Tuesday 23rd September 2014

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:20 pm

PorFavor wrote:Andrew Sparrow (Guardian), in his "Snap Verdict" has rated Ed Miliband's speech as "tedious". Is that like the Guardianspeak word "poignant"?

Why thank you, Sparrow, I call it sensible, real content - information voters need to hear regarding Labour party policies, myself.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:29 pm

PorFavor wrote:Andrew Sparrow (Guardian), in his "Snap Verdict" has rated Ed Miliband's speech as "tedious". Is that like the Guardianspeak word "poignant"?

Hands up everybody who was defending Sparrow yesterday?

He has previous in this area, not the first time he has taken a poke at Miliband in a way he would not with Cameron or Clegg. As I say, on the whole I ignore him and concentrate BTL, but limits are being reached; the Guardian are actively encouraging (arguably supporting) the trolls and now, seemingly, confirming a vehemently anti-Labour stand. Not sure I can be bothered with it any more.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:32 pm

citizenJA wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Andrew Sparrow (Guardian), in his "Snap Verdict" has rated Ed Miliband's speech as "tedious". Is that like the Guardianspeak word "poignant"?
Why thank you, Sparrow, I call it sensible, real content - information voters need to hear regarding Labour party policies, myself.

I think that's it JA and you reflect many comments on Twitter.

Perhaps it was a little tedious. But it was important. And yes will anyone dare accuse him of having no policies now?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:34 pm

From Sparrow's blog:

George Osborne has responded to the speech.
George Osborne criticises Miliband for not mentioning deficit

Ed Miliband didn't mention the deficit once. Extraordinary. If you can't fix the economy you can't fund the NHS

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... f407ad43be
I'd shut the hell up about deficits & debt Chancellor Extraordinary. Check your numbers recently?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:36 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Andrew Sparrow (Guardian), in his "Snap Verdict" has rated Ed Miliband's speech as "tedious". Is that like the Guardianspeak word "poignant"?
Hands up everybody who was defending Sparrow yesterday?

He has previous in this area, not the first time he has taken a poke at Miliband in a way he would not with Cameron or Clegg. As I say, on the whole I ignore him and concentrate BTL, but limits are being reached; the Guardian are actively encouraging (arguably supporting) the trolls and now, seemingly, confirming a vehemently anti-Labour stand. Not sure I can be bothered with it any more.

BTL wouldn't be the same if all of the quality posters like yourself left. Most days it's a good discussion (bar the inevitable rusty openness chickie trolling) but big Labour days like today attract the trolls. Hopefully normal service will be resumed soon. ATL is pants.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:38 pm

PaulfromYorkshire -

I think that's it JA and you reflect many comments on Twitter.

Perhaps it was a little tedious. But it was important. And yes will anyone dare accuse him of having no policies now?

Thanks, Paul.
It was a long speech for that reason, policies & that take time to talk about.

JackPranker · Post by **JackPranker** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:41 pm

Osborne tweets: "If you can't fix the economy you can't fund the NHS."

So he admits he can't fund the NHS then?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:42 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
I pointed that out to MichaelSylvain on Twitter. He was saying there's nothing to choose between them. I asked him were Labour and Coalition the same on Saving the NHS? Surely it was worth voting Labour for that alone?
I get the feeling the nay-sayers don't think so, which I find appalling. If we can't rescue our health service, the lower and middle classes are going to be forking out appalling sums for decent health care if not going bankrupt. The slightly younger generation have been spoilt when it comes to their free healthcare. Some of them really have no idea. I daresay when it comes to polling day they'll vote for Labour, but the negative and snide comments aren't doing much to get the don't-knowers on board.

A few pennies extra on taxes or even dare I say it capped family allowance for a bit is less than peanuts if we don't get the Tories out. We've all spoken about the huge sums the Tories have wasted, but the public don't really know about it because of the lies. There will be some huge black holes of debt in many of the departments.
Negativity helps no-one.
Possibly best I don't give my opinion of Mr Sylvain.

His heart is in the right place, and he isn't nasty about it (usually)

Now that "diddoit" - claiming to be light years to the left of Labour/Ed but then reproducing Cameron's talking points almost word for word......

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:45 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: I pointed that out to MichaelSylvain on Twitter. He was saying there's nothing to choose between them. I asked him were Labour and Coalition the same on Saving the NHS? Surely it was worth voting Labour for that alone?
I get the feeling the nay-sayers don't think so, which I find appalling. If we can't rescue our health service, the lower and middle classes are going to be forking out appalling sums for decent health care if not going bankrupt. The slightly younger generation have been spoilt when it comes to their free healthcare. Some of them really have no idea. I daresay when it comes to polling day they'll vote for Labour, but the negative and snide comments aren't doing much to get the don't-knowers on board.

A few pennies extra on taxes or even dare I say it capped family allowance for a bit is less than peanuts if we don't get the Tories out. We've all spoken about the huge sums the Tories have wasted, but the public don't really know about it because of the lies. There will be some huge black holes of debt in many of the departments.
Negativity helps no-one.
Possibly best I don't give my opinion of Mr Sylvain.
His heart is in the right place, and he isn't nasty about it (usually)

Now that "diddoit" - claiming to be light years to the left of Labour/Ed but then reproducing Cameron's talking points almost word for word......

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one AK. But diddoit ....prize tosser, and obvious shill.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:46 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Andrew Sparrow (Guardian), in his "Snap Verdict" has rated Ed Miliband's speech as "tedious". Is that like the Guardianspeak word "poignant"?
Hands up everybody who was defending Sparrow yesterday?

He has previous in this area, not the first time he has taken a poke at Miliband in a way he would not with Cameron or Clegg. As I say, on the whole I ignore him and concentrate BTL, but limits are being reached; the Guardian are actively encouraging (arguably supporting) the trolls and now, seemingly, confirming a vehemently anti-Labour stand. Not sure I can be bothered with it any more.
BTL wouldn't be the same if all of the quality posters like yourself left. Most days it's a good discussion (bar the inevitable rusty openness chickie trolling) but big Labour days like today attract the trolls. Hopefully normal service will be resumed soon. ATL is pants.

I hear you both & agree.
It'd be a pity to lose quality commentators below the line, as you've said, StephenDolan.

If that news website wants to encourage abusive commentators below the line, count me out - there's no point - it ceases to have any meaningful content.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:47 pm

citizenJA wrote:PaulfromYorkshire -
I think that's it JA and you reflect many comments on Twitter.

Perhaps it was a little tedious. But it was important. And yes will anyone dare accuse him of having no policies now?
Thanks, Paul.
It was a long speech for that reason, policies & that take time to talk about.

Exactly. It was substantial. Explicitly not the policy free zone he's accused of. And of course a spectacular contrast with PR boy Dave.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:49 pm

JackPranker wrote:Osborne tweets: "If you can't fix the economy you can't fund the NHS."

So he admits he can't fund the NHS then?

So Oborne is finally admitting the numbskulls in charge of the economy haven't fixed it?

Been out of the house since 7.30 this morning, just got in, as I trust the people on this board more than so-called commenters could someone give me a honest appraisal of it?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:50 pm

@TheGrimSqueaker

...diddoit ....prize tosser, and obvious shill.

I'm glad someone else has noticed - it's impossible to write seriously to a person who says one thing then another & ultimately outs themselves as unreal.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:59 pm

JackPranker wrote:Osborne tweets: "If you can't fix the economy you can't fund the NHS."

So he admits he can't fund the NHS then?

Quite. He fell into that one, didn't he?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:04 pm

I must admit that I didn't think Ed's speech was as strong as last year.
There, I've said it.
Maybe it's because I felt more of an emotional connection to it last year.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:06 pm

PorFavor wrote:
JackPranker wrote:Osborne tweets: "If you can't fix the economy you can't fund the NHS."

So he admits he can't fund the NHS then?
Quite. He fell into that one, didn't he?

£3 Billion underspend of the NHS's money sucked into the black hole known as Gideon's piggy bank.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:07 pm

Last years was more "emotive", I agree. But this year was always going to be setting out a programme for government.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:15 pm

Somebody actually got paid for writing this rubbish ?

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

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:21 pm

Who's the worse, Neil or Allen P? They'd both better pray I never become their boss. It's not that they're right-wing, it's that they show it blatantly. Bloody unprofessional.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:28 pm

Everybody knows that Neil is right-wing and he is quite open about it, tbf.

Its the ones like that who pretend they are "objective" (ie most BBC political journos these days) who are worse. Much worse.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:38 pm

Thought Peter Jukes knew all there was to know about phone hacking, but he didn't know this:

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes
News to me: Guardian 2006: Foreign Sec David Miliband a phone hacking victim http://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/n ... hemonarchy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … This why indictment sealed for 100 yrs?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:43 pm

The Graun has had to admit that the people Ed spoke of actually exist & have corroborated his account of their meeting.

Bet the Graun are gutted !

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 10m
Has anyone confirmed the delicious rumour that #Gareth is a Lib Dem?

Doesn't he realise just how petty & pathetic a tweet like this makes him sound ?

Regardless of Waugh's opinion, Gareth is on C4 news tonight where doubtless KGM will sneer at him for having voted LD last time but now considering voting Lab in 2015.

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 5:46 pm

Christ on a bike. What have we done to be lumbered with such an idiot

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -vote.html

Mr Cameron could now come under pressure to issue a formal apology to the Queen.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:02 pm

yahyah wrote:I must admit that I didn't think Ed's speech was as strong as last year.
There, I've said it.
Maybe it's because I felt more of an emotional connection to it last year.

I think you've got a fine point & I think it's due to his understanding the damage current government have done & continue to do. In short, Miliband isn't looking forward to cleaning up the mess left by the LAST TORY GOVERNMENT EVER.

I think he's appalled at the devastation, Yahyah, look upon Chancellor Jeffery's abomination in full - a polite article from our favourite Tory publication below, the comments are worth reading below though - the indefensible posts from Tory fans refuted with truth & a few noses get metaphorically bloodied, always satisfying when bullies get stopped. The fact remains, current government have fouled up government finances. In a big way. Unprecedented.

George Osborne likely to miss deficit reduction target as UK borrowing rises

Increase fuelled by weak tax receipts means chancellor may have to unveil further cuts or raise taxes to meet targets in time for 2015 election

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/s ... f-comments

Another reason Miliband sounds preoccupied or heavy in heart may be due to Cameron's unbelievable stunt hours after finding out Scotland remains in the UK - Cameron decides England wants out. I've yet to find a better article than the following below describing Miliband's profound dismay over Cameron's antics. I've only read it once & that was hot off the press three days ago - let me know, anyone, if I'm mistaken. Definitely worth a read.

Ed Miliband: 'Cameron has learned nothing from the Scottish referendum'

Less than 24 hours after their combined political forces helped keep the UK together, Ed Miliband and the prime minister were at loggerheads over what Labour sees as a ploy to permanently 'fix parliament' in favour of the Tories

Miliband makes clear within minutes that the period of inter-party unity was a one-off and is well and truly over. He is seething at Cameron's reaction to Better Together's victory and his demand for a new English settlement under which Scottish MPs (41 of whom are currently Labour and just one Conservative) would no longer be able to vote on English issues including health and education.

Cameron, he thinks, is trying to use the shake-out from the Scottish vote, and the necessity for constitutional change, to fix the Westminster parliament to the Tories' benefit and Labour's permanent detriment, and he is angry and appalled.

"I look at the guy – I mean, he has learned nothing. He is totally narrow, partisan. He didn't even talk about the desire for economic and social change, which is totally front and centre of this referendum mood and, indeed, the mood across the country.

Toby Helm, political editor
The Observer, Saturday 20 September 2014 21.54 BST

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

Miliband's Labour party conference speech last year was seamless & if memory serves, shorter, than today's speech.

Let's none of us censor ourselves if we've concerns. I admire you, Yahyah. Nothing will change that. Really.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:04 pm

Cameron's also posing for the cameras as he walks along. What a twit.
Bragging and swaggering. Embarrassing.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:12 pm

Apologies for linking to my own twitter a/c but I couldn't upload all these images so here's Full Fact on Ed's claims:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:18 pm

citizenJA wrote:
UK public finances show no improvement

The latest UK public finances are out, and they show that Britain borrowed more last month than in August 2013, despite the strong growth over the last year.

VAT receipts increased by £0.3 billion, or 3.2% to £10.2 billion
income tax related payments increased by £0.3 billion, or 2.4% to £11.3 billion
stamp duties (on shares, land & property) increased by £0.2 billion, or 24.1% to £1.3 billion
corporation tax increased by £0.2 billion, or 17.2% to £1.5 billion

http://www.theguardian.com/business/liv ... a19dddfb9f
£21.5 billion from VAT receipts & income tax

£2.8 billion from stamp duties (shares, land & property) & corporation tax

You Tory sonsofbiscuits

Revenue taken off workers through PAYE &
VAT - those on smaller incomes lose a greater proportion of their income than those with greater incomes

Over 88.5% of total government revenue comes from these regressive tax measure

While corporations & unearned income generate 11.5% of government revenue

Well done, Ed Balls. Announcing you're copying that. Masterstroke.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:18 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 3m
Original version of Miliband's speech did have a section on the deficit. But it was forgotten in no-notes address.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:19 pm

yahyah wrote:Cameron's also posing for the cameras as he walks along. What a twit.
Bragging and swaggering. Embarrassing.

I wrote a few weeks ago, I think, about how Cameron reminds me of my dad.

Please note - I made peace with my dad prior to his death a few years ago. I love him & what I write below is recognition of superficial similarities meant light-heartedly.

Same colouring, swaggering, occasionally able to make fluffy words sound credible, same male hair pattern baldness, masks inner insecurity with unwholesome posturing, smokes cigarettes, right-wing.

I agree. Cameron's embarrassing.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:23 pm

I thought Ed Miliband's speech was superb. Yes, it was a different animal to the one he gave last year but it had to be. It was designed to serve a different purpose and I should have been disappointed (and rather worried) if it hadn't.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:24 pm

Afternoon. As some of you may know, I lurk here but seldom post. Having noticed myself being discussed, though, I wanted to stand up for my good name (ha ha) – more honestly, I wanted to say a couple of things. Not because I’ve a problem if we disagree (or even if we don’t always have a high opinion of each other *waves at TheGrimSqueaker*). But because if we’re going to disagree, we should at least be clear on the terms of the disagreement.

I didn’t mean to say there’s nothing to choose between the Tories and Labour. I made a typically glib comment during the screed of ranting that followed Ed Balls’ speech: “Labour's main message seems to be: "We're not the other lot. Honest. (PS We might as well be the other lot)"”. It’s a dumb tweet that neglected any nuance, although the replies to ohso I hope didn't. And the reason for the rant, however badly expressed it was, is that, when you’ve just photocopied the ideology for your economic policy from the people you're supposed to oppose, then the amount you can say you’re different is probably greater than the actual difference value. Whatever you think of my position, I don’t want you to think I’m one of the idiots who genuinely thinks the two parties are literally the same. I’d rather you thought of me as one of the kind of idiots who thinks the difference should be bigger, and that they’re in danger of undermining the significant differences by not insignificantly using the same economic approach.

Now, I know we disagree on how big the difference is; I know we disagree on whether some good policies elsewhere make up for other elements of the machinery; I also don’t propose to go on about either of those here because (a) I think I’ve made my views clear enough in the other place and it's not going to change either of our views, and (b) I don’t doubt that all of us who are genuinely on the left have our hearts in the right place (it’s true for all that it feels strangely patronising to find yourself being described as such on a forum).

Which is kind of the point I did want to go on about.

We certainly disagree on how to respond to it, and that disagreement, even here, isn’t taking place in a vacuum. Whether you agree or not, I found Ed Balls’ speech yesterday unacceptable. Maybe it means more to some than others. Some of you say that being negative won’t help and that the threat of a known evil is worth the sacrifice, although I wonder how big the sacrifice has to be before that equation gets the questioning it needs. Regardless, I think that no matter how positively you describe a car crash after it’s happened, it doesn’t uncrash the car. I think the best response to something negative is to be negative. Because at least if you’re honest about that, perhaps future crashes can be averted - or those who look on them as crashes won't feel like they're being told be quiet about what the view looks like for them. Most of all, when I look back at the history of the party that should be my natural political home, the worst damage it has done to itself or to the country (and be honest: it is not a solely positive history, is it) has been when it has excused away far too many things that were inexcusable in the name of a handful of greater goods. Not every time, but often enough – because some of what it excused inevitably compromised that good. I look at a Blair who rescued the NHS at the same time as parcelling it up for the sale that followed - even if it took someone else to stick the price label on, it was already in the warehouse. I look at Clause IV and what we gave away in order to not be able to keep what we still thought of as ours. Whether the conference, hand on heart, gave you what you wanted, that's for you. But positivity doesn't change the problem any more than negativity.

I also look at mrs. onebuttonmonkey, who is one of the people Labour need to be convincing. She’s not a natural leftie like me, but she certainly wants something better than this lot. And there are two things that appall her about Labour at the moment: the first is the erosion of the difference she can see (and trust me, this conference has not helped as she said before I'd even opened my mouth); the second is how many people in Labour, when she started expressing this, tell her not to worry, we’re different really. Be positive, they say. It’s better than the other lot. And she screams Better Isn't Necessarily Enough! And then they say, yes it is, it's them or us. And she tells me she won't vote for anyone so patronising or black and white. Because if they can't even have a debate, then how can they run a country? I haven't got a good answer to that yet.

We, here, all know Labour are a degree better than the other lot, even if we disagree about the degree. But this cacophony of excuses and wishful thinking from within the party only convinces her of the opposite - and it's what other people learn from what we know that counts, isn't it? Are Labour a party of settling or of honest debate? I don't know, but it's the people outside here that are the ones the results of this conversation need to change if you really want Labour to win. Rather than just telling everyone they must win, because it must be good, because Labour said it. Labour, at its most insular-don’t-rock-the-boat is the opposite of convincing to those outside it.

Now, I think the answer is a better party and much better policies; some of you think the answer is less negativity. Regardless of how right or wrong either of us are, we undoubtedly need a better conversation. Not necessarily with grumpy, fed up old socialists like me who might well find the ballot box sobering enough to compromise myself yet a bloody again, although that wouldn’t hurt. A better conversation, not just amongst ourselves. Not just with the party itself. But with those who aren’t as convinced as you are that the flaws in what was announced can be eased away with positivity. That, "yes but it's a good NHS policy" isn't really going to make the difference to them that it makes to you. Neither the message nor the dismissal of those who doubt it is helping to persuade the people the party needs to win.

Anyway, I’ll bugger off again, now. Feel free to ignore the hell out of me, to call me names, or anywhere in between. I've got loads to do, and I'll lurk around when I can. But it’s not me who you need to convince or persuade. It’s those looking in from outside and finding that it doesn’t look all that different to them, either.

[Edit: typos.]

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:27 pm

Hi there, obm/ms. Feel free to post here, though shorter missives are also welcome!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:31 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:The narrative on the BBC is that Miliband's speech represented a 'core support' strategy. Since when did fixing the country's problems matter only to Labour supporters?

Oh, I forgot, the political editor is a Tory.

Miliband explicitly said he needed the talent, energy, experience & wisdom of everyone in this country.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:32 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hi there, obm/ms. Feel free to post here, though shorter missives are also welcome!

Afternoon AK. Sorry about the length of that bee-in-my-bonnet spiel. It took four sides of vinyl to type. I really need my brain to grow an edit function.

51A · Post by **51A** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:33 pm

Gosh not sure I'm ever going to get the hang of discussion on here. But reading is very interesting (Btw, I can only come here when I get home, a little wrung out, maybe I'll have a readthrough of the "how to" again at the weekend.

Bearing in mind I live in safe Labour seat I was very interested in the Plaid-balance-SNP theory. Except that as I live in a safe Labour seat (and have always voted Labour and want to live in a Labour controlled local authority which is why I came to live here) my vote for Plaid would go unnoticed. Flummoxed.

I am not an Ed fan, I like politicians to have done something other than politics and have a relationship and interest in their constituency. But great speech and great vision. Then Andy Burnham on PM, he was brilliant. He called Eddie Mair "rude" and implied that he was stupid as well. Eddie Mair, love him, is no Paxman (so much the better, I'd not listen to PM if Paxman was there). A good afternoon for Labour by my reckoning.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:36 pm

Good ole Dave crosses all the boundaries doesn't he.
Accidently overheard saying the Queen was purring with pleasure when he rang her about the No vote.

Wasn't he taught at Eton that only upstarts talk in public about their interaction with the Queen including very distant cousins.

Dragged up despite all the money that was spent on him. I'm glad he's not mine.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:37 pm

@onebuttonmonkey

I'll be brief -

Hello!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:38 pm

The problem for Cameron is this. He is campaigning for election from the far right. His speech will be pro English, pro business, pro privatisation, anti benefits, anti human rights.

He will be cheered to the rafters in the hall, but it will go down like a cup of vomit with the moderate voter.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:41 pm

@Onebuttonmonkey

I recommend meeting the Labour party leadership in person with Mrs. Onebuttonmonkey if it's possible for you to do so. The Labour party may or may not benefit from the wisdom of you & your spouse. It's not fair for you to expect the Labour party to benefit from your obvious talent (& your spouse's talent) without making your combined wisdom available to the Labour party.

We all need your help, please.

Thank you.

xx
JA

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:43 pm

@51A

Howdy.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:43 pm

51A wrote:Gosh not sure I'm ever going to get the hang of discussion on here. But reading is very interesting (Btw, I can only come here when I get home, a little wrung out, maybe I'll have a readthrough of the "how to" again at the weekend.

Bearing in mind I live in safe Labour seat I was very interested in the Plaid-balance-SNP theory. Except that as I live in a safe Labour seat (and have always voted Labour and want to live in a Labour controlled local authority which is why I came to live here) my vote for Plaid would go unnoticed. Flummoxed.

I am not an Ed fan, I like politicians to have done something other than politics and have a relationship and interest in their constituency. But great speech and great vision. Then Andy Burnham on PM, he was brilliant. He called Eddie Mair "rude" and implied that he was stupid as well. Eddie Mair, love him, is no Paxman (so much the better, I'd not listen to PM if Paxman was there). A good afternoon for Labour by my reckoning.

Discussion on here is relatively simple turn up write down the first thing you think of, see if anybody bites.

If you elicit a half page response from anybody you win a point (and points mean prizes).

If nobody responds try again, or take revenge by posting a hacked naked celeb photo of Michael Gove.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:44 pm

PorFavor wrote:@onebuttonmonkey

I'll be brief -

Hello!

Me too: Hello!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:44 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:The problem for Cameron is this. He is campaigning for election from the far right. His speech will be pro English, pro business, pro privatisation, anti benefits, anti human rights.

He will be cheered to the rafters in the hall, but it will go down like a cup of vomit with the moderate voter.

That's the top & tail of it.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:44 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:Afternoon. As some of you may know, I lurk here but seldom post. ...
...
...

Hi Michael. Thanks for dropping by and elaborating on your thoughts. Always good to have more than 140 characters and/or not having Rusty et al screaming in your ear while trying to make your point.

51A · Post by **51A** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:49 pm

Oh good heavens, I think I just thanked for the suggestion of a nude photo of Michael Gove and I feel a little sick.

51A · Post by **51A** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:49 pm

Oh good heavens, I think I just thanked for the suggestion of a nude photo of Michael Gove and I feel a little sick.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:51 pm

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 13m
Original text of Miliband speech also featured passage on immigration that was forgotten. Can be read in full here: http://bit.ly/1tXlXiH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:52 pm

51A wrote:Oh good heavens, I think I just thanked for the suggestion of a nude photo of Michael Gove and I feel a little sick.

If you're sickened by the thought of a nude photo of Gove, it's an excellent beginning.
I'm happy to know you, regardless.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:53 pm

Hi Michael, while you are here; your potted summaries of question time panelists are the best things published anywhere on the Guardian site.

51A · Post by **51A** » Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:54 pm

@citizenJA Ok ta and you?

@ Everyone: Clearly I haven't got the hang of this, either that or the thought of Michael Gove b'aht his trousers on upset me even more than I thought. Sorry for the hiccups.