Monday 22nd September

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 3:23 am

Graun editorial on Cameron & the constitution:

Second, all parties should agree to establish a UK constitutional convention, with a widely cast membership, with politicians in a minority, and a citizens’ jury element. They should pledge to seek consensus on a much wider set of issues, with no preconditions and nothing ruled out. The convention should report within two years, with a view to legislation to come into force by the following general election, currently due in 2020.

Cor, they'll be gutted when somebody points out to them that this is Labours plan & they spoke of it on Friday/Saturday so not as a result of this editorial.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... der-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morning all, it's 0330 so I'm off to bed - night night

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 7:26 am

pk1 wrote:Graun editorial on Cameron & the constitution:

Second, all parties should agree to establish a UK constitutional convention, with a widely cast membership, with politicians in a minority, and a citizens’ jury element. They should pledge to seek consensus on a much wider set of issues, with no preconditions and nothing ruled out. The convention should report within two years, with a view to legislation to come into force by the following general election, currently due in 2020.
Cor, they'll be gutted when somebody points out to them that this is Labours plan & they spoke of it on Friday/Saturday so not as a result of this editorial.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... der-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morning all, it's 0330 so I'm off to bed - night night

You've snookered me.

I now don't know whether to say good night or good morning.

So -

Goodnight, pk1.

Good morning, everyone (else).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 7:47 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Morning!

Was it absolutely necessary for Blair to come out with another call to invade the Middle East timed to coincide with the Labour conference?

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

They ought to rename him The Quartermaster, since he's evidently found a purpose in life handing ammunition to both Britain's and Labour's enemies.

Yes. He's a complete pain. And when I read the (misleading) headline, one of my first thoughts was, "It's not like him not to want to bomb people. There must be more to it." Sure enough - on reading the article, my suspicions were confirmed. He wants ground forces as well as air strikes.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:01 am

Well I think Empty Dave should send out a breathless tweet about his exciting new initiative.

Something like.

Really excited to be hosting a summit on my EV4EL proposal. Eton Votes 4 English Laws.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:09 am

Ed Balls on R4 shortly.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:10 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Well I think Empty Dave should send out a breathless tweet about his exciting new initiative.

Something like.

Really excited to be hosting a summit on my EV4EL proposal. Eton Votes 4 English Laws.

I like that!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:10 am

pk1 wrote:Graun editorial on Cameron & the constitution:

Second, all parties should agree to establish a UK constitutional convention, with a widely cast membership, with politicians in a minority, and a citizens’ jury element. They should pledge to seek consensus on a much wider set of issues, with no preconditions and nothing ruled out. The convention should report within two years, with a view to legislation to come into force by the following general election, currently due in 2020.
Cor, they'll be gutted when somebody points out to them that this is Labours plan & they spoke of it on Friday/Saturday so not as a result of this editorial.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... der-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morning all, it's 0330 so I'm off to bed - night night

Morning.

Yes a typical weaselly editorial. It's almost as though the writer finished it and passed it to Rusbridger who told them to add a negative paragraph about Labour at the end.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:28 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Ah, Ed Balls followed by Nick Robinson, because we can't possibly understand the words that Balls says ourselves

& did you hear the business piece at about 7.20am ?

Sarah Montague's intro & Digby Jones suggesting Labour are not business friendly because of the pledge to raise the minimum wage, but no mention of their policy announcement to reduce business rates.

.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:35 am

Yep, Sarah Montague is another who I'd like to see sacked.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:39 am

frightful_oik wrote:Yep, Sarah Montague is another who I'd like to see sacked.

I switch off when it's her and John Humphreys.

Am a fan of Michel Hussain, think she's very good and with none of the Fiona Bruce-ish posh gal amateur dramatics that Montagu goes for.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 8:47 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Ah, Ed Balls followed by Nick Robinson, because we can't possibly understand the words that Balls says ourselves

I'm not sure it's because we can't understand it...I think it's more because it needs to be twisted, obfuscated and seen from the 'correct' political perspective. I dropped into R4 this morning (for about 5 mins) to hear an ex-Labour policy wonk (name escapes me) discussing in hushed tones 'how worried they are about Labour and all the issues that face them'...

...and morning Yah-Yah...they're still at it...just tuned in to find out name of presenter (that I couldn't remember) and we have someone from 'Women For Independence For Scotland' explaining how, with 10,000 followers, they are actually bigger than Labour in Scotland and how it's all really terrible for Labour....I knew there was a reason I'd given up listening to that sh1t!

She's now advocating the 'all political parties are the same' meme...can someone tweet them with this from last night (with thanks to TGS)...

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/09/2 ... the-blame/

...and make them aware of the Friends Of 'Ol Lynton?

It seems I'm still very slow at typing - so apols and snap re the 'Yesser'!

minch · Post by **minch** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 9:25 am

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of English votes for English 'things' can anyone think of a single case where not allowing Scotish MPs to vote would have made any difference?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 9:27 am

Morning all. Bit bleary-eyed. I didn't sleep at all well - which I'm blaming on a sub head I saw just before going to bed which hailed Rachel Reeves and Chuka Umunna as the Labour dream team in waiting - ready to take over as soon as Ed Miliband loses the election apparently.

A Mail rubbish fantasy - but I hated the thought that those two in particular were supposed to be a 'dream team'. How plastic and symmetrically-featured do politicians have to be before they are considered acceptable?

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 9:36 am

minch wrote:Ignoring the rights or wrongs of English votes for English 'things' can anyone think of a single case where not allowing Scotish MPs to vote would have made any difference?

Morning all. I think I read somewhere over the weekend that of 5,000+ Parliamentary votes since 1997, the votes of Scottish MPs have affected the outcome on only 21 occasions

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 9:48 am

There may not have been many English only votes in the past but Crosby/Cameron have the Health and Social Care act and free schools in mind when they are calling for EVEL. Labour would not be able to repeal all that if they get their way and Labour has not won a majority in England.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 9:50 am

minch wrote:Ignoring the rights or wrongs of English votes for English 'things' can anyone think of a single case where not allowing Scotish MPs to vote would have made any difference?

You would probably have to go back to the seventies. I think Blair/Brown always had enough MPs without their Scottish MPs. Unless there was some sort of rebellion on something.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 9:53 am

Carwyn Jones speaking on BBC Parliament at the moment.

minch · Post by **minch** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:03 am

frightful_oik wrote:
minch wrote:Ignoring the rights or wrongs of English votes for English 'things' can anyone think of a single case where not allowing Scotish MPs to vote would have made any difference?
You would probably have to go back to the seventies. I think Blair/Brown always had enough MPs without their Scottish MPs. Unless there was some sort of rebellion on something.

That's sort of what I was thinking. It would be interesting to know if the world would have been different with the other outcome. I would expect not.

And the next question.... how do you define an English only vote?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:10 am

minch wrote:
frightful_oik wrote: And the next question.... how do you define an English only vote?

It wouldn't matter if such a thing was in a box with a big red bow, marked 'English Votes Only' please because the lazy bastards doing the interviewing still wouldn't see it !

I was shocked at just how aggressive Andrew Neil was with Chukka Umunna yesterday. Coming after Marr's nonsense with EM, it has to be a deliberate tactic. I thought both stood up to it well.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:18 am

Hodges v McTernan on whether Ed & Labour will win.

You can guess how it goes......

http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/4 ... nish.thtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:36 am

Any guesses as to how long this post will stay on Sparrows blog ?

I haven't read the comments yet but it's Labour party Conference so the idiot who wrote

<blockquote><a href="http://discussion.theguardian.com/comme ... 220840">Oh dear, the spongers of the Left are not going to take this news well.</a></blockquote>

is bound to be around seeing as he has nothing better to do than to troll the comments here so I suggest he is ignored - please don't waste time & energy responding to him & his happy chickie.

I'm staggered that such an obvious troll gets away with posting his bile day after day yet replies to him are the ones that are moderated but then again, without him the Graun's advertising revenue would take a battering so I suppose that explains their reluctance to deal with him & his obnoxious posts.

I expect this post won't survive long but hopefully some of you might see it & take the message on board.

I posted it at 10.34 - bet it's gone by 10.50

Update: Hahaha, it's 1050 & my post, along with all its recommends & replies, has vanished ! Touchy lot aren't they.....

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:47 am

pk1 wrote:Hodges v McTernan on whether Ed & Labour will win.

You can guess how it goes......

http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/4 ... nish.thtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" On the Tory attacks on Miliband, the Tories haven’t been going for him. And I’m not 100% sure they are going to. One of the things Labour has done effectively is to re-embed the idea of the old toxic brand, which means the Tories are too scared to go for Miliband. It’s amazing how many Labour advisers have said, “Jesus, they will take our heads off on X, Y and Z”. But then it hasn’t happened. Miliband has demonstrated just enough that if the Tories don’t target him, he may become a strength. He’s a very weak link for the Labour Party but he’s not such a weak link that the party’s campaign will just fracture if the Tories don’t touch him. "

DFH at his 'finest'

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:57 am

StephenDolan wrote:
pk1 wrote:Hodges v McTernan on whether Ed & Labour will win.

You can guess how it goes......

http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/4 ... nish.thtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
" On the Tory attacks on Miliband, the Tories haven’t been going for him. And I’m not 100% sure they are going to. One of the things Labour has done effectively is to re-embed the idea of the old toxic brand, which means the Tories are too scared to go for Miliband. It’s amazing how many Labour advisers have said, “Jesus, they will take our heads off on X, Y and Z”. But then it hasn’t happened. Miliband has demonstrated just enough that if the Tories don’t target him, he may become a strength. He’s a very weak link for the Labour Party but he’s not such a weak link that the party’s campaign will just fracture if the Tories don’t touch him. "
DFH at his 'finest'

Do what?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 11:07 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
pk1 wrote:Hodges v McTernan on whether Ed & Labour will win.

You can guess how it goes......

http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/4 ... nish.thtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
" On the Tory attacks on Miliband, the Tories haven’t been going for him. And I’m not 100% sure they are going to. One of the things Labour has done effectively is to re-embed the idea of the old toxic brand, which means the Tories are too scared to go for Miliband. It’s amazing how many Labour advisers have said, “Jesus, they will take our heads off on X, Y and Z”. But then it hasn’t happened. Miliband has demonstrated just enough that if the Tories don’t target him, he may become a strength. He’s a very weak link for the Labour Party but he’s not such a weak link that the party’s campaign will just fracture if the Tories don’t touch him. "
DFH at his 'finest'
What does that even mean??!

I chuckled at:

I think his great success as a leader – if you want to make it a success – is that he has put the Labour Party at ease with itself.
...Because that's a debateable virtue. Might it be better to be tearing chunks out of itself like the Tory party?

Yes - an extremely incoherent offering, even by Dippy J's standards (and I use that term very loosely).

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 11:10 am

pk1 wrote:Any guesses as to how long this post will stay on Sparrows blog ?

I haven't read the comments yet but it's Labour party Conference so the idiot who wrote

<blockquote><a href="http://discussion.theguardian.com/comme ... 220840">Oh dear, the spongers of the Left are not going to take this news well.</a></blockquote>

is bound to be around seeing as he has nothing better to do than to troll the comments here so I suggest he is ignored - please don't waste time & energy responding to him & his happy chickie.

I'm staggered that such an obvious troll gets away with posting his bile day after day yet replies to him are the ones that are moderated but then again, without him the Graun's advertising revenue would take a battering so I suppose that explains their reluctance to deal with him & his obnoxious posts.

I expect this post won't survive long but hopefully some of you might see it & take the message on board.
I posted it at 10.34 - bet it's gone by 10.50

Update: Hahaha, it's 1050 & my post, along with all its recommends & replies, has vanished ! Touchy lot aren't they.....

Couldn't spot it

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 11:32 am

Morning all.

Apparently NASA's next mission is a rescue mission to Planet Havisham to see if they can bring Glenda's lad back to reality.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 11:50 am

Smithson on how Labour are maintaining its poll leads, despite Ed’s poor ratings. Nice graph from Ipsos Mori in his piece.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... g-paradox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:02 pm

pk1 wrote:Smithson on how Labour are maintaining its poll leads, despite Ed’s poor ratings. Nice graph from Ipsos Mori in his piece.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... g-paradox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You probably noticed Pollysnemesis * trot that line out. Smithson is on to something there, it is the concentration on Miliband rather than Labour which is proving the Tories undoing. There is an analogy in the world of football (if I may digress slightly); Chelsea do better when Mourinho is their manager partly because the Press concentrate on his antics and leave the players alone to get on with their job - pretty much the same thing here.

* That name always creases me up, as I said on the blog, delusions of adequacy. I'm astonished that one, and my pop at Rusty, have been left untouched.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:04 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.

Apparently NASA's next mission is a rescue mission to Planet Havisham to see if they can bring Glenda's lad back to reality.
Sadly, Congress declined to make the funds available. The $128 trilllion NASA was asking for was deemed not cost-effective

Then it is down to Tom Cruise .... bring Hodges back to reality must class as an impossible mission.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:12 pm

Ed Balls speaking now.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:14 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
pk1 wrote:Smithson on how Labour are maintaining its poll leads, despite Ed’s poor ratings. Nice graph from Ipsos Mori in his piece.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... g-paradox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You probably noticed Pollysnemesis * trot that line out. Smithson is on to something there, it is the concentration on Miliband rather than Labour which is proving the Tories undoing. There is an analogy in the world of football (if I may digress slightly); Chelsea do better when Mourinho is their manager partly because the Press concentrate on his antics and leave the players alone to get on with their job - pretty much the same thing here.

* That name always creases me up, as I said on the blog, delusions of adequacy. I'm astonished that one, and my pop at Rusty, have been left untouched.

Yes you may well be onto something there.

I'm concerned by Sparrows coverage of the conference. His latest line is

his speech was just as short as all the other shadow cabinet speeches we’ve had so are. (Most of them barely cover three pages of text.)

I'm not in front of a TV so I have no idea how they're going down but the sense he's giving off is that none of the Shadow Cabinet have anything really worth saying. I hope I'm wrong & that Ed will give the speech I'm desperately waiting to hear but my hope of seeing him in No 10 next May is starting to fade

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:25 pm

Labour maintaining its lead in the latest Populus poll - EVEL not working its electoral magic yet?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:40 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Labour maintaining its lead in the latest Populus poll - EVEL not working its electoral magic yet?

Eton Votes 4 English Laws is unlikely to be a significant issue for the UK electorate, compared to say the NHS, economy and immigration.

But a devolution message for the regions and London is important (if only to diffuse the Tory attack).

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:48 pm

Oh I know all that - was thinking more of all the "CAMERON HAS JUST WON THE ELECTION!!!!!!" hackery since Friday morning

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:51 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Oh I know all that - was thinking more of all the "CAMERON HAS JUST WON THE ELECTION!!!!!!" hackery since Friday morning

50000 strong march supporting EV4EL that culminates at the Labour Party conference.

And Norman Smith to ignore on (ahem) Police advice.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:55 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Oh I know all that - was thinking more of all the "CAMERON HAS JUST WON THE ELECTION!!!!!!" hackery since Friday morning

The hacks seem to get distracted by the big Westminster story of the day, whereas the reality is - It is the Economy and the NHS Stupid.

Labour's biggest problem this week is avoiding getting pulled off those central themes by waffling on about the constitution. Fortunately Ed Miliband gets it, even if others don't.

I would love to see unofficial Labour attack dogs use the Eton version of EV4EL - it neatly corrupts the message. Maybe some highly paid SPAD will think of it.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 1:08 pm

pk1 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
pk1 wrote:Smithson on how Labour are maintaining its poll leads, despite Ed’s poor ratings. Nice graph from Ipsos Mori in his piece.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index. ... g-paradox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You probably noticed Pollysnemesis * trot that line out. Smithson is on to something there, it is the concentration on Miliband rather than Labour which is proving the Tories undoing. There is an analogy in the world of football (if I may digress slightly); Chelsea do better when Mourinho is their manager partly because the Press concentrate on his antics and leave the players alone to get on with their job - pretty much the same thing here.

* That name always creases me up, as I said on the blog, delusions of adequacy. I'm astonished that one, and my pop at Rusty, have been left untouched.
Yes you may well be onto something there.

I'm concerned by Sparrows coverage of the conference. His latest line is
his speech was just as short as all the other shadow cabinet speeches we’ve had so are. (Most of them barely cover three pages of text.)

I'm not in front of a TV so I have no idea how they're going down but the sense he's giving off is that none of the Shadow Cabinet have anything really worth saying. I hope I'm wrong & that Ed will give the speech I'm desperately waiting to hear but my hope of seeing him in No 10 next May is starting to fade

I've mentioned the Sparrow's partiality before and been roundly condemned for it, but I stand by previous comments; although he does try to be impartial, and is certainly better than the whole Wintour/Watt cabal, he isn't a Labour man (unlike James Walsh). And while that shouldn't be important on days like today it is; if he is choosing to ignore speeches because he thinks they are too short/lack substance then he is not doing his job properly - he is there to report, not to editorialise.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 1:24 pm

Rather like the people of Manchester that Martha Kearney is getting the views of at a Manchester tram stop ... sound pretty sensible, apart from one who thought it was all rosy and on the up they don't see their own situation / living standards getting better despite the 'growth' in the economy.

Of course - this is being framed as a debate on why 'people don't trust Labour on the economy'. It didn't sound that simple from the comments people made.

Kearney pushed one of them for a view on Ed Miliband and got an answer that they thought he was 'ineffectual' a 'nothing'. I suppose it depends on what you think a leader of a party in opposition has to do to qualify as effectual. He's kept the party pretty much together (better than Cameron has the Tories) and been pretty effectual in driving the agenda and shifting the direction of play several times - Syria, energy prices.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 1:36 pm

Robin Southwell's speech, if anybody is interested.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/9813776 ... rty-annual" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 1:51 pm

What a fucking disgrace the Graun has become ! Look at the pic of Balls on their main UK page then convince yourself that it's not a deliberate, almost bullying, way of undermining anything Balls & Labour has to say:

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:04 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Rather like the people of Manchester that Martha Kearney is getting the views of at a Manchester tram stop ... sound pretty sensible, apart from one who thought it was all rosy and on the up they don't see their own situation / living standards getting better despite the 'growth' in the economy.

Of course - this is being framed as a debate on why 'people don't trust Labour on the economy'. It didn't sound that simple from the comments people made.

Kearney pushed one of them for a view on Ed Miliband and got an answer that they thought he was 'ineffectual' a 'nothing'. I suppose it depends on what you think a leader of a party in opposition has to do to qualify as effectual. He's kept the party pretty much together (better than Cameron has the Tories) and been pretty effectual in driving the agenda and shifting the direction of play several times - Syria, energy prices.

I hate those vox pops. They can use them to get the public saying anything they want. And they do. They fit the interviews to their narrative not the other way round as it should be. How do we know that there weren't 20 interviews where people said they didn't trust Osborne on the economy. Plus we got Nick effing tory Robinson to explain everything to us proles again. Martha Kearney would never leave the studio again if she approached me at a tram stop for an opinion!

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:06 pm

pk1 wrote:What a fucking disgrace the Graun has become ! Look at the pic of Balls on their main UK page then convince yourself that it's not a deliberate, almost bullying, way of undermining anything Balls & Labour has to say:

Backing the tories in the next election. You know they will.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:15 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:I'm developing a deep, simmering hatred for the Guardian and everything it stands for.

The only reason I haven't totally abandoned the Guardian for the Independent is the appallingly bad comments setup at the Indy. I rarely look ATL at the Guardian now; more sense is spoken, and better information provided, BTL than above. Not today though, with the goat munchers swarming all over the place.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:20 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
pk1 wrote:What a fucking disgrace the Graun has become ! Look at the pic of Balls on their main UK page then convince yourself that it's not a deliberate, almost bullying, way of undermining anything Balls & Labour has to say:
Backing the tories in the next election. You know they will.

Yes I think that too. I remember saying so last year but was in a minority then but now I see more & more people coming to share the same opinion.

CIF's been over-taken with 'Anyone But Labour' since Ed Balls started his speech so that hastened my departure today.

Post by **refitman** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:21 pm

pk1 wrote:What a fucking disgrace the Graun has become ! Look at the pic of Balls on their main UK page then convince yourself that it's not a deliberate, almost bullying, way of undermining anything Balls & Labour has to say:

To be honest, considering some of the photos of Gove, May et al, I've just started to ignore the photos on articles (unless they are surprisingly good).

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:23 pm

Balls is still the weak link though.

Borrowing to invest in housing really should be a Labour policy. Zero risk investment and a significant money saver.

Probably too late to ditch him now.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:43 pm

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
pk1 wrote:What a fucking disgrace the Graun has become ! Look at the pic of Balls on their main UK page then convince yourself that it's not a deliberate, almost bullying, way of undermining anything Balls & Labour has to say:
Backing the tories in the next election. You know they will.
Yes I think that too. I remember saying so last year but was in a minority then but now I see more & more people coming to share the same opinion.

CIF's been over-taken with 'Anyone But Labour' since Ed Balls started his speech so that hastened my departure today.

Its carnage BTL today. Every identikit troll is there, my personal favourite is the "I used to vote Labour...". Yes, sure you did mate.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:46 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Balls is still the weak link though.

Borrowing to invest in housing really should be a Labour policy. Zero risk investment and a significant money saver.

Probably too late to ditch him now.
True. He winds up Cameron and Osborne in the Commons, anyway. With any luck Miliband will replace him with Darling after the first session.

One of the points that was made in the McTernan/Hodges article posted earlier was that it's too late to change the top team now, so people who are committed to a Labour victory need to get behind Miliband - I suppose that goes for Balls as well. Of course, Hodges will keep sniping, because he'd prefer to be proved right than Labour win.

It might just be possible to drop Darling in, but be prepared for the Tory party having a go at his Scottishness. I would do it though, his track record of being tough and competent is bankable.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 2:47 pm

Ed Balls - you ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

I wish. I really think he should be moved. I actually quite like him as a man but he's doing Labour no favours.
Reeves is a bean-counter by trade. Umunna understands business. Why not them, if Labour insist on neo-liberal policies?
I just don't understand it - Miliband is good, but he gets let down by his choices of senior cabinet people. He needs to reshuffle.

Anyway. Fun and games at Transport for London.
Now that all the working poor in central London aren't living close to their jobs any more, the head of TFL thinks there will be riots caused by overcrowding and/or people not being able to get to work from the outskirts where all the low-paid servants of the rich now live because the fares are too high and they won't be able to afford the travel from their distant hovels.
Does he think that the well-off should stump up more in wages to help them out? No, Siree - what he wants is more subsidy to keep fares low enough for the peasants to be able to afford their commute to do the cleaning and catering for the city gents in their glass towers.
Transport fares in London were subsidised by £2BN in 2012. Infrastructure spending is £2,000 per head in London (it's a fiver in Tyne-Tees) now.
How much more do these bloody people WANT?

If the working poor in London were paid enough to be able to live where they belong, ie. in their homes in London, they wouldn't need to commute. But as they are not paid enough to stay, they get shoved out and now they have to commute which they can't afford to do.
So in time, those jobs will not be filled and the city will collapse; those who did them will find work elsewhere because they can't afford to commute or they'll be out of work and end up on benefits because there's no work where they have been shifted to.
And to avoid all this, Sir Peter Hendy wants the taxpayer to subsidise TFL with yet more cash so the working poor can drag their sorry arses into Town where they will continue to keep it all going by staffing all the services that the rich take for granted while they make their millions.

Sickening.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 22 Sep, 2014 3:05 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Ed Balls - you ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

I wish. I really think he should be moved. I actually quite like him as a man but he's doing Labour no favours.
Reeves is a bean-counter by trade. Umunna understands business. Why not them, if Labour insist on neo-liberal policies?
I just don't understand it - Miliband is good, but he gets let down by his choices of senior cabinet people. He needs to reshuffle.
I don't think Miliband had much choice in the end. He had to give Balls one of the top jobs, as like it or not he was a major figure in the party. Shadow Home Office was about right, but Johnson clearly wasn't right as Shadow Chancellor, and with Miliband D turning the post down, there was nowhere else to go. I gather Yvette Cooper indicated she would not take the job if offered, and she was perhaps the only other possible candidate - maybe John Denham, who had the advantage of being one of the few genuine 'Milibandites' but he clearly didn't want to remain at the top level anyway, and soon indicated he was stepping down in 2015. There was another good reason for having Balls close and that's that Miliband would be justified in preferring to have him inside the tent and urinating out rather than the alternative. I expect he could do a great deal of damage if he had nothing to lose.

Personally I preferred Reeves as Shadow Treasury Secretary, but there it is.

Agree with all of this.