Danny

He's typical of the pseudo-intellectual thinktank morons that constitute the so-called "progressives" in this country these days. They know deep down how little substance their ideas have, so they try to cover it up by coming up with lots of clever-sounding words and ramblings to try and cover up how little they've really got to say. He's written God knows how many wordy essays over the past few years, yet it all seems to boil down to are the groundbreaking, revolutionary ideas of "people should be more involved in politics!" and "England rules!".

That's certainly true, but when virtually EVERY policy a party comes out with is something you disagree with, it becomes different. My friend who goes to my local Labour branch meetings (I stopped going last year and probably will let my membership lapse) says that, while people are for now still turning up to meetings and aren't giving up completely yet, most people are frequently complaining about how pathetically timid the party's leadership is and are unlikely to want to majorly disrupt their lives to canvass for the party next year if the policies aren't going to be ones they agree with. It really can't be understated how much the average Labour member's morale has dropped off over the last few years.

Right, so even Labour's "policy chief" is deadset against it, and you seriously think the average member is going to swallow their principles and promote it? (Not that Jon Cruddas can really talk, since his substance-free waffle is almost as disastrous for Labour as Balls, Reeves and the Progressites nasty Tory-lite policies.)

Source? And "somewhat agreeing" does not exactly indicate those people are going to be so enthusiastic about that they will be willing to go out and promote it.

I just love the patronising undertones whenever politicians suggest things like this. "Here, you northern plebs. You just make do and be grateful for these shiny infrastructure projects taht we're generously giving you, and stop complaining about the fact the whole British economy is orientated around south-eastern homeowners and businesses". It's not a bad idea, but it's the tip of the iceberg in terms of what's needed.

They might not be representative of the average Labour voter, but they are of the average activist (as one extremely highly-rated comment said, Jon Cruddas's reprehensible article is something he feels he should actively fight against rather than campaign for). How do you think Labour have a cat's chance in hell, with the Tories having such a huge money and press advantage, if Labour activists feel their party's manifesto is about as appealing as a "flatulent dog in a lift" ( Jeremy Paxman) and completely uninterested in promoting it?

Don't you ever get tired of dancing on the head of a pin, trying to pick out some microscopic difference between Labour's various policies and the evil Tories' to try and convince that it's somehow better and "fairer"? :lol: One look at Labourlist will tell you that activists are not willing to do it. The fact it's shameless unprincipled pandering goes without saying, but it's poorly thought through with gaping holes to boot. Where is the money for the extra training everyone will have going to come from, given they're so keen to tell us how careful with money they'll be? What happens if unemployed people who have wealthy parents simply refuse to support their kids? More than anything else, where are the jobs going to come from for all these people since they apparently believe "the markets" wouldn't accept the horror of a government paying for everyone to have a job? I actually completely agree, I don't think anyone really thinks it's healthy or "acceptable" to not ever have a job throughout your life. The issue is how you actually get people to a place where they can actually hold down a job. Throwing people into the deep-end and expecting them to start swimming immediately by holding down a full-time job is just not going to work. Sure, you'll get the occasional lazy person who had the ability to work all along who just couldn't be bothered, and who will cope fine once they're actually forced to start doing it, but for many people who've been unemployed for 10-20 years+ they just don't have the capabilities to start doing it immediately no matter how much they're threatened or even if you stopped their benefits completely. A lot of the people we're talking about don't even have the basic social skills to get along with the neighbours, let alone be polite to customers in any job they'd have. Many people on benefits will have mental health problems aswell (most likely a far greater proportion than people think, since most health professionals think mental health problems are massively under-diagnosed and under-reported). If these politicians were really interested in helping people on benefits (rather than just chasing cheap Daily Mail headlines) they would allow people who've never had a job to do unpaid voluntary work for a while (while still claiming benefits), since that gets people to slowly build up some sense of self-confidence and get into a regular more healthy routine, without the pressure of a "proper" job. In addition to investing in the type of social training, counselling, etc., that would be needed to get people in condition to hold down a job (on top of the technical/educational training), though frankly that would cost a lot more money in the short run than just paying out benefits.

It speaks volumes of how inept they are at politics that their "owls" policy will probably get more public attention than any of their other tortured, thinktank messes.

That mess of a "policy" he announced today is not going to convince anyone :lol:

Again though, like so many things, it's not just the Sun picture itself, it's that it's fed into an overriding impression that Miliband is a spineless idiot with no principles (even people who read the Sun will still have lost respect for someone who made one of their very few principles being "standing up to the Murdoch empire" and then doing a gratuitous plug for it). But I think you're right that even the Wesminster bubble are catching up with the reality that noone in the real world thinks he's left-wing. I expect the Tories to push the "weak" line exclusively from now on. In fact, far from trying to claim Labour had a tax-and-spend bombshell or whatever, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories make a virtue out of Labour completely surrendering on spending and welfare and everything else. "If he gives in so easily when his political opponents and the press start bullying him, just imagine what he'd be like in negotiations with Putin."

Ed Miliband's personal ratings now below NICK CLEGG's, for what I presume is the first time. And not because people think he's a dangerous Marxist or because they think he'll bankrupt us!!!11, but because people overwhelmingly think he's "weak", a "pushover" and "has no idea what he stands for". Meanwhile, David Cameron's ratings have become pretty respectable, they're now on par with the ratings Tony Blair had in the run-up to the 2001 election.

Judging by the European results, there's actually a chance of there being a swing from Labour to the Tories in the next election in Scotland (it was the only region where the Conservatives increased on the '09 Euros, and the region with the smallest Labour increase).

Much as I agree he's in desperate need of appealing to working-class voters, no-one would believe him if he pretends to be "tough on immigration" anyway :rofl: It would just look like yet another cringeworthy desperate attempt to grub around for votes and saying anything to get them. That's even leaving aside the ethics of playing into the borderline-racist climate of demonising immigrants atm. 5-10 seats for UKIP sounds about right to me. They are going to SWEEP through Essex in particular.

But even in that case, did they think really think people would think "oh, he reads the Sun, just like me! I'll vote for him now". The patronising stupidity some people at the top of that party seem to have knows no bounds.

And the strategy of alienating traditional voters for no reason whatsoever continues apace: http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Miliband-The-Sun-346x500.png

Point B is definitely right -- even people who are aware of Labour's policies just don't believe they're being truthful. But that has nothing to do with people thinking "Labour will bankrupt us!!!!11", it's just because people think politicians are flat-out liars. And, trivial as it may sound, I still maintain that Labour spokespeople's habits of parrotting their policies in Blair-like formulaic cheesy soundbites is exacerbating the problem -- even though I think "charisma" in itself is overrated in politics, the way Labour do that makes people think they're not actually being sincere in what they're saying. Basically, too often they give the impression of being sleazy estate agents desperately saying anything to try and get a sale, so people end up just not taking anything they say seriously (even if on the surface what they're saying might be popular). I don't know whether their insistence on still clinging to the same form of speaking and "messaging" is because they're genuinely unaware of what reactions it brings in people, or if they are aware but are simply incapable of communicating in any other way (in which case there's really no alternative but to change the messengers).

No - and that's probably why they failed to win a majority despite such fortunate circumstances.

I don't actually disagree with this, but I'm guessing we'd differ on what "radical" is. I don't consider the type of policies I'd want to be "radical" at all, even if they were moreso than Labour's current timid policies; like I said earlier virtually everything I'd want probably would've been in an SDP manifesto. But what I was getting at was your comment that Labour are promoting "state intervention into markets" and other past comments, to mean that YOU truly think Labour's current policies are radical. And there were some Labour spokespeople, on the day after the elections last month, who when told that many Labour supporters had defected to UKIP because they thought "all the main parties are the same", looked totally nonplussed and claimed that there was a huge gap between the Tories' current policies and Labour's current policies. I'm sorry, but it's just not the public perception that Labour are offering something drastically different to the current government. At all. (Plus, goes without saying, I completely disagree that people fear Labour would go on a "spending spree", and there is certainly no opinion poll evidence to back up the view that people fear Labour would overspend...)

I am so sick of Nadal's overachieving :drama: Imo he didn't even play particularly well in the final on Sunday -- Djokovic would've won if he'd played as well as he did to beat Nadal twice earlier this year, but he seems to have become a choker in big matches. I'm hoping Federer can win Wimbledon this year, since obviously window is close to shutting and this is probably the only Grand Slam where he still has a realistic chance.

My new point is about that though.

Do you still genuinely think that the public's perception of Labour right now is that they're radical?

Absolutely. I forgot who said it, but "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" sums up all mainstream politicians' attitudes right now. Lazy, feckless and selfish employers are absolved from their social duties and bailed out by government whenever. But if you were born into poverty and can't find a job despite your best efforts? Sorry, you're on your own. ** Great article nailing Labour for their responsibility for the current sorry state of affairs ("Labour's political philosophy is simply stated: if at first you don't succeed, flinch, flinch and flinch again"): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...rket-inequality

Or hell, even a party that would once have been considered "centrist". (I said it before, but I looked through the SDP/Liberal manifesto for the 1983 election a while ago, and the type of stuff in there would be considered un-credible radical Marxism in today's climate)

I actually had to restrain myself from going on an even bigger rant :lol:

One of Labour's frontbench spokespeople Rachel Reeves says that the reason Labour is struggling is because traditional, working-class Labour supporters are abandoning the party, while the middle class are sticking by them: http://labourlist.org/2014/06/rachel-reeve...doing-about-it/ (I'll be charitable and not mention that Rachel Reeves embodies virtually every reason why working-class people have abandoned Labour.)