Saturday 23rd and Sunday 24th May Weekend Edition

[tinyclanger2]

@rr2 "leaden feeling" - perfect words for it, but valuable to have your encouraging view.

[rebeccariots2]

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 15m15 minutes ago
Harman was v.ineffectual last time she was caretaker leader. But this interview with Marr is impressive: reasoned, human, likeable.

She really does seem to have come into her own ... this is one of a few tweets I've seen praising her for this interview on Marr.

She has been announcing and explaining Labour's shift to supporting a referendum on European Union membership. Sensible move IMO.

[RogerOThornhill]

I won't link to the article but seems that Ed is having an impact in No 10 without him actually being there...from Forsyth in the DM.

David Cameron has wasted no time in firing off a grumpy letter to Cabinet Ministers explaining how he wants them to get a grip.
In this note, the contents of which have been seen by The Mail on Sunday, he states: ‘I have agreed changes to the way in which Cabinet business is conducted.’

He goes on to say: ‘In particular, I have asked the Cabinet Secretariat to ensure committees are presented with clear decisions, that they are promulgated as rapidly as possible, that Cabinet is provided with a weekly summary of decisions, that actions are rigorously followed up.’ I understand that this letter reflects Cameron’s frustration that in the past, decisions have been taken by the relevant Cabinet committee and then disappeared into a bureaucratic fog.

He was particularly infuriated that a scheme he had personally backed for Britain to build a prison in Jamaica in exchange for the Jamaicans signing and ratifying a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement was not acted upon.

This new system and the – restored – delivery unit in No 10 are meant to ensure that what Ministers decide, actually happens. Well there’s a novel idea.

and from a few weeks back...in an article where falconer said that this would be restored and why did it need that?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... r-ed-balls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2010, David Cameron abolished Labour’s delivery unit and strategy unit, starting his period of government with a slimmed-down number of special advisers and a relatively small apolitical policy unit.

[ohsocynical]

I'd love to see a discussion about culture. We do have culture here, but is it something that can be fixed in terms of a single national culture. Or is it lots of overlapping layers that intersect and conjoin like really good puff pastry, with spaces inbetween to make it light? I always find the single culture model a bit offputting, you know, like all Australians wear funny hats and have kangaroos and koalas in their gardens, a spider in the dunny and a taste for Fosters.

My lovely Antipodean dwelling ex in-laws have been here recently, visiting the 'theme park' parts of the SE, and loving its essential 'real England' quality. They are travelling Europe as a celebration of 40 years together, and I'm not receiving visitors due to ill health, so I won't be taking them to the Black Country Museum to crawl through the mine working as I once did with a visiting cousin of some considerable affluence. The pictures of tranquil thatched cottages and polished interior are pretty though.

Culture is complex. I don't know if it can be coopted into becoming a national profile. Even the Swiss would, I'm sure, object to that.

Now you've made me think. Is it culture? Or heritage? Subtle differences between the two? Not been up long so I'll have to wake up properly and think about it.

[ohsocynical]

I won't link to the article but seems that Ed is having an impact in No 10 without him actually being there...from Forsyth in the DM.

David Cameron has wasted no time in firing off a grumpy letter to Cabinet Ministers explaining how he wants them to get a grip.
In this note, the contents of which have been seen by The Mail on Sunday, he states: ‘I have agreed changes to the way in which Cabinet business is conducted.’

He goes on to say: ‘In particular, I have asked the Cabinet Secretariat to ensure committees are presented with clear decisions, that they are promulgated as rapidly as possible, that Cabinet is provided with a weekly summary of decisions, that actions are rigorously followed up.’ I understand that this letter reflects Cameron’s frustration that in the past, decisions have been taken by the relevant Cabinet committee and then disappeared into a bureaucratic fog.

He was particularly infuriated that a scheme he had personally backed for Britain to build a prison in Jamaica in exchange for the Jamaicans signing and ratifying a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement was not acted upon.

This new system and the – restored – delivery unit in No 10 are meant to ensure that what Ministers decide, actually happens. Well there’s a novel idea.

and from a few weeks back...in an article where falconer said that this would be restored and why did it need that?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... r-ed-balls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2010, David Cameron abolished Labour’s delivery unit and strategy unit, starting his period of government with a slimmed-down number of special advisers and a relatively small apolitical policy unit.

I thought he was the main offender...Or so I've read.

[rebeccariots2]

John Pienaar ‏@JPonpolitics 5m5 minutes ago
Steve Hilton tells me he's considering running for mayor. "As my wife puts it if I don't run for office at some point I will regret it".

Oh dear gods ... that comment from his wife says it all ... it's all about him, isn't it?

[Eric_WLothian]

I'm beginning to warm (just) towards the new SoS for Scotland:

THE Scottish Secretary has challenged Nicola Sturgeon to explain how the SNP intends to use the extra powers it wants beyond those already coming to Scotland under the pre-referendum vow.
David Mundell has indicated that the UK government will not meet the SNP’s drive for more powers unless Sturgeon’s party produces “detailed proposals” to demonstrate the benefits of further devolution.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3781679

That will be a novelty - the SNP providing detailed proposals, rather than demands and assertions.

[seeingclearly]

I'd love to see a discussion about culture. We do have culture here, but is it something that can be fixed in terms of a single national culture. Or is it lots of overlapping layers that intersect and conjoin like really good puff pastry, with spaces inbetween to make it light? I always find the single culture model a bit offputting, you know, like all Australians wear funny hats and have kangaroos and koalas in their gardens, a spider in the dunny and a taste for Fosters.

My lovely Antipodean dwelling ex in-laws have been here recently, visiting the 'theme park' parts of the SE, and loving its essential 'real England' quality. They are travelling Europe as a celebration of 40 years together, and I'm not receiving visitors due to ill health, so I won't be taking them to the Black Country Museum to crawl through the mine working as I once did with a visiting cousin of some considerable affluence. The pictures of tranquil thatched cottages and polished interior are pretty though.

Culture is complex. I don't know if it can be coopted into becoming a national profile. Even the Swiss would, I'm sure, object to that.

Now you've made me think. Is it culture? Or heritage? Subtle differences between the two? Not been up long so I'll have to wake up properly and think about it.

Haha! Yes, of course, and then what about 'values'! I sort of nudged a little because of PFs post. It's well worth thinking about.



I'll toss a little extra in, in terms of values a lot of immigrants from commonwealth countries were brought up with ideas that took hold during the Empire times, ie they actively share British values! So in those countries you'll find the same things we have here, art galleries and Museums, botanical gardens and zoos, hospitals based on the NHS, a high value put on education, FPTP governments, and so on. Aspiring and sometimes mindblowingly stifling upper middle classes too. And the weird sense entitlement achieving those things brings. Oh and music lessons, ballet, elocution, swimming etc. for the kids. But the working class, now properly the lower middle class, don't really get a lookin at most of this, because where's the fun in being upper middle if there's no one to be superior to? The mercy is that in those places the upper middles are being quickly outpaced by the much freer forward looking lower middles who are actively removing the stifling bits and replacing them with a more equal sort of society. But anyway the point I'm trying to make is that many of these people already share our values, they are the ones who came here from choice. The ones who didn't would choose it rather than go home to devastated societies. Just like people who go to America do.

I watched the European debate on the immigration crisis early this morning, it was interesting. Nearly everyone was to the left of Cameron even the obviously right wing MEPs. They are looking for solutions to a humanitarian issue, and it was interesting to see how well the overall picture chimed with Eds statements on immigration. It was clear though that there was a fair bit of disapproval for our stance, which is basically we do not want a fair quota simply because. The other countries who argue against the quota do so because of very valid reasons, disastrous economics due to past restructuring and heavy immigration from places like Ukraine.

[rebeccariots2]

Blair Witch Project headline in Sunday Times.jpg (67.25 KiB) Viewed 7337 times

Gabriel Scally
‏@GabrielScally
Disgraceful sexism on display in headline in today's Sunday Times article on Liz Kendall.

They obviously couldn't resist the very lazy labelling option.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I'm calling bull**** on that headline anyway. If she continues with such an extreme "more Blairite than Blair" platform, she will do well to get 20% of the vote.

Most of the party simply doesn't want what she is currently offering (and quite rightly) and we aren't going to be bullied by the MSM into voting for it

[rebeccariots2]

I'm calling bull**** on that headline anyway. If she continues with such an extreme "more Blairite than Blair" platform, she will do well to get 20% of the vote.

Most of the party simply doesn't want what she is currently offering (and quite rightly) and we aren't going to be bullied by the MSM into voting for it

I was surprised by Mark Ferguson deciding to quit LabourList and work for her campaign ... If he is behind the more extreme stance - I can't square it with him (when still at LabourList) writing about how unhelpful and flawed it was to frame everything as Blairite, Brownite etc etc.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Well, one theory is that Kendall's present tack is so she can get the 35 MP nominations needed (by scooping up the diehard Blair fan club) and she will take a more "unifying" stance afterwards - as she appeared to when initially announcing her candidacy. The problem is that her line now is alienating many people so much that they won't be willing to listen to her later......

If there is anybody who should be "spooked" by her currently, it is Cooper not Burnham IMO. What, exactly, is the USP of Mrs Balls?

[rebeccariots2]

Hunting ban: David Cameron to propose 'middle way' to limit outcry over animal welfare
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 72210.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David Cameron is considering a “middle way” option to the controversial planned repeal of the hunting ban in a bid to limit public outcry over animal welfare, it has emerged.

A bill to axe the 2004 Hunting Act will not be in this week’s Queen’s Speech but legislation is expected before Christmas. While the new laws would allow hunting to resume, under consideration is a compromise that would protect foxes and other wild animals from “unnecessary cruelty”. Other options on the table are licensing or tougher regulation of hunting than existed before the ban came into force in 2005...

So necessary cruelty is fine, eh ... especially when the Tories get to define 'necessary'. We all know how keen they've been to do that in their reforms so far.

This is a sop to the 80% of the public that don't support hunting and a way to try and sort out the SNP issue.

I hope neither the public nor the SNP are fooled.

[rebeccariots2]

Well, one theory is that Kendall's present tack is so she can get the 35 MP nominations needed (by scooping up the diehard Blair fan club) and she will take a more "unifying" stance afterwards - as she appeared to when initially announcing her candidacy. The problem is that her line now is alienating many people so much that they won't be willing to listen to her later......

If there is anybody who should be "spooked" by her currently, it is Cooper not Burnham IMO. What, exactly, is the USP of Mrs Balls?

Surely the other 'problem' with that as a tactic is that the diehard Blair fan club are going to be very miffed when she proves to be inauthentic - i.e. not stamped with Blairism all the way through - and, as we saw last time, some of them really aren't good at rallying around the members' choice and not briefing against them.

[ohsocynical]

I'm going to see what the dictionary says about culture and heritage. But before I do, here is what I think they mean.

Culture is the present. A law can be passed, and our culture literally changes overnight to accommodate it. I'm also thinking of Carnaby St and the 'Hippie', culture which changed society then faded out. It was a rage. A trend.

Heritage is the past. Frozen in time.

Collins Concise Dictionary:

Culture:
(1) The customs ideas and art of a particular society.
(2) A particular civilization at a particular point.
(3) Development or improvement by special attention or training.

Heritage
(1) Anything that has been carried over from the past or handed down by tradition
(2) Something inherited from birth.
(3) The evidence of the past such as historical sites considered as the inheritance of present day society.

So; with culture we get lingering tendrils of viewpoints, habits, fads and ideas that become woven into the present day. Nothing is set in stone.

With Heritage, customs are, even when carried out today, static. If they're altered they aren't 'heritage.'
Buildings, land, things, can all be changed, modernised, lost. When that happens they cease to be 'heritage'.

The Hippie culture caused change that we are still experiencing. Clothes, records etc. from that period - static items - are part of our history.

The third definition of culture from Collins Dictionary: Development or improvement by special attention or training, interested me. Brainwashing by any other name. And a particular favourite of this government.

The way I see it we tend to be herdlike but we have the power and the capacity to change if we want. And there is the rub.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Well, one theory is that Kendall's present tack is so she can get the 35 MP nominations needed (by scooping up the diehard Blair fan club) and she will take a more "unifying" stance afterwards - as she appeared to when initially announcing her candidacy. The problem is that her line now is alienating many people so much that they won't be willing to listen to her later......

If there is anybody who should be "spooked" by her currently, it is Cooper not Burnham IMO. What, exactly, is the USP of Mrs Balls?

Surely the other 'problem' with that as a tactic is that the diehard Blair fan club are going to be very miffed when she proves to be inauthentic - i.e. not stamped with Blairism all the way through - and, as we saw last time, some of them really aren't good at rallying around the members' choice and not briefing against them.

Yes, she could end up not pleasing anybody. What a shame

[thatchersorphan]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... rty-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; petition We want an anti-austerity Labour Party leader

[ohsocynical]

I'd love to see a discussion about culture. We do have culture here, but is it something that can be fixed in terms of a single national culture. Or is it lots of overlapping layers that intersect and conjoin like really good puff pastry, with spaces inbetween to make it light? I always find the single culture model a bit offputting, you know, like all Australians wear funny hats and have kangaroos and koalas in their gardens, a spider in the dunny and a taste for Fosters.

My lovely Antipodean dwelling ex in-laws have been here recently, visiting the 'theme park' parts of the SE, and loving its essential 'real England' quality. They are travelling Europe as a celebration of 40 years together, and I'm not receiving visitors due to ill health, so I won't be taking them to the Black Country Museum to crawl through the mine working as I once did with a visiting cousin of some considerable affluence. The pictures of tranquil thatched cottages and polished interior are pretty though.

Culture is complex. I don't know if it can be coopted into becoming a national profile. Even the Swiss would, I'm sure, object to that.

Now you've made me think. Is it culture? Or heritage? Subtle differences between the two? Not been up long so I'll have to wake up properly and think about it.

Haha! Yes, of course, and then what about 'values'! I sort of nudged a little because of PFs post. It's well worth thinking about.



I'll toss a little extra in, in terms of values a lot of immigrants from commonwealth countries were brought up with ideas that took hold during the Empire times, ie they actively share British values! So in those countries you'll find the same things we have here, art galleries and Museums, botanical gardens and zoos, hospitals based on the NHS, a high value put on education, FPTP governments, and so on. Aspiring and sometimes mindblowingly stifling upper middle classes too. And the weird sense entitlement achieving those things brings. Oh and music lessons, ballet, elocution, swimming etc. for the kids. But the working class, now properly the lower middle class, don't really get a lookin at most of this, because where's the fun in being upper middle if there's no one to be superior to? The mercy is that in those places the upper middles are being quickly outpaced by the much freer forward looking lower middles who are actively removing the stifling bits and replacing them with a more equal sort of society. But anyway the point I'm trying to make is that many of these people already share our values, they are the ones who came here from choice. The ones who didn't would choose it rather than go home to devastated societies. Just like people who go to America do.

I watched the European debate on the immigration crisis early this morning, it was interesting. Nearly everyone was to the left of Cameron even the obviously right wing MEPs. They are looking for solutions to a humanitarian issue, and it was interesting to see how well the overall picture chimed with Eds statements on immigration. It was clear though that there was a fair bit of disapproval for our stance, which is basically we do not want a fair quota simply because. The other countries who argue against the quota do so because of very valid reasons, disastrous economics due to past restructuring and heavy immigration from places like Ukraine.

Ah. This gets interesting. I think values are in a class of their own.
Value, or worth, can either be the quality of what others think you've contributed to society, or a personal valuation of the ego.

It doesn't take money or breeding to take on someone else's ideas or values. If we think they're 'good' values, they will make us look and sound better so that we are held in more regard, it benefits (hopefully) society, makes us feel better and boosts the ego, .

And then there are Tory values.

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.russellsage.org/awarded-proj ... mic-elites" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
am looking at this - and am interested in anyone else's take on it.

[PorFavor]

http://www.russellsage.org/awarded-proj ... mic-elites
am looking at this - and am interested in anyone else's take on it.

Thanks for the link. I've skim-read the article only, so I may have missed something. But, to me, the gist is that the moneyed (elites) now get to decide what is discussed in the first place, rather than simply influencing the outcome of discussions.

Edited to add

Which is much more dangerous.

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.russellsage.org/awarded-proj ... mic-elites
am looking at this - and am interested in anyone else's take on it.

Thanks for the link. I've skim-read the article only, so I may have missed something. But, to me, the gist is that the moneyed (elites) now get to decide what is discussed in the first place, rather than simply influencing the outcome of discussions.

Edited to add

Which is much more dangerous.

(and influence our thinking on such matters by owning the press).
Khan ends his book "Privilege" by saying that while our (in his case the US) elite might be getting more diverse (ie: more ethnic and social backgrounds entering it) inequality is nevertheless increasing. Expanding access to the elite institutions does not so much change the establishment thinking as merely change the composition of the establishment.

This is at the heart of my concerns about Oxbridge. Obviously there are exceptions (Owen Jones, Ed Miliband) but they are exceptions. And even the well-intentioned will have views that are utterly meaningless to most of us. Labour need to be very careful not to be 21st century social "missionaries".

[ohsocynical]

Daily Mirror

One million people applied for 85,000 apprenticeship places last year

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 1m-5748968

[RogerOThornhill]

Daily Mirror

One million people applied for 85,000 apprenticeship places last year

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 1m-5748968

One of the biggest cons going is this...

A study for the Local Government Association showed since 2010, under-19s have made up 57% of applications but only 27% of starts. Over-25s made up 7% of applications and 37% of starts – and some 67% of intermediate skilled apprentices were already employed by their company.

I know I'm old fashioned but I always thought that an apprenticeship went like this - company offers apprenticeship [edit - in a proper trade] - people from outside the company apply - company takes on new people.

All this is doing is subsidising companies who could probably afford to do this for themselves in the first place.

[tinyclanger2]

From Oxford Online Dicitionaries:

Apprentice: A person who is learning a trade from a skilled employer, having agreed to work for a fixed period at low wages

So, definitely not someone who has already learned a trade and just needs the company to invest a bit in their professional development. And thus indeed the public purse subsidising the private pocket to its own detriment.

[ohsocynical]

Schumacher was crowned the wealthiest driver ever to have raced in F1, with a fortune in excess of £520million.

But the seven-time world champion’s family is facing spiralling care costs with the current spending on his rehabilitation estimated at over £10million.

His family is said to be spending around £100,000-a-week looking after him.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/579 ... g-accident

Was reading this and noticed how much it's costing his family. And probably by now, no health insurance cover.

Quite a few Tory big wigs and millionaires will be in for a shock if they or their families should have a serious health issue.

[ohsocynical]

From Oxford Online Dicitionaries:

Apprentice: A person who is learning a trade from a skilled employer, having agreed to work for a fixed period at low wages

So, definitely not someone who has already learned a trade and just needs the company to invest a bit in their professional development. And thus indeed the public purse subsidising the private pocket to its own detriment.

Morrison's supermarkets cynically use this method of getting cheap labour. I've boycotted them ever since I learned of it.

[tinyclanger2]

Daily Mirror

One million people applied for 85,000 apprenticeship places last year

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 1m-5748968

... of which potentially 67 percent were already employed by their existing companies leaving a whole 28,700 new apprentices or less than 3 % of the people applying for them.

[ohsocynical]

Daily Mirror

One million people applied for 85,000 apprenticeship places last year

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... 1m-5748968

... of which potentially 67 percent were already employed by their existing companies leaving a whole 28,700 new apprentices or less than 3 % of the people applying for them.

Yep. And a huge percentage are over fifty.

[LadyCentauria]

Hunting ban: David Cameron to propose 'middle way' to limit outcry over animal welfare
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 72210.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David Cameron is considering a “middle way” option to the controversial planned repeal of the hunting ban in a bid to limit public outcry over animal welfare, it has emerged.

A bill to axe the 2004 Hunting Act will not be in this week’s Queen’s Speech but legislation is expected before Christmas. While the new laws would allow hunting to resume, under consideration is a compromise that would protect foxes and other wild animals from “unnecessary cruelty”. Other options on the table are licensing or tougher regulation of hunting than existed before the ban came into force in 2005...

So necessary cruelty is fine, eh ... especially when the Tories get to define 'necessary'. We all know how keen they've been to do that in their reforms so far.

This is a sop to the 80% of the public that don't support hunting and a way to try and sort out the SNP issue.

I hope neither the public nor the SNP are fooled.

I thought we already had laws protecting wild animals from cruelty – some can be taken or killed but very few and even those have to be done in a way that does not constitute cruelty or cause unnecessary suffering. So, Cameron's 'compromise' surely waters down that legislation?

[ohsocynical]

Detroit Soup bowls into Reading to raise cash for community groups

Fellow coordinator, Kathryn Burgoyne explained: “Reading Soup brings together neighbours, supports the democratic process, features local artists, acts as a platform to share resources and supports projects that benefit the community.”

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... se-9314522

Interesting. And doubly so when you consider the state Detroit is in, then equating some of that poverty and lack of State help to a large, so called wealthy town like Reading.

[ohsocynical]

Hunting ban: David Cameron to propose 'middle way' to limit outcry over animal welfare
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 72210.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David Cameron is considering a “middle way” option to the controversial planned repeal of the hunting ban in a bid to limit public outcry over animal welfare, it has emerged.

A bill to axe the 2004 Hunting Act will not be in this week’s Queen’s Speech but legislation is expected before Christmas. While the new laws would allow hunting to resume, under consideration is a compromise that would protect foxes and other wild animals from “unnecessary cruelty”. Other options on the table are licensing or tougher regulation of hunting than existed before the ban came into force in 2005...

So necessary cruelty is fine, eh ... especially when the Tories get to define 'necessary'. We all know how keen they've been to do that in their reforms so far.

This is a sop to the 80% of the public that don't support hunting and a way to try and sort out the SNP issue.

I hope neither the public nor the SNP are fooled.

I thought we already had laws protecting wild animals from cruelty – some can be taken or killed but very few and even those have to be done in a way that does not constitute cruelty or cause unnecessary suffering. So, Cameron's 'compromise' surely waters down that legislation?

My anger is still a large, ugly knot at the bottom of my throat.

[tinyclanger2]

Interest in tormenting animals is, I believe, accepted as a warning sign for potential sociopathy in children.
We are a species that lets the sociopaths succeed while we nice guys, feeling unable to do anything about it, argue about small differences.

[SpinningHugo]

I'm calling bull**** on that headline anyway. If she continues with such an extreme "more Blairite than Blair" platform, she will do well to get 20% of the vote.

Most of the party simply doesn't want what she is currently offering (and quite rightly) and we aren't going to be bullied by the MSM into voting for it

I was surprised by Mark Ferguson deciding to quit LabourList and work for her campaign ... If he is behind the more extreme stance - I can't square it with him (when still at LabourList) writing about how unhelpful and flawed it was to frame everything as Blairite, Brownite etc etc.

He has enough sense to realise what Labour's last best hope of a win before 2025 is.

I doubt she'll win though. Too many prefer defeat to compromise (defeat coupled with lots of daft rhetoric about 'fighting').

[TechnicalEphemera]

I see the SNP are offended that there is no business case to extend HS2 to Scotland. Hardly a shock when you consider the numbers.

I would suggest the solution is simple. The SNP agree to raise the revenue to fund HS2S from Scottish taxation.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I'm calling bull**** on that headline anyway. If she continues with such an extreme "more Blairite than Blair" platform, she will do well to get 20% of the vote.

Most of the party simply doesn't want what she is currently offering (and quite rightly) and we aren't going to be bullied by the MSM into voting for it

I was surprised by Mark Ferguson deciding to quit LabourList and work for her campaign ... If he is behind the more extreme stance - I can't square it with him (when still at LabourList) writing about how unhelpful and flawed it was to frame everything as Blairite, Brownite etc etc.

He has enough sense to realise what Labour's last best hope of a win before 2025 is.

I doubt she'll win though. Too many prefer defeat to compromise (defeat coupled with lots of daft rhetoric about 'fighting').

There is no evidence - none - that making Labour to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the Tories will win elections.

I mean, seriously, what's the point?

And it isn't what Blair did in 1997 either, before you start

[PorFavor]

I'm calling bull**** on that headline anyway. If she continues with such an extreme "more Blairite than Blair" platform, she will do well to get 20% of the vote.

Most of the party simply doesn't want what she is currently offering (and quite rightly) and we aren't going to be bullied by the MSM into voting for it

I was surprised by Mark Ferguson deciding to quit LabourList and work for her campaign ... If he is behind the more extreme stance - I can't square it with him (when still at LabourList) writing about how unhelpful and flawed it was to frame everything as Blairite, Brownite etc etc.

He has enough sense to realise what Labour's last best hope of a win before 2025 is.

I doubt she'll win though. Too many prefer defeat to compromise (defeat coupled with lots of daft rhetoric about 'fighting').

No - I'm just hoping it's not too late for the xenophobe candidate to come through. Then we can mop up the Ukip vote.

[SpinningHugo]

I was surprised by Mark Ferguson deciding to quit LabourList and work for her campaign ... If he is behind the more extreme stance - I can't square it with him (when still at LabourList) writing about how unhelpful and flawed it was to frame everything as Blairite, Brownite etc etc.

He has enough sense to realise what Labour's last best hope of a win before 2025 is.

I doubt she'll win though. Too many prefer defeat to compromise (defeat coupled with lots of daft rhetoric about 'fighting').

There is no evidence - none - that making Labour to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the Tories will win elections.

I mean, seriously, what's the point?

And it isn't what Blair did in 1997 either, before you start

I don't think she is proposing that.

Indeed, I think that is a ridiculous caricature of what she stands for.

If you think she is just Tory lite, you really have not been paying attention for the last 5 years, or listening to what is about to happen to social security in the UK.

But her task is far harder than David Miliband's was back in 2010. She isn't starting out with anywhere near as high a profile. The task Labour faces is now several times harder. I can't see how she can win the leadership

So, we'll end up with Burnham and go on inexorably to defeat.

I'll pay my subs, and doorstep in 2020, but this now looks grimly inevitable to me, just as it did when we stupidly plumped for Ed Miliband on 25 September 2010.

I am going to try and ignore politics for the next 4 or so years. It is too depressing. That Labour doesn't seem to even want to win in 2020 is even more depressing than losing in 2015.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Well ok Hugo enlighten us, what exactly is Kendall's vision?

Because I don't think she, or the Blairite wing of the party, have one.

I recently had to sit through an after dinner speech by some utter piece of scum that laughingly claimed to be a Blair Labour man. It was pathetic, shallow analysis stuck in 97, full of bile and personal insults. If my job hadn't been on the line I would have called him on his utter bullshit.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Warning sport.

By the way the answer to my question posed a few weeks ago as to exactly what is it Ben Stokes can do seems to be bat, rather well.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, I am simplifying Hugo - but so are you.

We simply have no idea of how all sorts of things are going to be by 2020.

Some of us think that whilst Labour has been flawed this last five years, Ed's basic diagnosis - that the gap between the tiny super rich and powerful minority and the rest has become unhealthily and dangerous big and this threatens social contentment, economic performance AND even the UK as we now know it - is absolutely correct. No government that ignores this is going to succeed - and if Kendall or anybody else wants Labour to go back to sucking up to evil plutocrats like KRM, or allowing big business to corrupt everything it touches, then I for one want no part of it.

If that means Labour loses another election, so be it. "Victory" on the above terms would utterly destroy the Labour party once and for all.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Yes, I am simplifying Hugo - but so are you.

We simply have no idea of how all sorts of things are going to be by 2020.

Some of us think that whilst Labour has been flawed this last five years, Ed's basic diagnosis - that the gap between the tiny super rich and powerful minority and the rest has become unhealthily and dangerous big and this threatens social contentment, economic performance AND even the UK as we now know it - is absolutely correct. No government that ignores this is going to succeed - and if Kendall or anybody else wants Labour to go back to sucking up to evil plutocrats like KRM, or allowing big business to corrupt everything it touches, then I for one want no part of it.

If that means Labour loses another election, so be it. "Victory" on the above terms would utterly destroy the Labour party once and for all.

I absolutely agree with all of the above 100% except...

There is no way Labour can win by sucking up to big business or becoming soft Tories. It won't happen, unless Cameron suffers a John Major economic calamity, in which case any Labour leader could get elected. There was an ultra Blairite party (what the Blairites have become, not what they were in 97) standing in 2015. They were called the Lib Dems, similar to the Tories but more socially responsible. How did they do? Why would Labour want to become them?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, the fate of the LibDems should be noticed by the clueless press hacks that Kendall supposedly "wowed" the other day far more than it has been.

For the record (if people haven't guessed this already) I am quite sympathetic to "Blue Labour" thinking, and far from a deluded ultra leftist.

I desperately want to see Labour in power again - but not at *any* price.....

[AngryAsWell]

Jon Trickett ‏@jon_trickett · May 16
Visiting every region of the country people weren't talking about aspiration, they were talking of their desperation #radicalhope #compass

[Eric_WLothian]

I see the SNP are offended that there is no business case to extend HS2 to Scotland. Hardly a shock when you consider the numbers.

I would suggest the solution is simple. The SNP agree to raise the revenue to fund HS2S from Scottish taxation.

No business case? mere detail. (Article from Nov 2012, my colour):

Scottish ministers have launched proposals to boost the Scottish economy with high-speed rail linking Glasgow and Edinburgh to England.
The SNP aim to create a faster service between Scotland's two principal cities which could see journey times cut to less than 30 minutes.
Deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon launched the proposal in Glasgow last week despite a lack of details concerning cost and the intended route.Speaking at the launch, she said: "We will not wait for Westminster to bring high-speed rail to us. We have already made moves towards seeing a high-speed line in Scotland and the evidence is now in place that this is feasible long before the HS2 proposals.
"The Scottish Government will now enter into talks with our partners in both cities and the rail industry to see how we can work together to see this vision realised: a Glasgow-Edinburgh high-speed line which can connect to the network from England."
http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article ... _proposals

[RogerOThornhill]

I'm not going to link to it but the execrable Andrew Roberts wrote the other day that it might be a good idea if Labour simply called it a day.

These people don't simply want Labour not to win - they want them destroyed so we get Conservative governments for good. Faced with that I can't say I blame good people not wanting to put their heads above the parapet and stand for leader or deputy - it's a brave individual that wants 24/7 coverage of every single thing they say and do to be pounced upon and picked over for signs of weakness or inconsistency.

Tories get away with some utter crud in their manifesto and what happens?

Shrug of the shoulders and let them get away with it. When people like Isabel Hardman says she is impressed by Liz Kendall that#s the time to get worried as all Labour are doing is simply stepping into their territory. And I don't want that.

[AngryAsWell]

"Dear Liz Kendall, about the differences between socialism and liberalism…"
Quote
"This is why your leadership would be a disaster waiting to happen for our party. You have no conception that Labour is not just a party but a real movement in society. Even your letter to trade unionists smacks of their being one constituency among others to be courted.
That, I’m afraid, concludes this letter. Like I said, you’re not a conservative. You are a liberal with all the limitations and problems that come with it, and as such because you do not understand the party you’re aspiring to lead that makes you particularly ill-suited to the position.

Yours sincerely,

Phil"

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/05/dear ... iberalism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Not sure who "Phil" is as not noted in article)

[LadyCentauria]

I'd love to see a discussion about culture. We do have culture here, but is it something that can be fixed in terms of a single national culture. Or is it lots of overlapping layers that intersect and conjoin like really good puff pastry, with spaces inbetween to make it light? I always find the single culture model a bit offputting, you know, like all Australians wear funny hats and have kangaroos and koalas in their gardens, a spider in the dunny and a taste for Fosters.

My lovely Antipodean dwelling ex in-laws have been here recently, visiting the 'theme park' parts of the SE, and loving its essential 'real England' quality. They are travelling Europe as a celebration of 40 years together, and I'm not receiving visitors due to ill health, so I won't be taking them to the Black Country Museum to crawl through the mine working as I once did with a visiting cousin of some considerable affluence. The pictures of tranquil thatched cottages and polished interior are pretty though.

Culture is complex. I don't know if it can be coopted into becoming a national profile. Even the Swiss would, I'm sure, object to that.

Now you've made me think. Is it culture? Or heritage? Subtle differences between the two? Not been up long so I'll have to wake up properly and think about it.

Haha! Yes, of course, and then what about 'values'! I sort of nudged a little because of PFs post. It's well worth thinking about.



I'll toss a little extra in, in terms of values a lot of immigrants from commonwealth countries were brought up with ideas that took hold during the Empire times, ie they actively share British values! So in those countries you'll find the same things we have here, art galleries and Museums, botanical gardens and zoos, hospitals based on the NHS, a high value put on education, FPTP governments, and so on. Aspiring and sometimes mindblowingly stifling upper middle classes too. And the weird sense entitlement achieving those things brings. Oh and music lessons, ballet, elocution, swimming etc. for the kids. But the working class, now properly the lower middle class, don't really get a lookin at most of this, because where's the fun in being upper middle if there's no one to be superior to? The mercy is that in those places the upper middles are being quickly outpaced by the much freer forward looking lower middles who are actively removing the stifling bits and replacing them with a more equal sort of society. But anyway the point I'm trying to make is that many of these people already share our values, they are the ones who came here from choice. The ones who didn't would choose it rather than go home to devastated societies. Just like people who go to America do.

I watched the European debate on the immigration crisis early this morning, it was interesting. Nearly everyone was to the left of Cameron even the obviously right wing MEPs. They are looking for solutions to a humanitarian issue, and it was interesting to see how well the overall picture chimed with Eds statements on immigration. It was clear though that there was a fair bit of disapproval for our stance, which is basically we do not want a fair quota simply because. The other countries who argue against the quota do so because of very valid reasons, disastrous economics due to past restructuring and heavy immigration from places like Ukraine.

Yep, and I'd add that many, if not most, Commonwealth citizens were brought up to feel 'British' and to regard the UK as 'The Mother Country.' Many were, rightly, horrified when they arrived here and discovered that this country did not truly abide by the values they'd thought it did. I think you mentioned, earlier, that one of your relatives was shocked at the exploitation and poverty they saw here. I'm not sure that the UK could be described in terms of having a unifying culture, even broken down into its constituent countries. It's more of a patchwork and has been for a very long time, if not for ever, even though it's had dominant cultures. Even the the values that are suggested as a description of 'Britishness' or English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Yorkshire, Cornwall, whatever 'ness' are pretty much common to humans - and other apes; the conflicts that arise, here as elsewhere, are usually because of unfairness – the breaking of 'rules' on sharing and reward - or the perception of such. Conflict also arises as a result of overcrowding – the sense of invasion of personal space is distressing to all animals, although how far that space extends varies within species and well as between. Even when when 'white, northern european' was a larger vast-majority than it is now, in these islands, there was friction between traditionally-nomadic people and agrarian/settled people (and within both as they were probably never homogeneous groupings,) then industrialisation brought its own frictions along with the growth of the cities, feudalism never quite disappeared and the resentments that feudalism had brought never quite disappeared, either. I'm not free to be my nomadic self – partly because the law makes it bloody difficult, partly because my disabilities limit my freedom, too – yet, for so many people, with work opportunities being so often temporary and in far-flung places, we really need nomadic lives to be more possible rather than less. The law says you must be willing to travel and move to take work or face sanctions but the law also prevents it, in many ways.

The common values, though, remain - being intrinsic to humans - but have to be ensured by the rule of law, and that is the duty of elected governments. The vast majority believe that all should be equal under the law, which requires both equal access and equal representation. It's all very well for a government to say, "anyone can appeal a decision they don't agree with." But if they've chosen to all but abolish Legal Aid and impose high fees to access Tribunals, or other mediation services, then it is clear that 'anyone' can't appeal adverse decisions. Again, it's fine to say 'everyone has a right to shelter' but if there is insufficient housing available and prices are soaring whilst wages stagnate or fall and you've changed the law which said that anyone who had lived within a Local Authority area for a set minimum time (or who had strong ties to an area) had a right to join the council-housing waiting list with a right to be housed once they'd (originally) waited their turn, then (more recently) amassed enough points; and changed it yet again so dramatically that now each council is free to set whatever criteria it likes (pretty much) so most of the waiting lists have shrunk drastically but almost no social (let alone council) housing is being built to accommodate them. Again, it is unfair and people are being (or left feeling) discriminated against yet again by law as well as circumstance.

Is it enough to have 'values' as a society/country if those values aren't put into practise? 'To each according to his need from each according to their ability' strikes most as a fair starting point. 'Homes fit for heroes' is another, if we don't solely regard those in the armed-services as heroes - or potential heroes. 'A good job for everyone who wants one' is yet another. That oft-quoted phrase about having a job being good for people, is a(n intentional?) misquotation; the author of that piece of research said "a good job" and went on to say that unsatisfying work is distinctly bad for people.

I've wandered and rambled-on enough, and probably added more questions than answers, on that subject but will close by adding that one of the reasons I so often watch debates in the EU Parliament is because of the quality of debate there – unless Farridge and his Kipple are grabbing the limelight, insulting the Parliament, and embarrassing us all. Your comment on even the obviously right-wing MEPs (Kipple excluded) being clearly to the left of Cameron, is another striking thing about it. It's why I listen to broadcasts from our own Parliaments and Assemblies too, which are usually places of considered (and considerate) debate – outwith the 'spectacle' of PMQs in the HoC. Gasp; need tea...

[AnatolyKasparov]

I'm not going to link to it but the execrable Andrew Roberts wrote the other day that it might be a good idea if Labour simply called it a day

People like that (who can be found on both left and right) really should be careful what they wish for.

If the Labour party vanished tomorrow, what would emerge to fill the vacuum might be even less to their liking.

(btw people like Roberts don't want permanent Conservative rule as much as a return to the good old days of "Whigs and Tories" - the fact said state of affairs came to an end for very good reasons, and no developed democracy is without a significant centre left party [yes, I count the US Democrats as such, certainly now] utterly escapes them)

[ohsocynical]

Jon Trickett ‏@jon_trickett · May 16
Visiting every region of the country people weren't talking about aspiration, they were talking of their desperation #radicalhope #compass

I truly believe the Labour Right really don't have a clue how desperate some people already are. It's making people angry and angry people tend not to think too clearly. They just lash out at the nearest thing to blame.
The Conservative share of the vote now is very small. I think they are a spent force. UKIP is the bugbear. They're to the far right of the right but if Labour turns in that direction, I don't think it's going to be enough, and it'll lose them the Left's vote.

If anyone can come up with an answer to that, they're a bloody genius.

[ohsocynical]

Now you've made me think. Is it culture? Or heritage? Subtle differences between the two? Not been up long so I'll have to wake up properly and think about it.

Haha! Yes, of course, and then what about 'values'! I sort of nudged a little because of PFs post. It's well worth thinking about.



I'll toss a little extra in, in terms of values a lot of immigrants from commonwealth countries were brought up with ideas that took hold during the Empire times, ie they actively share British values! So in those countries you'll find the same things we have here, art galleries and Museums, botanical gardens and zoos, hospitals based on the NHS, a high value put on education, FPTP governments, and so on. Aspiring and sometimes mindblowingly stifling upper middle classes too. And the weird sense entitlement achieving those things brings. Oh and music lessons, ballet, elocution, swimming etc. for the kids. But the working class, now properly the lower middle class, don't really get a lookin at most of this, because where's the fun in being upper middle if there's no one to be superior to? The mercy is that in those places the upper middles are being quickly outpaced by the much freer forward looking lower middles who are actively removing the stifling bits and replacing them with a more equal sort of society. But anyway the point I'm trying to make is that many of these people already share our values, they are the ones who came here from choice. The ones who didn't would choose it rather than go home to devastated societies. Just like people who go to America do.

I watched the European debate on the immigration crisis early this morning, it was interesting. Nearly everyone was to the left of Cameron even the obviously right wing MEPs. They are looking for solutions to a humanitarian issue, and it was interesting to see how well the overall picture chimed with Eds statements on immigration. It was clear though that there was a fair bit of disapproval for our stance, which is basically we do not want a fair quota simply because. The other countries who argue against the quota do so because of very valid reasons, disastrous economics due to past restructuring and heavy immigration from places like Ukraine.

Yep, and I'd add that many, if not most, Commonwealth citizens were brought up to feel 'British' and to regard the UK as 'The Mother Country.' Many were, rightly, horrified when they arrived here and discovered that this country did not truly abide by the values they'd thought it did. I think you mentioned, earlier, that one of your relatives was shocked at the exploitation and poverty they saw here. I'm not sure that the UK could be described in terms of having a unifying culture, even broken down into its constituent countries. It's more of a patchwork and has been for a very long time, if not for ever, even though it's had dominant cultures. Even the the values that are suggested as a description of 'Britishness' or English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Yorkshire, Cornwall, whatever 'ness' are pretty much common to humans - and other apes; the conflicts that arise, here as elsewhere, are usually because of unfairness – the breaking of 'rules' on sharing and reward - or the perception of such. Conflict also arises as a result of overcrowding – the sense of invasion of personal space is distressing to all animals, although how far that space extends varies within species and well as between. Even when when 'white, northern european' was a larger vast-majority than it is now, in these islands, there was friction between traditionally-nomadic people and agrarian/settled people (and within both as they were probably never homogeneous groupings,) then industrialisation brought its own frictions along with the growth of the cities, feudalism never quite disappeared and the resentments that feudalism had brought never quite disappeared, either. I'm not free to be my nomadic self – partly because the law makes it bloody difficult, partly because my disabilities limit my freedom, too – yet, for so many people, with work opportunities being so often temporary and in far-flung places, we really need nomadic lives to be more possible rather than less. The law says you must be willing to travel and move to take work or face sanctions but the law also prevents it, in many ways.

The common values, though, remain - being intrinsic to humans - but have to be ensured by the rule of law, and that is the duty of elected governments. The vast majority believe that all should be equal under the law, which requires both equal access and equal representation. It's all very well for a government to say, "anyone can appeal a decision they don't agree with." But if they've chosen to all but abolish Legal Aid and impose high fees to access Tribunals, or other mediation services, then it is clear that 'anyone' can't appeal adverse decisions. Again, it's fine to say 'everyone has a right to shelter' but if there is insufficient housing available and prices are soaring whilst wages stagnate or fall and you've changed the law which said that anyone who had lived within a Local Authority area for a set minimum time (or who had strong ties to an area) had a right to join the council-housing waiting list with a right to be housed once they'd (originally) waited their turn, then (more recently) amassed enough points; and changed it yet again so dramatically that now each council is free to set whatever criteria it likes (pretty much) so most of the waiting lists have shrunk drastically but almost no social (let alone council) housing is being built to accommodate them. Again, it is unfair and people are being (or left feeling) discriminated against yet again by law as well as circumstance.

Is it enough to have 'values' as a society/country if those values aren't put into practise? 'To each according to his need from each according to their ability' strikes most as a fair starting point. 'Homes fit for heroes' is another, if we don't solely regard those in the armed-services as heroes - or potential heroes. 'A good job for everyone who wants one' is yet another. That oft-quoted phrase about having a job being good for people, is a(n intentional?) misquotation; the author of that piece of research said "a good job" and went on to say that unsatisfying work is distinctly bad for people.

I've wandered and rambled-on enough, and probably added more questions than answers, on that subject but will close by adding that one of the reasons I so often watch debates in the EU Parliament is because of the quality of debate there – unless Farridge and his Kipple are grabbing the limelight, insulting the Parliament, and embarrassing us all. Your comment on even the obviously right-wing MEPs (Kipple excluded) being clearly to the left of Cameron, is another striking thing about it. It's why I listen to broadcasts from our own Parliaments and Assemblies too, which are usually places of considered (and considerate) debate – outwith the 'spectacle' of PMQs in the HoC. Gasp; need tea...

Beautifully put. I'd just add one thing. Now the Conservatives discount much that is enshrined in law. They just change it if they don't like it. And I don't quite know how you stop that. Mass uprising is the only thing that comes to mind.