil Blairites like Murphy or Kendall didn't cause us to lose. Indeed, trying to blame those other than those who just led the party to the disaster of 10 days ago seems to me to be to ignore reality.

If you are asking whether I could have done more, I probably could, and will do next time whoever is leader. I don't want Burnham, I think we'll make no progress at all under him, but next time I will go out canvassing.

I'm not 100% sure I want AB either and for the record, having watched the progress conference (link is in F&A if any one want to watch it) I now agree with you that Stella Creasy should at least stand for leadership.

[AngryAsWell]

I don't think this is either fair or true. The numbers of Blairites under the bed undermining the party from within was tiny. Evil Blairites like Murphy or Kendall didn't cause us to lose. Indeed, trying to blame those other than those who just led the party to the disaster of 10 days ago seems to me to be to ignore reality.

If you are asking whether I could have done more, I probably could, and will do next time whoever is leader. I don't want Burnham, I think we'll make no progress at all under him, but next time I will go out canvassing.

I'm not saying they are "evil", but its odd that Kendall has only appeared once or twice on news programs (she did a QT, I think and maybe a Marr) but now sees fit to stand as leader of a party she did not actively get out and about to support when she had the chance to.
(and by actively I mean get on the news and radio)

She was junior Shadow Health Minister. Why would you expect her to have a high profile?

If you are going to criticise anyone on the 'right' of the party, I'd single out Tristram Hunt. The Education policy was ridiculously bland, and no effort was made to sell it.

Education, Education, Education is a better message than "X Number of Days to save he NHS".

the latter is bullshit, and people know it.

Because she was supposed to be fighting an election!

[ohsocynical]

Another idle thought. We know the figures are fiddled. We know productivity is way down. We know there isn't enough work to go around.

What would the unemployment figures have been if IDS hadn't got his evil schemes off the ground?

Perhaps that's why Dave gave him the job and the social cleansing is an added bonus.

[citizenJA]

Vote for someone you could see a Tory voting for.

Eeewwwww! How horrid. No.