'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
Not simply them, no. But it would be wise to try for some of them at least. It's not either or.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago .@YvetteCooperMP to @JPonpolitics 'Most ppl in party know we're not going to win turning the clock back...to a narrow party of the left'
Looking at the check list of problems left by the last Labour government:
The deficit: still a problem but debt is just about to start falling as a share of GDP. Severely restricts any interventionist options for Government now and for at least the next decade, probably longer.
Public Sector pensions. Still a problem but much diminished, largely thanks to the excellent work of Steven Webb, a real loss for the Lib Dems. A reduction in public sector head count has also helped.
PFI: renegotiated in part but still a major problem for the next 20 years. By far the biggest single cause of financing problems in the NHS.
WTC: largely sorted in this current budget but still work to do in respect of Universal Credit.
Problems yet to be fixed:
The trade deficit. A major threat to our childrens' standard of living. Very little progress. Closely linked to the public sector deficit which sucks in imports by boosting demand.
Productivity. A complex problem built up from a not fit for purpose education system, short termism in management and a lack of money to address underlying infrastructure problems.
It seems to me that the Labour candidates have very little, if anything, to say about most of this. Their obsession with "austerity" and their politics of usual based on goodies for subgroups that might vote for them really does not come close to addressing the problem.
I would love to see someone, anyone in the Labour party saying that the problem with the Gove reforms is that they did not go nearly far enough; that we are spending far too much on University places for middle class kids and not nearly enough on colleges and apprenticeships; that building more and better homes is going to be more important to our health than spending yet more on hospitals. That government is about choice and our choices are profoundly limited given our debt and deficit and that it is dishonest to claim the taps can simply be switched on again.
Burnham is an idiot to say he will cut out the Currant Bun or any media outlet that attacks the Labour Party. If he sticks to that, he will spend a lot of time talking to the Mirror and the BBC and that is about it.
Yes the likes of the Sun's influence is on the decline, but they are part of a massive media organisation, and it just rubs them all up the wrong way.
Labour used to get a good hearing from the likes of the Times.
The Times did back Blair once in 2001, but its readers still backed the Tories
I know this, my point was until probably 2009-ish, the Times would give Labour a good fair hearing. 2010-2015, they have become more and more Tory in their stance. I don't buy it now, because it has become too Tory for my liking.
Burnham continued Murdoch / Sun is spawn on the devil, wont get Times to be more sympathetic.
Indeed, but my point is Labour does not need to win the scale of majorities Blair won to win an election, it just needs any majority at all. So it could still win an election with the Times and even the Sun opposing it!
Some commentators on the Times are also not exactly Cameroon (eg Aaronavitch last week attacked Osborne's IHT cut) and of course Tim Montgomerie now writes for the Times too
Thats a great idea. We could call it the 35% strategy, and pretend that we arent really following it.
Blair won a majority of 60 on 35% in 2005, but I would aim for 37% to be on the safe side ie the same total the Tories won in 2015 and taking account of Scotland and boundary changes since then
we are spending far too much on University places for middle class kids and not nearly enough on colleges and apprenticeships
With Scotland leading the way!
Absolutely. It is an obvious area for Labour to attack in Scotland. The poor and the poorly educated have been asked to pay the price of subsidising University places so these kids from better off backgrounds can go and earn even more money without that troublesome debt. The consequence will be a widening of the poverty gap.
But again Labour are trapped by their opposition to fees and a willingness to talk honestly about the problems of having very little money.
Burnham is an idiot to say he will cut out the Currant Bun or any media outlet that attacks the Labour Party. If he sticks to that, he will spend a lot of time talking to the Mirror and the BBC and that is about it.
Yes the likes of the Sun's influence is on the decline, but they are part of a massive media organisation, and it just rubs them all up the wrong way.
Labour used to get a good hearing from the likes of the Times.
The Times did back Blair once in 2001, but its readers still backed the Tories
I know this, my point was until probably 2009-ish, the Times would give Labour a good fair hearing. 2010-2015, they have become more and more Tory in their stance. I don't buy it now, because it has become too Tory for my liking.
Burnham continued Murdoch / Sun is spawn on the devil, wont get Times to be more sympathetic.
Indeed, but my point is Labour does not need to win the scale of majorities Blair won to win an election, it just needs any majority at all. So it could still win an election with the Times and even the Sun opposing it!
Perhaps, but why alienate them before you even start. Also, they have the ability to throw resources to drive narrative.
If you remember Cameron buttered up the Guardian when he became Tory leader, and even now they aren't that rude about him personally (Tories yes). He aint stupid he knows that BBC use Guardian to drive narrative. It is only really the Mirror that attacks him and absolutely nobody takes any notice of that comic, I think even most of their readers only get it for the sport.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
Not simply them, no. But it would be wise to try for some of them at least. It's not either or.
Some, yes, but the old argument 'as Sun readers go so goes the nation' does not any longer apply!
'Farewell to fiery Yanis, a reminder of how politics ought to be
There’s something enjoyably piratical and breezy about the ousted Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, riding off on his motorbike with his lovely wife for a post-resignation beer.
You know that his wife was the inspiration for Jarvis Cocker's Common People?
"She came from Greece, she had a thirst for knowledge; she studied sculpture at St. Martin's College"
we are spending far too much on University places for middle class kids and not nearly enough on colleges and apprenticeships
With Scotland leading the way!
Absolutely. It is an obvious area for Labour to attack in Scotland. The poor and the poorly educated have been asked to pay the price of subsidising University places so these kids from better off backgrounds can go and earn even more money without that troublesome debt. The consequence will be a widening of the poverty gap.
But again Labour are trapped by their opposition to fees and a willingness to talk honestly about the problems of having very little money.
'Some, yes, but the old argument 'as Sun readers go so goes the nation' does not any longer apply'
So goes any claim Burnham will make about being one nation.
In an ideal world the governing party would win more than 50%, but given the governing party has won less than 40% for the last 3 elections we do not live in an ideal world!
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.
By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.
By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The disclosures will be intensely embarassing to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.
HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.
I suspect there are a lot more people like this around, and the problem needs to be treated very seriously. Views such as he expresses are completely incompatible with a job requiring a security clearance within the British government.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
Do you buy yours at the station or is it delivered?
For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.
By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.
By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The disclosures will be intensely embarassing to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.
HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.
I suspect there are a lot more people like this around, and the problem needs to be treated very seriously. Views such as he expresses are completely incompatible with a job requiring a security clearance within the British government.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
It is quite extraordinary the lengths that public bodies will go to accommodate muslims, and will actively turn a blind eye to the most appalling behavoursa and activities. Islam truly is the 'new black'.
And the old adage about give an inch and take a mile couldnt be more clear. Peoples behaviour changes the more invulnerable they feel to the consequences of their actions. Whether they are bankers, police officers or 'protected groups'.
"If you want to know who has power over you, look for whom you cannot criticise." (Attributed to Voltaire.)
For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.
By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.
By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The disclosures will be intensely embarassing to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.
HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.
I suspect there are a lot more people like this around, and the problem needs to be treated very seriously. Views such as he expresses are completely incompatible with a job requiring a security clearance within the British government.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
I would not go that far, but it now has more UKIP voters than genuine Tory-Labour floaters in my view
I suspect there are a lot more people like this around, and the problem needs to be treated very seriously. Views such as he expresses are completely incompatible with a job requiring a security clearance within the British government.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
(Edited: this last phrase was said by HUYFD not me.)
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
Do you buy yours at the station or is it delivered?
Delivered surely? Buying at the station would involve counting change.....
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
Do you buy yours at the station or is it delivered?
I suspect there are a lot more people like this around, and the problem needs to be treated very seriously. Views such as he expresses are completely incompatible with a job requiring a security clearance within the British government.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
(Edited: this last phrase was said by HUYFD not me.)
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
I don't disagree, a Corbyn leadership would be even more radical and out of the mainstream than Foot's 1983 campaign or Hague's 2001 campaign
I don't think Labour deliberately goes for the extremist vote. They just have ideological blinkers on that means they are blind to it among British Muslims, or think the extremism can be excused on the basis they are an oppressed minority. It's similar to how many in the party used to see the USSR as an inspiration with a few flaws that was no worse than Western democracies.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
And those people have exactly the same right to vote as you do. They really do love being sneered at though.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
And those people have exactly the same right to vote as you do. They really do love being sneered at though.
Indeed they do have the same right - the question is whether politicians should blindly follow what The Sun, and its readers say/believe and allow these beliefs to shape public policy. Thinking the world should revolve around the wants/desires of WVM is hardly great for the country as a whole, afterall....
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
And those people have exactly the same right to vote as you do. They really do love being sneered at though.
'Farewell to fiery Yanis, a reminder of how politics ought to be
There’s something enjoyably piratical and breezy about the ousted Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, riding off on his motorbike with his lovely wife for a post-resignation beer.
You know that his wife was the inspiration for Jarvis Cocker's Common People?
"She came from Greece, she had a thirst for knowledge; she studied sculpture at St. Martin's College"
I didn't know that. Great song, seems to sum up a lot of politicians
According to the Grauniad Jarvis Cocker has kept quiet on the inspiration for 'Common People' - but I see Mr Time has not been overly kind to Mr Cocker in the intervening years:
Edit: Oh, and its not about out of touch upper middle class Guardian Writers students - but about the poor dispossessed - how silly of us to think otherwise.....
He's confirmed it was a Greek girl at St. Martin's College on a different course - and that he thinks she studied sculpture. (And that she had no interest in sleeping with him, unlike the song!)
Yanis has said that Danae was the only Greek sculpture student at St. Martin's College in the right timeframe...
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
And those people have exactly the same right to vote as you do. They really do love being sneered at though.
Burnham is an idiot to say he will cut out the Currant Bun or any media outlet that attacks the Labour Party. If he sticks to that, he will spend a lot of time talkin
The Times did back Blair once in 2001, but its readers still backed the Tories
I know this, my point was until probably 2009-ish, the Times would give Labour a good fair hearing. 2010-2015, they have become more and more Tory in their stance. I don't buy it now, because it has become too Tory for my liking.
Burnham continued Murdoch / Sun is spawn on the devil, wont get Times to be more sympathetic.
Indeed, but my point is Labour does not need to win the scale of majorities Blair won to win an election, it just needs any majority at all. So it could still win an election with the Times and even the Sun opposing it!
Perhaps, but why alienate them before you even start. Also, they have the ability to throw resources to drive narrative.
If you remember Cameron buttered up the Guardian when he became Tory leader, and even now they aren't that rude about him personally (Tories yes). He aint stupid he knows that BBC use Guardian to drive narrative. It is only really the Mirror that attacks him and absolutely nobody takes any notice of that comic, I think even most of their readers only get it for the sport.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
There's nothing like respect for the voters within the Labour party.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
The Sun surely caters largely for the ignorant and educationally subnormal .
And those people have exactly the same right to vote as you do. They really do love being sneered at though.
Of course arrogant Tories never sneer at anybody.
But if we need lessons we'll know where to come....
'Farewell to fiery Yanis, a reminder of how politics ought to be
There’s something enjoyably piratical and breezy about the ousted Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, riding off on his motorbike with his lovely wife for a post-resignation beer.
You know that his wife was the inspiration for Jarvis Cocker's Common People?
"She came from Greece, she had a thirst for knowledge; she studied sculpture at St. Martin's College"
I didn't know that. Great song, seems to sum up a lot of politicians
According to the Grauniad Jarvis Cocker has kept quiet on the inspiration for 'Common People' - but I see Mr Time has not been overly kind to Mr Cocker in the intervening years:
Edit: Oh, and its not about out of touch upper middle class Guardian Writers students - but about the poor dispossessed - how silly of us to think otherwise.....
Yanis has said that Danae was the only Greek sculpture student at St. Martin's College in the right timeframe...
I don't think Labour deliberately goes for the extremist vote. They just have ideological blinkers on that means they are blind to it among British Muslims, or think the extremism can be excused on the basis they are an oppressed minority. It's similar to how many in the party used to see the USSR as an inspiration with a few flaws that was no worse than Western democracies.
That's why I said "almost without thinking". But sometimes I think that some in the Labour party are none too scrupulous about whether or not they do get votes from extremists. Whether it's through stupidity or delusion or deliberately, the effect is the same: the extremists are empowered and it makes it far harder to have a cross-party effort to defeat extremism. That puts all of us at risk - not just in having a society degraded by the spread of illiberal ideas, by the subtle and not so subtle attacks on free speech and free thought but because it also puts us at risk of the terrorism inspired by those ideas (whether in whole or in part).
I find it very troubling that the Labour party should be so sanguine about or indifferent to this.
#Eurogroup minister: Tsakalotos should have come in February. #Varoufakis ruined everything, we wasted five months.
That's why he quit - as was planned. He's now the scapegoat and the excuse why they didn't do anything previously. That's called taking one for the team
I suspect there are a lot more people like this around, and the problem needs to be treated very seriously. Views such as he expresses are completely incompatible with a job requiring a security clearance within the British government.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
(Edited: this last phrase was said by HUYFD not me.)
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
I don't disagree, a Corbyn leadership would be even more radical and out of the mainstream than Foot's 1983 campaign or Hague's 2001 campaign - said by HYUFD. (Am obviously rubbish at quoting!)
"Radical" was once a word used to describe those who thought for themselves, who asked "why" and "why not" not those who recycled reheated, failed so-called ideas off the shelf off some Marxist textbooks so brilliantly lampooned by Malcolm Bradbury and others 40 years or more ago. Thomas Paine was a radical. So was Milton when he wrote "Aeropagitica".
There is nothing "radical" in the proper sense of the word about Corbyn.
Indeed, but my point is Labour does not need to win the scale of majorities Blair won to win an election, it just needs any majority at all. So it could still win an election with the Times and even the Sun opposing it!
Perhaps, but why alienate them before you even start. Also, they have the ability to throw resources to drive narrative.
If you remember Cameron buttered up the Guardian when he became Tory leader, and even now they aren't that rude about him personally (Tories yes). He aint stupid he knows that BBC use Guardian to drive narrative. It is only really the Mirror that attacks him and absolutely nobody takes any notice of that comic, I think even most of their readers only get it for the sport.
'It's being self righteous about not talking to them which is the issue, not that it absolutely will swing things one way or another.'
Or alternatively he's going to do so well and be so popular that he can just ignore the 30% of Sun readers that vote Labour and not even bother to try and convert their readers that vote for other parties.
Self righteous, arrogant or just an idiot ?
As I pointed out 24% of Sun readers voted Labour in 2015, that is 6% less than voted Labour in the UK as a whole, so Sun readers are more rightleaning than the average voter. It is the average voter Labour needs to win for a majority, not simply Sun readers
Maybe if you rely on print figures alone, where the Guardian sells about 300,000 copies a day. Online though it has 8 million visitors a month, just ahead of MailOnline on 7.6m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Thousands of hospital operations costing billions are unnecessary in the 'profligate' NHS, says UK's most senior doctor
As many as one in seven operations are needless, NHS England boss said Sir Bruce Keogh said health service should have no shame tackling waste £1.8billion was wasted on unnecessary surgery last year, officials reveal That money could pay the wages of all ambulance staff for three years
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
(Edited: this last phrase was said by HUYFD not me.)
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
I don't disagree, a Corbyn leadership would be even more radical and out of the mainstream than Foot's 1983 campaign or Hague's 2001 campaign - said by HYUFD. (Am obviously rubbish at quoting!)
"Radical" was once a word used to describe those who thought for themselves, who asked "why" and "why not" not those who recycled reheated, failed so-called ideas off the shelf off some Marxist textbooks so brilliantly lampooned by Malcolm Bradbury and others 40 years or more ago. Thomas Paine was a radical. So was Milton when he wrote "Aeropagitica".
There is nothing "radical" in the proper sense of the word about Corbyn."
One era's radicalism could be the next era's mainstream eg votes for women, gay rights, greater social protections, privatisation etc however I would agree Corbyn is unlikely to be the prophet he desires to be
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
I've read all the links that you post there. Essentially they come down to the question: "Should you refuse to speak at an event where someone you strongly disagree with is speaking?" The answer to that isn't in my opinion as clear-cut as you imply. I'm a former executive member of Labour Friends of Israel, so not a likely appeaser of anti-semites, but let me argue the case.
Would I speak at a Ku Klux Klan conference? No. Would I speak at a debate on working class concerns where there were also a range of other speakers, including a BNP speaker? Yes, I would. Does that mean that I'm a bit sympathetic to the BNP? I hope you'll accept that it doesn't; rather, I'd hope to satisfy the audience that I was willing to listen to non-racist concerns, and that they didn't need to follow the BNP to be listened to.
That is a different view from many on the left, who argue that the BNP should be denied a platform, or at least that we shouldn't take part in any meeting which gives them a platform. The question is to some extent a tactical one - how do we tackle audiences open to extreme views but not entirely composed of extremists (as a KKK conference would be)?
I can't speak for Corbyn and I'm not expecting to vote for him. But I'd trust him to be politely firm in rejecting anti-semitism and Holocaust denial at any event where it was suggested, in the same way as he's politely firm in rejecting other ideas that he doesn't agree with (it's his style to be polite to anyone). It's noticeable that the Harry's Place contributors accept that - they just think that he shouldn't go anyway. I'm not sure they're right, and I don't think it implies that he's seeking support from anti-semitic nutcases.
Labour will not oppose Conservative plans in the Budget to limit child tax credits to the first two children, its acting leader Harriet Harman has said.
She told the BBC Labour's big defeats in the last two elections meant it could not adopt "blanket opposition".
She said the party must listen to the views of those who had put off having "bigger families" for financial reasons as well as those getting state support.
Labour will not oppose Conservative plans in the Budget to limit child tax credits to the first two children, its acting leader Harriet Harman has said.
She told the BBC Labour's big defeats in the last two elections meant it could not adopt "blanket opposition".
She said the party must listen to the views of those who had put off having "bigger families" for financial reasons as well as those getting state support.
Labour will not oppose Conservative plans in the Budget to limit child tax credits to the first two children, its acting leader Harriet Harman has said.
She told the BBC Labour's big defeats in the last two elections meant it could not adopt "blanket opposition".
She said the party must listen to the views of those who had put off having "bigger families" for financial reasons as well as those getting state support.
I don't like Harman but for once she is getting it right - unlike the leadership contenders.
Support from Bulgaria, as Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov says that he wants Greece, as an immediate neighbour, to stay within the eurozone.
"It is clear that the other countries are stable enough - and economically strong enough - to keep the stability of the eurozone and to return the trust in it very quickly [if Greece leaves]," he says.
"But that will create future problems in Greece itself and as an immediate neighbour of Greece we would not want to see that."
Comments
The deficit: still a problem but debt is just about to start falling as a share of GDP. Severely restricts any interventionist options for Government now and for at least the next decade, probably longer.
Public Sector pensions. Still a problem but much diminished, largely thanks to the excellent work of Steven Webb, a real loss for the Lib Dems. A reduction in public sector head count has also helped.
PFI: renegotiated in part but still a major problem for the next 20 years. By far the biggest single cause of financing problems in the NHS.
WTC: largely sorted in this current budget but still work to do in respect of Universal Credit.
Problems yet to be fixed:
The trade deficit. A major threat to our childrens' standard of living. Very little progress. Closely linked to the public sector deficit which sucks in imports by boosting demand.
Productivity. A complex problem built up from a not fit for purpose education system, short termism in management and a lack of money to address underlying infrastructure problems.
It seems to me that the Labour candidates have very little, if anything, to say about most of this. Their obsession with "austerity" and their politics of usual based on goodies for subgroups that might vote for them really does not come close to addressing the problem.
I would love to see someone, anyone in the Labour party saying that the problem with the Gove reforms is that they did not go nearly far enough; that we are spending far too much on University places for middle class kids and not nearly enough on colleges and apprenticeships; that building more and better homes is going to be more important to our health than spending yet more on hospitals. That government is about choice and our choices are profoundly limited given our debt and deficit and that it is dishonest to claim the taps can simply be switched on again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11734360/Kenneth-Clarkes-wife-Gillian-dies-aged-74.html
But again Labour are trapped by their opposition to fees and a willingness to talk honestly about the problems of having very little money.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
'Some, yes, but the old argument 'as Sun readers go so goes the nation' does not any longer apply'
So goes any claim Burnham will make about being one nation.
#Eurogroup minister: Tsakalotos should have come in February. #Varoufakis ruined everything, we wasted five months.
Cameron was right when he said about the communities that at best quietly condone terrorism and the 'community leaders' that speak out of both sides of their mouth on extremism. It's not going to be easy but it needs tackling as a matter of priority.
Corbyn is not just a nice bearded old Leftie. He associates with some most unpleasant Islamists who oppose - quite virulently - all the values the Labour party is supposed to stand for. See, for instance, this: http://hurryupharry.org/2015/07/08/jeremy-corbyn-and-antisemitism-questions-to-answer/.
Or this? http://hurryupharry.org/2015/07/05/corbyn-and-the-progressive-elements-of-hamas/
Or this? http://hurryupharry.org/2012/06/14/labour-and-extremism-jeremy-corbyn-and-abdur-raheem-green/
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
"If you want to know who has power over you, look for whom you cannot criticise." (Attributed to Voltaire.)
Or this? http://hurryupharry.org/2015/07/05/corbyn-and-the-progressive-elements-of-hamas/
Or this? http://hurryupharry.org/2012/06/14/labour-and-extremism-jeremy-corbyn-and-abdur-raheem-green/
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
(Edited: this last phrase was said by HUYFD not me.)
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
Mandelson is not.
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
I don't disagree, a Corbyn leadership would be even more radical and out of the mainstream than Foot's 1983 campaign or Hague's 2001 campaign
I don't think Labour deliberately goes for the extremist vote. They just have ideological blinkers on that means they are blind to it among British Muslims, or think the extremism can be excused on the basis they are an oppressed minority. It's similar to how many in the party used to see the USSR as an inspiration with a few flaws that was no worse than Western democracies.
Yanis has said that Danae was the only Greek sculpture student at St. Martin's College in the right timeframe...
Perhaps, but why alienate them before you even start. Also, they have the ability to throw resources to drive narrative.
If you remember Cameron buttered up the Guardian when he became Tory leader, and even now they aren't that rude about him personally (Tories yes). He aint stupid he knows that BBC use Guardian to drive narrative. It is only really the Mirror that attacks him and absolutely nobody takes any notice of that comic, I think even most of their readers only get it for the sport.
Burnham has to win the Labour leadership first and Cameron only appealed to the Guardian after he became leader. Not that it really made much difference, only 6% of Guardian readers voted Tory in 2015, even less than the 14% who voted Green!
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
So doing a quick calculation about a dozen Guardian readers voted Tory
I find it very troubling that the Labour party should be so sanguine about or indifferent to this.
"Radical" was once a word used to describe those who thought for themselves, who asked "why" and "why not" not those who recycled reheated, failed so-called ideas off the shelf off some Marxist textbooks so brilliantly lampooned by Malcolm Bradbury and others 40 years or more ago. Thomas Paine was a radical. So was Milton when he wrote "Aeropagitica".
There is nothing "radical" in the proper sense of the word about Corbyn.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
So doing a quick calculation about a dozen Guardian readers voted Tory
"Corbyn is not just a nice bearded old Leftie. He associates with some most unpleasant Islamists who oppose - quite virulently - all the values the Labour party is supposed to stand for. See, for instance, this: http://hurryupharry.org/2015/07/08/jeremy-corbyn-and-antisemitism-questions-to-answer/.
Or this? http://hurryupharry.org/2015/07/05/corbyn-and-the-progressive-elements-of-hamas/
Or this? http://hurryupharry.org/2012/06/14/labour-and-extremism-jeremy-corbyn-and-abdur-raheem-green/
Do people really think that such a person is suitable to be leader of the official Opposition? He may not personally be anti-Semitic or a supporter of terrorism. But does it not raise his questions about his judgment?
Put it this way: if a candidate for a right-wing party decided to speak at conferences where, say, the leader of the Klu Klux Klan was speaking, no-one would take an indulgent attitude - and quite right too. The choices you make about who you freely associate with say something about you.
If Powell had been elected leader of the Tories he would also have created huge controversy
(Edited: this last phrase was said by HUYFD not me.)
And, personally, thank God he wasn't.
Labour needs to understand that if it goes - almost without thinking - for the extremist vote, then it will repel all those potential voters - like me - who find Labour's appeasement of quasi-religious illiberalism and fascism utterly revolting.
I don't disagree, a Corbyn leadership would be even more radical and out of the mainstream than Foot's 1983 campaign or Hague's 2001 campaign - said by HYUFD. (Am obviously rubbish at quoting!)
"Radical" was once a word used to describe those who thought for themselves, who asked "why" and "why not" not those who recycled reheated, failed so-called ideas off the shelf off some Marxist textbooks so brilliantly lampooned by Malcolm Bradbury and others 40 years or more ago. Thomas Paine was a radical. So was Milton when he wrote "Aeropagitica".
There is nothing "radical" in the proper sense of the word about Corbyn."
One era's radicalism could be the next era's mainstream eg votes for women, gay rights, greater social protections, privatisation etc however I would agree Corbyn is unlikely to be the prophet he desires to be
Would I speak at a Ku Klux Klan conference? No. Would I speak at a debate on working class concerns where there were also a range of other speakers, including a BNP speaker? Yes, I would. Does that mean that I'm a bit sympathetic to the BNP? I hope you'll accept that it doesn't; rather, I'd hope to satisfy the audience that I was willing to listen to non-racist concerns, and that they didn't need to follow the BNP to be listened to.
That is a different view from many on the left, who argue that the BNP should be denied a platform, or at least that we shouldn't take part in any meeting which gives them a platform. The question is to some extent a tactical one - how do we tackle audiences open to extreme views but not entirely composed of extremists (as a KKK conference would be)?
I can't speak for Corbyn and I'm not expecting to vote for him. But I'd trust him to be politely firm in rejecting anti-semitism and Holocaust denial at any event where it was suggested, in the same way as he's politely firm in rejecting other ideas that he doesn't agree with (it's his style to be polite to anyone). It's noticeable that the Harry's Place contributors accept that - they just think that he shouldn't go anyway. I'm not sure they're right, and I don't think it implies that he's seeking support from anti-semitic nutcases.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33497441
New Thread
Support from Bulgaria, as Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov says that he wants Greece, as an immediate neighbour, to stay within the eurozone.
"It is clear that the other countries are stable enough - and economically strong enough - to keep the stability of the eurozone and to return the trust in it very quickly [if Greece leaves]," he says.
"But that will create future problems in Greece itself and as an immediate neighbour of Greece we would not want to see that."