You are here: Home » Comment »

David Miliband missed the point

February 4, 2012 3:33 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

A tiny chink of “real world” broke through my welfare-drenched reality on Thursday.

David Miliband was back – and positioning himself for evil right wing Blairite power! The lowlife had written a weighty tome kicking his unfortunate, nasal brother in the cojones, it was said.

Game on! Gloves off! Labour’s getting sparky!

I read David’s musings, when I finally found a few moments to stop irritating the DWP.

The first thing I realised was – I would need more than a few moments. Never one to say something in 5 words when 500 will do, David did not disappoint on verbosity.

I like David. I campaigned for him to win the leadership. I don’t for one second subscribe to the “Neo-Liberal-Thatcherite-Bastard-Just-Waiting-in-the-Wings-to-sell-UKPLC-to-highest-bidder” claptrap. I think he is inherently collectivist, deeply committed to mutual and co-operative ideals and passionate about education and Britain’s place in the world.

I have a small confession to make. I read D-Mili’s Keir Hardy speech, made just before the 2010 general election, 16 times. I know, I know, 16 times. You see, I was looking for signs of what Ed’s supporter’s assured me was there, plain as the nose on your face. I hate missing something, or being mis-informed. I read the speech over and over, but all I found was a thoughtful man, who if anything (and if the label is even a contemporary one any more) was slightly to the left of his brother. Not in soundbites you understand, in his heart.

Why would I be surprised to find that David doesn’t attack Ed at all? That in fact the New Statesman article could be a cut-and-paste of a few wishy-washy, blue/black/purple Labour brain-dumps from the last 18 months? Why (I must have been distracted by the true evil of Dunky-Smith) would I think that David had thrown a public gauntlet? He didn’t even manage to throw one at Gordy, though some may say he went as far as digging a gauntlet out of the bottom of the boot-box and looking at it for a bit.

And, why (this is the point of my article now, honest, I always get there in the end) didn’t he say anything? Why in 3,000 words – ticking off 20 minutes I will never get back – didn’t he talk about stuff people care about??

“Relationship between state and individual, blah, modernising the party, navel-gazing, localism, more blah, fiscal credibility, zzzzzzzz, competing demands of liberty justice and equality….”  nope, I’ve lost the will to live, sorry

I am a little in awe of David’s intellect, so feel slightly shaky about this next line, but not only has he missed the point, he’s missed it so badly, you can still see it jumping up and down in the distance shouting “Oi, I’m point! Here I am. Over here!!!”

If I read one more local-article for local- Labour people I might scream.

People/The Squeezed Middle/Alarm Clock Britain/ Mondeo Man/ Worcester Woman want to know if Labour can provide any – even the most microscopic – glimmer of hope that their lives didn’t just become un-ending grinds of austerity hell, pounding the treadmill of doom to “pay back the man” for decades.

They want to hear that all is not lost. That Labour can find a better way of getting us out of this black-hole-of-misery than the coalition. They are sick to death of hearing about what Labour did wrong and how awfully angst ridden they are about it.  They want to hear that we would never put disabled children and dying patients in the path of on-coming RBS trucks. That we would not privatise the NHS and sell it the highest bidder. That no matter how hard times get, we will strive to educate all of our children in centres of excellence. That we would look everywhere to save a few pounds before we trebled tuitions fees. That we will commit shamelessly to a living-wage and more affordable housing.

They want to hear that under Labour, fewer jobs will be lost, more jobs will be created, young people will have a future and the sick and disabled won’t be shipped off to Bute and left to freeze to death.

That’s all. It is not beyond our combined talents to shut up, stop waffling on about stuff no-one else gives even the tiniest hoot about, and show that we can oppose, suggest and re-design.

Reassurance Labour? Well Yuh-Huh! But the right kind of reassurance. Reassurance that all is not lost, that someone out there, somewhere, cares about their lives even a tiny bit.

And David? I came on your Movement for Change training. At the end, the trainer tried to “close” us. Get a firm commitment from us on how many people we would meet, how many meetings we would hold, how many actions we would carry out in the community. I didn’t even know how to answer the question.

“I will do whatever it takes, hold as many meetings, make as many phone calls, speak to as many people as I possibly can until I win” was my answer.

And I did. I started my blog. I opposed nasty welfare details because no-one else was prepared to. I built a community. Every day I spoke to more and more people, every day I changed things and every day, I made a difference. I spoke to decision makers and forced them into compromises, just as your training recommended. (Oh boy, did I!)

Why do I mention this? If you want localism, activism and change, you don’t get to proscribe in which form it comes. You have to stop pontificating and nurture that localism, nurture that change. Not sneer at it from the remote uplands of Westminster-Ville. See that’s the trouble with all this “localism” and “empowerment” and “citizen engagement” you have to just support it, not control it. You have to…erm… empower people and erm… engage with them.

As yet, I haven’t actually found any  politicians who actually like the reality of that very much at all.

  • Anonymous

    One of David Miliband’s problems – the greatest problem – is his delusional self-importance: he imagines if he writes long articles, like the one under discussion, we will all think him important too.

    I believe (I am arrogant enough to suggest I know) that David Miliband is part of the problem, not the solution to Labour’s problems. He wants a “back to Blair” Labour party, which will kow-tow to the friends he is making in the City, who will automatically rush to military action at the crack of America’s whip (he has made noises about Iran), who will treat the core membership of the party with the disdain Blair & Mandy used to show (except at election times).

    If by some dreadful mischance DM does get the leadership of the party he will be offering 1997 answers to 2015′s problems.

    The country had Blair, and despite what the dedicated Blairite likes to pretend, the signs were there in 2005 the appeal was waning ( losing 98 seats at that election should give them the clue), now I strongly suspect, with the money grubbing Blair’s maximising their income from their world tours (and young David starting out on his money-making exploits), their excesses disgust a majority of people, of all parties or none.

    • John Reid

      I’ve always found Sue Marshes sarcasm rather refreshing and humorous ,in taking on events,I was never a supporter of david Milband, But ed was forth on my choice, Yet Ed has failed magnificently in changing Laobur, and If we unfortunatley lose the next election then, He should resign forth with and If Andy brunham, douglas Alexander or Jim murphy take over and are Labeled by You “Blairite ” so be it.

      • Anonymous

        John, I too admire Sue for her courage and tenacity and her humour so we can agree there.

        I have said on here before that of the five candidates in 2010 I would have gone for Andy Burnham, not least because he has a bit of genuine passion (even if I don’t always agree with him) and has personal warmth and is much more classless than the others (in that respect he is a bit like Harold Wilson in that he can talk to the ordinary person in a natural way free of condescention.

        I have no personal axe to grind with Mr Alexander, though I suspect that he would suffer in the media for being Scottish (remember all the anti-Scots feeling towards G Brown or “Broon” as the popular press often put it)

        I would find it hard to support Mr Murphy, however: a man who only recently appears to have  understood that ex servicemen suffer PTSD and depression and anxiety – this sort of on-going problem has been understood by the medical profession since WW1 (shell-shock). He is hardly known to the general public, except as a defender of all Blairite policies of the past. Even when they were wrong.

        David Miliband might well become leader one day thanks to the endorsement of Blair himself, but that doesn’t mean to say he will become PM: he divides opinion in Labour let alone the rest of the country, who see him as a bit of a cold fish, a wonk.

      • Anonymous

        It’s not the Label John is it, it whether the public want another Blairite leader in the same mold actually of Cameron’s lot. I’m finding it hard to find a reason to vote labour at all these days, having another of the new labour lot running the party for the rich. 

        I would as I’m sure many others either not vote for any one , or vote for a smaller party, as we know labour has to rebuild after thousand left, and millions of voters left, the last election was not just a loss it was a decimation for labour.

  • Anonymous

    Not sure I agree with your depiction of the Ed/David camps Sue;
    (althought it’s possible to support both for different reasons;)
    but I totally endorse your wider conclusions re what politics should be about-
    it seems so obvious to most of us and yet so far from what actually seems to happen
    within lofty circles?

    I’d like to add a bit more later in the weekend to explain why I felt so cross
    about David’s article and the apparent timing of it; although admittedly I was
    responding to the T’graph’s version of it and hadn’t been able to read the whole
    NS piece.(It does resemble an academic paper though- all rather distant and
    I think way of touch with most people’s view of things at present.
    But it’s not just David that’s guilty of that.)
    As you seem to imply- it’s the connections that are missing.

    The closest I found to agree with afterwards, and to be honest
    surprised to find I’d said pretty much already- was
    Mary Dejevsky’s article in the Indy.
    (Not the title though- I thought a bit cruel:
    “Stop this fraternal feud and give us real opposition;” 3/2.
    It’s not surprising such a perception of ambiguity,
    in context of all that has gone before from the right wing
    of the party, and perhaps David’s particular dilemma.

    My argument is- if he wants to help and make a difference-
    then get back on board as he’s been invited-
    not moaning from the aisles and being indirect,
    which only encourages speculation and confusion?
    What did he think would be the result of the article-
    could it be boosting the “Blairite” camp perhaps?
    If it’s 100% sincere and constructive- then why now-
    just as Ed is starting to make headway?

    There seems to be now a bit of a bandwagon mocking DM’s actions-
    eg T’graph- which although maybe entertaining to some doesn’t further
    the debate IMO; just reinforces stereotypes and personality
    politics; also steers attention away from what the Tories
    may be doing!

    Anyway- all this unfortunately leads to more speculation
    which may or may not be accurate.
    It’s almost designed to be mystifying, as we have to crack the code!

    I’ll come back to your points Sue; none of this matters
    if it’s not something relevant to most of the people in this country;
    and especially those in need of support and who may feel invisible.

    Hope you are recovered Sue, and clearly back on fine form.

    It’s snowing here and I’m suffering with flu,
    after a week of family poorly!
    On the bright side though it’s very beautiful outside.

    Keep up the good work Sue but don’t wear yourself out!
    Someone said recently, “politics isn’t good for the soul;”
    maybe this whole furore kind of illustrates that.

    Best, Jo.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry Sue, Like Jo I wanted to say I hope you are feeling a little better (or a lot, hopefully), It’s just that when I get on about my biggest bete-noir in Labour today, I’m off like a Bishop being asked his views on sin.

      Anyway, warm wishes to you on a very cold day.

      And Jo: Hope you are soon recovered. You make an excellent point: if DM had wanted to be helpful, why not have a private conversation with Ed?. I’m sure he must have his phone number. I strongly suspect DM wants to help himself, rather than EM though.

      • Anonymous

        Thankyou Alan for your kind wishes;
        I’m slightly better today- but it’s been quite
        a week, and my son off school for some of the time.
        It’s that time of year- and winter has finally arrived.

        Hope you are having a good weekend too.

        Re the current political instalment,I suppose
        us mere mortals can only guess.
        But I wish to God these guys and gals would
        just focus on the here and now and actually
        look at what is happening out there instead of brooding
        over academic points and assuming for the rest of us?!
        It’s nothing personal- I am sure many of these
        people are excptionally bright and may even have vast
        life experience; but something odd seems to happen
        when they disappear behind the doors of Westminster,
        and cook things up which are supposed to be representative?

        I think Sue makes a very graphic case for a reality check
        amongst all in the political and media/professional “classes.”
        Somehow there needs to be a connection and interface
        between how policies are made, ideas developed,
        and the voices of the public- which are often assumed
        perhaps by the likes of the tabloids.

        I listen to the BBC a lot as I think more connected;
        some R4 programmes actually seek out their audiences’
        views as a real part of the discourse; although, a downside
        perhaps is largely middle class?
        I’m just aware there is a huge chunk of the population
        which gets so little accurate representation,
        other than in cliches- and important voices
        from eg poorer communities, are not being heard-
        just talked about.

        So this is the kind of thing politics could be about,
        and especially Labour!

        My other big issue is standing up for preservation
        of frontline public services, quality, and jobs;
        also community amenties such as libraries.
        Finally- education in all its forms-
        but most especially to enrich and enable
        all young people, not the few- for their life chances
        and future world of work.

        I want Labour to focus 100% on the bread and butter
        issues as well as ideas to grow and diversify the
        wider economy; not this constant faffing on about
        the squeezed middle etc; (although there is truth in that too.)

        I don’t like the soundbites coming from any of the parties-
        politics doesn’t have to be so simplistic,
        and the public for sure are not stupid.
        I say- just do something to involve and interest people;
        speak about what is directly relevant,
        and concentrate on the practical aspects-
        as well as the vision.

        Jo
         

    • Anonymous

      I hope I haven’t said anything too controversial here?!

      I don’t claim to be right- these are just my impressions over time.

      I do happen to question possible motives from David M
      on this occasion, but that doesn’t mean I don’t
      recognize he is a very able and talented member
      of the party.

      My comments are also about
      what appears to have been the commentary
      and actions of some of the right wing of the party;
      eg ex ministers writing in the media at strategic moments.
      I just don’t think always “playing fair.”

      There are ways to communicate constructive criticism
      and to offer practical help- and these are experienced
      ministers and know what they are doing.

  • http://www.pauldouglasonline.net Paul Douglas

    Here’s what I want to know. Why is this Party still acting like we’re in the political winter? It’s been nearly two years since the election. Why are all these wishy-washy pseudo-intellectual pieces of waffle still dominating our time? Why are we still kow-towing to the prevailing wisdom that “we done goofed” and trying to look all sorry and pious? The Con-Dems have been in power for long enough now that it’s time for us to focus on the fact that they’re the ones holding the bag.

    All this blustering internally isn’t going to do us any favours. David Miliband isn’t the leader of this Party, and he’s not going to be leading us into the coming General Election, we shouldn’t be focusing our attention on his inconsequential intellectual puff-piece about what is and isn’t right with us. It’s time to turn our guns, full time, on David Cameron. Can we please get on with it? This stuff is nothing but a distraction.

    • Anonymous

      History tells us each time labour loses we have an inquest long into the next loss, it’s only normally six months before an election somebody say hold on we are going to lose.

       ED speechThe issue I want to talk about today can be summed up in a couple of stories.While
      out campaigning during the local elections, not for the first time, I
      met someone who had been on incapacity benefit for a decade.He hadn’t been able to work since he was injured doing his job.It was a real injury, and he was obviously a good man who cared for his children.But I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do.Ed chat to the BBCLabour did not do “enough” when it was in power to reform the welfare system, party leader Ed Miliband has said.
      He told the BBC there was still a “minority” of able-bodied adults not in work, which “hacks people off”.
      Tony Blair made welfare reform a top priority when he came to power in 1997.
      But many of the party’s more radical ideas were shelved – and
      have only just resurfaced now as the coalition seeks to make work pay
      and shake-up what it says is a system in “crisis”.I could go on and on and on with Ed Miliband quotes on welfare, his new word are now working people, tax paying people.The fact is with Labour be it Eds or Blair’s Or David’s the fact is welfare and the people who claim  benefits are the bad guys and not the good guys and the fact is if it was not the Tories with DLA it would be labour.

  • http://www.futureeconomics.org Diarmid Weir

    I think Sue’s  disillusion may stem from her identification of David Miliband as ‘collectivist’, while his article is in fact an argument against one form of ‘collectivism’ – that of the strong state – yet it does not propose an adequate alternative.

    So the RBS trucks, currently driverless, get bigger and faster…

    Maybe David Miliband is a ‘Neo-Liberal-Thatcherite-Bastard’ or just a man whose personal qualities currently hide a deep failure to understand social reality. He, like other Labour politicians, need to realise that we, each of us and all of us, are the only ones who can drive big trucks (not just RBS trucks, but HBOS, Tesco and BP trucks) safely.

    • Anonymous

       I suspect Miliband is just like many who love to hear their voices, when they believe nobody  is remembering they are around.

  • Anonymous

    I know it’s not allowed to criticise SM’s posts but – this is really naive politics. Let’s look at what she says Labour should commit to and contrast that with the current Government position. This is not a question of whether we think the coalition is telling the truth, but what they say to the public, as Labour would do.

    ‘They want to hear that we would never put disabled children and dying patients in the path of on-coming RBS trucks’

    I assume this means that paying for the RBS bail-out will ensure that disabled children and dying patients will be neglected  to pay for it. Well, the Coalition says that they won’t. What they do say is that welfare needs reforming.

    ‘That we would not privatise the NHS and sell it the highest bidder.’ The coalition has said they will not to do this. Allowing more privatised delivery is not the same thing.

    ‘That no matter how hard times get, we will strive to educate all of
    our children in centres of excellence.’

    Same policy – different delivery (I assume, it’s’ not clear what she means)

    ‘That we would look everywhere to
    save a few pounds before we trebled tuitions fees.’

    Tried that – couldn’t do it other than reduce the number of university places to a more sensible level, which no-one would agree with.

     ’That we will commit
    shamelessly to a living-wage and more affordable housing.’

    Now this is different in that the Tory view is probably that the minimum wage should be reduced to encourage employment. Everyone agrees on more affordable housing.

    ‘They
    want to hear that under Labour, fewer jobs will be lost, more jobs will
    be created, young people will have a future and the sick and disabled
    won’t be shipped off to Bute and left to freeze to death.’

    Oh dear – the eugenics argument!

    So – just saying these things won’t work. Labour needs to be clear in terms people understand e.g. on education:

    ‘We will only allow state education in fully comprehensive schools, and all forms of private and grammar schools will be closed’ -  If that”s what you mean – good luck with that.

    There needs to be a more nuanced position, which is exactly what DM is saying (I think!)

    I now expect to be banned from the site for criticising a post from SM.

    • Anonymous

      What I suspect Sue is suggesting was that no expense was spared in bailing out the banks, whereas there IS a postcode lottery where medical treatment is concerned. NICE often says a drug is too expensive. 

      I happen to believe that the health of ordinary people is more important than the financial health of a lucky few.

      Even Sir Philip Hampton (RBS) says that top personnel are rewarded too greatly, and I doubt anyone will accuse him of being to the left of Denis Skinner.

      Who knows what DM is saying?. I sometimes think he probably doesn”t know himself. He might do better to follow Gertrude’s advice to Polonius: “more matter, with less art”. Of course the only art DM is interested in is the art of self-promotion.

    • Anonymous

      You’ve written a good post Geedee, but have to disagree with you on the issue of NHS Bill. Much has been said elsewhere, but basically there appears to be wide consensus from at least about 95-7% of GP’s wrong approach- also the vast majority of health professional organizations and research journals.

      It’s been perceived as chaotic, primarily ideologically driven- and not just about cutting costs.There are real dangers and risks involved to the fabric and ethos
      of the service; for example cherry picking of certain patients and conditions
      by private companies which would potentially exclude people with chronic/complex conditions, long term mental health issues, and perhaps the elderly?We all know what health insurance forms look like when going abroad;
      also the 2 tier service that has developed in USA; excellent for those that can afford it but probably 3rd world in some cases for poorer people.

      I would vouch that this is an issue which would unify probably 99% of the Labour movement, and the public.

      Also, politically, there appears to be some consensus across all parties by some individuals- eg in the HOL; and voiced great concern from the Tory led health committee.

      In fact the only people I’ve heard so far who are apparently in support are the selected group of GP’s chosen as a pilot project, and some senior surgeons.
      (The latter of which it’s possible may benefit from increased competition and privatization- eg routine major ops- but that’s just a guess.)

      The govt keep saying it’s been rolled out across the country in GP surgeries-
      but that is before legislation has been passed and agreed; also what choice have GP’s and the public actually had if it’s a top down dictat?

      I don’t see much of a democratic process or transparency being applied-
      and there is much Labour could be doing to challenge all of this, along with others.

      I think Andy B has been articulating very well though- I just hope it’s not all to late for something sneaky to be pushed through.

      Sorry a bit off topic- but Sue has had this right all along on health and welfare I think; (and she’s probably more of an expert than most…)

      Jo

      • Anonymous

        We all know what this is about, it the break up of the NHS makes money for the private firms who will take over,  then the Tories will say it worth it, problem is we are hearing labour say they would  undo any damage that the Tories do,  yes especially when the private firms of signed up multi years deals.

        The NHS will need a battle have you noticed the people are not marching, they are sick and tired of the battles being waged by Political parties who see the NHS as a political tool

        • Anonymous

          I think most of the impetus against the Bill being proposed has come from the health professions themselves Robert- but clearly political pressure and as it turns out- cross party consensus has been building
          steadily; also the strong impression is the public view is against anything that will undermine or disrupt the NHS- held in high regard
          and great affection.

          There are current campaigns out there; also a lot of media coverage over time.

          It’s my opinion that this issue could be the “big one”
          perhaps only secondary to management of the economy.
          It’s a lot to do with trust and judgement too IMO.

          I totally agree areas like health and education should not be politicised, and can be extremely damaging over time.

          I also think the current reforms being proposed are driven by market ideology, not just cost cutting or so called
          “meeting the needs of the 21st century.”

          AL says we need all this because of increasing elderly population
          and more scope for innovation.But I’d see the latter as
          more opportunities for private companies to cream off parts of the NHS, as innovation and world class research already exists.
          As for the elderly population- the only bit of the Bill which would be welcome IMO is linking health services to social care; but not the overall Bill. The need for reform and positive change is not being disputed; that is ongoing in any large organization- but must be led
          by experienced staff and professionals ground upwards, not top down by government and vested interests.
          Also, the public have to be heavily involved.

          I think the “consultation” in process has been deliberately kept very narrow- eg a small group of GP’s participating in pilot projects;
          and I’d envisage along the way likely discussions with the private sector.

          It may have muddied the waters too-some doctors and consultants
          have traditionally worked in the both NHS and private sector;
          but in my view- they do not represent the vast majority of staff;
          government should not be forming policy on the basis of a small powerful group of professionals which may agree with their agenda.

          I do believe however, that most GP’s for example- would put the interests of the NHS first and foremost; it comes down to ethics and principles; for example- equity and access for all, regardless of circumstances.

          But there are also many more allied professions and community practioners who have their own views; and so far- the impression given is of overwhelming resistance to the Bill- for many reasons.

          I would recommend reading around and getting a general view-
          there certainly looks to be great impetus amongst many of the professional groups, public view, and cross party consensus building.

          J

          • Anonymous

            I agree but  normally it’s when the  public respond  that labour takes up the baton, sadly for some reason the public have shown little interest this time and I do think The Tories will be able to take it forward, may be not in the same form but it will be done bit by bit.

            I do think Labour  and the education education mantra and the NHS is safe with us, has  caused the public to say we’ve had enough society has changed.
            .

          • Anonymous

            Hi Robert, I don’t think the public have had much of an opportunity to respond, other than via some excellent campaigns- eg 38 Degrees.

            But judging by the many blogs out there and general sense of what most people seem to be saying- there is very strong feeling to protect, not dismantle, the NHS as we all know it to be.It’s not perfect- but considering size and demands- it’s remarkably cost efficient and most delivers high quality care; also world class research and training.

            Ed M and Andy B appear to be stepping up the impetus, which has already existed amongst many professional organizations and patient groups.

            (Some excellent coverage in the Guardian and Indy
            today and possibly this week.)

            Please look out for any campaigns and petitions Robert- there are some on the go.
            Twitter is an excellent source of info and networking also.

            I think the more of the public that get involved and speak out- the better; this is also a cross party issue.

            Thanks, Jo.

    • Anonymous

      There needs to be a more nuanced position, which is exactly what DM is saying (I think!)

      Nope what he is saying look if the Blairite brigade needs a leader I’m still here, when your ready I will be ready.

      Myself I think either Miliband will be the same, sadly right now if it came to an election and I had to vote, I would not be voting labour or Tory.

      The people who are backing Ed will be saying? we back Ed even if Cameron walks the next election how many PMQ’s  does it take to become  leader, none because PMQs does not matter, what matters is explaining where you stand on the vital issues of this country, and flogging people with no legs or funny faces or what ever is not going to get me to vote.

      Jeepers to think either Miliband would be better then Cameron a bit of a laugh.

    • Suey2y

      So your argument is “But the coalition say they won’t” ???

      Oh! That’ OK then. 

      • Anonymous

        No, that’s not my argument, which is that making statements like ‘the sick and disabled won’t be shipped off to Bute and left to freeze to death.’ are so easy to refute they look ridiculous.

        If you mean ‘we will reverse the Welfare Reform Bill, remove benefit caps and reverse the changes to DLA, Housing Benefit etc thus providing decent levels of support and avoiding claimants having to move home’ then people will understand that and can compare it to the Coalition position and decide which they support.

  • AmberStar

    Hi Sue, I hope you are recovering from the effects of being in the same room as Grayling!

    Well, you & I always differed on the subject of David Miliband; & I may even be one of the ‘culprits’ who caused you to read David’s Keir Hardy speech 16 times.

    My first choice for leader was Andy (I’m glad to see him back at health & so far he’s been the only shadow minister who’s simply said: Labour will reverse what the Coalition do); & part of the reason for putting him first was because (as I’m sure you’ll recall) he was the only candidate who, personally, gave you the time of day. Ed was my second choice & I knew that my second vote would probably be more important than my first! But enough of history & returning now to the passionate article you have just written…

    …Geedeeo520 chastises you, Sue. But maybe it’s time for Naive Labour… maybe it’s time for us to stop being clever & for our leader to stand up & say: This is a class war & a Coalition cabinet of millionaires isn’t going to stop the “trucks”. Gosh, I think that on Wednesday, Ed might have already said it, unscripted - to the PM’s face – right there in the HoC in front of all those TV cameras!

    I’m sure a hundred Next New Labour people are already working out how to row that one back! But at least those of us who believe in Naive Labour know that Ed’s heart is in the right place even if it is only apparent when he goes ‘off message’. So I think we got the better brother as our leader & I’m hoping that, in the future, Ed’ll give us more reasons to be glad he won.

    • Suey2y

      It would be indiscreet of me to say how many times I’ve banged my head on my desk and moaned “WHY? Why didn’t I listen to Amber. Andy’s really nice….”

      I’m just a bit “meh” about most of the others really. I really hate “meh”. 

      I like most of the twitter MPs, they generally engage and even *whisper it* inform occasionally. Must be the way forward ;)

      • John Reid

        I would point out that Tory bloggers Harry cole and Iain Dale said that Andy B was the one that the Tories most feared would become leader, But in all fairness having someone as leader the Govnerment fears isn’t always A sign they’d win, Afterall in 1974 Thatcher was the Milk snatcher the most hated women in Britain

  • Franwhi

    I think Sue’s disillusion is well placed when all the Labour, Con-dem policies offer is the prospect of decades of austerity whence wage earners work for less, social democratic principles of welfare are pounded, economic security for all but the most well off becomes increasingly fragile and SURPRISE – the rich get richer.   

    • Anonymous

      Evening Fran; one thing I do think Ed M is right about is to question
      the underlying causes of this whole boom and bust culture/mentality
      over time- also lack of regulation and accountability/disparity between
      higher and lower earners?

      I think all 3 parties are trying to occupy this ground about ethical
      capitalism, whatever that may comprise; but Ed’s speech at conference
      did kick start this, and although he got a lot of flack from parts of the media
      and possibly right wing of the party- he’s since been given a lot of credit.
      It’s possible there’s some sort of denial or minimization from the Tories
      and right wing media on the causes of the global financial crisis, UK recession-
      and the implications for our financial/banking sector to change practices?
      I’ve noticed how uncomfortable some of them look when discussing it-
      as if worry about sending out the wrong message or upsetting vested interests?
      I’m under no illusions about what successive governments may have contributed to; eg lack of regulation- but I don’t think anyone forsaw the 2008 crash?
      It certainly won’t be forgotten now for decades to come.

      But all the more urgency now to reform- and that’s why I think Ed has hit the right note- and will chime with public opinion; for example over the issue of huge bonuses in the city; or anywhere; also how these businesses handle our money;
      and the enormous power of big business empires over ordinary people’s lives.

      If this can become followed through into useful policy and ideas-
      it could be an area for Labour to gain some credibility.

      Dave C is very good at talking the talk, but Ed might score on substance
      if he sticks with it; not just speeches- but bold policy initiatives.
       
      Signing out shortly, but enjoyed reading people’s comments today.

      Jo

    • Suey2y

      Yeah. That.

    • Anonymous

      Wage earners work for less? Not me, I’ve got a little bit more each year thanks to raising the personal allowance.

      But then, I don’t claim the benefits I am entitled to, because I don’t need them, and don’t believe anybody in my position should.

      I also think you’re on shaky ground when you oppose a hugely popular reform on the basis of social democratic principles.

  • Holly

    I think Labour deserve to lose the next couple of elections.
    Why?
    Because the country trusted you. We believed Blair. We believed Brown when chancellor.
    Brown & others chopped Blair off at the neck and none of the things he wanted to do were done, always blocked by Brown.
    Then we had Brown, the whole lot of Labour told us he was going to be great, it was what he had been born & raised to be…Britain’s Prime Minister. All the time they knew he had ‘personality issues’. He was never a ‘people’ person.
    The constant stream of Labour MP’s telling us how improved our schools were, yet thousands of pupils barely knew the basics. How improved the NHS was, yet patients neglected, dying from thirst & hospital bugs. How the economy was booming, yet it was built on cheap credit & easy money.There was nothing solid underneath all the gloss.
    A beautiful veneer, with nothing underneath to support the country in bad times.
    Labour betrayed the trust of the public, not just after one election (97) but three.
    That is going to be a very difficult thing to get back and I don’t think we should forgive you after just one term. The way the opposition front bench now tell us how wrong they got things, but the current government are ‘more wrong’ is a hiding to nothing. It just angers us and makes us scream at the tv/radio, well why didn’t you do this when in a position to do so.
    Labour have nothing to gain from continually making TV appearances, writing columns or telling us how great they will be after being so tragically dire in office.
    It just bugs us, even their own supporters.
    Forgiving & forgetting is still a fair way off yet, so why try for 2015 just to lose?
    We tried it Labour’s way for well over a decade and all they did was fail even more spectacularly than usual. Trust with the economy is the cornerstone, without a solid economy everything else becomes threatened…Once Labour REALLY get that, they’ll be fine…It just wont be sooner, just a lot later before we trust them again.

    • Anonymous

      ”
      Brown & others chopped Blair off at the neck and none of the things he wanted to do were done, ”

      Holly, If you will allow me to say so, you have a very selective memory. Blair dragged and unwilling and sceptical public into the Iraq war, aided and abetted by his henchman Alistair Campbell and his dodgy dossier.

      That it wasn’t a good idea (to put it mildly) was proven to Blair and his sycophants at the 2005 election.

      Blair did all he could to prevent Ken Livingstone from becoming London Mayor in 2000, making dear old Frank Dobson his fall guy. Of course, he didn’t succeed.

      The problem is that a lot of people, within the Labour party, and without, saw Blair as some sort of omnipotent God – a view he did little to discourage, not being over-troubled by modesty.

      IMO Blair was allowed to do far too much that he wanted to do, because he reigned by patronage and by using attack dogs like Mandelson and Campbell.

      Once those two were out of the picture, after the 2005 election I honestly believe Blair knew his days were numbered (and those of a Labour government)

      But to suggest that he was held back and impotent is a gross distortion of the truth.

      On the main issues relating to Sue’s article, I think it is very hard to trust a Health Minister (Lansley) who is so wedded to the private sector, with business links to it, and who is implementing his new strategies without allowing it to pass into law first. You can only wonder why he is choosing to jump the gun. Come to think of it, Lansley and Blair have similar mindsets – “This is what I want, and damn the consequences”

      • Holly

        The entire HoC had the chance to vote against Iraq. They didn’t. Brown then went on to underfund the armed forces, why? Politics? Spite?Hate for Blair?
        Blair wanted reform, Labour backbenchers & Brown stopped him. Blair eventualy grew tired & figured out he was never going to change anything within Labour so let them return to their default setting…Tax & spend, spend, spend. Which they did..With a passion.Yet services we rely on got worse.
        Are you not the slightest bit curious where all the tax grab from the huge bankers pay & bonuses went? Then all the tax from the rest of the economy? Then on top af all that Brown was borrowing!
        Yes we got nice shiny new schools & hospitals, but if the ethos & results are left to be sub standard they are not very beneficial to the people who use them, and they are going to cost us for years to come.
        There are so many things Labour got wrong and telling us they would somehow be fantastic if re-elected is howling at the moon.
        Brown was told by the IMF to be cautious(put politely) he told them to ‘tone their wording down’, which to my horror they did.
        Brown & Balls were an unmitigated disaster and yet the ‘apologetic’ Miliband has put Balls into the treasury…Why on earth would he do that, if he understands they ‘did things wrong’? Better still Miliband claims he will ‘do things right’ from now on…How are we supposed to believe him, never mind trust him when he makes decisions like that?
        There is no need or reason why Labour should win the next election, yet still he ploughs on, making speech after speech, with hollow words & no substance or detail. How many re-launches since he became leader? A true leader would withdraw & regroup instead of lurching from one uninspired lecture to the next. Instead he has lead Labour to a situation where they ‘back everything’, just not this governments ‘everything’.
        Making many think they have nothing to offer. And many more not knowing what the offer actually is.
        If he was a true leader & really wanted to be PM he would rid himself of the baggage from the last government.He daren’t for they will undermine him from within.
        The Labour supporters have to bite the bullet & rid us of the baggage and start again, stop lusting for power and start to earn the trust back, with fresh faces, new blood and new ideas.Without that it is just the last administration with a new leader.

        • Anonymous

          Holly, with respect, I always find it difficult to debate with the Rentoul-nites, that is, if you have critisism of Blair you “hate” him – that is a trap many fall into. “Blair-hater” is the overwrought John Rentoul’s catchphrase.

          I don’t and never did “hate” Blair – I loathe and despise him for what he did to my then party – he junked our principles until we become a copy of the Tory party. Then, when he had done the damage, he sachayed off to use his connections to make money and indulge his fanatasies of “peace” envoy and faith foundation founder.

          Still what is done is done – he’s gone and never coming back, but that is not to say we shouldn’t fight to make sure Blair Mark 2 (David Miliband) never gets to lead the party.

          On your point about the Iraq war, it is quite true that the LibDems were the only party to oppose outright, but many Labour MPs voted for it reluctantly because they believed some of the falsehoods Blair and Campbell cooked up – I always thought it highly distasteful that this so-religious PM use the services of an ex-porn writer, to do his dirty work, but that is just another of Blair’s inconsistencies, but why am I bothering? You are, I suggest yet another Tory who recognized in Blair a Tory leader in a red rosette. Strange but telling how much more Conservatives miss the old fake rather than true Labour supporters.

          Some of what Blair did was damaging and it is a good job he didn’t have time to go further – as it is he allowed mincing Alan Milburn and her ladyship Pat Hewitt to start the privatisation of NHS services – both of them, like Lansley with outside interests in the private health sector. 

          On health and welfare Blair & Brown did the groundwork for the coalitions “reforms”. It must be sad for Tories that in Blair they lost their greatest leader for many years.

          • Holly

            So because Blair’s reforms failed, the Labour party went on and improved them under Brown?
            I never ‘hated’  Blair, I HATED Labour!
            My mum was a single parent with five of us and under Labour in the ’70′s it was NO picnic. They concluded that term in office by leaving the country in the same financial mess as the Blair/Brown Labour government have, only under the great leadership of these two, the time in office was longer, and the mess they made was bigger. Not exactly electable material, when we are still wading through the porridge of a mess now is it.
            What does Ed do?
            Tell us he’d be doing the same as the current government, only different…What does that mean?
            Balls would borrow more, to ‘invest’ in public sector jobs, because our lending rates are the lowest in decades. How long does he think that would last? Who does he think would lend us money? Why not ‘invest’ with the private sector?The same old, same old Labour…It is all they
            know..Borrow, tax and spend.
            Good luck at selling that to the public.

          • Anonymous

            Holly: a few comments, only: I was an adult working throughout the 1970s, and I can assure you the problems of the later 70s were a knock-on effect of the disastrous years of Ted Heath’s government: we had a three day week in 1973 for quite a long time which caused severe problems for the manufacturing industries. The reason for the three day week was that Heath set himself on a collision course with the NUM and there was a miners strike in 1971/2. 

            In defence of Ed Miliband: he wasn’t in Parliament in 2003 and therefore didn’t vote for the disastrous Iraq war (David Miliband was a very enthusiastic supporter kit goes without saying, of any and everything Blair). I agree I find it difficult for Ed Balls to be deputy Chancellor, and have said so in terms many times on LL, but the problem for EM is that unlike Blair he doesn’t have a team of bruisers to fight his corner, so he feels obliged to compromise, but, then again, Cameron has had to compromise by having LibDems in his cabinet. Cameron is really in no stronger position than EM, in that there are malcontents ready to stab him in the back. As somebody once said, your biggest enemies are always in your own party.

            Again you use the word “hate”  ”I HATED Labour”. I dislike a lot of Tory politicians and some pseudo-Labour ones, but I can’t “hate” them. You say your mum bought 5 of you up as a single parent. I was in a similar position some decades earlier. It is never easy in those circumstances, but there is nothing logical in “hating” any government because of your personal circumstances. 

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Makes you wonder doesn’t it.

            Why does a person who hates Labour so much feel they have to come to a pro-Labour blog and shout about it with capital letters?

            I’d take a long hard look at my life before going to conservativehome, or anywhere else, to do something similar.

          • Anonymous

            I can’t understand it, Dave. I never visit conservativehome because I know it would annoy me – it’s bad enough having to read some ConservativeLabour things here :-)

          • Peter Barnard

            @ Alan G,
             
            In fact, the 1970s were so bad that, from 1970 to 1979 :
             
            (i) private car ownership increased from 11.5 million to 14.6 million (+ 27 per cent)
             
            (ii) owner-occupiers increased from 9.4 million to 12 million – without selling council houses (+ 28 per cent)
             
            (iii) motorway miles increased from 657 miles to 1,540 ; in fact, 70 per cent of our motorway network were constructed by 1979
             
            (iv) electrical generating capacity increased from 60 GW to 71 GW (and it was only 73 GW in 1997 …)
             
            (v) both GDP per capita and consumer expenditure (in aggregate) increased by 23 per cent
             
            People forget the quadrupling of the price of crude oil at the back end of 1973 ; they also forget the disastrous effects of “Competition and Credit Control” introduced by the Heath government.
             
            Allow me to quote FT correspondent John Plender, from his excellent, “That’s the way the money goes” (a look at the pensions industry) : ‘It was, in the end, the Labour Chancellor Denis Healey who put capitalism back on its feet … in November 1974 Healey introduced for companies a crude but effective form of relief from tax on stock appreciation … for the rest of the Labour government’s term of office, the manufacturing sector enjoyed a tax holiday as never before … taxes on capital provided less of the Inland Revenues yield in each consecutive year of the Labour government’s term of office’
             
            The 1970s have passed into mythology as a period when the economy almost went backwards, and, indeed, the whole post-war period pre-“liberation day” (3 May, 1979, and St Margaret Hilda was handed the keys to 10 Downing Street the following day) has passed into mythology as a period of “economic decline.”
             
            In fact, we had declined so much that said St Margaret Hilda was able to sell off the massive infrastructure (gas, water both supply and effluent, electricity, telecoms) that had been installed during that period and, of course, millions of council houses at knock-down prices. Without the proceeds of privatisations, the public sector net debt would have been higher in 1997 than it was 1979.

          • Peter Barnard

            Add, after “said St Margaret Hilda” : “and her successor.” 

          • Anonymous

            The 1970′s was very very good with Power stations being built Oil fields opening up,  but to say that a mother with children struggles without Labour and the welfare state my god would they have struggles.

            Labour stated mothers could stay at home until the child reached working age, gave the mother  child benefit, gave them income support, and Brown gave the working class a massive rise with tax credits in his spell, not every thing Brown did was  bad, he was just  so poor at knowing what not to say or do at  times

            But if your knocking labour in the sixties and your knocking labour when it was new then sadly the question is whom did you vote for..

          • Peter Barnard

            @ treborc,

            I don’t think you’ll hear much from me knocking Labour in both the 1960s or the 1970s, Robert.  If you have misunderstood what I wrote, then that’s my error.

          • Anonymous

            Nope I should have  clicked onto Holly sadly I just  pressed the reply to yours, in a rush.

        • Anonymous

          ”
          There is no need or reason why Labour should win the next election, yet still he ploughs on, making speech after speech,”

          Holly I am sure you are not naive, so why pretend to be. After the Conservatives took a thrashing from St Tony in 1997, and he could do no wrong, not even when this “purer-than-pure” administration got itself embroiled in Formula One racing, “moments of madness” on Clapham Common and dishonest mortgage applications, it was pretty plain Hague would not win the 2001 election, but are you seriously telling me Hague should not have made speeches?.

          It is the job of an opposition leader to make speeches and set out ideas. If Ed Miliband didn’t people like yourself would be saying he wasn’t trying and what was he being paid for etc?. In your book, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t

        • John Reid

          I feel the reason that Labour voted for IRaq, was that laobur were so worried what the Murdoch press would make of them if they didn’t that thay’d vote for something they didn’t beleiv in, or be labelled Anti American and reminded of the Pasifist ,Unilateralist that had drove votes from Labour by the million in the 80′s, Cant’ fault the rest of your argument though ,Damn.

          • Anonymous

            John, If that is the reason Blair/Labour took us to war, then it is as shameful as the dodgy dossier. No government should ever be a slave to the press, particularly a branch of it which is finding itself dragged through the courts and may yet face a criminal prosecution.

    • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

      “We believed Blair.”

      You might have done, but not me.

      You placed your trust in Blair. No doubt now you’re placing your trust in Cameron.

      Will you ever learn?

      • Anonymous

        Well said, Dave. He always reminded me of a smarmy used car dealer. Only the best cars of course – nothing more downmarket than a Daimler (and only used by one old lady to go to church on Sundays)

      • Holly

        I never trusted/voted Labour, and NEVER voted for Blair. An awful lot of others did though, and were betrayed by the lot of them.
        Getting that back will take more than Ed saying he’s ‘different’, while putting Balls into the treasury..along with others from the old regime.
        Defend Ed till the cows come home, but until he puts right, what the public know was done wrong, and by which MP’s, he has no chance.
        I don’t trust anyone, not the sytems, not the press, who sat on their hands, & praised Labour to the hilt while Labour built up the mess we are now in. As an outsider, looking in, sticking your fingers in your ears singing tra la la will get Labour or Ed nowhere.
        Ask yourself this, do the polls show people support Ed or do they just show they support Labour. And will those who simply support Labour, because they are Labour supporters, elect someone they have no faith or trust in?
        General Elections are not just about a political party someone happens to support, it is about how a political party impacts on their lives and in the voting booths that is what guides them.
        A vote is not for what it gets for you, it is for the future direction and for the country as a whole.

        • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

          “I never trusted/voted Labour, and NEVER voted for Blair.”

          But it appeared, from your first post, that you believed both Blair and Brown.
          Or is it that you’ve decided to speak, like the Queen, on behalf of the nation?

          Her Majesty will doubtlessly be deeply concerned by this upstart challenge.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

          Ah, so you’re a Tory troll. Well, if you never voted for us, its hardly likely we will convert you now, is it?

    • Anonymous

      So let me get this right you believe that Gordon Brown was the man in power, you do not think with all the New Labour MP’s  you still believe Brown blocked Blair.

      Tell me in all honesty if you owned your own firm and you had a director who was stopping you from doing what you wanted what would you do, SACK  them.

      Blair actually did a deal with Brown to allow Blair to go forward as the leader, because it was felt Labour would have gone for Brown so they did a deal, Blair would stay for one term and then Brown would take over, because labour did not believe they get more then two terms.

      When you do deals with people always has the problems of pay back and Blair paid Brown back by not sacking him which shows both of these people were up to their eyes balls in deals, deals with each other deals with Bush deals with wars.

      As for labour losing in 2015 because they do not go down a new Labour route, what your saying is again Labour should be Tories , fact is we have the Tories in power, but you are right Labour going to be out of power for a very long time, unless they find a way of getting the people back they lost under Blier

    • Dave Postles

       Holly
      Did you believe your bankers?  I’ll repost here for your benefit:
      “Giving capital
      to a bank is like giving a gallon of beer to a drunk: you know what will
      come of it, but you can’t know which wall he will choose. I never thought
      that, this time, the banks would choose a hedge.” 
      (Nicholas Sibley)
      Have you changed your bank?

  • Dave Postles
    • Anonymous

      Sadly this sort of disgusting behaviour is encouraged by politicians and newspapers – they whip up deliberately feelings of hostility (it reminds you of the disgraceful Rebekkah Wade – as she then was – with her paedophile obsession, which led her “readers” to start attacking paedotricians  because they didn’t know the difference.

      What makes the piece Dave highlights above so much more repulsive is that New Labour were the ones who started this witchhunt – the likes of sanctimonious Frank Field and James Purnell, though of course it was taken up eagerly by Cameron Grayling and Duncan-Smith, but the “honourable” member for Birkenhead has had a fetish about “benefit cheats” for years

  • John Reid

    Hi Sue,I admire the fact that you joined Labour after the LAst eelction adn have been A fan of your Facebook page and Your Blog since it started, And have Admired Your Rise through the Bloggersphere and your Passion and Knowledge on Welfare, It was obvious why David Miliband would lose the Elction,AS he didn’t have An answer on Why Labour lost the Election on Issues other than the Economy on How we’d lost the White working calss vote, Not only our core vote but the FLoating WOrking calss voter, I’m Not saying Ed new better,But he appealed to the core vote who’d swayed too,
    I have to say that Ed dones’t realise that In getting back the Working Class Trade union voted he doesn’t realsie the floating wroking class voter wsn’ts A party not funded by the unions, that Apart from the Economy Labour should appeal to the samll business man, and that Post the cuts at the moment finding better ways of running them by using the Business model can work,From The Black book, to Helen Goodman to Blue laobur to the Polices of the last electiont aht we propesed the Tories are Now having, The AV referndum, fixed term parliaments, or the Ideas that we had in the 2005 Election that were’nt implicated, Changing the Abortion laws in Northern Ireland, letting Women set up their on red Light brothels, Labour has to have A set of Coherent policies, Aprt from defence Foregin policy, Europe and the NHS Icna’t think of anything that we are sugesting that could appeal to the larger Electorate. When we should be the party with poices on pensioners housing, Trade, Social services for Kids in Care, or care in the Community, We have cuts to Council housing repairs and Sure start ,the Tories promised they wouldn’t do this,

  • Anonymous

    David. I have never hidden my antipathy towards Blair. I  feel he did more harm than good and I don’t imagine I am the only one who always associates the name Blair with  Iraq.

    With respect to Holly, she appeared to be blaming the 1974-79 Labour government (she used the emotive term “hate”) because of her experiences growing up  in a single parent family at that time.

    With all due respect to her, how can  this be rational?. I grew up in the days of Winston Churchill and Clement Atlee, and I can assure her  and you that I never “hated” either of them, and believe me, society was much more judgemental in the 1940s than it was in the 70s.

    I would just like her to explain why she feels so strongly that she can say “I HATED Labour” 

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →