david_carnell

Never mind the in-laws, my own parents are bad enough..... Aged about 17 I was dating a young lady who was from the local private girls school. She therefore had a car, and one evening after a date I managed to not only convince her to drive me home (despite the date being much closer to her home than mine) but also to come in. For a coffee, of course. It was probably about 11:30 and my parents were safely tucked up in bed. Our passions ignited by caffeine we were, in the American vernacular, making out on the sofa with me attempting to get beyond 2nd base when suddenly my father appears at the lounge door wearing nothing but a pair of unnecessarily small y-fronts to "investigate the noise" under the assumption he was being burgled. Never has a human hand been removed from under a blouse with such speed. Whether the poor girl was traumatised I never found out - I was too embarressed to ever see her again. If we must do in-laws though, my ex girlfriends father, John, was a "character". The first time I met him he was on the tail end of his "self employeds, unemployeds and unemployables" Xmas lunch and of the course of the evening became so paralytically drunk that myself and my girlfriend had to literally carry him home from the pub. I always felt I had the upper hand in the early days of that relationship. Until I touched up his wife accidentally in a cab ride home one night. But that's another story......

This speech is one of the reasons I wished John Cruddas had stood. I'm off to the Fabian Society tonight to hear all the contenders at a hustings. I shall report back (for those who are interested).

Civil servant. Covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it?

I'm afraid I disagree entirely Matthew. I would like to see a commitment to nuclear disarmament and other candidates have also made murmurings along multi-lateral lines. I'd also like to see a debate about the balance of tax rises to public spending cuts required to address any budget deficeit. And as for her answers as to who would be in her shadow-cabinet, I though it was a purile line of questioning from Paxman. Does that really matter at this stage? I don't care who'd she'd appoint - I want to know what she stands for first. And "a stupid smirk"? Really - wow - such in depth reasoning for dismissing a politician....because they smile a bit funny. You'll be moaning about the skirt she wore next.

Whilst I'm not a supporter of hers per se I'm willing to defend her in this instance. The accusation that she is not a leader is based on what? You have to be a leader to a degree to be an MP - what further role should she have done to prove her credentials? Either you want someone tainted by their years as a New Labour apparatchik of someone new and refreshing. Meanwhile, from last night's hustings: Diane Abbott?s vocal and passionate cheering squad was joined by the rest of the audience when she demanded that Labour?s leaders ignore opinion polls and ?hold the line?. She argued that leadership is about knowing when to follow public opinion and knowing when to lead it. She said she doesn?t care how many voters raise the issue, Labour simply has to ?hold the line?. It was the biggest cheer and the longest applause of the night. I think the woman has faults, but not being able to lead discussion it not one of them.

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saw her on Newsnight last night. If she is the > kind of talent they have in the Labour party then > they're going to be out of power for many, many > years to come. Having just watched her performance, Matthew, what in particular did you find so unedifying as to dismiss the Labour movement for "many, many, years to come"?

Steve - as a self-employed business man I'm sure you'd be thrilled to pay your workers thruppence h'penny a day to work in dangerous conditions and with little or no employment rights. I suspect that the Chinese "model" is greatly appealing. Thankfully, you are not in charge of our economic, political or employment programme. There are other ways to remain at the forefront international competitiveness - and it's not by taking notes from a Beijing powerpoint presentation!

Ignoring MitchK's facetiousness the nominations are in: David Miliband Ed Miliband Ed Balls Andy Burnham Diane Abbott For those interested in attending a list of current hustings can be found here. I shall be at the Fabian Society on Monday night and will report back. I think John McDonnell should be applauded for his selfless withdrawal from the contest allowing Abbott to progress with the help of his supporters. Abbott is much more personable and it'll be interesting to see how popular she is with the unions and rank-and-file members like myself. Personally, I like her, but the elephant in the room of the sending her son to public school and her ludicrous support of homeopathy and other woo is suspect. On other political issues she is a sound and experienced campaigner. Andy Burnham is the dark horse of the group. An amiable scouser he could be a real danger to the Milibands. Out of the two, I think Ed the more likely to prosper. Despite being untrue, he is seen as less tarred by the brush of the New Labour project than his older brother. However, Miliband Snr already has a powerful political machine in operation and it'll be difficult to bring down. It's going to be a tight contest, of that I'm certain, and may well come down to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even 5th preference voting. Sadly it'll all be over by Day 1 of the Party conference in September. This is a disappointment. With parliament in recess there would easily have been time to extend the contest into the autumn and allow the conference to be a grand hustings. Instead it will become a coronation event. Disappointing. The NEC should take a long hard look at themselves.

I don't think Bar Story has any screens - you could try there. Black Cherry and Liquorice(sp?) I think are also screen-free. But as for actual pubs? I'm at a loss.

Rosie Should that not read: And you thought Woof was disppointing. I had you down as a good time girl and celeb-chef collector!

Barry On Platform 3 of Peckham Rye station is a large, unused room. Could this not be invested in to provide either a waiting room for passengers, or even better, a small tea room. In my romantic visions I'd aspire to something like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3DCs5bz7mdM/SGruAPCIVNI/AAAAAAAAAMw/2EpGFaF7cBQ/s320/Brief%2BEncounter%2BRefreshment%2BRoom.png But in reality I'd settle for this: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3434264898_9300e19838.jpg You've got the space at that station for it to be quite lovely and welcoming. Sadly at the moment it just appears as if the station is a shadow of its former self. Regards David.

Forgive my ignorance but how the bejesus did the Greek Orthodox church end up owning the land? I mean there are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and even Armenian sectors to Jerusalem but I didn't the Greeks were involved too. As this is the lounge and I'm free to be flippant could I suggest they sold it to pay off some debt?!

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You'll wake up one morning to find them leafing > through your Proust, and nodding sagely. Surely a mouse would read the Little Red Book by Mouse Tse-tung? Or perhaps a little Rodentkranz? But they hate Schrodinger's cat.

The trouble with a two-state solution is Jerusalem. Neither side will want to abandon claim to their holy city. The annexation by Israel of East Jerusalem is further problematic as Palestinians would like to see this as their capital in an independent Palestine. Perhaps it could become a self-styled city-state much like the Vatican City or Singapore. Give Jerusalem it's own seat at the UN and a seperate security force (perhaps by the UN itself or like the Swiss Guard) thus removing the problem.

Considering this is a government that has prided itself on a libertarian approach to civil liberties, legislating for a minimum price-per-unit of alcohol seems the height of hypocrisy. Their whole approach has been that the state does not know best and that individuals can look after themselves. Yet within weeks we have another pointless piece of lobby-fodder law-making. If this has to happen (and seemingly it does) my only improvement is that it only applies to shops rather than pubs/bars thus helping rectify the demise of the great British pub.

People - behold - the Sean McG posse have already experienced the delights of the Victoria. A twitter account gained a select group entry to the pre-opening party last Thursday evening and I can report the following: The space is big - very big. I'm not sure where it was hiding before considering they've added a kitchen. But nicely turned out and cosy. Hard to tell about this "family" area but there are curtains that could separate the back bar from the front. Not sure who gets what though. The exterior paint job and new Victoria signage all look top notch. A Fuss-ball table was unplayed but a nice touch. The staff - attractive. Very. If that sort of thing matters to you. But then they may have shipped in the good looking ones from all the sister pubs. But all were friendly as well. The drinks - Well, they were free this night and only draughts on offer but it'll be the same schtick as the Bishop/Florence so decent, mid-market booze without being overly eccentric or different. 3 draught ales and half a dozen lagers and wine. Food - again free, but only a limited choice (fair enough), and all of it was lovely - especially the fried chicken. Clientele - freeloaders, the lot of 'em. But with free food and beer everyone was in good spirits. A few sad faces from those not on the guest list being turned away. All-in-all it's a very welcome addition to the Bellenden area and will give the Gowlett and Montpellier some needed competition. ps. Rumours were heard that evening that the old Bellenden Brasserie (which closed in, ahem, murky circumstances) is to be bought by the Petit-Tou cafe for larger premises. There's still life in the area yet.

Moos....darling...a crusty: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/images/2005/08/17/7_350x470.jpg But I think what tonyh is getting at is that a large number of East Dulwich-ites just aren't that wealthy to sustain any more fab restaurants. Have you seen the house prices in Primrose Hill? That's the sort of area that's chock full of high end, chi-chi, pretentious, foodie-twaddle that ED can only aspire to. *sigh* Unfortunately, to get there we would have to up our city-banker/barrister/architect wanker-quotient to unbearable levels to the point where anyone not dressed head-to-toe in Bamford&Sons cashmere has to throw themselves under the nearest Range Rover. We'll survive with just the one deli I suspect.

For a point of reference, average salary is a difficult concept. The National Statistics Office, as of 2009, gives the annual median salary as ?489 per week (or ?25,428 pa). This is gross however so you can expect to lose nearly a third of this before we reach take home pay. That would be about ?17,000pa. Using a mean average may lead to a higher figure but as someone noted earlier this is massively distorted by those very few people at the top end earning millions a year. Rates in London are higher (?627pw or ?32,604pa or a shade over ?21k after deductions). The average UK house price (Jan-Mar 2010) is ?234,837 according to the land registery. I don't know, but I would imagine this is a mean average but the distortion in prices of houses isn't as great as salaries so can be used with some accuracy. However, in London this rises to ?406,608. But this, I feel is likely to be distorted given the high number of very expensive properties in London. So let's look just at Southwark. A good mix of housing - rich and poor. Average price is ?369,813. With a two person income, on average of ?42k after deductions the ability to afford nearly 8x your income to buy a property would seem out of the reach of many. A generous deposit of ?20k would still mean a mortgage of ?350k. The repayment at 5% would be nearly ?2k a month over 30 years!

Mamora Man ? I?d like to try and come back and answer/rebut some of your points. Why do I see Cameron as the perfect political foe? Primarily for media reasons. His background presents an easy target. Coming from a left of centre viewpoint, I believe that if the Labour Party can?t make political hay whilst the proverbial Eton-educated sun is shining in Downing Street then something is wrong somewhere. Politically, there have been Conservative PMs and leaders who I have liked less (I?m impressed with his stance on civil liberties for instance) but I believe he is still a PM looking to govern for a privileged few rather than the many. Essentially, as a democratic socialist, my economic beliefs are an anathema to his. I do not doubt that there is a deficit that needs to be tackled. However, currently this seems to be being done through spending cuts only. There is little to no discussion about the ratio of tax raises to spending cuts. I would like prospective Labour leaders to make these arguments. I?m afraid I disagree with your opinion that Labour does not need to re-engage with its core support. Whilst the old fashioned idea of the ?working classes? (miners, printers, dockers etc) are by and large obsolete, the idea that there is not a vast low skilled white-collar (call centres for eg.), skilled blue-collar workforce (electricians or builders for eg.) and public sector workers that could replace this voting bloc is just misguided. Labour is the natural home for these voters and it is up to us not only to fashion policies that appeal to them but also to build policies from a sound ideological base that still, at its heart, has the interests of the employee rather than the employer at heart. This perhaps begins to answer why I desire ideological ?zeal?. Perhaps that is a loaded phrase. As a Conservative you are essentially ideologically empty unless you follow Thatcherite economics. Conservatism, as any A-Level student will tell you, is an anti-ideology bucking change and seeking to conserve the status quo. But more than this, and as Ed Miliband has highlighted, the fact that New Labour was an ideologically empty project meant that it rapidly ran out of policies. It had been established to get the Labour Party into power but once there they did not possess sufficient zeal to carry out a truly progressive mandate. I agree that aside from John McDonnell and now Diane Abbott, the other candidates have been notable by their silence in defining or detailing any clear centre-left politics or outlining the core tenets of their belief system that they wish to exercise politically. A sorry situation. But I do not think that such opportunists as the LibDems would be the source of such arguments. Your final paragraph sums up my feelings entirely. I want my politicians to lead as much as listen. To be thinkers, to lay out plans and schemes with clear links to ideological planks and when they are radical, unpopular or met with confusion, to educate and explain and convince. A politician with convictions, then. What a rare beast in the 21st century.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The new Lib Dem/Con coalition that will > reintroduce the link between pay and state pension > increases and will raise the tax threshold to > ?10,000 taking the poorest out of taxation. > > Regards james No, James. That's a massive misrepresentation of the facts. Even Vince Cable admits it's redistributive outcomes are not as radical as Labour's tax credits. Please read this for an intelligent disection and destruction of a watered down commitment.

I will admit being a member of the Labour Party. But I am not proud. I joined in my teens and now, in my late 20s, am living under a Conservative (ish) government for the first time as an adult. For years, however, I have been a reluctant member. Unspiring policy, media and power obsessed politicians and morally objectionable legislation led me to not only become apathetic towards the party but come very close to handing back my card. However, with the opportunity for renewal in the face of defeat (and it was a resounding rejection of Labour despite what anyone says), I felt that there was light at the end of the tunnel once more. A chance to engage and a strange feeling of optimism. But I am depressed again. I felt there was just a chance of being excited by politics again. Fighting the good fight etc? and against such a perfect political foe as Cameron. With every headline and new announcement I fear for this country, my loved ones and myself. I do not believe it to be a scaremongering or hyperbole to say that this is going to be the nadir of modern British fortune. Most of all, I wanted Jon Cruddas to stand for Leader of the Labour Party and to win. I felt he had the intellect, the background and the determination to win, to change the party and the country for the better. He clearly does not feel the same. For shame. Now where do I look for the progressive left? Miliband 1 & 2? Two policy wonks and party apparatchiks who've barely worked outside politics and who were architects of New Labour, but now renounce it's failings as if they had nothing to do with it? I think not. Despite their rhetoric they are a disgrace to the ideological zeal of their father. I wanted ideals or convictions. I didn't want policy-by-focus-group any longer. I wanted clear beliefs and the passion to articulate them. To inspire the ignorant or the apathetic, to convert the undecided. As a student of politics and British political history, Michael Foot, the 1983 election and the 'longest suicide note in history' come to mind when talking of such things. And then I found this quote by Foot: Now...who is saying that in the Labour Party today? No one, aside from some of the socialist Campaign Group candidates who won't stand, won't win and who are loathed by most of their own party. Jon McDonnell is a dinosaur who thinks we are still on the side of the miners and could renationalise the means of production. He is delusional. I apologise for the rambling verbosity and general pessimism of this post. I hope it sparks some debate as to the direction the progressive left, both inside and out of the Labour Party, should now take. Where will those of us looking for inspiration and optimism find it in our rump of a parliamentary party? Which candidate should we vote for and why?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm pretty much in agreement with DC on this. *faints with shock* Never thought I'd live to see the day! Glad to have onboard the idealists bandwagon Quidsy. Heh.

Whilst I think Steve is tilting at windmills for the most part, his vague assertion that we "tiptoe" around Islam is an interesting one. It is, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm open to corrections), a religion based on patriarchy and misogyny. At it's heart is a legal system that is diametrically opposed to our own and its religious heartland is based in a country that is run by an autocratic monarchy. The original article I posted is by a "reformed muslim" who intelligently argues that due to these, and other aspects of Islam, it is fundamentally incompatible with liberal, western society. Muslims who settle in those societies should be encouraged to renounce the repugnant aspects of their faith but this is an unpopular and explosive stance to voice. We worry, due to cultural sensitivities, that strongly criticising female oppression amongst the Islamic diaspora is something we should shy away from. I don't think it should be. Perhaps it is a fear of being branded racist. But this would be wrong, Islam is a religion that stretches from North Africa, to the Middle East all the way to Malaysia and the Philipines. Not to mention it's western-world emigrees. Nor is it islamaphobic, this would imply some irrational fear, like that of spiders, when it is in fact a rather rational and passive critique and not a fear.

LadyM - you don't do yourself justice to suggest this is too complex for you. It's too complex for everyone, including the great philosophers of history, so don't worry about it. Just jump in. I used backward to describe any culture that still views, in this particular example female circumcision, as either preferable or justifiable. I would extend its use though to include (although not exclusively) any society or culture that actively permits: Capital punishment Oppression of women or children Denial of freedom of speech, association and movement Torture Sharia Law Racism Anti-democratic principles I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe modern, western, liberal, rational, democratic, judicial, enlightened culture to be as good as it currently gets. And that we, as befits those who are lucky enough to live within such a society, should encourage its spread throughout the world. Essentially, I feel that cultural sensitivities have a breaking point that I cannot cross. It's incredibly subjective (as Sean says "case by case") but I do not believe in a world where we turn a blind eye to injustices on the excuse of cultural or moral relativism.

To prevent the LibDem/Tory thread becoming bogged down in a side debate I want to discuss this openly and fully. Should those, and this will be all members of the EDF, who belong to modern, liberal, western and democratic societies believe their opinions on related matters to be superior to those from societies that are backward, illiberal, authoritarian or fundamentalist? To put a cat amongst the pigeons here is an interesting article from the Guardian's weekend magazine last week, written by a female Somali refugee who is now a Dutch MP, describing the dangers of tolerance towards Islam. But should I, or anyone else in our society, view such issues as the treatment of women as something that is culturally relative? Should the fact that I cannot appreciate belonging to a society that believes in female circumcision, for example, prevent my belief that such practices are abhorrent and should not only be outlawed here (in this instance it already has) but also worldwide. And that I'm right in dictating that to a backward, misogynistic culture. Or is this a case of western arrogance telling everyone how to get their house in order?