Progressive blogging statement

"TORY PRESS"??!!!! Wht planet are you on?! The Telegraph- a so called Tory paper- has been re-gurgitating McBride's drivel verbatim for the last two years, likewise Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail. The majority of the press has supported Labour for the last 3 elections, especially the Sun. The Tories would love to garner more press support. The old Labour portrayal of victimhood in the UK press is an anachronism and is not reflected in fact. If anything the Tories are prejudiced more in the press, see the BBC's refusal to show Tory MEP hannan's dressing down of Brown in the Europenan parliament. Come into the real world Jonathan, all is forgiven!

Why do people critizise this site because of the actions of people involved in setting up the site. I don't believe that Derek Draper did anything that Tories haven't done before but because the press back the Tories and people believe the Tory Press without reason he's in trouble. One of the bad things was in the News of the World when it was edited by the guy who now runs Cameron's Press Office. Why is it that when the left is caught doing what is normal for the right it gets lynched? That lunch Draper went to with Gordon Brown, it was portrayed as a secret get together to plan Red Rag, yet actually it was his wife who had been invited and he was just acompanying her. Not sure why the Government has these lunches but the suggestion that Gordon Brown was involved in setting up Red Rag is a Tory lie of the sort they are allowed to peddle and apparently we are not. Ideally both sides shouldn't but it shouldn't be the case that the Tories get away with it when Labour can't.

Why shouldn't there be a debating forum like this for the left? Or are we really to believe that the only problem people have with this site is who got it off the ground?

I agree, Rowena, that principles and guidance are needed to steer this current Labour govt through blogging, as they have none of their own. However, I disagree that any Labour will be capable of losing the "command and control" approach to communications - it's in their blood.

Whether taxing until the pips squeak to spend our money for us, setting targets, targets, targets which engender bad practices and second guess professional decision-making in Health and Education, or even perhaps just dominating the 'message' through a whipped media (TV and newspaper are intimidated more than any website)...... whichever of these you dislike the most, the fact remains that "command and control" is in Labour's blood, and progressive and uncontrolled idea and debate formation at blogging level will never be embraced by the leaders as a result.

Well said!
I believe that the Labour Party is going to become the opposition in a year's time. I am not alone in this.
Once it does, the way will be open for really good blogging.
I believe deeply - as do most decent people - in giving the poor an equal start in life. I believe in open discussion and in listening carefully to what the other side is saying and thinking. I believe that the rich ought to use their money to help and nurture the poor.
Silly me.
And I do not see this government doing that. We urgently need a government that will do it.

OK, I take the point about the marginal spelling error, the difference is this-you are a blogger with a by-line and a photo on a soon to be deceased website (not a brilliant photo but obviously the light was not great:-)) and I am merely a commentator on your blog. You are premium and I am secondary. Therefore you are not comparing like with like, I would comment on Adolf Hitler's blog should he have one, it does not mean I condone or endorse his principles. You, by contrast, put your face on the same page as a link to the the man who has done more wrong in politics than any other individual in the last ten years- Ricky Gervais aka Derek Draper. Look at the French foreign minister yesterday, he walked out on the Iranian president because he could not have his face on the same platform as someone whose views were so far removed from his own. You have not, you continue to share a platform with these people and by doing so you are tacitally condoning what they say. This is all I can do, comment on your pathetic attempt at sanctimonious blogging. You have the power, influence, connections, sanctimoniousness, which gives you power over me. Can you see this difference now?! In short, by commenting (as I have), does not mean you agree Rowenna, but by blogging-as you do- you are perpetuating and agreeing with the essence of this website. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE, YOU GET IT NOW?!!!!

I think he's on holiday, Rowenna. Or sacked or something

Anita - apologies for my spelling mistakes, but I'm not sure you're really in a position to criticise? Should I really "by" a dictionary?

Also, if you disapprove of me contributing content to such an "unprincipled" site as this, why do you do it yourself?

Mark - I couldn't agree more. Let's try and figure out how to turn these words into action.

The authors of this set of principles could have saved themselves the effort by saying they propose to behave on the internet as they would were they conducting their affairs openly in civilised company.
Now that they have this set of principles, what are they going to do with them?

What? I have nothing to do with the moderation of this site. If your posts are being deleted, they must be falling below their usual standard, which is a remarkable feat in itself, Tory Troll. Well done.

Siggghhhhhhh.

We don’t need 3 pages of “conceptual principles” We just need a leader with a strong moral compass and a spine.

Brown promised us a government moderated by his "moral compass".

Brown played upon his personal inheritance as a son of the manse and history of ministerial rectitude.

Brown treated us to any number of inspirational speeches, such as that delivered to the US Congress, on the nobility of public service and the challenge of leadership, complete with echoes of Kennedy

All of which have proved to be complete Balls.

Peter

As my posts are now being deleted by the moderator rather than published, I think you are disqualified for dirty tactics - so that's one to me.

well, if the sparts don't suit you, how about wolfie smith as a role model ?

'pay the blood price' ?
as someone said at the time this was rich coming from someone who wouldn't pay the price of a family holiday

Having read them, they look perfectly reasonable if it was a competition to write the best motherhood and apple pie boilerplate.

However, there are people here in some capacity on LabourList even now (and they know who they are) that haven't follow a jot of these so called principles for months. LabourList was a Trojan Horse for a far more nefarious purpose, either these people were manipulated into it or fully complied and went along with it.

'I was only following orders' is not going to wash.

It can be seen here too even after the disgusting behaviour was exposed. There are people here that see through the party line (and there is plenty of party line here) or people that want to call some very, very flaky arguments and downright revisionism. These people raise on the whole very good meaty points and in the light of another vapid weak alternative line are subjected to an ad-hominem attack usually resulting in troll accusations being made at them.

Basically, if it waddles like a duck and looks like a duck, they don't moo - they quack.

Two words. Grow. Up.

Respect is not given because you have signed a flimsy document of 'principles' to behave yourself, respect is earned. What I noticed after these e-mails came to light was how few of the usual suspects here on LabourList were standing up saying how aborrent it was and how those involved should apologise and then go.

They taint you all by their presence.

Think about this - a couple had just lost their son and Labour was thinking this was an opportune moment to smear their private life.

Think about it again - that's not politics, that's not debate, it's venal base behaviour of seriously disturbed people.

Right now, Labour are exhausted of ideas and energy to lead the country. The decisions it made in power have come to pass. It happens to political parties and a serious appraisal needs to be made whilst another government takes the reins.

Where better than here to make it?

Instead, it's debasing itself denying that perhaps it is time for a period of reflection, it is time to appraise previous policy decisions.

To see a spectacle of 'Je ne regrette rien' is comedic as much as it sad, either you are trying to fool the unpersuaded or you are in total denial. It's not going to end well, the electorate are fizzing with anger.

I am not a Labour supporter, however, I do believe in the power of this country's parliamentary democracy and a strong Opposition is vital to keep the Government on its toes.

Ah, Godwin's Law strikes.

Charles, use your IT skills and look it up.

It's not good.

You show a degree of trust in his utterances that is quite touching

They are principles you don't have to be bound by, simple!

I would start reading these blogs if you could use the english language correctly and learn how to spell-"fationalism"-no such word, "maneuvering"-please by a dictionary! As for your so called principled stand and not signing, how can you do this and stand side by side with David Brent AKA Derek Draper?! If you were truly principled, you would not appear on the same page of this unprincipled, shameful man, a man who has done more damage to the party and politics generally, than anyone else in the last ten years, starting from Lobbygate. Why don't you try setting up your own blog if you really want to be so principled? Cois you are scared, that is why, no party to hold your hand.

Unfortunately, I've heard that cover story too many times before from people who have never voted Labour; e.g. last week "I would have voted Labour but some anonymous poster on Labourlist put me off..."

I don't know anything about you: all I can go by is your comments. I'm frankly baffled by your claim you critique Labour 'from the left', and to be honest, don't believe there's a snowball's chance in hell that you'd vote for them at the next election.

But please continue in this plaint about how terribly travestied you feel.

Frameworks are good. From form, you can develop skill and speed. Experience gives you more keys on the piano than the other guy. Very good.

Nice try. I think you rather dropped your ad hominem ball on Spartism. I happily followed you in the vain attempt you might grasp what 'conceptual issues' mean, and then would debate the story above. All to no avail I see, since that was clearly never your intent.

By their words ye shall know them

Er. Would help if you read the diary. Rowenna is a progressive, but not currently a Labour supporter.

Fail again. Fail better next time.

Please send me, on here or by email, a contact number for your editor please. As this organ is proxy-funded by a union I belong to,I feel I have a right to discuss the shameless denial of free speech it undertakes. Email or phone, either will do. I will go through my own union for these details if I must. thanks.

It's like a 'principled set of concepts'

Peter, you don't know me and you don't know anything about me, please stop jumping to your bizarre and wild conclusions.

I have no desire 'to destroy' this blog and would have no idea how to do that if I did. I come here to find out if and why I should ever vote Labour again, I am waiting to hear 'the big idea'. Its been some wait, yes.

Well, you were happy enough to follow me 'off thread' until you finally resorted to an ad hominem attack and thereby admitted your argument was rather too flimsy for words.

Look at you. That's control freakery, and trolling 101.

1. You go off thread.
2. Keep asking about semantics
3. Mirror your opponent

Nothing you have done does anything but distract from the debate. But please carry on and let your tactics be an object lesson for everyone. Appropriate given the subject matter I think.

I only just beat self-confessed Tory Troll, who was purportedly 'having a day off'.

But looking back on some diaries from a month, it's clear you guys (since you self identify by defence) have been at it for weeks. Most of you are GF so called 'libertarians' (I'll explain why you're actually nothing of the sort at another date) are following the tune of your piper, and nvolved with the old vendetta between Guido and Draper.

It's over. Old news. Deal with it or move on.

And for godsake stop whining when your arguments get punctured, and your desire to destroy this blog is made clear.

What a bizarre comment. Control freakery? Political correctness? What on earth are you talking about? In my experiende people are often apt to accuse others of their own faults. Could that be the case here?

Dear Rowenna.

Firstly, thank you for relying personally to my comment, a rarity on this organ and much appreciated. Lastly, I cannot disagree with your analysis. Principles are not useless. My view stands though, that they should not need to be taught to fully grown adult human beings.

Thanks again for reply and all the best.

Give the 'troll infested site' schtick a rest. You've been here all day and made about 70% of everything thats been posted, admittedly most of its been about troills or is that what you meant?

My easy to use version of Postel's law is "write with discipline, listen with tolerance" but on a troll infested site, yours is actually much more useful:

Anonymity + Internet = Asshole.

Great stuff

No, you've completely missed the point. It's only 'conceptual' at the moment, so lacking in practical use. See Rowenna's post above. Precision isn't he same as pedantry.

I love your emphasis on semantic nuance, when it's quite clear that whatever the diarist wrote, you would have found ways to interfere with the message.

You're displaying the same control freakery you claim to abjure. It's political correctness gone mad, or perhaps in your case. madness gone politically correct. I

This is a great idea, Labour can now blame the whole Smeargate episode on the tories because they aren't as ethical as you and have no progressive progress to progress.

So to sum up: "Blah, blah...coat-tail Obama on the second line...blah...platitude...blah"

And you're encouraged by this?

Bring back Draper...this place has gone downhill fast since the maestro's departure. How the hell are you gonna beat the Tories now?

Didn't the editor of this site announce that he would take a week to consider his position?
Wasn't that at least a week ago?

Equating Conservative politicians with Nazis is not very zen-like, Chuck. Or are you only 'nice' when it suits you?

Interestingly enough, Hitler and Geobbles had great a presentation team: stage direction by Albert Speer and cinematography by Leni Reisenthal. I'm sure you would have swooned.

C'mon Patrick, if you don't like this 'conceptual set of principles', I'm sure New Labour will provide another set of principles to better suit your tastes ;-)

OK, so why not just a simple 'set of principles'? Why try to burnish its importance by calling it a 'conceptual' set of principles? I'll tell you why. It comes down mistaking activity for action, or, in this case, portenous phrases for meaningfulness. It's the curse of Spartism throughout the ages.

Les - by "conceptual set of principles" I meant that this statement exists in the world of abstract theory rather than practical action.

Rudy - I couldn't agree with you more that, on their own, this set of principles is not enough. In fact I have voiced this issue personally on LC: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/04/20/statement-our-ethic-of-progressive-blogging/comment-page-2/#comment-42342

But saying that principles are insufficient on their own does not mean that they are useless. Ethical statements like these can provide a useful framework for guiding real action - and that's where we have to go from here.

...sorry, comment truncated.

Peronally I prefer Postel's Law

Oh and stop speaking for "the left". You are not part, nor have you been for a long time.

I prefer the other one: Anonymity + Internet = Asshole.

But, yeah. People make the lurid comments like a bunch of ducks quaking and leaping over each other to get attention. They forget that the written word has punch and its impact is magnified tenfold. People tend to be jerks in crowds as group emotional quotient is an average, and for big groups it drops as low as a five year old.

Be pure. Be vigilant. Behave.

"It's like watching Hitler and Goebels at some rally"

Funnily enough when I saw Blair acting as chief poodle to Bush, when he said in that effette vloice that HE "was prepared to pay the blood price", similar thoughts came to my mind. He didn't have to pay it - if he had cut himself shaving he would have had three make-up girls patching him up!

What part of 'conceptual principles' don't you understand?

Perhaps you're under the misapprehension that all principles must be conceptual?

OK. Here's a go. So the blogosphere is fairly new. Conceptually it's about connecting in a peer to peer fashion. Conceptually its about communication and some form of pluralism (you don't need to debate much in a theocracy), so here are some principles we've drawn from that conceptual framework.

I understood that no problem. Peronally, I prefer

Makes sense to you? Ok, so what does it mean?

What error?

Wow. That's a big stretch to cover your first error. Keep it up. Stretching is good for you.

Made sense to me. But there's no accounting for semantics

So the internal bitching and blaming has been put aside and principles have been presented? Oh that's alright then. Move along, nothing to see here type thing? If you think that's enough you're deluded, this sorry episode has barely reached the commercial break and has some way to go.

How do you present principles anyway? Surely people have them or they don't? Is new labour so lacking in moral fibre, it's supporters need to be instructed in common decency? I think we should be told.

"Hitler and Goebels" Really Charles? Fortunately you will have a good few years in opposition to work on your similes.

So what's changed? The clothes, the music and the drugs of choice, but not the meandering, pseudo-intellectual analysis employing concepts which on a good day would still baffle them.

i.e. you don't really know. I'll tell you: it's meaningless.

Do you really read Private Eye? If you do, and had any idea of left politics, you'd realise David and Deidre Spart are classic trot activists from the 70s and 80s, and like yourself, vocal opponents of New Labour

I suppose something conceptual and distinct from a 'legal set of principles' or a 'technical set of principles' or whatever.

As opposed to some thickie people pleasing Tory Party? Look at Osbourne with his practiced look of pinched sincerity as he coat flaps from one TV studio to the next, or Cameron's wagging pudgy little fist stabbing the air. It's like watching Hitler and Goebels at some rally. Instead of policy we have dramatic body language. Instead of giving a damn we have swooshing from studio to studio. Yeah, sure. The Tories are a real pinnacle of evolution.

Good question.

Let's hope this has the same relevance and impact as the Euston Manifesto.

Just read a comment one of GF blogs about a poll out tonight (ICM)

Tories 46%
Labour 22%
Libs 21%

Best PM

Cam 65%
Brown 22%

Sleaziest party

Con 22%
Labour 55%

This is what blogging has done for Labour (if true that is !!!)

Good luck to you too.....

PS What exactly is a 'conceptual set of principles'?

Big tip: Blind links without a preamble don't invite someone to click them. Usually, I flat out ignore them. If you can't be bothered to summarise the content, I can't be bothered to click.

All too often, 'the Left' becomes a parody of itself, and this blog entry is a case in point. Ever wondered where Private Eye gets its ideas for Dave and Deirdre Spart columns? Look no further, it's all here in the posts for Labour List. A brief look at the jobs held by the various bloggers and posters is also illuminating: from MPs's researchers to activists of all stripes, all, no doubt engaging daily in intense discussion of 'what it means to be Left', 'whither progress?', the Left and its conscience - a paradigm' etc. The connections with the people whose support they hope to win and the lives of those people are spurious in the extreme. Manifestos are issues, statements circulated to be signed, proclamations made, aspirations ventured, and it all boils down to one thing: like 'New' Labour for these past 12 years activity is intended to give the impression of action. Dream on.

This article in today's Guardian by Danny Rogers, Editor of PR Week makes some very interesting points. What do you all think?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/20/damian-mcbride-labour-emails1

This is similar to the Kathy Sierra affair. The waffle is well meaning but without standards and enforcement will go nowhere. My general fear is that Labour are only half grasping this issue. They're talking big but too addicted to ideology and revolving doors to step up a gear with the design and moderation of just this *one* site. So, yes. Labour must take more effective plans and *execute* them.

Les - will nothing positive come out of Smeargate? It strikes me that both sides of the political spectrum will think twice before they engage in this type of politics again...

and I tell you another good thing that could come out of this - if LabourList publicly supports this declaration.

LABOURLIST, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WILL YOU PUBLICLY ENDORSE THIS STATEMENT?

You must be joking ! nothing positive wil ever come out of the debacle that is "Smeargate".

The labour party should steer clear of anything that contains the word blog until new leadership is in place with a new culture in place.

Its been a complete disaster (but must have been a forseeable disaster waiting to happen)GB should have sorted it years ago but he will pay the political price.

I've signed the petition, which has a good general framework. But I'll add below what I wrote on Liberal Conspiracy - implementing these principles will take something more.

I think you underplay the community aspect of blogging. The power and influential US sites are not directly party affiliated, and they do not revolve around star bloggers. They are genuine netroots communities who patrol and moderate themselves.

The distance from the party machine has also to be real rather than covert ‘astroturfing’. This is obviously to the benefit of the blog, because it provides the diversity, debate and pluralism you need. It’s also important to the party concerned. Naturally, party hierarchies try to control their message, and if overly associated with one blog, they will begin to stifle dissent.

This doesn't mean that paid politicians or staff shouldn't post. Of course they should. But the editorial oversight should be independent.

Before others rush in, let's also be clear that different blogs have different biases. They mustn't become echo chambers of lock-stepped conformity.

On the other hand, blogs can become echo chambers of smear and contempt as well. Diversity should be welcomed in the blogosphere as a whole, but to prevent a monoculture, a right wing blog should rightly moderate out left wing smears or unreasoned heckling, and vice versa.

Protecting free speech is the duty of the government, not a blog. When it comes to the blogosphere the best way to preserve free speech is to allowed reasoned debate within different subsets of opinion.

Anyone who tries to destroy reasoned discourse through insults and unsubstantiated attacks is not preserving freedom of speech, they are stifling it.

Thats a very longwinded way of saying 'We really shouldn't be lying smearing ********s, chaps'.