Tuesday 23rd September 2014

[onebuttonmonkey]

@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

Afternoon JA. Thanks for the kind words about my wisdom - although I think wisdom's more mrs. obm's thing. I do the overly wordy fury. More seriously, I had a good chat with the local candidate here (we've a LibDem MP who must be looking at the large student population in horror) when I left the party (I know him through an old friend in the Fabians who got elected to his council in May). I like the candidate, he has his own say, and he certainly makes the right noises about some of my pet bugbears (Reeves, Hunt, hawkishness and so on). But you have to say that if even the candidates are as fed up with the main party as I am, it all feels a little futile. I moan about Labour precisely because I care about them being better - more like the members than the senior figures. And it's not like I haven't been part of this conversation for years, from within and without; I haven't noticed much difference in response from either vantage point. Not that I want the party to be in my image - what I want is for me to be able, in good conscience, to campaign with it. At the moment I can't, and that's because (I feel) this last year has seen the same old things that made me leave before.

I know from my mate how good Miliband is at everything the press claims he isn't. But personability is one thing; I've said before that the question for Labour was about how careful they needed to be of the difference between compromise and compromised. As part of the forgotten left, it's time for them to reach out a little to the old left. If they do, I may well be back; if they don't, it's about time they learned where taking the left for granted inevitably leads. It's also not fair to expect people like me to be available for it if they don't make space for us.

[ohsocynical]

Palin 'blames liberal media' for 20-strong family brawl at birthday party

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 49438.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That must be a new sort of cocktail ... Was it singles or doubles?

[onebuttonmonkey]

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

Hear hear

Thanks, both. IDS was originally listed for this Thursday, but he's been removed from the panel (if only the removal went further). I'm stupid busy this week and will be out Thursday night, so I may not have a chance to do one. But they'll be back, when I've herded up enough adjectives and got the invective boiling.

[refitman]

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

[onebuttonmonkey]

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.

Always a pleasure, refitman. Wasn't it awful BTL today? The bigger the questions, the more people who show up with nothing to say and no desire to listen. This election campaign's going to be hellish.

[PorFavor]

@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.

Good lord! You should see some of mine. I wouldn't worry about it - I don't. Kinder and cleverer people than I am do that for me here - for which I'm always very grateful.


PS

Hello!

[PorFavor]

Goodnight, everyone.

[onebuttonmonkey]

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.

Always a pleasure, refitman. Wasn't it awful BTL today? The bigger the questions, the more people who show up with nothing to say and no desire to listen. This election campaign's going to be hellish.

I suspect it's already started. One difference between this election and others is that we've known for years exactly the date of the next one. That's one reason the polls have been so stable, relatively speaking. Does it leave much room for the keyboard warriors to ramp things up? I hope not.

You're right about it already having started and why. I can't see anything stopping the smoking keyboards, though - amongst better things, the internet's an amplifying chamber for everything that least needs saying. I fear this might be both the longest and the most hysterical campaign in our history. *hides behind couch*

[citizenJA]

@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.

I still don't have the hang of it & most likely never will but I'll keep at it.

Pleased to know you.

[citizenJA]

'Night, PorFavor

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Surprised how little noise there's been about Miliband's EU stance.

Blimey a year ago there were those claiming he would offer a referendum and outflank Cameron.

Indeed, I'm feeling the speech was reassuringly bulletproof. The main reaction seems to be that it was lacklustre and because he said he'd tax people with £2 million mansions he might do it on £1 million houses as well. Hardly a devastating critique!

And I think I can remember the six goals:

- NHS
- houses
- apprenticeships
- minimum wage
- index linked salaries (though don't think he called it that)
- green economy

* scurries off to check

[PaulfromYorkshire]

The Staggers ‏@TheStaggers 8m
The missing section on the deficit and immigration from Miliband's speech #lab14 http://bit.ly/1tXpGwH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

George Eaton reckons it was a big fail to miss out the deficit bit.

[Spacedone]

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.

Do not edit your posts. Even if I don't agree with what you say (which isn't that often) they are always a joy to read.

[howsillyofme1]

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;

I see the Guardian even saw fit to mention this in the Liverpool v Middlesborough match commentary! Unbelievable!

[Spacedone]

I think I'm about the only person on the site who hasn't really heard much about the conference speech today due to a mixture of heavy workload and deliberate decision to avoid the commentary of professional naysayers. I'm off work tomorrow so I'll catch up with the speech at my leisure and hopefully with additional detail.

I did hear Andy Burnham talking on FiveLive just before lunchtime though. He was saying all the right things from my perspective as an NHS employee (I would have like more on improving wages but realise that it would become an attack point for Tories) and it seemed to go down well with everyone except the FiveLive host who decided he wanted to pretend there was a conflict in the idea that you can regulate sugar content etc in food products aimed at children and not regulate them in other products that adults might eat because adults have free will over their food. It was obvious that Burnham (and some in the crowd) were bemused by this.

The host also tried to claim that people with "self-inflicted illness" should have their right to free care restricted. Was happy to hear Burnham clearly disagreeing with him.

Looking forward to his speech tomorrow.

[Spacedone]

Why do I feel the sudden urge to buy a cross from Russia? Weird.

[letsskiptotheleft]

Why do I feel the sudden urge to buy a cross from Russia? Weird.

Only as long as you have the muscles to accompany them Spacedone.. What plonker would want to buy such tack?

Cull of the spammers may be in order, reckon there's at around 20 on the end of the members list?

[refitman]

Why do I feel the sudden urge to buy a cross from Russia? Weird.

Only as long as you have the muscles to accompany them Spacedone.. What plonker would want to buy such tack?

Cull of the spammers may be in order, reckon there's at around 20 on the end of the members list?

I believe Ernst is warming up his banning button as we speak (now he's found out where all the tools are)

[letsskiptotheleft]

Why do I feel the sudden urge to buy a cross from Russia? Weird.

Only as long as you have the muscles to accompany them Spacedone.. What plonker would want to buy such tack?

Cull of the spammers may be in order, reckon there's at around 20 on the end of the members list?

I believe Ernst is warming up his banning button as we speak (now he's found out where all the tools are)

Good, if I wanted to buy shit I would go and watch QVC or some other shopping channel..

[ErnstRemarx]

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.]

Hi Michael, we've probably spoken before, but in case you don't know me, I'm FTN's resident Labour councillor. I'm actually pretty much in agreement with what you wrote. Our local party is left wing, as is the Labour Group on the Council, and yet all we get from Region and nationally is the thin scrapings allowed by a party machine so terrified of being labelled 'loony lefty' that they've missed the point that being regarded as managerial and ultra cautious is not going to butter many electoral parsnips, despite Michael White's fond wishes to the contrary.

The basis - repeal of the Tories appalling NHS care bill - is a solid base, but there's an awful lot more that could and should be committed to that would not only be sensible (like joined up transport and reregulation of buses and rail) but would be popular (such as bringing the water industry back into public ownership). Scaremongering companies can't move these assets, and if the threat is m'learned friends, that's what parliament is about, isn't it?

People need hope after the shitstorm of last 6-7 years. They also need someone (Labour I hope) to tell them that owning our utilities will happen, that the unemployed, disabled and helpless won't be fucked over in some managerial coup, and that Britain can become a better place to be, with regional assemblies and a democracy that is more than just its name.

I get that, and I suspect you're not a million miles away from where I'm at. It's also the reason I'm in there, arguing against the Blairite undead and dragging the party leftwards (or at least I hope I am). The Labour party needs people like you and all the disaffected left wing out there who otherwise spend their time telling us all BTL just why Labour's a sack of shit and only party X (generally one with minimal electoral appeal) can be trusted.

If you don't change it - who will?

[citizenJA]

@ErnstRemarx -

If you don't change it - who will?

Exactly.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Night PF.

Dear Mr Button Monkey .......

I suspect the issues we have with each other is frustration and a lack of understanding of each other's position. What you've put into words this afternoon makes great sense, not really much I disagree with in there; but .......

I didn’t mean to say there’s nothing to choose between the Tories and Labour.

That is what I find so frustrating. To me exactly that radiates from so many of your posts and, after the repeated occasions where I was condemned as "an apologist", I've tended to steer clear. So let me make my position equally clear.

firstly, I don't think Ed Miliband is infallible (as both you and Notso have both suggested I do) but I do think he is by far the best option we have at the moment, and a worthy successor to John Smith; he makes mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes as we all do, I just don't feel concentrating on them when their are bigger battles to fight is productive.

And there are two bigger battles to fight; the obvious one against Cameron and the Tories, and the less obvious one, against the Blairites agitating within the Party. To get the Labour Party to the point where it is now, a genuine & credible Government in waiting just four years after the disaster of GE 2010, is no mean feat; to do that he has had to build alliances, cosset, cajole and (sadly) even make compromises with some of the New Labour rump - as somebody said yesterday of Ed Balls, better to have him inside the tent .....

But make no mistake about it, this party is not New Labour, it is not Tory-lite, it is something different, something new and I'd like to see it grow and flourish. However much we might long for it (and, although you might find it difficult to believe, I sometimes find myself wishing for it) the Labour Party of Hardie and Attlee and Bevan has passed, because times have changed so much; but that is not to say this new Party offers nothing.

So it is about choosing your battles, deciding priorities, and the first priority is not purging the Labour Party of Blairites, the first priority is getting Miliband through the door of Number 10; because if that doesn't happen then the Blairites will swarm back out from underneath their rocks and take back control of the Party, and then we are all truly screwed. But when he and Justine are over the doorstep, the rules change ..... I don't know how old you are, but do you remember when Labour took control of the GLC back in 1981? The election was fought and won by the very moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was then ousted the very next day by Ken Livingstone; from '81 until '86 Livingstone's GLC was the only effective opposition to Thatcher.

Now, I'm not suggesting that on May 11th 2015 Ed will come out to doorstep of No 10, pull off a rubber mask and reveal Ken Livingstone beneath; but I AM suggesting that maybe prudence means that Miliband has had to play a softly, softly game for now and may yet surprise us. This is, after all, the man who is the son of a Marxist and who learned some of his craft at the feet of Tony Benn; and worth considering that Livingstone rather rates the man, to the extent that he now sits on the NEC despite saying he was giving up politics after his last mayoral defeat and has also said he would be proud to serve in a Miliband cabinet.

And (apologist hat on) maybe not all 'Blairites' are the same either, maybe there is more to some of them than we have previously thought; Burnham, for one, has proved to be a damned sight more effective than I ever thought he could, and has certainly learned from his mistakes. And (sorry for this) I have to admit to liking Ed Balls to an extent; I'm not convinced he should occupy Number 11 next year but he scares the bejaysus out of most of the front bench, which is a good thing, actually comes across as a decent bloke and we've already alluded to his problem with tents and toilets (but his speech was pretty crap).

Bottom line. I'm scared, I wouldn't survive five more years of a Tory Government. But now we have something new, something genuinely different and it frustrates hell out of me that some (and this isn't about you now) keep hankering back to something that has past, to some mythical Socialist golden age, and are prepared to destroy the chances of victory next year in their quest for this legendary Grail; it was a part of the Indyref narrative that wound me up, the "we're going to form a new paradise, can't carry you lot any more, so do one" - I don't know what that is, but it ain't my definition of socialism.

Miliband can't wave a magic wand, there are 35 years of Tory damage (including Blair's) to undo and that will take time. But isn't it worth investing time if it gets a better future for most of us?

Sorry. Diatribe over. I've been variously described recently as credulous, blind, naive and an apologist, maybe all of those descriptions are accurate, and I'm totally wrong; but if I'm wrong to hope for something better, and the world truly is as shitty as those people have told me, then it isn't a world I want to live in. And if they are right, Cameron will get back in, so I won't have to!

[ohsocynical]

Goodnight, everyone.

Night PF

[ErnstRemarx]

Night PF.

Dear Mr Button Monkey .......

I suspect the issues we have with each other is frustration and a lack of understanding of each other's position. What you've put into words this afternoon makes great sense, not really much I disagree with in there; but .......

I didn’t mean to say there’s nothing to choose between the Tories and Labour.

That is what I find so frustrating. To me exactly that radiates from so many of your posts and, after the repeated occasions where I was condemned as "an apologist", I've tended to steer clear. So let me make my position equally clear.

firstly, I don't think Ed Miliband is infallible (as both you and Notso have both suggested I do) but I do think he is by far the best option we have at the moment, and a worthy successor to John Smith; he makes mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes as we all do, I just don't feel concentrating on them when their are bigger battles to fight is productive.

And there are two bigger battles to fight; the obvious one against Cameron and the Tories, and the less obvious one, against the Blairites agitating within the Party. To get the Labour Party to the point where it is now, a genuine & credible Government in waiting just four years after the disaster of GE 2010, is no mean feat; to do that he has had to build alliances, cosset, cajole and (sadly) even make compromises with some of the New Labour rump - as somebody said yesterday of Ed Balls, better to have him inside the tent .....

But make no mistake about it, this party is not New Labour, it is not Tory-lite, it is something different, something new and I'd like to see it grow and flourish. However much we might long for it (and, although you might find it difficult to believe, I sometimes find myself wishing for it) the Labour Party of Hardie and Attlee and Bevan has passed, because times have changed so much; but that is not to say this new Party offers nothing.

So it is about choosing your battles, deciding priorities, and the first priority is not purging the Labour Party of Blairites, the first priority is getting Miliband through the door of Number 10; because if that doesn't happen then the Blairites will swarm back out from underneath their rocks and take back control of the Party, and then we are all truly screwed. But when he and Justine are over the doorstep, the rules change ..... I don't know how old you are, but do you remember when Labour took control of the GLC back in 1981? The election was fought and won by the very moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was then ousted the very next day by Ken Livingstone; from '81 until '86 Livingstone's GLC was the only effective opposition to Thatcher.

Now, I'm not suggesting that on May 11th 2015 Ed will come out to doorstep of No 10, pull off a rubber mask and reveal Ken Livingstone beneath; but I AM suggesting that maybe prudence means that Miliband has had to play a softly, softly game for now and may yet surprise us. This is, after all, the man who is the son of a Marxist and who learned some of his craft at the feet of Tony Benn; and worth considering that Livingstone rather rates the man, to the extent that he now sits on the NEC despite saying he was giving up politics after his last mayoral defeat and has also said he would be proud to serve in a Miliband cabinet.

And (apologist hat on) maybe not all 'Blairites' are the same either, maybe there is more to some of them than we have previously thought; Burnham, for one, has proved to be a damned sight more effective than I ever thought he could, and has certainly learned from his mistakes. And (sorry for this) I have to admit to liking Ed Balls to an extent; I'm not convinced he should occupy Number 11 next year but he scares the bejaysus out of most of the front bench, which is a good thing, actually comes across as a decent bloke and we've already alluded to his problem with tents and toilets (but his speech was pretty crap).

Bottom line. I'm scared, I wouldn't survive five more years of a Tory Government. But now we have something new, something genuinely different and it frustrates hell out of me that some (and this isn't about you now) keep hankering back to something that has past, to some mythical Socialist golden age, and are prepared to destroy the chances of victory next year in their quest for this legendary Grail; it was a part of the Indyref narrative that wound me up, the "we're going to form a new paradise, can't carry you lot any more, so do one" - I don't know what that is, but it ain't my definition of socialism.

Miliband can't wave a magic wand, there are 35 years of Tory damage (including Blair's) to undo and that will take time. But isn't it worth investing time if it gets a better future for most of us?

Sorry. Diatribe over. I've been variously described recently as credulous, blind, naive and an apologist, maybe all of those descriptions are accurate, and I'm totally wrong; but if I'm wrong to hope for something better, and the world truly is as shitty as those people have told me, then it isn't a world I want to live in. And if they are right, Cameron will get back in, so I won't have to!

Do you know what? You and OBM have posted two of the most impassioned, reasonable and thoughtful posts I've seen today. They would have graced CiF, had you posted them there, but would have been wasted; swarmed over by trolls and idiots (but I repeat myself, pace Twain).

If I wanted an ad for FTN, you two would have just provided it.

A salutary lesson in keeping on talking. Let's keep talking.

[51A]

Something Spacedone said re 5Live interview with Andy Burnham sort of tinkled a bell with Eddie Mair's interview with Burnham on Radio 4's PM. Eddie Mair was made to look foolish, something that rarely happens, by his train of questions re the "mansion tax" and NHS funding. Clearly, the mansion tax is feasible as a context, proposed years ago by the LibDems yet it was an attack point by Mair. Burnham wiped the floor with Mair. Mair was out of his depth being (I thought) made to ask questions to which there are obvious answers.

So, I thought, is the BBC going all-out hostile on Labour because they're so often accused of being left biased?

One more thing: I hope Labour's election campaign incorporates the almost never heard of intercession of the Office for National Statistics' need to clarify figures where the ConDems have got them wrong. I have never known it to happen before for any civil service dept to have to speak up to correct govt claims and they've done it at least twice in the last few months.

Oh, and another more thing: IDS - How much has he wasted in overturned Capability for Work assessments, Tribunals where the Claimant is successful (they almost always are when represented by a skilled but charitably funded supporter -v- how much paid for the Tribunal members?) failed IT systems? Is IDS fit for purpose and what does he have on the tories that they don't sack him?

[ohsocynical]

Sorry. Diatribe over. I've been variously described recently as credulous, blind, naive and an apologist, maybe all of those descriptions are accurate, and I'm totally wrong; but if I'm wrong to hope for something better, and the world truly is as shitty as those people have told me, then it isn't a world I want to live in. And if they are right, Cameron will get back in, so I won't have to!

You said it far batter than I could have done.

I'm 70. Have lived under a lot of governments, seen massive changes. I'd love to bring the good bits of the past back, but you can't. It wouldn't fit.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html

[PaulfromYorkshire]

BTW anyone else wondering whether Ed really "forgot" the bits about the deficit and immigration?

[refitman]

BTW anyone else wondering whether Ed really "forgot" the bits about the deficit and immigration?

I'm guessing that they trimmed it down to ensure airtime, considering everything else that is/was going on today.

[ohsocynical]

http://order-order.com/2014/09/23/libde ... ouncillor/


For YahYah

[TheGrimSqueaker]

BTW anyone else wondering whether Ed really "forgot" the bits about the deficit and immigration?

Not really, no. Rusty is trying that approach at the moment, how desperate are they if that is their best shot?

Back in the day I used to belong to a theatre group; our company was an eclectic mix; amateurs like myself, resting & ex- professionals and a couple of people who went on to become household names. So I can confirm (from personal experience and from viewing others far more gifted than me) that, even when you know the text back to front and have delivered it flawlessly for several perfomances, it is all too possible to forget your lines sometimes. When I did it the others were able to pick up and carry on so seamlessly that the audience didn't even realise it had happened; Miliband was delivering a soliloquy so the fact it wasn't really noticed sure as hell impresses me.

[refitman]

I see LDV have tried to be funny (they failed): http://www.libdemvoice.org/that-ed-mili ... ent-317091" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

The deficient is about as important as Cameron's social media device games.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

BTW anyone else wondering whether Ed really "forgot" the bits about the deficit and immigration?

Not really, no. Rusty is trying that approach at the moment, how desperate are they if that is their best shot?

Back in the day I used to belong to a theatre group; our company was an eclectic mix; amateurs like myself, resting & ex- professionals and a couple of people who went on to become household names. So I can confirm (from personal experience and from viewing others far more gifted than me) that, even when you know the text back to front and have delivered it flawlessly for several perfomances, it is all too possible to forget your lines sometimes. When I did it the others were able to pick up and carry on so seamlessly that the audience didn't even realise it had happened; Miliband was delivering a soliloquy so the fact it wasn't really noticed sure as hell impresses me.

I think they are desperate. As I said it's a bullet-proof speech. Even the EU stuff seems to be robust. Has Lynton finally realised that the UK isn't, after all, that hostile to the EU?

[ErnstRemarx]

I'm probably off to Heywood & Middleton in the next day or two. Apparently, UKIP are busing in people from all over Lincolnshire and Surrey to try to swing it. I can't see it happening, but we've been asked to help and as the neighbouring constituency, it would be very rude not to.

I presume that the press have ignored the mass of UKIP resources being poured in, in the hope that they can report a shock to Labour on the 10th? I'm guessing that's why it's such low key coverage - "UKIP's first MP! Who would have guessed! What a political earthquake!".

I can smell the Graun bullshit from here.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

The deficient is about as important as Cameron's social media device games.

is that your new name for Clegg?

[TechnicalEphemera]

I suspect that it is not worth getting FTN banned from Twitter by C bombing Rentoul. But if you read his latest piece of crap in the Indy he deserves it.


Perhaps Empty Dave should tweet fulsome praise for Rentouls efforts with a memo to himself to thank him at Lyntons next BBQ.

[citizenJA]

The deficient is about as important as Cameron's social media device games.

is that your new name for Clegg?

Yeah, that's it...you understand me, Paul.

A deficit is about as important as Cameron's social media device games!

Curses - me not checking my spell checker checking!

[AngryAsWell]

The world has moved on and just as the left accuse the right of "taking us back to the 1950's" are not the left - or those of the left who yearn for past days of "radical socialism" - just as guilty of wanting to return to a past golden era as the right are?
Perhaps its time we stopped talking left and right - we could just become "nice people" or "psychopaths" (who happen to be bent to the right.)
I prefer to go forward into a different - modern - socially fair society. The policy announcements so far from Labour are good enough for me at the moment to indicate that's the direction Labour is going. (I may want more in years to come once the feet are under the table and the chairs warmed up, who knows). I'm not a dyed in the wool, true red socialist, just a person who wants a fair, social society, one where we care for and look after each other. I want an end to the need for foodbanks and divide and rule politics. A society where work pays a fair wage for a fair days graft - and work is available for those who are fit to work. One where those not fit for work, temporally or permanently, do not have to jump through hoops to get the care/and or money they need to live a decent life. That's what I feel EdM & Labour are offering, the man is honest and trustworthy and that alone is a massive change from what we have now.

Turning to Ed Balls - has anyone read his speech? I have and I don't see anything in it that's so god dam awful, considering the state the country is in.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... and-audio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Continuing the conversation then; What "should" have been in there that's not?

My wish list would include nationalising utilities, maybe also trains. But the next question is: how would we pay for it? and no, the answer is not "we just take control" because that would have a massive effect on foreign policy and perhaps end in international courts - or war with France(???) Oops. Or perhaps a plan is already in place not to renew contracts?

Cancelling the nuclear power plants (but future power needs etc...will green energy be enough?)

This one is a bit fanciful, allowing (read, funding) those with an artistic talents to pursue their path in the arts because the world needs artists and the beauty they create as much as it needs weapon builders.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

A quick addendum to my thoughts on Miliband, and why I have hopes for him.

A man I'm sure many of us have come to admire over the past few months, with some beautifully eloquent and impassioned pieces in the Guardian, is Harry Leslie Smith. Harry went to Conference this year as the guest of the Daily Mirror, and gave an impassioned speech on the importance of the NHS (sadly in a fringe meeting, and not on the main stage). The Mirror, obviously wishing to maximise the publicity, arranged a meeting between Harry and Ed .... well, I'll let you read about both occasions. But if Ed gives Harry hope for the future, who am I to argue with him?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/in ... ng-4300812" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... es-4305801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I suspect that it is not worth getting FTN banned from Twitter by C bombing Rentoul. But if you read his latest piece of crap in the Indy he deserves it.


Perhaps Empty Dave should tweet fulsome praise for Rentouls efforts with a memo to himself to thank him at Lyntons next BBQ.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

The deficient is about as important as Cameron's social media device games.

is that your new name for Clegg?

Yeah, that's it...you understand me, Paul.

A deficit is about as important as Cameron's social media device games!

Curses - me not checking my spell checker checking!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html

Very, very good. Thanks Mrs TE.

[citizenJA]

@AngryAsWell -

This one is a bit fanciful, allowing (read, funding) those with an artistic talents to pursue their path in the arts because the world needs artists and the beauty they create as much as it needs weapon builders.

Beautiful.

Really outstanding post, thank you.

Private companies are free to enter bids for rail franchise & must understand that all the requirements the government have in place to protect the interests of the people of the country must be adhered to. Every single one. Wonder how many private companies banking on rail franchise contracts will find it worth their while to work for a living. They are, of course free to leave.

[ohsocynical]

Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html

It's going to be the middle classes that suffer worse if we have to start paying for our health. I honestly dont' think they realise how bad it can get.

They'll be paying a lot more for health insurance than they do in taxes especially if they have a family. They won't be able to afford a total cover policy, so if there's a need for intensive/lengthy treatment they will have to make up the difference and find thousands upon thousands of pounds extra. The hospital will chase them via a debt agency for the money they owe. Losing homes and going bankrupt is common due to medical costs.

The poor often go without any medial care and die sooner rather than later, but at least they're debt free when they go.

[citizenJA]

I see LDV have tried to be funny (they failed): http://www.libdemvoice.org/that-ed-mili ... ent-317091" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Delusional. They actually think the labour market is improving, and as for claiming that health and social care is being integrated... I'd laugh but it would be a bitter snort. Social care has fallen over and health has been left to pick up the pieces. Almost literally. The so-called Better Care Fund, on paper meant to promote closer working between health and social care, is basically just a means of filling a bit of the funding gap from NHS resources so the government can continue to claim they're not cutting the NHS

We'll have to fix that.

[TechnicalEphemera]

I suspect that it is not worth getting FTN banned from Twitter by C bombing Rentoul. But if you read his latest piece of crap in the Indy he deserves it.


Perhaps Empty Dave should tweet fulsome praise for Rentouls efforts with a memo to himself to thank him at Lyntons next BBQ.

[citizenJA]

Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html

It's going to be the middle classes that suffer worse if we have to start paying for our health. I honestly dont' think they realise how bad it can get.

They'll be paying a lot more for health insurance than they do in taxes especially if they have a family. They won't be able to afford a total cover policy, so if there's a need for intensive/lengthy treatment they will have to make up the difference and find thousands upon thousands of pounds extra. The hospital will chase them via a debt agency for the money they owe. Losing homes and going bankrupt is common due to medical costs.

The poor often go without any medial care and die sooner rather than later, but at least they're debt free when they go.

I've been there. It's a terrible place to visit, that place where there's no NHS.

[citizenJA]

I love you all.

Goodnight.

JA