You are here: Home » News »

Miliband wants a bigger party – not exclusions

June 16, 2012 8:38 pm

Tags:

Share this Article

According to Progress Deputy Director Richard Angell, Ed Miliband told NPF delegates today:

“I’m in favour of more people in our party not excluding people. Those talking about the opposite are not speaking for me”

treborc1

I suspect the GMB or labour will not lose any sleep from this break up, I’m sure labour will be seeking to make the party bigger it has since I Joined it.

So perhaps the parting of the ways is long overdue.
- John Dore
  
  Good I hope you rip your card up and pi$$ off very soon.
  - Martin
    
    Hear, hear!
    - treborc1
      
      (Good I hope you rip your card up and pi$$ off very soon.)
      
      This should not be flagged I do not mind people with mental health
      issues posting on here about me. I’m all for people with all types of
      mental health issues posting
      
      If he was a card holder he would know of course you cut up your card
      you cannot rip it up since it’s solid plastic, so to be told by a person
      with obvious non experience of carrying a card to rip mine up is to say
      the least funny
      - john P Reid
        
        treborc1 didn’t you join in 1963 ( A year after my aprents joined) , didn’t you leave in 2009 and think of voting the toires and joined Plaid cymru?
      - treborc1
        
        When did you join labour John…..
      - john P Reid
        
        1985 age 14. you know that year when Bernie grant was widley disgracefully being called Barmy and laobur had jsut got 27% of the vote and Actually did worse in london 2 years later, You know the year when Lot’s of centre Labour politicans like Roy Hattersley were saying that he felt laobur might never win again, when My parents joined labour had just lost An election with (13million)46% of the vote.
      - Martin
        
        Proud member of Labour for many years.
        
        Not a miserable welsh windbag who spends his life moaning on a website. Do us all a favour and find another site to rant on.
John Dore

The more inclusive Miliband is the better.
http://www.facebook.com/siobhan.omalley.737 Siobhan O’Malley

That’s besides the point. Is he in favour of an undemocratic clique funded by millionaires riding roughshod over partys’ democratic process?
- Martin
  
  Are you in favour of banning factions of the party you don’t like?
  
  I’m not interested in the whingeing from the far-left – I’ve joined Progress and I’m happy for it to stay.
  
  If you don’t like Progress then don’t join, but don’t have the cheek to pretend to speak for all of us when you’re calling for your Stalin-like purges.
  - John Ruddy
    
    I think what worries us is the fact that there is no transparency on where the money comes from, and no democratic process – it seems that chairs are appointed and policy decided behind closed doors.
    
    As a member of Progress, have you ever voted for your leaders? Have you ever voted on a matter of policy?
    - Martin
      
      No more undemocratic than our affiliated unions putting Ed Miliband’s face on the envelope which contained the leadership ballot papers.
      
      Have the unions ever apologised or even acknowledged this?
    - Pete
      
      “No transparency”? Progress declares all the donations it must by law with the proper authorities, and has voluntarily explained the details of its funding and sponsorships in the past in response to concerns.
      As for leaders: what leaders? Progress is a pressure group and member’s association; it is not a political party, and its work does not require it to organise in the way a political party does. We do not have a “leadership” to tell us what to do and think, and there are plenty of events at which its members have an opportunity to discuss and debate ideas and party policy, and like any such organisation, we have an annual conference open to all who wish to attend. Not exactly the evil, shadowy, authoritarian organisation the hard left likes to fantasise about.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Somebody on LL the other day described Progress as “a little magazine with only 4 or 5 staff” – I hasten to add they were not disparaging the group, rather they were dupporting it, albeit somewhat disingenuously.
        
        If it IS just as he described it it does make you wonder why it needs so many high value donations from pharmaceutical companies and supermarket owners. But of course, as we know from their exepnse claims, some of it’s leading figures have expensive tastes.
      - Pete
        
        Progress produces a full colour, high quality magazine of fair length – this month’s copy is 28 pages including covers – for thousands of subscribers every month. It also needs to distribute those magazines to its members (bear in mind subscribers effectively get a 45% discount on each issue’s cover price), pay its staff and other operating costs, find funding for dozens of small and not-so-small events across the country (many of which have no or very modest ticket prices) and fund a quite substantial annual conference each year.
        None of that is especially cheap to do, and the funding from membership and subscription fees alone isn’t adequate to cover all of those costs. As such, Progress requires outside funding to support it – and a great many organisations provide sponsorship money for some of its events. Progress is not funded by pharmaceutical companies; Pfizer sponsored a handful of events run by Progress such as its presence at Labour conference one year. Progress has not received any further sponsorship from them since 2005. Since 2010, Progress has also received sponsorship from the Community trade union, Unions21 and unionlearn, and partnered with Compass, Left Foot Forward and the Co-Operative Group. Strange how its critics selectively ignore all of those contributions and instead hone in on one specific company’s made well over half a decade ago.
      - AlanGiles
        
        I imagine it is printed on high quality glossy art paper, probably hand-set and letterpress printed?
        
        Why does it have to be “full colour, high quality” it could be done on a lower budget. DTP makes the job much cheaper these days.
        
        But then this is one of my problems with some organisations – all style over substance – glossy, opulent and the medium appearing to be more important than the message.
        
        They are extremely lucky to have such indulgent sponsors.
      - Pete
        
        What, have we so spectacularly demolished all of your other arguments against Progress that all you have left is criticism of its choice of paper for its magazine?
      - AlanGiles
        
        Don’t be obtuse, Pete: I am merely pointing out that the more glossy the brochure doesn’t guarantee the quality of the goods it is advertising.
        
        I have already pointed out to you that Progress members such as Purnell, Byrne, D Miliband, Jacqui Smith et al were all heavily implicated in the expenses scandal.
        
        One of the most important things in public life is personal honesty. I was disgusted for example, when Harry Cohen, former left-wing MP for Waltham Forest (a poor area of London) indulged himself at our expense with a sunken bath, and designating a seaside caravan as his “second home”. He didn’t stand for re-election in 2010. Neither did Purnell, but Tony McNulty did, (though he failed thankfully) for example as did Gerald Kaufman at 80, who bought an £8000 TV set with our money then had the cheek to blame it onto his “Obsessive Compulsive Disorder”. He should have retired if he had any sense of decency or shame.
        
        You have so many expenses swindlers in Progress I wouldn’t wish to be associated in any way with it. If you can’t trust the integrity of people who presume to tell others what to do and how to do it, then they have no moral authority in my opinion.
        
        Progress is deeply flawed by virtue of the behaviour of some of it’s members.
        
        Now I hope you enjoy your membership of the organisation, but stop trying to convert others to it. It wopn’t work.
AlanGiles

Why doesn’t Ed speak for himself instead of leaving it to Angell to speak for him?. In every circus I ever went to, it was the ringmaster who cracked the whip – not the clowns.

Perhaps we should rename this site “Progress List”
- treborc1
  
  May as well
- John Dore
  
  How about Alanlist, where only Alan’s opinion is allowed?
  - treborc1
    
    How about lets see Borelist
  - aracataca
    
    Funny John. Well said.
    - AlanGiles
      
      Well, if we named it after you, the name would have to change according to which of your 3 IDs you were using on a particular day. That could get very confusing for the search engines.
      - Dave Postles
        
        I believe that he will soon adopt the pseudonym ‘Macondo’.
      - treborc1
        
        Why William will have used it, or you.
      - aracataca
        
        You’ve lost ‘em Dave. They haven’t a clue where Aracataca is or what its significance is.
      - derek
        
        South American river and a banana plantation? Fruity!!!!!!
- Emmaburnell
  
  He did. Richard Angell was reporting Ed’s response to a question on the issue at the NPF.
  - AlanGiles
    
    Possibly, Emma, but surely Ed Miliband could have made the statement public himself, without having Angell do it for him?
    
    It either sounds as if he was too embarrassed – or too timid – to say it himself. I have no doubt the statement is a true reflection of Miliband’s views, but it would have been more to his credit to say it direct.
Daniel Speight

Progress Strikes Back!

Is it just me or have the last couple of days supplied us with new Progress posters and commentators operating on the on the basis that the best form of defense is attack. Look guys if that’s what you are doing, best you go somewhere with plenty of union readers. Those are the people you have to convince. Maybe use some of that Sainsbury’s money* to put up some alternative candidates in union elections.

Yes, the Evil Empire strikes back. The Emperor of the Dark Side, Toneblair, and his henchman, the Lord Vadar Miliband now feel it’s time to attack Vadar’s younger brother and Jedi knight, Ed. Meanwhile a young apprentice knight, Mark Ferguson, under the tutelage Oni Wan Balls, must decide whether to fight on the side of the righteous or join the dark side. A prequel, sequel and mequel coming to a blog near you soon.

*Does Sainsbury’s give the money in cash or coupons?
- AlanGiles
  
  ”
  *Does Sainsbury’s give the money in cash or coupons?”
  
  Extra “Nectar” points perhaps?
- John Dore
  
  Daniel,
  
  It is just you.
  
  Perhaps its because normal people when they are being attacked feel the need to speak out against the aggressors (GMB).
  Perhaps its because we know that one donor whilst significant does not dominate and that all the aggressors are using weak arguments as a means to an end. By comparison we know that individual Union leaders have hugely more influence than Sainsbury, but we don’t harp on about this.This Blog was set up by a hardened Blairite – Draper, Alex Smith a previous editor went on to Labour business. There always were people from all the Labour spectrum here. The people who disagree with you just have piped up that’s all. I’m sorry if this is a little complicated for you.
  - Daniel Speight
    
    Perhaps its because normal people when they are being attacked feel the need to speak out against the aggressors (GMB).
    
    So John are all these normal people new posters and commentators? If so maybe the It is just you isn’t strictly correct, wouldn’t you say?
    - John Dore
      
      Take the tin foil hat off and stop looking under the bed.
      
      Conversation over, it’s a waste of time.
      - Daniel Speight
        
        Obviously any sort of logic in your argument is beyond you John, but the again you are trolling so it’s not really needed is it?
      - AlanGiles
        
        “Conversation over, it’s a waste of time.”
        
        As indeed are all of your rancorous messages – you seem to think that ignorance is wit – you need a modicum of real wit to get away with it, “Mr. Dore” and you are sadly lacking
      - John Dore
        
        No Alan,
        
        the status quo remains, name calling crap from yourself and your friends. This action from the GMB mirrors that of yours. You don’t want to engage with people who don’t mirror your view of the world. The GMB cant counter the logic of Progress, so they deploy the sanction of trying to kick them out. This mirrors you and Trebor et al.
        
        How are the feckless doing in your neck of the woods?
      - treborc1
        
        You have to give credit, he believe the crap he writes with his new mate martin.
    - Pete
      
      So what if they are, Daniel? That seems completely irrelevant. As John said, what you’re witnessing is regular Labour members responding to this shameful attack on them by elements of the party’s hard left – it’s a perfectly natural and valid response, particularly when people are reading comment sections on blogs like this and finding them filled with supporters of the GMB’s actions like you. If the situation were reversed and it was, for example, the LRC at threat of being ‘outlawed’, I’m sure you’d find a surge of new leftist commentators, too.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Pete “Mr Dore” - whoever he is - is hardly a typical Labour supporter, as you will see if you trawl through his trolls, with the intemperate langauge used against benefit claimaints for example.
        
        He seemed to pop up when another poster left us so suddenly, and his raison d’etre seems to be merely to push a right-wing agenda, and castigate anybody to his left, with various “amusing” put-downs.
        
        If he is typical of the average Progress supporter it doesn’t say much for them frankly.
      - Pete
        
        If that is the case Alan, even a broken clock is a right twice a day, and on this issue he has a valid point in answer to Daniel. It really isn’t relevant if people like myself are new commentators here; it’s perfectly reasonable for Progress supporters like myself to be appearing to defend the organisation right now.
      - AlanGiles
        
        In the case of “Mr Dore” his main line of argument seems to be he alone knows the truth and that everyone else talks “cr*p” which appears to be his favourite word.
        
        It is sad when people with a very small vocabulary insist on repeating the few words they know, thinking it makes them look “smart”
      - Martin
        
        I’ve joined Progress this weekend thanks to the people on here and their dangerous attacks on party democracy.
        
        I suspect GMB will regret their actions, because frankly if the party had a choice between being run by Progress people or by the kind of people who run the GMB, the answer wouldn’t actually be to the GMB’s liking!
      - treborc1
        
        Martin is that you William.
      - Pete
        
        In that case, welcome from one Progress member to another, Martin! Good on you!
      - Martin
        
        Thanks Pete! I’m sure Progress’ membership numbers will have increased considerably this weekend!
      - AlanGiles
        
        They might have done. Whether they stick with it, or go off on some other fad remains to be seen. We have had Purple Labour Blue Labour etc etc, I wonder what pretty colour will be dreamt up next to rally around?
      - Duncan
        
        Could you provide evidence that the attack is coming from “the party’s hard left”?
      - Martin
        
        Well try reading the posts on here for a start!
        
        Imagine a party run by the likes of Alan Giles and treborc. You could hold the entire annual conference in the Buxton Tea Rooms, Derbyshire and still have standing room spare.
        
        They can argue and divide over whether the tea and cakes were sourced ethically from a non-corporate capitalist beamoth.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Try and be sensible “Martin” You are carrying on like a hysterical schoolgirl
      - treborc1
        
        three comments flagged in one day new record.
      - John Dore
        
        Thats pot calling the kettle black eh Mr Partridge?
      - treborc1
        
        You have to smile Martin Bore and William or what ever his name is today could even be Martin you know how he can change. Oh so funny
      - Dave Postles
        
        I’m still waiting for Tom, Dick and Harry to comment on behalf of Progress.
      - Pete
        
        Given that one of the main instigators of this attack on Prgoress seems to be Andy Newman, a man who in 2005 stood against Labour as part of a coalition that I believe had an electoral pact with RESPECT and included ex-Militant Dave Nellist (1983 – 1992 MP for Coventry SE), I think it’s reasonably safe to say the hard left is at least playing a significant instigatory role in this situation. Hard left groups like Socialist Appeal have certainly been very critical of Progress in the weeks running up to the GMB’s move, and there has been so shortage of individuals from the hard left – like Siobhan, whose profile links to at least half a dozen communist groups in Europe – coming out to back this move by the GMB.
      - JoeDM
        
        Good point.
        
        It seems that Labour have Militant Tendency types back to cause trouble again.
        
        Trying to destroy the sensible wing of Labour can only benefit the Tories.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Says a Tory…
      - treborc1
        
        Any difference between them and the rest of the progress lot
      - Pete
        
        Typical hard leftist; as far as you’re concerned, anyone who disagrees with you even a tiny bit belongs in the Tory party.
      - John Dore
        
        Pretty easy to work him out Pete.
        
        I’m hoping the GMB’s action backfires on them and exposes them.
      - Duncan
        
        Well, a quick look at what people are saying seems to go against this assertion. Of course, I can’t be sure who you mean by “the hard left” but comments include:
        
        http://labourleftforum.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/issue-isnt-progress.html
        and
        
        http://www.davidosler.com/2012/06/labour-party-progress-in-perspective/
        
        Even Andy Newman, who you refer to, makes it quite clear in his own article that he doesn’t support any sort of “purge” or expulsions:
        
        http://www.leftfutures.org/2012/06/progress-are-an-obstacle-to-a-labour-victory/
        
        And I’m not sure by someone’s recent political history do you know someon – I wouldn’t describe Andy as “hard left” – his thoughts on John McDonnell’s bid for the leadership in 2010, for example, could hardly be considered “hard left” (http://www.socialistunity.com/john-mcdonnell-declares-intention-to-stand-for-leader/) and the Left Futures editorial line seemed to come close to his position (the only other “leftish” voice within Labour calling for any sort of manouvres against Progress): a centre-left view, perhaps far from “hard left”.
        
        I don’t know why elements within the centre-left think this is a dead horse worth flogging, but it certainly doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what tends to get labelled the “hard left”.
      - Duncan
        
        Just a quick further point – surely there isn’t a problem with people (whether they be on “the hard left” or not) being critical of Progress. We disagree with their policies and ideas and last time I checked that was still allowed.
        
        Also – I wouldn’t want anybody to read my last comment as sectarian or against Andy or Left Futures. As I said, the only hint I’ve seen of anything approacing “purges” or “proscription” was the reference to “outlawing” Progress which was NOT in Andy’s motion passed by the GMB last week, and has not been called for in those articles and statements that have been critical of Progress organisationally.
        
        The key criticisms of Progress organisationally seem to have emerged from the “secret dossier” (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/20/revealed-that-dossier-on-progress) which can’t sensibly have been written by anyone on the left (it is clearly opposed to slates and groups of all stripes) and from Tom Watson (http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/03/16/the-greatest-lesson-from-new-labour-is-that-winners-have-no-time-for-nostalgia/) – hardly an extreme lefty; indeed his article was written for Labour Uncut, a Labour right blog.
        
        So I think the jury is definitely still out as to who is making manouvres against Progress. It might be that a handful of left-wingers commenting on blogs like this are enjoying Progress’ discomfort, but I don’t think it has emerged from the left.
        
        My personal view is that the Left could only be harmed by this moves.
      - AlanGiles
        
        “regular Labour members responding to this shameful attack on them by elements of the party’s hard left “”Absolute baldferdash.
        
        It is “shameful” for us to point out that on a lot of policies, the Progress group are very close to the Coalition’s policies. But it is NOT shameful for people like you to refer to the rest of us as “the hard left” or as Reid did “the loony left”.
        
        It’s OK for progress to ladle out the insults, but wrong for everyone else?
        
        That doesn’t suprise me – the leading lights of Progress seem to me to be more interested in their own welfare rather than human welfare in general – and they feel (or at least people like Purnell, Byrne, Jacqui Smith and D Miliband) that they have nothing to be ashamed about being caught fiddling their expenses.
      - Daniel Speight
        
        John Dore’s complaint was that I really was the only one to notice the increase in pro-Progress supporters on the blog. I was just pointing out that there was a lack of logic in his statement. Doesn’t matter very much and he seems to have gone away for a while anyway.
        
        Still as I did point out, maybe Progress does need to take its fight into the unions rather than here, although I must admit I’m enjoying the sights and sounds after someone kicked over the wasp nest at the GMB conference. Certainly got Progress supporters buzzing.
      - AlanGiles
        
        No it has become very noticeable Daniel it almost sounds like an advert “I only joined Progress this weekend and it’s wonderful”. It reminds you of the old ads for soap powder – my whites have never been brighter since I started washing them in Daz.
        
        None of them seem to want to address a, to me, very important point: they keep saying people like me are on “the hard left” or as John P Reid put it so eloquently in his inimitable way this morning “the loony left”, eyt they fail to notice that their Progress pin-ups seem more interested in themselves than the party or anybody else – the expenses troughers have been pointed out, but it seems Progress members only see “the hard left” not their own top men (and women) as the greedy hypocrites they are.
        
        As for “Mr Dore” …. well, poor man I think he is a bit like Lewis Carroll’s White Queen “words mean what I choose them to mean”
- john P Reid
  
  saying that The loony left are coming out with lies like Progress are a party within a party isn’t attack it’s defence, they have no power to vote on labour policy, leaders or the NEC like Union’s fabians the Co-op do.
  - AlanGiles
    
    “Loony left” (which was about all I could extract from this latest outpouring). So anyone who believes in traditional Labour values is a “loony” in your book?
    
    No wonder Havering Labour party is a basket case Mr Reid
    - john P Reid
      
      No as pointed out andy Newman was Socialist worker and Is trying to reinfultrate the party, i don’t see you contributing anything to Havering Labour Mr. Giles. For the record http://www.HornchurchandUpminsterlabour.org.uk will be up and running in a few days we’ve got Jon Cryer And Claude Moraes coming to talk in the next few months if you wish to attend.
      - AlanGiles
        
        What would be the point of my contributing to Havering Labour, Mr Reid. I am a member of the “loony left” according to you, and you wouldn’t want to contaminate your “pure” version of New Labour. I am sure you are as pure as TCP. As for a financial donation I am a great believer in assisting the underdog, but not if the dog wants to get up to bite me.
      - john P Reid
        
        alright spelling mistake it was 1960,not 1962, I note that there’s moves to have Dan Hodges expelled from labour as although he backed laobur for the assembly and the list,He bakced Boris (but didn’t anyone read his article, He Said VOTE BORIS ,but in very small letter underneath ‘but only for your second choice and vote for whoever the labour person is for your first choice’.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Well, as Dan Hodges writes for the Daily Telegraph and is not very complimentary towards the mainstream Labour party, I can’t say I am very surprised.
        
        TBH I don’t care if he goes or stays – and that’s the problem. Labour has become such a right wing mish-mash, with discredited old figures like Mandy sashaying back into the limelight, and Ed can’t seem to make up his mind where he wants to go, I am getting to the point that I don’t care what happens to it. I think time is running out for the 2015 election to be winnable, even given the Carry On type gaffes of the Coalition.
        
        The Labour party of protecting the vulnerable and working for the greater good seems to have gone for ever, replaced by nice little boys and girls in shiny suits and boasting about their Oxford sucesses, because it is only in the academic world they have had any experience of life.
        
        Does it mater who wins the next election?. Not to all those people who have suffered at the hands of ATOS or A4e it won’t because it will be business as usual whether Duncan-Smith or Byrne is dishing out the punishments.
      - john P Reid
        
        was there people dieing on NHS trolleys or 8 month waiting lists under Labour were there people homeless in cardboard city under Labour was there 3million unemployed under Labour or kids who had no education at all under laobur , there was these things under the Tories in the 80′s and it loks like they are coming back now,
        
        But if the idea that Labour are no better than the tories and we should fight on a far left wing manifsto and only get 27% of the vote agian as we did in 1983, could be considered Amoral victory then that’s your choice, mine is to fight to make Labour electable and if that means appealing to people who wanted to buy their own council homes, had the choice whether to join a union or not, or if the upper rat of tax was 40p they could decide where they wanted to give some of their money to cahrity ,it was upto them,
      - AlanGiles
        
        Mr Reid, Why can you not get it into your head I am NOT talking about introducing “far left” policy, I merely want Labour to stop aping the Tories on things like Welfare Reform.
        
        It is not 1983 – nobody is even suggesting it, BUT it is not 1997 either, as Progress wish it to be, when Blair could walk on water.
        
        You seem to have no respect, or even comprehension, of any idea that isn’t demonstrably right wing – well we had YEARS of that and the voters got sick of it. You want to compete with the Tories with what Blair called “political cross dressing” and it won’t b e a trick Labour can get away with again
      - john P Reid
        
        i kno wit’s not 1983, bu tthat want’ the only election laobur lsot we lost in 1992, when the torie shad done enough and there wasn’t much difference between the 92 election and the 97,I’m not saying it’s 97, But the assumption that the tories have done enough to lose means that;ll will win is the same we had in 92.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Glue ears and the Sheffield rally probably contributed quite a bit to the 1992 defeat. John Major was a recent new leader Nov 1990) and Black Wednesday (16/9/92) was still in the future. The election was in April 1992.
        
        Things are very different than ’92, I agree with you there: then you had a very definitye choice between Majors Tories and Kinnock’s Labour, in 2015, if we go on as we are doing, you will have 3 parties with broadly similar solutions to problems – and the public know those solutions don’t work. Another hung parliament probably
      - john P Reid
        
        Laobur went 7% ahed after Jenifers ear, William walgrave tried to sue laobur for cliaming it was the tories that leaked to the telgraph Jenifers surname then they admitted they’d admitted walgrave was banished during the rest of the campagn and retacted the libel,
        
        the sheffield rally really didn’t cost labour 2 million votes. yes htere wa a difference between Kinnock and Major and the public choose the tories, reg prentrice and 3 other laobur m.ps defected to the
        tories
        and shirley willaims was aobut at owens time she made it to the shadow cabinet in 1970 why didn’t Owen becuase Owen dared to say that wilson was leading alobur down the road to years in opostion
    - John Dore
      
      You are definitely Loony Left, not because your left wing, just because you’re a Loony.
  - treborc1
    
    John for years you were Tory, your still Tory mate
    - john P Reid
      
      I have never been a tory you just made that up and keep repeating it, I’ve corrected you saying that 3 times,I campianged for labour in 1985 when I was 13 at school joined a year later and have voted Labour in every election Iv’e had the chance too, Even for Ken 3 times ,My parent both joined labour in 1960.
      - AlanGiles
        
        But you describe traditional Labour supporters as the “loony left” a blanket condemnation – hardly complimentary, and as contemptuous as the Conservatives who instinctivly write off all Labour supporters (even the right wingers) with that dismissive term. Itshows how far to the riught you have drifted.
        
        Not that it is anything to do with me – my Labour isn’t your Labour, – but you said your parents joined the Labour Party in 1960. This morning it was 1962. So would this be the Golden Anniversary year or was it 2010?
      - John Dore
        
        Alan, thats a sweeping generalisation. The term loony left does not apply to traditional Labour voters at all. It is very specific in its aim. It applies to those on the left who are too blinkered to have a debate, set in their ways and who generally pipe up calling people names such as Tory and who shout your in the wrong party. Its a real shame that John reid feels the need to defend his loyalty, why? Because of your sort, people like Trebor. You are all a disgrace.
      - AlanGiles
        
        MY sort?. I have been described by you and others variously as “hard left” “loony left” “Marxist” and other less pleasnt things (the most over the top rubbish comes from the male or female who hides behind the sobriquet “The Purple Booker” – that individuals insults comes interlarded with lavatory langauge as well).
        
        The thing is a lot of us you on the right describe as “hard left” or whatever term you choose to use would have been regarded before the advent of the Princess Tony as traditional, perhaps boringly, so , mainstream labour supporters.
        
        It is not US who have drifted further left, it is people like Mr Reid who have drifted more to the right.
        
        I have often said I didn’t leave Labour – Labour left me, and if you were to take an entirely unbiased view of some of the witterings of the Purple Booker and others, you would see why.
        
        It is not my party any more, so if progress want to take it over – go ahead. But progress will not win it the next election.
      - john P Reid
        
        Well now you know how the gaitskellites felt when the Bennites infultrated the party in the 70′s then, it wasn’t the party my parents joined in the mid 80′s when I joined but I got stuck in and fought my corner it’s taken me 15 years to become secretary and As You’ve pointed out there’s never been much of A party In havering Now I’m in charge hopefully that’ll change.
      - John Dore
        
        Well done John. Wish you all the best.
      - AlanGiles
        
        You will have to curb your distaste to people to your left, Mr Reid, if you want to build it. Up until about 1990 there was quite a good local party – the seem to gradually give up especially after Ms Gordon was defeated in Romford central.
        
        As regards the Gaitskill supporters (Hugh Gaitskill died in 1963 btw), Harold Wilson had a very inclusive cabinet and shadow cabinet throughout his years as leader (1963-1976)including right-wingers, unlike Blair he invited all shades of opinion into his administrations – not just yes men. I often wonder what he would say if he could come back and see what has happened to the party in recent years.
      - john P Reid
        
        George brown resigned his labour membership during, wilsons time, david owen was never invited into the front bench during wilsons time. wilson was A huge thatcher fan, callaghan got more votes in 79 and Kinnock in 92 when they lost compared to what wilson got in 74, except unilateralism, leaving Europe (which wilson was against, not selling council homes and buying thew 25 biggest industries there wasn’t much difference between the 74 manifesto and the 83 one, I thin wilson like Calaghan would admit it was their fault who resulted in Benn convincing the lablour party that they lost in 79 as it’ wasn’t left wing enough and the unions and the winter of discontent put laobur out of pwer for A generation,and As such that we had to unfortunatley accept alot of tory policies to win agian, Gaitskell would naver of had the closed shop or let Militant infultrate or have secondary picketing as such Had gaitskell lived we would’t have been out of power for 18 years,
      - AlanGiles
        
        Oh dear, Mr Reid. You are probably not old enought to know about it, but as he is now long gone, I don’t think it need be kept a secret that George had very serious drink problem, and like many people with that problem was very unpredictable, and sadly not a great minister.
        
        David Owen was quite young and inexperienced when Harold was in office (a sorty of prototype Stphen Twigg or James Purnell, certainly not lacking in ambition and self-confidence but not perhaps the pick of the crop, despite their own high opinions of themselves).
        
        Certainly Jim Callaghan wasn’t as succesful leader as HW, for whatever reason, and I think it fair to say the internal problems got worse after 1976 for many different reasons, but at least JC or HW didn’t have cabinets of cronies like Blair did.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Also fair to say the 64-70 administrations were more successful than the 74-79 ones, but that came after Ted Heath had put the coluntry on a 3 day week and the 1973 oil crisis.
        
        As ca rule, first terms are usually better than later ones (though the 74-76 HW administration did institute the NEB whih saved a lot of us in manufacturing losing jobs)
      - Dave Postles
        
        Quite so. Brown’s problems were evident at the time.
- Brumanuensis
  
  I believe the Imperial Storm-Troopers have a song that goes: ‘Obi! He’s only got Wan Ball!’, etc.
Martin

This problem has highlighed why we need to ban union bloc-voting at conferences. I think Miliband said he intended to end this, I hope he has the courage to do so.

One man, one vote is what we need.
- AlanGiles
  
  ”
  we need to ban …”
  
  But I thought elsewhere you had condemned bans?
  
  Make your mind up.
  - Pete
    
    Banning a practice isn’t quite the same as banning an entire organisation and potentially expelling its members, Alan, as the GMB hopes to do.
    - treborc1
      
      Can you give us a link to that, will be interested to read what the GMB intend to do
      - treborc1
        
        What no reply
      - Pete
        
        Sorry trebor; somehow missed this. Google “GMB Progress” and you can take it from your preferred source – GMB’s General Secretary has expressed knowledge of and support for a motion to “effectively outlaw” Progress within the Labour Party, to go to conference this September for consideration. This is in addition to GMB’s own conference which passed an anti-Progress motion.
    - AlanGiles
      
      I sense problems ahead. If Progress continues to detest or be frightend of the unions, and carry on union-bashing, where are you going to get funding from?
      
      The unions are unlikely to carry on giving money to an organisation that holds them in such low esteem. Blair got away with it, but this isn’t 1997.
      
      Once you have got rid of all those nasty left wingers, let’s hope there will be lots of Lord Sainsbury’s to bankroll you – but they will have to have very deep pockets, because I suspect “Progress Labour” will be deserted in droves by them.
      - john P Reid
        
        You should come to A hornchurch Upminster labour meeting ,the one we had the other day we felt that Ed Miliband should be criticisng the GMB for this witch hunt against progress but his silence is deafening, it would be interesting to hear a opposite view.
      - AlanGiles
        
        No I am sure you are much happier in your closed little world where everybody thinks exactly the “Right” way, just like you Mr Reid, and thinks Progress should get the Nobel Peace Prize, and all us nasty “lefties” ought to be locked up for casting aspersions on Lord Sainsbury’s motives.Why don’t you discuss at your meeting whether Sainsbury ought to contribute to Labour itself again, rather than a fringe organisation?
      - john P Reid
        
        this reminds me of the Unions when they blamed the labour leadership for Losing alboiur the 83 and 87 elections yet it was them who were telling labour what polcies to ahve, Even some that Foot and Kinnock didn’t agree with ,It’s alright to criticise for laobur not doing as well as they should be from a distance, without realising the purging the infighting and the lack of contributions might be a reason why, Alright it might be said lord sainsbury after Laobur possibly lose the next election, that his lack of contribution aided this, but lord sainsbury’s not going to turn around and say to Ed miliband i told you what polcies to have, the way the unions blamed the laobur M.P.s for them losing yet it was them who insisted on things the leadership didn’t even agree with like buying back council homes,
      - AlanGiles
        
        There you go again – everything is the Unions fault, or those of us “disloyal” enough not lay down and have our bellies rubbed by the right wing and do as we are told. And of course, only the left engage in “in-fighting” the Right are totally innocent.
        
        For years New Labour bit the hand that fed it – now some of the unions have bit back, the Labour Right don’t like it.
        
        As for council housing – think of all the housing being built in this borough alone – how much of it will be “council housing”?. What is our council housing waiting list like? , Have you seen how many bids their are for each property in the “Choice” magazine? Havering have one of the smallest congtributions to this multi-borough publication. You can’;t wonder at some people thinking if we won’t build more, we should buy back old stock.
        
        I think it was Daniel who once said that when Blears was asked why Labour didn’t build council houses when they had the chance with 2 landslides and a good economy she replied that “nobody” (in government “was interested in housing” – except of course for their own second homes which they generously furnished at our expense
      - john P Reid
        
        I agree, that Council homes were sold dirt cheap and that no one replaced them when they were sold, but ,If we as A laobur party had said alright people can buy council homes but at the price that the’yre wortha dn the money used to sell them will be reinvested by the council in making new ows, we could have fought on that manifesto, but instead we said we will buy them all back at the pricethey were sold them for and at that election labour got 27% of the vote, yes Blears did say that no one was intersted in it in gov’t probably becuase any idea of building council homes would have been met with “old laobur don’t want people to own their homes” and Blair didn’t want headlines that would have not won him elections, regarding unions wanting more say, what about unions back at GCHQ the miners who were sacked during the dispute getting their pensions back ,the minimun wage, there were loads of things Balir did for unions,Some of the contributors who gave laobur money like JK rowlings or Sainsbury didn’t ask for things the unions did , yes the unions wnat more things now and that’s why they put Ed in as leader maybe if laobur lose a few elections they’ll get the idea that they can’t ask for the earth just what the majority of people want,I’ve even seen A Laobur affiliated union wanting the return of Clause 4,as for me going back to the 80′s in criticising people who disagreeI’d be happy to go back to the 1959 election when laobur lst with 13milliuon votes 46%, that’s a larger vote or percentage than when wilson won 5 years later.
      - AlanGiles
        
        “Blears did say that no one was intersted in it in gov’t probably becuase any idea of building council homes would have been met with “old laobur don’t want people to own their homes” and Blair didn’t want headlines that would have not won him elections,”
        
        So Blair was so scared – this great brave war leader – so scared – of being regarded as “Old Labour” – that he failed to build social housing, despite overwhelming need, just so the Sun gave him good headlines.
        
        And you think that acceptable Mr Reid?
        
        When you are a PM eespecially with two landslide victories you should be bigger than that.
        
        That’s the New Labour problem – so frightend of upsetting the Daily Mail and Sun that he did nothing rather than risk their anger – and yet – paradoxically there are probably quite a number of Sun readers on council housing waiting lists.
        
        To me that is not understandable or excusable – it is disgraceful he could be so shallow and frankly cowardly.
      - john P Reid
        
        I dont agree ,i just aid they wanted that 3rd term to stop the tores and their it’s not racist to say asylum seekrs are bogus, winning,
      - AlanGiles
        
        Why drag asylum seekers into it, Mr Reid?
        I never mentioned them: obviously it worries you, but it doesn’t me.
        
        You’d forgive New Labour anything, wouldn’t you?
      - treborc1
        
        Here we go next he will be back in 1900
    - Dave Postles
      
      Of course unions are suspicious of organizations like Progress – including Unite as well as GMB, if you haven’t picked up the vibes from Unite. They are concerned about what Progress might devise about employment rights for a start.
      Even worse, in the interview in The Observer, Cruddas professes that he will not return to the late days of New Labour, but then professes that he wishes to recruit Purnell, MiliD, and Blair to the policy review. That is truly astonishing – and profoundly depressing.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Depressing but not unexpected – no doubt Blair’s “re-engagement with domestic politics” will be the cue for this return. And his spiritual son David Miniblair will just have to return to help dad out.
        
        I really think Progress hould rename itself “Regress” it has a dream – that it is May 2nd 1997 and the whole country is in love with Tony – a pretty straight sort of guy whose government is going to be puirer-than-pure, and we are all going to live happily ever after.
        
        Of course, it will never be like that again. Most people have their own opinion of Blair now and you can’t work the same con trick twice in the same place.
        
        I think Cruddas is saying in effect he knows the 2015 election is lost, so we will just wander down memory lane with the old entertainer of yesteryear.
      - Pete
        
        I’m both a member of Unite and Progress, and I see no conflict in being a member of both. I’d imagine most Progress members are unionised and many (though not nearly enough) are active within their unions. I’m aware there are certain overtures coming from Unite, and I sincerely hope our leadership will be reasonable and not support GMB’s move to ‘outlaw’ Progress.
        
        As Luke Akehurst (I think it was he anyway) correctly said, the right wing of the party needs to be more active in the wider Labour movement and engaging with the unions. This situation is, to some extent, our own fault for not being as engaged with and active in the unions as much as we should. We need dialogue and cooperation, not confrontation and disunity.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Oh come on, Pete – you don’t want “confrontation and disunity”?.
        
        You are being quite confrontational yourself – for example you were the one who made such a thing of the production values of Progress magazine (“Progress produces a full colour, high quality magazine of fair length – this month’s copy is 28 pages including covers -”)
        
        When I commented on this you then said:
        
        “What, have we so spectacularly demolished all of your other arguments against Progress that all you have left is criticism of its choice of paper ”
        
        You bought it up. I then put it to you that there are an awful lot lof expenses cheats in Progress, but – to my surprise – you have nothing to say about that – do you not agree honesty in public life is important, and that the likes of Jacqui Smith and James Purnell (the former with her bath plugs and dirty DVDs for hubby, the later with his cleaning bills for cleaning that was never done) are fairly disgraceful examples of honesty and integrity?
        
        But honestly the more you try to big up Progress the more I feel able to resist it’s dubious charms.
      - Pete
        
        Alan, you were the one who asked for an explanation of why Progress raised such funds, and I gave it to you – I wasn’t making a point out of the magazine. I was listing it as one of the reasons why Progress raises such funds; my subsequent remark was intended to be tongue in cheek, and I’m sincerely sorry if it came off as a serious attack against you. I am, of course, being confrontational right now – because I am defending Progress against people who have declared war on it without casus belli. I would much rather be having a friendly, intellectual discussion about the party’s policy and campaign direction in 2015.
        The expenses scandal was, of course, a very terrible thing, and I absolutely agree with you that the vast majority of those implicated in it behaved in a disgraceful way. I absolutely agree honesty and integrity are essential in public life. Indeed, when I was running in last month’s local elections, I committed myself to taking a 33% cut in my basic allowance if elected, with the intention to donate that money to local charities and community groups.
        
        But the expenses scandal was hardly a Progress-specific problem, and drawing a link between Progress membership and expenses abuse is very much a false correlation. Plenty of non-Progress MPs, not to mention MPs from other parties, claimed expenses indecently. The left of the party is hardly innocent of financial indecency and abuse of public confidence, in that scandal or at other times. Need I remind you that it was former Communist Party member Derek Simpson who reportedly claimed severance pay of £361,000 – in addition to his combined salary and benefits of nearly £150,000 for that year – when he stood down from Unite’s leadership, much to the anger of a great many Unite members and the disapproval of his successor?
        
        I’m not trying to ‘big Progess up’ to anyone; I’m trying to defend it against the very unfair criticism it’s come under these past few days, and against the action against it the GMB is threatening. Nor am I trying to charm anyone into joining it; though I can’t deny that I am very happy to see that more than a few people have been motivated into joining it by recent events. I am simply standing up for what I believe is, on the whole, a very good, very decent organisation that does a lot for the party and for its moderate right wing.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Pete, you are of course entitled to join what you like, and I am not trying to ban Progress myself, though I understand why others might feel differently, but the fact remains people like Purnell are master hypocrites – they talked about welfare claimants “playing the system” – when he was playing the system for all it was worth. The fact that Progress can boast about having such an individual as him associated with it, I find repulsive.
        
        Of course all parties and the various wings of all parties were heavilly involved in dishonesty – I wish more – from all parties – had faced prosecution. Had an “ordinary” employee of a company behaved as they did they would have been at the very least instantly dismissed and might well have faced criminal charges. I deliberately mentioned Cohen because I was wishing to make clear I deplore dishonesty wherever it occurs.
        
        I am not striking a pose, believe me, but when I see Mandelson creeping out of the woodwork again, Progress in the ascendency and worst of the lot Blair about to “re-engage”, I honestly don’t give a toss about Labour after 50 years. The first thirty years were great, the last 20, especially the years 2003-2010 were the nadir for me – a once great party reduced to as one poster put it yesterday (Martin somebody not the one on this thread I don’t think) “flip-flopping” on principles to accomodate floating voters. I have always believed you need to have principles, not behave like a tart selling herself in Piccadilly. You have to lead, not follow, and that means giving electors a clear choice of policies, not mix and match to get as near to the Coalition as possible, and then make a lot of noise about tiny details you don’t agree with (i.e. Byrne and his 25% disagreement with the coalitions WRB)
        
        In all seriousness take the party even more to the right, if you want to, but I won’t vote for it, nor, I suspect will many long term traditional Labourites.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Alan,
        
        you are a genius at working in derogatory mentions of Liam Byrne into what seems to be the majority of your comments, even if completely unrelated. I can only manage the same for Gordon Brown at about 10%. If George Galloway had not already used the phrase, I might be saluting your “indefatigability”.
        
        On a slightly more serious note, if the Labour Party is a broad church, you appear to be standing slightly outside the left hand wall, and me slightly outside the right hand wall. Do not those standing actually inside the church have not more of a say than you or I do?
      - AlanGiles
        
        Liam Byrne is the epitome of the worst excesses of New Labour, trying to face in both directions at once, wanting power for it’s own sake and being so “committed” to his job he wanted to leave Westminster to become a Mayor a few weeks ago.
        
        A self-serving individual who makes up in smarm what he lacks in integrity.
        
        It seems we are witnessing the rehabilitation of Blair, the return of Mandelson and the rise of Progress: therefore as I don’t respect or approve of them, you can’t expect me to vote for them again.
        
        What makes matters worse is the secretary of my local Labour party (John P Reid) appears only to be approving indigenous right wing members.
        
        He made a totally gratuitous reference to “asylum seekers” a little while ago, when the term had not been mentioned by anybody else, so I am as out of sympathy with the local party as I am with the way the national party is going.
      - John Dore
        
        Liam Byrne is a god. Damned fine man and beacon for the Labour party. Your a bloke who spends a lot of time on a keyboard.
      - AlanGiles
        
        I should go and have a lie down “Mr Dore” .
        
        get better soon - lets face it you can’t get much worse .
      - derek
        
        Jeez! another god doer! that hand sure did touch a load of shoulders.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        @ John Dore,
        
        “God” is spelt with a capital G. If you do not believe in God, or several Gods, or none at all, that is completely OK, but if you do, there is little point in referring to such a Being without giving the acknowledgement of His essential power. Otherwise, it is not very God-like.
- Dave Postles
  
  You mean one member, one vote?
  - Bill Lockhart
    
    Actually, it’s one member, as many votes as you like if you join affiliate organisations.
    - Dave Postles
      
      Rawhide.
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        When you stick to meaningless one-word posts, your debating skills actually improve.
      - John Dore
        
        When starting from zero anything is an improvement.
  - John Dore
    
    One member, one vote is the utopian scenario, why should the Union barons wield so much power?
John Dore

Miliband wants a bigger party – not exclusions

Well I think we’ve kinda moved away from Ed Miliband is saying. Ed wants an inclusive wider movement, not a narrow left wing focussed one. Ed wants to lead a united country, not a bitterly divided one based on one social group hating another.

This must bring about serious concerns for Trebor, Alan and their friends who categorically state that they don’t want that. The question is what will they now do?
- AlanGiles
  
  I’ve made it clear – I am getting to the point where I don’t give a damn where our divided party goes – take it to the right of Nicholas Ridley and Prince Philip if you want to – I just won’t vote for it.
  
  I think though, there is one point we can all agree on: whether you support Progress or you don’t, the divisions in the party are becoming too great to allow for any possibility of a reconciliation. I for one am sick to death of being referred to as a “Hard leftist”, or a “Marxist” or any of the “ists” or “isms”. It seems the right have just as much a problem with intolerance of views they don’t agree with, as the left., and yet they try to pretend they are hard-=one-by “victims” of the intolerant left – and they are totally innocent of intolerance themselves.,
  
  It might have mattered to me once, but this last week or so has proven one thing to me: I don’t give a toss what Progress members think of me – they can insinuate I am a fanatical supporter of Lenin, if it gives them pleasure. I know the truth about my own views, and my life experiences which led me to believe in them, and at one time they would have been considered quite mainstream and straightforward, now we have an intolerant party with a lot of young people within it who know nothing about what life was like before Mrs Thatcher and Blair, and regard all other viewpoints as wrong, or even “dangerous”.
  - Pete
    
    I actually don’t agree that the divisions are becoming too great; the Tory party is much more divided on many more issues than the Labour Party is, and for the large part it has been able to remain a relatively cohesive electoral force (tragically), even in the face of a surging UKIP and a stronger Lib Dem right. I do not believe we are about to see a split akin to that the Liberals suffered in the ’20s or ’30s, nor do I think anyone is foolish enough to attempt an SDP style split on either side of the party.
    
    If you won’t vote Labour Alan, who will you vote for? A vote for any small left-wing party is effectively half a vote for the Coalition, save for voting Green in one or two seats where they stand a decent chance on building on Lucas’ success. Masses of Labour voters going to other parties from either wing in 2015 will only produce a Conservative landslide, as they did in 1983. Surely you’d still rather have Labour, even if it is led by the right of the party, in power than the Conservatives or the Coalition?
    
    Personally, even if Labour were to move in the direction you desire it and become a much more left-wing and socialist party, I would still vote for it and campaign for its candidates. I would be extremely disappointed and campaign ardently for the party to return to a social democratic and New Labour like position, but I would still support it.
    - AlanGiles
      
      I might not vote at all – or I might vote Green (cue the posterw ith 3 names for his usual parrot cry!).
      
      This spat about Progress really shows the distrust the right-wing of Labour has to anyone even slightly to their left, and the left’s distrust of the Progress right-wingers. It is a very basic distrust – it’s not on some arcane point of policy, it goes to the very heart of what the party stands for.
      
      Young right-wingers will regard me as an old relic of the past (some of them have even suggested I am a dangerous hard-left character, on LL!), I frankly regard some of the right-wingers – not as somebody suggested yesterday infiltrators from the Conservatives, – but so close to Conservative philosophy that it becomes difficult to see where right-wing labour ends and moderate Conservatism begins. I mean him no disrespect whatsoever, he is quite a pleasant bloke, who I am sure is sincere in his beliefs, , but there is one would-be Labour MP who posts on LL that is almost indistinguishable from a moderate Conservative, and I am puzzled as to why he wants to be a Labour MP when temprementally he seems more suited to the modernising Tories. I, on the other hand, am now so out of sympathy with the Blairs and Mandelsons and Purnell’s that there is virtually no point in my voting Labour, because my Labour party no longer exists. It would be hypocritical of me to do so now.
      - John Dore
        
        “because my Labour party no longer exists. It would be hypocritical of me to do so now.”
        Thank god for that, the last thing we want is the wilderness years.
      - AlanGiles
        
        You can enjoy yourself in the wilderness with Messrs Reid, Blair and co then. Because that’s where you are going. By 2015, 1997 will be 21 years in the past, and I don’t think the electorate will want to go back with you.
      - AlanGiles
        
        Sorry 18 years, of course, but you get the idea
      - john p Reid
        
        and 1997 was how many years since Wilosn won in 1964
      - AlanGiles
        
        At last Mr Reid you make a comment I can read without numerous errors in grammar.
        
        Having said that this is an especially stupid comment if I may say so.
        
        Harold Wilson has been dead for years, and at the end of his tenure he walked away – he didn’t attempt highly publicised “comebacks”. 1976 saw the end of his period of office.
        
        On the other hand earlier this year Blair appointed himself a new communications director to facilitate what he hopes or imagines will be a comeback.
        
        Prime Ministers are like heavyweight boxers, they don’t come back years after they have hung up their gloves – if they did they would be flat on their backs in round one.
        
        I doubt that Mohammed Ali would want to come back to take on Cooper (even Yvette Cooper).
        
        Blair is like Mrs Thatcher – he cannot let go, and until he does, he – like her – will divide the party.
        
        If he loves the Labour party more than he loves himself (doubtful) he will keep out of domestic politics – especially when you consider how his wars, cronyism and deceit divided the country as a whole, let alone the Labour party.
  - treborc1
    
    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/16/jon-cruddas-interview-key-points/
    
    Alan take a look at this, still hope…….
Robert_Crosby

Reflect before you act, Ed. Talk to people like Jon Cruddas… sound out people such as Roy Hattersley. I am sure you won’t be fooled by Progressites who turn up to fawn around you at events such as Saturday’s if their motivation is simply that they want to be seen around the leader/winner on any given day.
AlanGiles

The columns are ridiculously narrow at the end of this thread, so I need to type here.

John P Reid and myself live in leafy Havering, and earlier we were discussing the failure of New Labour to build council housing, despite 2 landslides and a good economic climate, and the behaviour of New Labour towards welfare claimants 2006-2010.

Mr Reid replied to me in an extraordinary way (see below) ) As neither me or anybody else has even used the word “asylum seekers” in this entire thread, still less prefacing it with “bogus” I asked him to explain to me why he had raised the topic – Havering is not exactly known for asylum seekers. This might not matter if Mr Reid was not the local party secretary. However we know he doesn’t like anybody to be even remotely “left wing” – could asylum seekers be another of his bete noires?. Perhaps he didn’t see my request for enlightenment, so could I invite him to respond now?. Broad church – oh yes!

“john P Reid
Collapse
I dont agree ,i just aid they wanted that 3rd term to stop the tores and their it’s not racist to say asylum seekrs are bogus, winning,

Like
Reply1 hour agoin reply to AlanGi
- john p Reid
  
  I was prepared to go out and have the door slammed in my face in 2005 as the alteranative was a tory party who had disgracefull comments like “it’s not racist to say asylum seekrs are racist”, I thought i made this quite clear.

Latest

News
Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]
Read more →
News
Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]
Read more →
Featured
Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

By Mark Ferguson

So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]
Read more →
News
Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]
Read more →
News
Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

By Mark Ferguson

In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]
Read more →