I don't fully trust the government on public spending either

Alex, I respect your commitment, if not your cause.

My local Labour group has passed free school meals, but the LibDem council are being slow to implement it or let parents know. I was out telling parents what they're entitled to.

So even if I accepted your premise, which I don't, they're different entities. My local CLP is still trying to get things done, though - with success!

So yes, fighting for my ideals, but in a way I can see the results on the ground myself.

Alex, Why are you out canvassing?

I know that you will answer that you are fighting for your ideals. But your ideals won't be the victors in any (high;y unlikely) Labour victory. Your ideals would be discarded - together with the idealistic canon-fodder who plodded the streets to make this victory possible - and the true victors would be the corrupt, discredited and incompetent government of whom you already despair.

The best way for you to be true to your ideals would be to act to eject this government from office and rebuild your gutted party from scratch.

Just to cheer everyone up even further if the SNP continue to hold their current vote share in Scotland through 2010 then the majority of MP's coming from Scotland will be SNP with the likes of Darling and Murphy loosing their seats.

This is where Nu(Tony Blair for EU Emperor)Labour has delivered the Labour movement, destruction of their vote in the part of the country which gave voice to the movement.

Yet still we see Murphy and Labour in Scotland pushing cheap stunts to promote themselves, supported by tame Unionist journalists in the media, which fall upon ever stonier ground in Scotland. Scots do not want more scare stories from Labour, they want to know what Labour are doing to help meet their real needs and not simply those foisted on them by Nu Labour.

Time for Conference to again find its spine.

PS: OK Baroness Scotland paid her fine but the real sticking point is the £38,000 per year of non entitled expenses she has been claiming.

Yes, and thanks, Thomas, for your reassurance.

Alex,
GB & Co. have just re-discovered the fate of all serial liars in history. Even the truth will be treated as a lie by the time it's forced out.

Re: Free school meals. Doesn't sound much I know, but it's one small step in the right direction. As with all repair jobs, it's better to get started than hang around waiting to see if it gets worse.

I voted LibDem as I could not stand the Conservatives and thought Blair was a charlatan

I suggest you should get that printed on a T shirt, under the words "Don't blame me".

I felt there was a vision 1997-2002ish, and some good ideas that got beyond old right left lines. I always thought in theory that social entrepreneur idea had lot of potential, for example - don't know what happened t it.

Personally I think one problem rarely mentioned is that in the 80s (this is similar to your BBC point above) Labour felt it was done in by the print press. It went to such lengths to address this that managing the press almost became an end in itself. Similarly, because it was portrayed as financially dodgy, it went to great lengths to measure the effects of spending to demonstrate the effiicacy. Targets likewise became an end in themselves. I'm not saying these were the only problems, its just a bit of perspective.

As for the Islington/Real World issue - it's always been there in the Labour party, hence the Gaitskill-Bevanite tensions, but in the old days the unions evened things up, and whatever their faults they did bring a voice of working people to the debate. That happens less now, for various reasons.

The only way they'll be reconciled is for the Islingtonites to drop their arrogance, but I can't see that happening because they don't even understand how they come across as arrogant. I had an exchange with a Labour-minded poster yesterday who informed me that "working class" was not a "relevant term" any more, regardless (this is the point) of whether or not someone used it to refer to themselves. Fine - I know what he means, I'm not daft - but on the other hand, if you say that, how do you then talk to that person about how they see themselves? As you say, one hell of a challenge.

James, re the sleaze - it was a bit more than that:

Cash for questions
Hamiltons
Archer's perjury
Allegations against Ashcroft
Alan Clark's diaries
Various affairs in a cabinet trying to tell the electorate what to do with its sex life
Also the general plotting against Major, which increased the sense of untrustworthiness.

But yes, in some ways it seems small beer now. I don't think the BBC is Labour's media arm - it seems as biased the other way if you're on the other side, but this is an argument neither side can convince the other of. In a way, though, I think it's worse. What happens now is that the corruption is so endless, so spun, so endemic, that editors have a sense (I think research shows it too) that the public is less shocked and therefore less interested. This Government must take the blame for that.

I doubt the Tories will do any different, and some aspects of the trend were inherited, but still, it is a terrible legacy.

"Labour had really changed."

The only change in substance was a commitment to stick to Tory spending plans for two years. All the rest were mere changes of style (i.e. spin and lies). When the two years of austerity were out the way public expenditure mushroomed and then taxation and now government borrowing.

The effect on the Tories (and all Labour's critics) was devastating. The honeymoon of office kept all the lefties and spendthrifts at bay. And once the spending spree started public discourse had already become corrupted to the extent that people no longer believed Labour would spunk everyone's money up the wall. No one could accuse Labour of being economically irresponsible and yet here they were enjoying an unprecedented spending fest on everything from the Millennium Dome and the Olympics through to the NHS, schools, higher education and even wars in the Middle East.

Old Labour believed in high taxes to pay for worthwhile projects contributing to the public good. New Labour believes exactly the same thing except that instead of advocating higher public expenditure in principle, you lie about your beliefs in elections and then use the word "invest" each time you spend more money. The only exception to this rule has been during the recent crisis in which the Keynesian argument has been made. That aside you could mistake Blair and Brown for being Thatcherite pro-marketers if you took their words seriously.

Of course no one does take Blair or Brown seriously any more. They're just ambitious politicians who discovered that lying on a huge scale was a trick the British public would fall for. I guess, as always, it's our fault ultimately - you get the politicians you deserve and all that.

Richard.

There is no money left to spend. Where have you been for the last year?

"Tory cuts will be deep and spiteful"

Just to make sure I understood this correctly.

I am middle class. If the Tories tax me less they're being spiteful. If on the other hand they take more of my money and then hand some of it back to me they're not being spiteful. Hmmm, where do I sign up? LOL.

The main problem confronting the Labour Party is that it's still run by people who think like you.

“James, I really think your memory is faulty. The constant round of sleaze allegations against Tories, the endless rebellions, the ERM fiasco”

Peter, I hope for once we can keep this civil, as quite frankly you guys are going through a rough time right now, and being seen to gloat will just get everyone’s heckles up.

So allow me to give you my side of what you mention and we can see if we can agree on something.

Firstly I blame the BBC, I really do, bear with me. You mention the constant sleaze, but in fairness what exactly was it? Some back bencher ask a question for cash and the BBC hyped the story for months, by contrast Labour lords take £100k to actually change the law and the BBC dropped the story after just 1 day. In 1997 a couple of back benchers got laid, one prat even suffocated himself with a bin bag over his head. But today there has been widespread abuse by cabinet members regards property (yes, some Tories too). Today we learn that the chief lawmaker is a criminal but will not resign.

Now I’m not trying to poke here, so count to ten before you retaliate all guns blazing. But I do think the BBC hyped up a lot of sleaze from very little. I think the BBC is effectively the media wing of the Labour party, so any reflection on the 1997 ‘sleaze’ angle needs to be boiled down to what actually happened rather than the hype. Surely you will agree with me that when you remember the drilling the BBC gave the Tories, they have not been anywhere, anywhere near as harsh to Labour.

Regards the ERM fiasco, yes for us that was a fecking disaster, we had no business being in it anyway, we deserved to be drubbed for it, fair and square. However, I would point out that the scale of that (what it cost us) was actually lower than the Brown Bottom in gold sell off and I won’t even mention the bank bailouts as that would be too easy.


“... ah yes, I remember it well. I'd say, though Major wasn't held in as high contempt as Brown, the disillusionment with the Tories was pretty total: hence the three successive wipeouts.”

Peter, do you think in all honesty Labour will be back sooner? If I had to guess I think you may be looking at least as long.


“I'm pretty sure a poll comparison will bear me out. Major was unpopular, but not as unpopular as his party. Labour is unpopular, but not as unpopular as Brown. (Hence ANY change in leadership will improve Labour's fortunes).”

Agreed, shame you don’t have a big beast in the party with the balls to do it. Seems obvious to me.

“Labour is the focus of this. I might have pink tinted spectacles, but my hunch is that Labour under Blair were viewed more as a positive alternative than the Conservatives under Cameron.”

Well maybe, but again I think your pink tinted spectacles are the BBC basically, they hyped up Blair big style from the way I remember it.

“But I would be lying to you if I didn't say, from the evidence I've seen so far on blogs like this, that I don't think Cameron has actually carried the party with him. Dominated by the right, the core party is waiting to see if Cameron will deliver where Duncan Smith, Hague and Howard failed. “

You’re right, we have not made up our mind about Cameron. We are waiting to see from him.

“I don't think they share his politics profoundly, and there's a schism between where the party is at, and where the public think the party is at.”

Personally, I like every policy they do come up with, but they have to be coy, why hand the Labour party talking points when we can just let Labour implode and wheel out the manifesto when we have a general election campaign. I think if you were us you would do the same.


“That is not true of Labour in 1997. I should know, I'd been very active in it the decade before. From Kinnock to Blair, when the hard left were completely routed and all those nationalising, socialist, tax bomb shells. red eyed demons that Lord Bell tried to scare the public with didn't work, because Labour had really changed.”

Could you explained, what exactly did they change into? I’m trying to trap you, I genuinely don’t know what you mean??


“You may tell me the Tory party has too since 1997. Forgive me while I hold my sceptical breath.”

My hope is that we are more libertarian than we used to be, and more anti euro. But apart from that I, and indeed most Tories would not want us to change. I’m proud of what the last Tory government achieved given the state of public finances they inherited in 1979. I genuinely belive we did a good job and handed over a country and an economy in reasonable to good shape in 1997.

Do you think that the message isn't getting across because Brown claimed the distinction was between Tory cuts and Labour investment while all the while cuts were being planned deeper than the last Tory government ever achieved and in fact not seen since the end of the last labour Administration?

Surely Brown must have known the depth of the imminent cuts. Did he lie? It seems to me that he is an extraordinarily incompetent political operator.

"It's not clear what the Labour Party is for any more - this was to an extent the case for the Tories in 97, but it wasn't as bad."

Now this I know about! In the Tory party in 1997 (after the election) we had two competing visions of what we were for on two scales one was the pro/anti European question the other was the Libertarian/Authoritarian question. Although we pretty much decided that by electing Hague, and by that I mean anti-European libertarians. From there it was all about overcoming Blair and honing our message.

However for the left I think the closet you guys came to a vision was that you where anti-American under Bush, after he was replaced but Obama you have nothing left. I am pretty certain you don't have A vision let alone two competing ones. Indeed, I don't know what you guys make of him, he is one of yours after all, but I found Nick Cohens book 'What's left?' intriguing on this point.

I also think your spot on with your comment about the modern liberal elites running your party. The young middle class Islingtonites who have no concept of a working mans life. I can not begin to see how these are reconciled with your core. I think Labour are going to be facing one hell of a challenge in the post election reconstruction.

James, I really think your memory is faulty. The constant round of sleaze allegations against Tories, the endless rebellions, the ERM fiasco.... ah yes, I remember it well. I'd say, though Major wasn't held in as high contempt as Brown, the disillusionment with the Tories was pretty total: hence the three successive wipeouts.

I'm pretty sure a poll comparison will bear me out. Major was unpopular, but not as unpopular as his party. Labour is unpopular, but not as unpopular as Brown. (Hence ANY change in leadership will improve Labour's fortunes).

What is different I fear (for ALL mainstream parties) is the expenses scandal, the credit crisis, and a lack of faith in any of the old figures of authority. The key element in the blip of support for the BNP, according to the YouGov survery, is a disillusionment with all particular parties.

Labour is the focus of this. I might have pink tinted spectacles, but my hunch is that Labour under Blair were viewed more as a positive alternative than the Conservatives under Cameron. There are many factors behind that, but I'm not doubting Cameron has done a good job of image perception. But the lingering distrust remains, and even as a Non Conservative supporter, I don't like this. I want the public to believe in genuine alternatives in legitimate political parties. Though it's not in my interest in some ways, I really hope Cameron does a good job.

But I would be lying to you if I didn't say, from the evidence I've seen so far on blogs like this, that I don't think Cameron has actually carried the party with him. Dominated by the right, the core party is waiting to see if Cameron will deliver where Duncan Smith, Hague and Howard failed. I don't think they share his politics profoundly, and there's a schism between where the party is at, and where the public think the party is at.

That is not true of Labour in 1997. I should know, I'd been very active in it the decade before. From Kinnock to Blair, when the hard left were completely routed and all those nationalising, socialist, tax bomb shells. red eyed demons that Lord Bell tried to scare the public with didn't work, because Labour had really changed.

You may tell me the Tory party has too since 1997. Forgive me while I hold my sceptical breath.

There is a deep seated belief in the electorate that Labour is the party of public spending and that the Conservatives are the party of cuts.

The next election will be about turning that to our advantage. We need to show that the Tory cuts will be deep and spiteful (as they will be) and will affect not only the poor, but also the middle classes whose support the Tories desperately need. We also need to talk about prudence (remember her?) and show that since Labour is the party of public services only Labour can be trusted to make responsible savings in public spending. This message is not getting across.

Personally, I think that the key to the next election is the middle classes. This is not to say that the poor will not be affected by Tory cuts - they will be - but they know that anyway. The middle classes are in blissful ignorance about how the Tory cuts will affect them, and there is always that view that the Tories will cut their taxes at some point. We need to look carefully at the Tory plans and quantify how the Tory cuts will affect the middle classes.

James, if we can have a BNP truce - I remember 1997 well, and I agree, it's worse for Labour now than it was for the Tories then.

Major was different - for one thing, he had been elected by the public with a pretty good majority. So when all "the bastards" in the party were undermining him, there was almost a sense of feeling sorry for him - after all the country had chosen him fair and square. I;d say he was a figure of ridicule, but the contempt was more for the Tory party and its mix of Alan Clarks and Alan B'Stards. To me as a 30 year old it seemed very backwards-looking when the anti-EU element combined with the back to basics nonsense. (I;m anti eu myself, it's the combination of the two I mean).

The big difference I'd say is that the Tories had not alientated their absolute core vote in 1997. The shire ladies, the hang em and flog ems, the true blue businesspeople were still more or less onside; the problem is you had lost the others, and Blair/Brown had convinced the city they could do the economics.

Brown is a total liabiity and has been since he bottled the election, but the real problem is deeper than him. Labour in 2009 has alienated its core votes of working class AND liberal middle classes, and the unions, who provide so much funding, aren't too friendly.

Moreover, most of the liberal middle classes in the party, the ones who seem to have pretty much taken it over, haven't got a clue about the lives of those old core voters, and to be honest I don't think they like them much. It's not clear what the Labour Party is for any more - this was to an extent the case for the Tories in 97, but it wasn't as bad.

James
I remember 1997. I voted LibDem as I could not stand the Conservatives and thought Blair was a charlatan (pats self smugly on back).

The Tories were the ONLY sleazy party then but at least when the PM said something there was a 95% chance he was honest.. Apart from back to basics of course.. I suppose Edwina was pretty and basic?

Now the PM says something and 90% of the time it's obvious it's a lie.

How much money did the Co-op bank need?

All politics aside, (admittedly as a Tory) I do think its far worse for Labour now than it was for Tories in 1997. I wonder if any old lefties who remember 1997 well agree or disagree with me?

Maybe its the modern blogoshere/24 hr news etc, that ampilfies the humiliation to ever higher levels. But I can't honest remember Major being a figure of universal revulsion and contempt. I also seem to recall the Tories generally being seen as having a few bad apples, but again nothing as bad as widespread disgust.

When the police attack the innocent and the law steals from the poor, why the hell do we even pretend to recognise their authority?

I went out and hired an illegal Romanian gardener today out of spite.

May I suggest a dose of cynicism to all parties - especially the one you support

Hear hear, treat NewLabour like you'd treat teh torieztheyeatkittens and you can't go far wrong.

Hi Phil - I don't think that the failure of the New Labour project is a failure of socialism; rather it was a failure of centre-ist policies. It was also a failure to recognize the many systemic problems that exist within the UK's public sector.

Activists won't do squat as long as you keep selecting lying, thieving idiots to lead your party.

Maybe you should start a new party where the things you claim to want bear some kind of relation to the actions you actually take. It could be quite refreshing.

I notice that New Labour's highest legal authority in the Land is now a criminal herself.

This place is worse than Nigeria

Utter nonsense. There are a whole raft of Banks across the globe that have taken not a cent of public money.

Hi Alex/labourlist

I hope the pennys dropped now , you can only spin for so long , Maybe now the plp might grow a spine .

ricki

David, it all rests now on activists building community ties. The question really is how many are there now? Are they motivated to work flat our for nothing after witnessing the fundamental stupidity of the Cabinet Leadership?

I will but I want to be rid of cynical corruption in the Party that has done us so much harm.

All the banks needed saving, all across the board and all across the world. You clearly need to clue up on hedge funds and the methods employed by US banks in selling their debts in creative ways to all countries from Chine to our UK.

Ever wondered why there are so few banks in Britain? Have you, or anyone you know, or even anyone you've read about in the media, ever considered setting up a bank? If your answer is No, do you not think the situation is a little strange? After all, people set up businesses all the time, from shops to insurance companies. What's your explanation?

"It was the US banks that brought the world economy down"

Really? Then why did the British banks need saving?

Ralph wrote: "start to do something to benefit the Labour Party and by implication the people as well instead of just using us all for their pathetic weak financial gain."

Socialism always starts out working for the benefit of the people. But it always ends up being manipulated by special interests. The most influential special interests are invariably the politicians and bureaucrats.

The problem of course isn't with socialism in general, it is just the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats that have proved fallible and self-interested. Where oh where are the angels who will replace them and bring wisdom and selflessness to the way my money is spent?

No Phil. New Labour was a solution to the stupid Right and Left conflicts that had plagued this country. New Labour was the mechanism by which compromise and consensus would rule, so the government made deals to attempt to help the less well off by helping those more well in turn. It was abour balance and sense. Why go into polics with a view to punishing anyone rich or less well off?

Initially it was damn good idea and from 1997 to 2002 it good success, rewarded by the public with a second massive landslide victory.

After this something changed. Not just the Iraq War, but domestically. MP's became more interested in money, power and many became seriously corrupt.
New Labour began following the tenants of rags like the Daily Mail, it neglected to build and move forward its projects which seem to have stagnated or where Ministers have attempted to recycle the same old idea.

I think what occured was that the MP's initial good ideas lacked solid depth. They lost touch with what was actually occuring on the ground in for example, the NHS and instead of finding new ways to gather information they simply hoped the private would sort things out for them. Even basic ideas by the so called "pro-market" MP's failed to manifrest as Ministers were ensuring they had jobs with companies that in turn received government contracts. So even basic fair competition was lacking.

It's not really an issue to do with Socialism as the failings did not occur from a Socialist policy persepctive. The failure in recognising what was occuring in the banks, the failure to ensure the FSA was run by individuals who did not have a personal interest with the banks, that wasn't Socialism.
The corruption by all MP's is as much Socialist as it is Capitalist.

It was the US banks that brought the world economy down, are you acusing the Republicans of being Socialist, are going to the US to do this, if so I would wear a bullet proof jacket if I were you.

"Once again, socialism has brought this country to the brink of economic ruin."
It wasn't just the Gov't who created the recent property bubble and financial crisis . In fact, the hard thing for any Gov't would have been to argue in 2004/2005 that private debt needed to be constrained, that house price inflation was a in the end a bad thing and that people should live within their means. You can just imagine the headlines..
The Gov't haven't been tough enough with the banks that we all bailed out.

The current New Labour leadership has lost all credibility.

Only by removing Brown and replacing him with someone untainted by New Labour will we minimise the potential losses at the next General Election.

Brown's lack of leadership and decision making ability has left the party in an even worse position than in the last year of Tony Blair !!!

Well, better late than never I suppose.

At least you are beginning to realise you've been 'had' by a self-serving cabal of political criminals.

Have another read:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/quotes/oliver_cromwell.htm

(While on the subject of criminals: next time I break the law will the court accept I made "inadvertent mistake"?

It is bad Nationally for us Alex, but for me the focus now is one the local issues and dilemmas people face. Ensuring that we regain our great reputation on the ground helping people in a pragmatic manner and showing them we take what they very seriously indeed and ultimately care about them very much. Because that is exactly what it is about at the end of the day and people seriously pick these things up when they meet you.

Rebuilding Labour must begin with the foundations as we are powerless at the moment to get rid of the trash that has brought out Party into disrepute and distrust.

As you have witnessed we have had some very heated debates that are internal regarding the Party in terms of the motives and possible hidden or open agendas by politicians and those associated with them. This questioning of real motives was generated, fuelled and blatently unleashed upon everyone by the Cabinet and MP's.

Once again we look at Norwich North and see the huge drastic collapse of Labour vote, as those whose faith in the Party has been qushed by the monumental stupidity and ignotrance of the unelites at the Party's head.

When you destroy trust everything you say becomes meaningless. Anthony Giddens identifies two forms of political Trust.

1. Passive Trust - This is a general acceptence of the status quo in the sense it is a faith in the overall institution itself and possibly in democracy. Normally this should be a given.
2. Active Trust - Is about communication, as anybody in a relationship can attest, trust comes via communication supported by behaviour that is consistent with the communication. An example would be the difference in communication of say Tony Blair before the Iraq War when he was making the case, and his later comments that the War was a shambles. Of course everyone is aware of the weak evidence he relied and the rest is history.


The expenses, redacted solution, MP's later comments, dodgy election of an expense MP to Speaker, lack of any real show of conscience across the political spectrum (only MP's acting like assaulted victims) revealed a form to our polics that was amazing in it's blatently obvious duplicity and consequential implicit contempt for the consequences inthe hearts and minds of the British people and was therefore an assault on the Passive and Active levels of trust that are essential in a democratic society.

The Government failed to deal with the Trust issue in any way shape or form that was acceptable or substantial and those who have done wrong (and even those who are doing much worse) are going to be seen as "getting away with it". There is no accountability.

The corrupt administration has wiped out all lines of real communication as a disgraced PM leads a disgraced Cabinet who people simply will no longer trust. The MP's and Ministers truly owed something to the people and have instead rewarded themselves at a time when thousands, if not millions have lost everything, their jobs, their businesses and in some cases their hopes and even their lives. Maybe those poor MP's need a little councilling and suicide watch.....or maybe they should grow up, enter the real world and start to do something to benefit the Labour Party and by implication the people as well instead of just using us all for their pathetic weak financial gain.

New Labour was a recognition that socialism doesn't work. Unfortunately that recognition only extended to lying about one's true intentions and while Gordon Brown always spoke about "prudence", what he did was to spend our money as if the good times would never end.

What everyone on this site and all Labour supporters need to is as follows:

1) Acceptance. Recognise that New Labour was primarily about spin and lies (I think this article is an important part of the process). The rhetoric betrayed Labour's past (e.g. Peter Mandelson's famous declaration that "We're all Thatcherites now") but the deeds were about increasing public expenditure and thus increasing taxation and now government debt.

2) Draw the right conclusions. The wrong conclusion doing the rounds since the financial collapse is a clever bit of spin. Despite the numbers staring up from every payslip in the country (NI & income tax), despite the 70p we pay in tax for every £1 of petrol we buy, despite the stamp duty on property etc. etc., we have been asked to believe that the current crisis results from an experiment in free market capitalism. Doubtless the latest attempts at regulation failed as badly as every other attempt to regulate financial markets. We can blame the light touch of the FSA or the heavy touch of whatever institutions were to blame for Black Wednesday. But let's not fall into the trap of taking the New Labour administration of the past decade to be what it purported to be. Let's not believe Peter Mandelson when he said "We're all Thatcherites now". The truth, as so often, is to be found by reading the opposite meaning into the words that pass from his lips.

Once again, socialism has brought this country to the brink of economic ruin. But this time, arguably, we are in even more of a fix because socialism was brought to us in gradual steps by a cabal of ministers willing to use the instruments of government to distort the truth. New Labour has achieved nothing less than the corruption of public discourse in this country. Even Labour supporters have lost all faith in what their own Party has to say.

Are Labour supporters on this site willing to accept the true cause of our current economic crisis? Or are the spin and lies of New Labour to reverberate with the fantasy that the spending binge of the past decade has nothing to do with our present predicament?

14%. I'm staggered it's that many.

The poll also states that: "Only 47% of people who voted Labour in 2005 plan to stick with the party". That is a huge loss of support. If I was involved in the Labour hierarchy I would be commissioning someone to poll these 47% of people in detail: find out what their main disappointments with Labour are and then make plans to act on the results where possible and appropriate.

The way things are going I seriously think that the next Election will see Labour in third place with the Lib Dems as the official opposition.

Alex

I genuinely am sorry for you for ever trusting a bunch of politicians to tell the truth.

May I suggest a dose of cynicism to all parties - especially the one you support - means that sometimes you receive a pleasant surprise when your cynicism is confounded.


I think anyone who believes their own party's rhetoric is naive: politicians lie as the electorate is naive enough to believe their lies: and forgive them. Often.