????

this is worth thinking about haters http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/some-advice-to-people-angered-by-the-election-add-some-tories-on-facebook/

AS an aside - life meaning life is not legal under the HRA nor is not letting prisoners vote. But anyway, the point is that in the sh1testorm of social media hate regarding the people's choice* (*deliberate fish for' 37% of the poulation aren't the people). This Humans Right Act is being posted up as evidence of the burning of books and a fore runners to Krystalnacht, rather than what it is, a manifesto commitment to create a Bill of Rights that the conservatives thinks work best for the UK. I don't now if this is right but I do know it will be published, scrutinised, commented on by experts, commented on in the media, debated as part of a political process, and srutinised by the opposition and rightly so they collectively otr inndivudually may persuade me that it's wrong or right. But I do know that I am really not going to take notice of a bunch of LIVID fuckwits on Social media demonstrsting their lack of any political knowledge in an massive and tedious spate of WE FOOKING HATE THE TORIES

C&P section from an Opinion in the Graun Public discourse in this country would be more civilised, productive, and robust if the left were less sanctimonious, less smugly certain of the righteousness of their cause, and more sensitive to the fact that everyone doesn?t see things their way ? in which case results like last Friday?s might seem a measure less surprising. Conservative supporters might either have the courage of their convictions or, if truly ashamed, revise them, but they should at least refute the proposition that defending your own interests is only acceptable if you?re broke. This election was largely swung by the middle class of middle England, who determined that the economy was in safer hands with the Tories. Others may not agree, but that?s still a reputable position; it shouldn?t be a sordid little secret.

bodsier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Michael Gove minister of justice..... With > cutbacks, dumbing down and forensic science being > passed down to the police, there inevitably will > be more miscarriages of justice than ever before. > If we get rid of the Human Rights act, prisons > will be bulging. I don't think Any party who > wishes to rid us of the Human Rights Act should be > in Government. It will no doubt be our biggest > loss. Oh Ffs. It was in their manifesto and hardly warranted a mention ( including from labour) it wasn't law until 2000 and is being replaced by a bill of rights which puts ultimate sovereignty on human rights wit the UK courts. Stop being such a melodramatic twat believing everything you see on Social Medis about the fascist Tories. I despair.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah quids, I'm a Marxist. You've lost it. Read my > post in the context of the comments I was replying > too. I didn't say you were a marxist, I said it was a 'Marxist framed' argument. Something that huge parts of the left don't seem to realise how much their arguments are effected by this. Take the moral certainty for an example. For many (not all but a fuck of a lot) people on the left people who are opposed to 'progressiveness' do so because they are either acting in their own self interest (personal advantage) or because of their 'false concisousness' i.e. plebs acting against their own interest because they read the Sun. They seem completely unable to understand that plenty of rational, caring, truly liberal people look at the facts as they see them and take an alternative position that they think is best for society. This is a huge weakness in the left's ability to debate, move on and or 'learn' as it is based on a marxist framework. All tories/tory votersare thick or scum at the extreme. The left should do more listening and less shouting.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke > to > > our core voters but not to aspirational, > > middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom > and > > top of society, about the minimum wage and > > zero-hour contracts, about mansions and > non-doms. > > But we had too little to say to the majority of > > people in the middle." > > > > Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you > > have to win the support of this group of > voters. > > It is said that just 150 seats decide elections > in > > the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but > > those 150 seats are definitely middle ground. > And > > Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader > for > > Labour too. > > This assumes that those in the middle are only > concerned with their own narrow self interest, > "what are you going to do for ME". How about those people who think that an aspirational society - a hand up rather than hand down one - is better for everyone? You're just repeating the idiotic Marxist framed argument that aspiration is somehow selfish that explains why Labour just got massacred. Patronising top down crap.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aston Villa v West Ham today. The Prime Minister > must have been a bit confused. Apparently Camweon said he got confused as he'd been past Upton Park earlier that day but he was a solid Villa fan who used to go with his uncle. What he failed to mention was he'd been past Upton Park n a helicopter and his uncle used to own Aston Villa!

Nope. i liked the adrenaline then...a bit. I went twice :). 1991(?)was absolute chaos/carnage everywhere, would be unbelievable to anyone whose under 40 just how bad that day was. Different days.

Anyway THIS sort of thing is what the Labour Party need to be saying not Owen Jones'/Polly T's class warfare to get me listening again "In spite of our superior ground operation and the tremendous efforts of members and candidates, Thursday was a devastating result for Labour. Ed Miliband had put his finger on one of the biggest issues of our time: the need for prosperity to extend beyond the top 1%. He had grown in stature over the campaign. The Tories were seen as out of touch and for the few. Yet they ended up with a majority. We won 100 fewer seats than them: our worst election performance in almost three decades. Ed was too hard on himself in assuming all the responsibility for the scale of our defeat; all of us on the front line are implicated. So, as the dust settles, on the result it?s time to confront things which, in retrospect, we should have done years ago. As a political family, we are in shock, but must channel our disappointment into the work of rebuilding and renewal. That starts with having an honest look in the mirror and asking : why did we lose? Some point to Scotland, where we lost 40 of our 41 seats to the SNP. It is true, the rise of nationalism there was a factor that has deep, cultural roots. But our collapse north of the border was compounded by our failure to keep the Conservatives from holding and taking seats in England. We targeted 80 Tory-held seats in England, but made a net gain of just four. Of the 10 seats in the three southern regions outside London which we won in 2010, we actually lost two. It was in England that David Cameron won his majority and put a Labour-led government out of reach. Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle. Second, we allowed the impression to arise that we were not on the side of those who are doing well. We talked a lot ? quite rightly ? about the need to address ?irresponsible? capitalism, for more political will to tackle inequality, poverty and injustice (and we must never give the appearance that we are relaxed about them). But we talked too little about those creating wealth and doing the right thing. That?s why I?ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the trade unions that play an important role representing them. But you cannot be pro good jobs without being pro the businesses that create them. In spite of the fact that our policy offer was pro-business, the rhetoric often suggested otherwise. And sometimes we made it sound like we saw taxing people as a good in itself, rather than a means to an end. Third, we treated parts of the electorate as no-go areas. We tried to cobble together a 35% coalition of our core vote, disaffected Lib Dems, Greens and Ukip supporters. The terrible results were the failure of that approach writ large. We need a different, big-tent approach ? one in which no one is too rich or poor to be part of our party. Most of all, we need to start taking large numbers of votes directly from the Conservatives. Fourth, we did not tackle the legacy of our recent past so did not allay the concerns some voters had about us. Of course, the last Labour government should not have been running (an albeit small and historically unremarkable) deficit before the financial crash. But we should have done far more to challenge the ludicrous claim that our investment in public services caused it. The Tories conveniently ignore the fact they signed up to our spending plans before the crash, we inherited a debt-to-GDP ratio of 42% from them in 1997 and had got this down to 37% by 2008; and, under 18 years of Tory rule before 1997, the deficit averaged 3.2% of GDP, whereas it was 1.3% from 1997 to 2007. The failure to nail this argument allowed doubts to arise about our competence. So did our reluctance, until late in the last parliament, to sufficiently illustrate that we took deficit reduction seriously. We should have shouted louder about there be nothing progressive about spending more paying debt interest to City investors and others every year than we invest in our housing or transport. Fifth, as the party that believes in government?s ability to make people?s lives better, we should have been the ones championing a smart, efficient public sector that uses technology, co-operative and mutual principles and a pragmatic ?what works? approach to get things done. By way of an example, consider Transport for London?s decision to make its data freely available to developers. The move has spawned the creation of some 200 travel apps by tech companies, improving users? experiences and adding tens of millions of pounds to the economy. Decentralising the state is a big part of this challenge. In government, we were the architects of devolution, but in opposition ceded that ground to George Osborne and his Northern Powerhouse agenda. We must now go much further: pushing for a massive devolution of power to our cities, regions and towns and, by extension, reducing what is done in Whitehall by consolidating and merging departments and cutting the number of ministers by at least a third. Sixth, the divergence of different parts of the UK and voters? lack of trust in politics require bigger solutions than those we put forward. We must be the party of drastic political reform. We should be saying: it is time for parliament to move out of the relic that is the Palace of Westminster and into a new, modern, accessible site fit for purpose, for a serious debate about the electoral system, for an elected Senate in place of the outdated House of Lords. We should start by changing our party: cultivating networks of supporters and civic society organisations and making it more of a force for progressive change in people?s communities every day, not just every five years. It?s worth noting that if Labour had as many members as the SNP, relative to population, it would have 1.2 million. Finally, we needed a clearer vision of Britain in the world. Labour is the party of internationalism and openness. It is up to us to explain how global change can be harnessed, how we in Britain can use our strengths ? our universities, industry and innovation, our diverse population, our global alliances (especially the EU) ? to make life here better. It is also up to us to fight the root causes of anti-immigration sentiment, like the housing crisis, rather than pandering to it. So as painful as Thursday?s result is, the direction we need to taketo rebuild is clear. We must stop looking to the past and focus on ensuring everyone has a stake in the future. Our vision as a party must start with the aspirations of voters: to get on and up in the world, to see their children and grandchildren do better than they did, to get that better job, to move from renting to owning, to take the family on holiday, to move from that flat to that house with a garden. That means offering competence, optimism not fatalism, an end to machine politics, an economic credo that is both pro-worker and pro-business and, most of all, a politics that starts with what unites us as a country rather than what divides us. Only then will we be able to build the fairer, more equal, democratic and sustainable society that led us to join our party in the first place. Our defeat was on the scale of 1992, but our revival can be on the scale of 1997, and just as rapid if we do what needs to be done. Labour is down, but not out. We must ? and will ? recover, and win again. Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham

AM you're not at the Den any more you're at that shoebox up the road. Fond memories of your old place, always such fun to visit with the Hammers.

I see a bunch of largely pretty posh sounding revolutionaries (maybe a 1000) are sticking it to the fascist democraticaly elected govt this afternoon, including graffitiing the woman's war memorial, right now under such truly laughable posts as "the insurrection starts now"

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am rather enjoying the angst and hatred of > the > > metropolitan middle classes all over social > media, > > it's enough to make you vote Tory. > > What would the young ???? have thought of the > older ?????... At 3am in the morning of the 1983 election I was pissed and stoned out of my head playing Heaven 17s "We don't need this Fascist Grove Thing" out of the windows at top volume in my girlfriends flat in Ladbroke Grove as the Tories had just romped home and there was a celebratory party going on opposite....back then, I'd have been surprised that a 50+ ???? would be glad that Labour didn't get in 2015, but I am pretty sure I'd be thinking that it would be pretty foooking sad for a 50+ ???? to be doing metaphorically speaking the same thing as in 1983 in the face of a Tory victory, which is, more or less, what many 50, 40, and 30+ year olds are doing. Plus of course all the permanently adolescent lefty luvvies. I find it a bit sad, quite false and pretty juvenile as a 50+ year old, glad i was doing it at 20 but now, Fooking grow up. Vote who you want to, look at the facts, fight for change, join the greens/Labour whoever, but posting 'right on messages/propganda' on Social Media Fooking meaningless crap...unless you are 20ish obviously. The tories aren't baby eaters (all of them anyway) and their voters aren't all self centred millionaires or dupes of the right wing press.

Interesting C&P from an Independent article The Sun may claim, just as the paper did in 1992, it was it ?wot won it? yesterday, but ultimately, just like all those years ago, it was the shy Tory voters who came out in force yesterday to deliver Cameron the Conservative majority that eluded him in 2010. I am not one of those shy Tory voters. The threat of a Labour-SNP axis looming over the United Kingdom, placing the economic recovery in turmoil and risking disuniting our nation was enough of an impetus for me to encourage everyone I know to back the Conservatives. How could I not with 2 million more people in work, the deficit halved as a percentage of GDP, the economy growing, and real term wage increases again for workers? For me, the choice was clear this election but if anything the campaign showed that many Tories were unprepared to espouse their ideals as loudly as a certain strand of the Left do. So, why is there such hesitancy among Conservative voters to support this record? The simple answer is that for many, particularly students like myself, it is still seen as taboo to support the Conservative Party. F**k Tories signs dotted across university, student unions dominated by the far left - who worry more about solidarity with Peruvian revolutionaries than they do about issues for students on campus - and being called a murderer for expressing right wing opinions ? all combine to make it feel as if the Left has a monopoly on university life. Nonetheless, nowhere is being a shy Tory more encouraged than on social media, specifically Facebook, where any movement away from the ?progressive line? is treated as treason. Tories are seen as inherently bad. Those who support fiscal sensibility are painted as devious or tricksters who have pulled the wool over an electorate made out to be naturally left wing. On an event created to ?Stop the Tory Coup? one user claimed the election was ?a fix? - and started to organise a protest against the democratic outcome. After the election such self-righteousness continued. One Facebook user claimed that someone was simply ?wrong? when a friend posted he thought Britain had made the right decision. Another Facebook user claimed the electorate were ?simply not ready for someone who knew what they were doing? in reference to the poor showing by Miliband?s party. READ MORE: SCRAP THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND TTIP - HERE'S WHAT YOU VOTED FOR, BRITAIN JOHN RENTOUL: THE OTHER MILIBAND COULD HAVE WON John Leisk, from Colchester, a seat that swung to Conservatives against polling, gave what he thought was the reason for him being a shy Tory: ? Supporters of Labour and other left wing parties are convinced they have the moral high ground and that any disagreement is inhumane, as a result any confession of Tory support is shouted down and abused.? Is it worth the effort? Not really. If it?s not worth the effort to argue on social media, and on campuses supporting the Tories is seen as taboo, no wonder being a Tory is a secret kept close to people?s chest. At the end of the day, petitions written in capitals and idealistic statuses liked by 30 left wing friends do not win you majorities. Clear, coherent and sustainable policies do and that is why more people voted for the Conservatives than any other party yesterday. As a friend's mum said, ?I?m very happy the country is apparently more intelligent than social media makes it seem.? I especially like the last line...

So you are opposed to a redistribution of wealth that encourages work at the same time then?

Yup , hopefully. Now just who were telling Orthodox Jews in Finchley that the Tory Candidate was gay a few days ago?

...and people on Forums/social media too maybe? "Only goal is to deny etc etc" "Nothing is growing on the Economy" blah blah indeed

I am rather enjoying the angst and hatred of the metropolitan middle classes all over social media, it's enough to make you vote Tory.

Been giggling at this, yes it's the Spectator but some pithy truths http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/the-biggest-loser-of-the-night-russell-brand/

Reply to RD That's just a small part of it. This is bigger than that though - it's not just BNP voters they were only a force in a few constituencies this is accross the board. If i was Labour i'd get out and talk to some other people than party members and 'progressives' and maybe some proper debating rtaher than shutting down/shreiking at people who don't hold the 'book of left' views. Social media this morning hasn't convinced me that's going to happen - it's all 'the plebs are idiots' or it's Murdoch's fault.

PS and wasn't Russell Brand a 'game changer'

UKIP has damaged Labour far more than the tories by reducing Labour's vote in the marginals quite significantly. The neglect of its core traditional vote has bitten Labour on the arse, something the party, social media and our very own Mr Carnell have been in denial about for years. Talking perpetually to yourselves in the Guardian and Twitter rather than the plebs completly removes any sense of reality of what people really think...

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I was naive and just hadn't realised how much of > the Labour vote would go to UKIP." > > That had a minimal effect on the overall result > though - UKIP took a lot of votes from Labour in > safe Labour seats, but didn't come close to > winning any of them. > Try telling that to Ed Balls - UKIP has let tories win or especially hold plenty of marginals..that's the point PS 400 :)

I think we'll vote to stay in ( just) , Cameron will get concessions and support it, labour will support it..will be tight though

Yup london's got a higher proportion of Middle-class intelligentsia and ethnic minorities both far more likely to be Labour than Tory

Are all tha analysts stooped? Clearly the Labour Party is losing votes to UKIP and perhaps more than the conservatives. Ignored their core vote for YEARS hens coming home to roost.