By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
On Saturday, I spoke at the Progressive London conference on how the broad left can fight back against the right in 2010.
It's often said that the imminent general election will be the first “internet election” in Britain. It’s a term that a lot of people use, but one that few understand.
Speaking at the session "Winning the argument: new media and the election", I argued that there are now two types of online activity that will influence the election: communication via blogs in order to dominate the mainstream media narrative in the 24 hour news cycle; and organisation in order to connect with voters in a more traditional sense, networking online in order to mobilise offline, harnessing social media and news streams.
The two forms are symbiotic and related, but distinct nonetheless. Both will affect the election in some way – indeed, both already are.
Here are some of my thoughts on both types of online activity, and how they will play a role in the coming weeks.
Communication
This traditionally centred around who can best influence the narrative of the mainstream media through their online activity through independent and alternative research; through building a mass readership; and through trying to connect with and influence mainstream journalists in order to affect the 24-hour news cycle.
It has normally occurred through independent blogs, Facebook, YouTube videos, email and Party websites, and is the type of online activity most people still think of when they think of politics on the web.
Traditionally, it is territory that has been dominated – and even saturated – by Conservatives and the broader right. With Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale, ConservativeHome and the Spectator’s Coffee House blog – each relied upon by the mainstream media for their news and opinion – the Tories had four distinct but mutually supportive echo chambers, which each filled a niche space, had their own styles and dominated online debates. They are websites which set the tone and agenda of the political debate, which connect grassroots to Party leadership and which provided a space for community.
Until last year, it was this type of space that Labour and the Left struggle to replicate.
But over that last year, the left has fought back in this field, not by trying to replicate sites on the right, but by finding its own unique voice. Iain Dale and Tim Montgomerie both now concede that in LabourList, Left Foot Forward and others, the Left has found that voice online, though there is still a way to go.
In a normal year at a normal time in politics, this communications-led type of internet politics has been the more prominent and more dominant form – and it remains important. Blogs break stories, shape debate and set the internal party discussions.
But this is no ordinary year, and the requirements for our online politics are frankly different. As Paul Staines said, the 24 hours news cycle has now become a constant news stream, and that requires smarter online activity that will have more tangible results.
In this new, election year environment, the Left has been leading the way.
Organisation
This type of online politics is ironically a more traditional form of campaigning – and it’s the one that the Obama campaign is famed for having been so good at: organising online to mobilise offline. It’s using the internet to connect like-minded people, and getting them to take action in traditional ways: connecting with voters by phone and encouraging doorstep campaigning. This is a more involving, empowering form of online politics, far removed from the hierarchical traditional type.
LabourList has been part of this in a couple of different ways. We’ve used our online networks of many thousands of readers to ask people to attend Margaret Hodge’s Days of Action in Barking and Dagenham. And we’ve encouraged people to join together and arrange canvassing sessions through the aggregated Twitter hashtag #LabourDoorstep. That’s played an important role in getting people out to canvass, and then getting those activists to shout about their results in order to encourage others to join them.
Recently – and in no small measure because of the good work by the Labour Party in providing usable tools for activists, MembersNet and the Phone banks in particular – Labour activists have been colonising Twitter and Facebook in order to connect with each other and use these bespoke tools to call people in their own time and from their own homes, using the support networks provided by communicating with other activists in the online space.
#MobMonday – an initiative set up autonomously by two Labour activists and Twitter addicts – for example, organises and galvanises people to make calls to voters every Monday for two hours in the evening, and targets marginals. Last week, activists made reached 350 voters; today, they hope to reach a similar number, and then grow the campaign over the coming weeks.
It doesn’t sound like much, but – like the #LabourDoorstep – it’s very quickly taking on a life of its own. In the long campaign and particularly in the short campaign, and with Labour's finances well documented, that could make a difference in some seats.
I still don't think the internet will affect the overall outcome of the general election. That will be decided by the messages we take out, not just how we mobilise.
But the left is already starting to win the war in both these two fields online. That will be important, both in shaping the media agenda and in gaining votes – in 2010 and beyond.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Thankyou so much for your thoughts and kindness.
I may just take a break for a while.
Will be missing many people's company on here, and good chat and debate.
This is indeed a great site, and Alex works hard to keep things
to a very high standard and professionalism. We all have a responsibility to keep things decent.
Just wanted to say hi and bye for now to Peter B, Diana,Chris Cook,Dave P,Shibley(if he's still here!),Steph,Richard Blogger,
Derek,Ralph, Danny, and of course yourselves again.
Hopefully just for a while,
Take care,
Jo.
I may ask Alex if i can pass my email on to a couple of people to keep in touch?
It seems impossible to have a normal discussion or post moderate comments without being heckled from the sidelines from the same few.
Alex has created a fantastic site, and I wish some would actually appreciate that and contribute to it constructively.
My worry is that more moderate posters will be put off- at times it is very unwelcoming and verbally aggressive.
I can't be pouring my energies into that.
I wish you great luck with your play on Fri, and have heard nothing but positive comment.
I may return later, but for now, I just haven't got the stomach for blogging.
However- will continue to read the articles and add my support to
the party.
I'll see how I feel later.
Thanks so much for your support too Peter, and will greatly miss some others on here too.
Jo.
What happened? Was it Monkeybot who trolled you on this thread and persuaded you to go? If it's the same few, you ought to name names, because for sure they'll be back to troll the next newcomer.
This is absurd. First Dave Postles and now you. As I said you changed the tone of the site and the haters backed off, but now they have a pathetic sad victory by having insulted you so much you have to leave.
It is incredibly verbally aggressive here, either dominated by old bores or geeky saddoes who like nothing better than making some pedantic point...
But you and some others changed the atmosphere. It's intolerable that you have been hounded to leave.
Thanks Monkeybot with your inane and offensive comments about 'snowflakes' and 'whining'. I hope you're happy how you've chilled free speech.
I do hope you'll reconsider Jo.
I'll miss you, "I'm sure You'll be back to fight Labour's corner".
Take care Jo!
cheers
Blogging is certainly a minefield.
As has been mooted, I think in some cases,"ignoring" is the best policy.
Meanwhile- a civil debate might be possible elsewhere.
thanks , you a good egg as well
Night
Danny
Night night.
Jo.
Just to jump on the bandwagon , there is no need to be offensive , This site is about debate not hate .
Danny
You can only really be offended if you value the "offender's" view, otherwise, it's just noise. Ignore it or mock it is the best response.
Interesting points, and I'm happy to mock, but actually your premise begs the question: what's wrong with valuing someone else's point of view?
There's nothing wrong with valuing someone else's opinion, but there's nothing that says you have to value everyone's.
I'm not prone to that,in fact tend to be open and direct.
But I do believe in showing respect and politeness; it still possible to express one's views!
If we all hurled abuse at each other- it wouldn't be worth the hassle of being on here surely?
I think civil debate doesn't have to be bland.
Having said that- I may have to follow Peter's advice and wear a Hazmat suit anyway;(although not sure what that is in all honesty Peter!)
Anyway- peaceful blogging to all, and good night.
Fight Club and this:
"Anyway- peaceful blogging to all, and good night."
Validate my anger, damn you!
Seriously though, they're just words. Concentrate on the presentation and you've already given up on the argument.
One would have thought they had other outlets?
Or maybe there is some other purpose which is all very elusive.
Maybe it's the anonymity of blogging which sometimes attracts
destructive comment.
However- I have found most on here lively debate from down to Earth people who are willing to be honest and share great ideas, and more importantly, humour.
Must say good night now,
Jo.
You do seem a little obsessed by this Jo, believe me LL is very very civilised and polite compared to almost any other news, media or political site on the net even if it does give you a fit of the vapours sometimes!
I wouldn't call myself a libertarian but I imagine they see this as a good place to complain as Labour have taken away so very many of our long held liberties.
It's a handy perjorative when people insist on having their own opinion and complaining about the system instead of picking a side and joining the game.
Er... Again not sure if this comment is directed to me, but I was talking about the self confessed libertarians who used to populate this blog. Roger Davies started this thread by talking about the libertarian right. I think he included himself as part of it. Maybe you should take up your issue with him.
Last point well made, but you've got to admit things are a lot more balanced now.
Well, I'm a bit shocked that one discussion could change your mind! Labour is the real big tent, and despite the control freakery of recent years, represents many shades of opinion. Not sure what anyone could have said which could have made you feel so oppressed unless it was "We know where you live..."
How is it in the Cayman Isles by the way...;-)
Maybe a small thing but you know, camels and straws and all that.
The Costa del Dorset is lovely.
As no believer in socialist utopias - in fact I think they're downright dangerous - I would agree with most of what you say.
I think it goes back to a rivalry in the early days with GF. But water under the bridge now. Alex has certainly turned this site around, but go back to some of the diaries in early April if you will (before took over) to see how toxic it was.
Wear a Hazmat suit
Nite nite
It is also about "tone" and "respect" shown between bloggers I feel.Otherwise can be offputting for many?
Surely that's not difficult to acheive?
There has been constructive criticism shown by people like Peter Thompson and occasionally David Honour- but I've never read any unpleasant or personalized comments from them.
So this was just a general observation.
No-one can "shout you down" in text and, as my mum always said, "stick and stones...."
"It is also about "tone" and "respect" shown between bloggers I feel.Otherwise can be offputting for many?"
You are not a unique snowflake and whining about a lack of respect is just a cop out. I've read your posts and you don't need a moderator to protect you. You're a grown up who's totally capable of arguing her case so do it. If someone insults you, tell them why they're wrong, tell them why they're being idiots.
Being a nurse, you command a certain amount of respect whether you try to or not. We need people like you to be kicking ass and taking names, but you're too damn polite.
I know it doesn't sound like it, but that's supposed to be a compliment.
Talk about tone deaf. Jo says;
"It is also about "tone" and "respect" shown between bloggers I feel
You reply:
You are not a unique snowflake and whining about a lack of respect is just a cop out
Do you really not get it? Is the cognitive dissonance that big. Because it's inflammatory I've stopped accusing even the most aggressive trolls of 'whining'. And the combination with 'snowflake' makes the whole statement quite offensive.
Of course 'offensive' isn't illegal, but it certainly should be pointed out.
Maybe Jo doesn't like 'kicking ass'. Why should we all descend to the language of the gutter and the manners of neanderthals?
I'll repeat what I said before: the presence of Jo and other female posters has reduced the amount of boorish willy-waving (and yes I've said I can be guilty of it too).
I'm actually happy to trade blows with people like you and MT all day long, but others have said it is offputting. Alex has specifically asked us to watch our tone.
If people want to be polite, why the hell should we castigate them? Jeez.
Indeed, Why should be decend to the language of the gutter and manners of neanderthals?
Selective reading and erroneous quotation.
I said 'I'm happy to trade blows BUT others don't like it'.
Make sense now?
Sorry can't stay long either- hope to post intermittently.
Hope all is well with you?
Jo.
Thankyou so much for all the support.
I will be listening out for your play on Friday- good luck.
Jo.
I am a bit pushed for time at the moment, but keeping an eye on all the good things here too.
For example giving totally disillusioned, ex-labour voters like me space to vent my feelings about what is wrong with 'New Labour', especially in Scotland, and why I will vote SNP in 2010 and 2011.
The Dark Lard is not known for his liking of people 'off message' that is that do not agree with him nor deigning to engage in discussion with those who feel maybe the message is wrong.
Thank you for tolerating those who think the Emperor's Clothes are bare naked and allow us to say so.
For me comments like yours are essential to identify failings so that we can learn, adapt and become stronger.
Basically it allows introspection. After the election I am hoping to display to people how their contributions to this site have manifested into a significant change.
I need to see change now if I'm going to vote for you. I'm not stupid enough to fall for "We'll do it if we're elected" again.
On mutuals definitely.
Seriously? I think you have made my evening. What an encouraging peice of news.
Cheers.
On that note nighty night LL! I am packing letters all tommorrow.
;)
Ludwig is always serious, sir.
Robust debate and constructive criticism where warranted- yes- but not being drowned out with destructive commentary.
I'm sure many others feel the same.
My comment doesn't prevent others from reading yours and the moment you start saying there's too many people pushing one point of view, you're complaining that there are more people who disagree with you than agree.
If you're surrounded by idiots making idiotic proclamations, shout louder and be right. You're clearly capable of arguing your case and it bugs the hell out of me when I see people asking for more moderation.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the need for moderation. You only see what Alex lets through - imagine all the virtual smear and graffiti he has to block. From my experience of vibrant functioning US blogs they depend on very active moderation, often community based. Otherwise you get a 'broken windows' kind of urban decay, where virulent insults, conspiracy theories and verbal violence plays out. I've seen it happen.
Even free speech has rules. And blogs which advertise some kind of loose party affiliation or loyalty hardly constitute the whole arena of free speech either. Try pasting whatever you like on Conservativehome. Alex is much much much more tolerant of dissent.
But if this site became dominated by libertarians and Tories, which it almost was a year or so ago, then it would have narrowed the blogosphere, failed its remit, and led to an overall dimunition of free speech, because even the libertarian right accepts, their views have plenty of outlets.
(mis)representation.)
Sorry I've run out of time right now- but I do think LL provides an alternative model that is far more democratic? All ideas are on the table- all valued equally.
I think this should be a "2 way" conversation too.
Jo.
Hmm, so Iraq and the troughing was all made up by the media and it was a failure to get the message across then . . . . ?
I want to build something that's powerful and it's a long slog, but people in the party are really sitting up and taking notice.
Idealism and creativity are essential and the former feeds into the latter. Creativity comes about via experience and dare I say it, the contrasting levels between suffering and joy. It develops from our experiences as we seek to use our emotions and reasoning to "prevent" bad things from happening and try to "maintain" or improve the good things.
That is why on a site like this we see many good ideas and at the same time very swift rejections of badly thought out policy. It really is about emotive intelligence as well as the current trend of strategic and tactical cunning (which we often see in Parliament by some who try and duplicate normative human emotional behaviour and succeed to greater and lesser degrees).
The ability to question itself and openly (and constructively) criticise its political party.
Report and discuss the bad news (rather than straight avoid it)
And not end up being a mutual mastication back-slapping society.
Then the left will remain a backwater in the political blog world.
The ethos of the Labour Party has always been to create a collection of factions under a common theme. The ethos of the Tory Party has always been to create a big tent and to win and influence new friends adapting to new ideas and events.
In terms of fluidity, the right wins hands down, it is versed in the nature of the "bottom-up" rather than the "top-down" command and control.
Don't know where you are, but BBC East was reporting last night the dismay in the Tory constituency parties in Suffolk of yet another policy wonk candidate list containing people with no connection to the region, let alone the county.
So Osbourne's little helper won an Open Primary for West Suffolk with an imposed candidate list from the command and control structure in London. The news was about the frustration with the CP not having any say about the candidate lists.
Those safe Tory seat in Suffolk may stay safe in the GE, but UKIP will split the vote. Suffolk Together may put up the odd candidate in their opposition to the Conservative controlled Ipswich councils drive to split the county into unitary authorities.
Basically Cameron's Tories are copying New Labour tactics and methods and inadvertently laying the foundations of a future centre left Labour government, because they're good at imitation but lousy at identifying the defects of what they are imitating.
To summarise: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
On the face of it, that would seem to be an untenable idea. West Suffolk before 1972 struggled with only Bury SE as a centre of any description. It seems like an internecine strife between the Tories at different levels of local government.
And your point is?
So any of the other political parties consult their membership in this way.
As for the imposition of lists, how is that any different? Heaven forbid an all women list.
As for Cameron copying New Labour tactics, I never saw Blair on the 'net or the series of Open internet forum websites on policy and fact finding. I recently contributed to an open public forum ran by the Tories on government IT policy.
In government, Tory politics is driven by a need for more localism not more statism.
As for UKIP, a minority party, one trick pony.
I see. Centralised control is only bad from Labour.
As for TB not utilising a technolgy in it's infancy when he was in office. So what the panto villain did pretty well with tools at his disposal.
Frankly I don't beleive in Tory localism, because when push comes to shove, they don't take the local route. Are we to believe the county that gave you so many cabinet members in previous governments can't come up with a single local candidate when the vacancies appear.
But good to see you want Cameron to impose lists for specific reasons, like cushy safe seats for the in crowd policy wonks.
I've bumped into more UKIP advocates than Labour or Tory ones recently. I don't expect the Tories to lose any of these seats, but the swings might trail behind other regions.
When it's making the local telly news, it's not an internal issue. I sense a touch of complacency that could have played into our hands if our own people weren't making the same idiotic mistakes in selecting potential holiday home candidates.
Nope, not under Thatcher - depended on the political complexion of the local authority. See also the comment earlier about the abolition of South Yorkshire County Council (and the other metropolitan county councils) in 1985.
Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister from 1979-1990.
According to my calendar it is 2010. Ergo, 20 years since she has been in office.
'In government, Tory politics is driven by a need for more localism not more statism.'
That's what you said. Perhaps you were referring to Major then - or has wishful thinking become your reallity?
I suppose the rejection of Clause 4 excluded the banks when it was rejected?
We in the Co-operative Party would like Northern Rock to be reconstituted as a mutual society - just like in the old days of building societies (of which there actually remain a few - the good old Britannia with the Co-op Bank, for example) - ethical banking - unlike, for example, your Barclays which allowed its subsidiary to support the Mugabe regime.
And RBS & HBOS.
Mmmm, float that policy on those, dare you.
It is not 'your Barclays', it is 'my HBOS and RBS'.
What's your point about the banks? Would you have preferred them to be abandoned like Lehman Bros or would you have expected a white knight to come to rescue them? Is the government not taking a very hands-off approach to HOS and RBS? Is the government more than a majority shareholder in either? The reason that Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale avoided government interjection of capital was that the US taxpayer bailed them out through AIG which underwrote their involvement in the US subprime market. What does all this have to do with Clause 4? I don't remember what I wrote about Barclays. If I write 'your Barclays', it was intended as a colloquial use of 'your'. 'Mmmmm, float that policy on those, dare you' - what does that mean? There is no intention - they were banks, not former building societies. 'You want to mutualise a piddly-pop mortgage lender?' - exactly, that is ineherently the rationale - re-mutualise what was once a mutual. Do you exonerate the bankers from the catastrophe, then? Finally, your abrupt and aggressive tone gets us nowhere.
Labour had over a decade to do something about this and they did nothing.
If the comment about ethical banking was aimed in this direction, then the Co-op Bank is resolutely ethical.
Fractional reserve banking is still no better than a pyramid scheme. I know it's cliche, but...
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin.
The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them,
but leave them the power to create deposits,
and with the flick of the pen they will
create enough deposits to buy it back again.
However, take it away from them, and
all the great fortunes like mine
will disappear and they ought to disappear, for
this would be a happier and better world to live in.
But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers
and pay the cost of your own slavery,
let them continue to create deposits."
Thanks for this one: made me laugh out loud.
The ethos of the Labour Party has always been to create a collection of factions under a common theme. The ethos of the Tory Party has always been to create a big tent and to win and influence new friends adapting to new ideas and events.
Can't you drop the partisanship for just one second?
Aah, Mr Pot, so glad you could make it. Allow me to introduce you to Mr Kettle.
Hmm. I would have thought that a truly partisan reply to MT would have just been to say 'Labour are a broad church... Tories are factions'. And most my comments here about the role of women, libel, and implosion of US democratic blogs were pretty free of party politics.
But you're clearly an expert on the colour ranges of iron cookware, MB, so I'll defer to your objective judgement
As from a creative chap like yourself, I'm minded by the prolific and honoured writer Ian McEwen.
Politics is the enemy of the imagination.
Woo.... imagine that.
In the current climate where MP's in both parties are seeking the ideas of their betters, you are absolutely correct.
Politics is indeed the enemy of the imagination.
Spot on!
Your discription of the Right is a complete pile of rubbish.
Do you think nobody here has experienced Tory Councils or has ever met Tory Mp's?
The only time I have ever seen a Tory situation that was genuinly bottom-up was John Major when he had to deal with his overtly powerful back-benchers and effectively lost control of his party.
I somehow doubt the Tory blogsites permit any serious questioning of Tory values, I suspect that the only real argument on these sites is in the form of Hannan vs Cameron based arguments, between the Right and the barely central right.
As for what Tory websites do, you don't seem to be very clear on that either.
Sorry Mike I fear I get it all too well. I happen to know (from when I was a councillor and Party candidate) plenty of Tories as they are not in small numbers in East Anglia. I have respect for some I have faced in elections and beaten and been beaten by. Tory Party top down contol is no less than it has ever been before.
In addition to your statement "ethos of the Tory Party has always been to create a big tent and to win and influence new friends adapting to new ideas and events" is nonesense, Tories are not radical reformers, they are driven to maintain the status quo and to only depart from it when there is a direct material gain involved.
I think you will find Labour in it's transition in Government from a leftist party, to 1997 when it became a centre left party and then after 2002 when it became a right of center party has proven to be more fluid than any Party i have ever read about in any history book.
My personal feeling is that there is real potential to harness so many ideas and strengths on here; but the danger is getting sidetracked and dragged down by the dedicated "naysayers."
I'm all for robust debate, and really welcome interesting comments from across the spectrum; but I'm afraid can't abide the destructive comment for the sake of it.
I've particularly valued contributions from Diana, Shibley, Dave Postles, Chris Cook, Richard Blogger, B Bendle, yourself, Danny, Peter Barnard, Mike Homfray, Derek, Peter Jukes, Elizabeth, Stephanie Gee,and including Peter Thomson, also Michael Merrick, and many of the writers on here.And that might just be the start!
What with this and the "Co op" movement- we could be onto something Alex and Ralph!
Jo
Thanks.
I reckon if you had an open policy forum debate Chaired by Alex, the lot of us could sort out much of the Parties problems in no time.
Please keep us informed of how it's all going?
Jo.
The pool of contributors on here have also written high calibre stuff.
I think LL should go from strength to strength as a campaigning site, whatever the outcome of the election.
It is the "people" and the ideas that matter, as well as a spirit of idealism- and that certainly exists on here.
I think of it as a creative hub!
"
But Hazico, what about that unbridgable void between 'the people' and the PLP/government?
You have press releases (they're not articles) from some of the top brass, but they only seem to use this place as free advertising and I see no attempt to engage in debate and no proof that anything here actually affects policy.
Sorry if that sounds like I'm having a go - it's a laudable aim but I get the feeling your bridge is only going to reach half-way.
I agree. LL in comparison to ConHome is really that ConHome has its 'communities' which range from Local Government issues through to the more erudite 'LeftWatch'. There's also a 'CentreRight' section for policy discussion and also 'PlayPolitical'.
The surveys are also published without prejudice and also the editors are also talking heads appearing on radio for real opinion.
Not opine 'on message' of Mandelson's plat de jour like today's 'spectacular'. The debate is robust, not self-congratulatory and after quite a few years of hurt; realistic.
That's the big difference, it's more diverse, there's more debate on all the issues and there's a much wider exchange of ideas.
I have to say you get 10/10 for effort on that one.
Barking and Dagenham is unlike anything I have ever come across in my political life (around 27 years).
The time on the doorsteps is a nightmare, it is a slow going grind.
How is Islington going?
That is because we are ALL very, very cool.
Alex does a fantastic job in encouraging obejective and intelliegent debate, he really does.
Though Alex says it is campaign time and LL has to really show off what "side" it is on during a campaign.
Hence the reason I am not coming on here as much. There is really nothing for me to say except where the interaction on the doorstep is going on.
Just as an aside, I heard that the editors of the ?Observer and London Evening Standard approached R.4 Woman's Hour(Jenni Murray) last week, to plead for more female letter writers.
Apparently the tone on their letters page is male orientated... of the "pompous" variety!
They are looking for a bit more humility and humour it seems- as makes more compelling reading...
I do think we need more of a balance on LL too?
I'm going to p*ss off many commentators here by agreeing with Jenni Murray (not something I do often): letters pages and blogs are far too dominated by men in the UK. It makes us boorish, boastful and prone to lose our manners and indulge in pointless willy-waving. (And before anyone remarks - yes I'm guilty of this too)
The tone of LL has improved remarkably since you and Elizabeth started posting here regularly. I don't know how you've done it, but I've even seen the amiable side of Tories I once considered irredeemable old trolls.
Kudos. And I hope the change of tone encourages more balance. LL is still 80 or 90 per cent male. This contrasts very vividly with the US blogs I frequent, where it's almost 50/50
I am going to shock you by agreeing with you.
More women please! Big ones, small ones, tall ones, short ones!
Come on! Lets hear your views.
Be the change you want to see and all that.
The great thing about the threads not working in my browser is that I can't tell if this comment is directed to me...
But of course it can't be directed at me. I'm the funniest person I know! And if I only had more humility, I'd be perfect!
The conservative libertarian blogs dominate in the UK much like the liberal blogosphere dominated in the US for the eight years prior to Obama's election: it's a great outlet for venting the vitriol of opposition. I've seen the democratic sites implode with the realities of governance. They're so used to being against something, they can't stop.
I suspect the same will happen in the right wing blogosphere if Cameron wins. I also don't think, unlike the US, the UK is anywhere near tapping
1. The online fundraising potential
2. Breaking News (and I mean news not smear and scandal a la Fawkes/Drudge)
3. Online advocacy and the spread of ideas.
I think the latter is where the left is pushing back. The libertarian right has dominated UK blogs, and in the meantime spawned various self serving echo chambers on climate change, EU, immigration. These have spun out of control, with ever more extreme voices citing ever more spurious facts or lurid sources. The push back is already happening on climate change. Expect a lot of false information about the EU and immigration will be fumigated in the next few years.
You have half a point, the Tories seems to come here to vent their spleens.
I think Dale is huge because of his writing ability and intellect. He may be on the other side but is a very good read.
Fawkes is driving a Tory agenda - yes, but I think he is big because he gets the inside track. He is also very adept at having a go at the Tories too as well as Jonah. Fawkes is also marketing very heavily and using new media to build a site that is as orientated to making money as a political point.
And of course, Fawkes had to break his biggest story, about McBride, in the papers rather than on his blog. But that's because of our asinine and free-speech libel laws. You need the deep pockets of a big corporation to take on Carter Ruck.
I agree we are now in the election campaign (must be one of the longest since the 19th century when voting used to take place over several months) - and it is understandable that you want to tackle Cameron. I just hope that post election, whatever the result, the site can help encourage a debate that will renew Labour. Despite the obsession over the last couple of decades that any form of dissent in a party is somehow a disaster, parties seem more attractive to me when they can tolerate a number of different voices in a big tent. For all you can snipe at him over various things, Cameron does genuinely seem to have acheived that for the Tories. At least for the moment.
In the long-run Labourlist has the potential to be the place where various different factions come to debate the future of the party. That’s a much more valuable thing than anti-Cameron posts (the left-wing media will do that for you).
Those are welcome and interesting sentiments. OTOH, it is necessary to expose the Tories for inconsistencies and deficiencies and to discern what lies behind the facade.
I do like this site. I've been reading it form some time and finally started commenting on it. However its probably at its strongest when asking difficult questions about the current direction of the party (as it was a few months ago) rather than casual sniping at Cameron (even if that is often merited).
Jo.
Hope it still seems in context!
Thanks- Jo.