United, even when we disagree!

Yip' agreeing to go forward is a just cause. The heavy hand of common sense should thump down apon the tories,
exposing them (tories) for all their unworth and greed.

As regions,states, nations and Europe deal with the down-turn, we must also agree to deal with the outdated tory machine, a very greasy chain that still milks off those who have been the most irresponsible in society.

It's a dynamic changing world that has witnessed America
ditching the conservative approach in favour of Obama politics, politics of principle, hope and help to the peoples.

Thatcher once said there was no such thing as society! the real story is? there is no such thing as a new conservative, the conservative party of Thatcher is still the driving force of the conservative party of Cameron, just a greasy chain programme of conservatism too cut tax and public spending in favour of the top 10% of earners.

Amazing what a good thrashing from the Headmaster can achieve.

"Now chaps shake hands and be friends again!Publicly!!!!"

You English and your pubic school ethos

"LabourList suggested that the fact that MessageSpace involves Alex Hilton and Jag Singh of Labourhome and anti-Labour blogger Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes was problematic."

That's not the issue. Alex Hinton posted on his own blog that a "senior Labour figure" has abused him and threatened to destroy him if he didn't dispose of his shares in Message Space and had attacked his friendship with Paul Staines.

And what do you do when you have no ideas of your own....you attack the Opposition. So lets' have a look at the title of the articles on the left?

"Why David Cameron's piece in the Guardian today is flawed"
"Cameron's Green Paper is a damp squib"
"This is what it will mean to have a Conservative Government"
"Death by a hundred cuts - stop the tories slashing local services"
"The Conservative Party's reaction to what I said at the weekend shows they just don't get it"
"While we offer real help, The Tories still believe in sink or swim"
"Tory London - defending bankers and attacking pensions"

These articles are simply not proposing a Labour alternative. Anyone can try to discredit a policy by simple dismissal. However proposing a well thought out alternative, now that takes political talent. Talent that is quite simply lacking in any of the articles above and talent that one expects from a government. Even one that has been in power for 11 years and is asking for 5 more.

Mark, you've got it in a nutshell.

This website has sadly become fantatically dull and unfortunately a missed opportunity. I was looking forward to intelligent debate. It could have been a fantastic opportunity to see what the a Labour governing party represents. Harnessing the technology of the web to create a fascinating forum of discussion with the polcy makers and policy representatives.

Unfortunately I don't remember reading a single response from the original author of the article and once again the name of the website's commisioner crops up. Is it beyond the realms of possibility to have an intelligent discussion on current left wing policy or is infighting and the resolution of infighting the best that can be mustered? And does this dirty laundry have to be aired so publicly? It does seem to indicate a certain lack of presentation skills which given the context, is surprising.

p.s. On what I thought would be an intelligent website I see the following text on the right hand banner:
"I loathed her and everything she stood for - Lindsay Duncan (Playing Baroness Thatcher on TV)". The Labour Party really does have to get over Mrs Thatcher - she left office just over 18 years ago!!! It wpuld be like James Callaghan complaining about Harold Macmillan!!! Does the fact that she still plagues the memories of some indicate that very little to shout about has happened in the intervening years? This is a website that intends to take itself seriously, yes? Almost eveything I have read here so far has convinced me that Labour actually are bereft of an ideology.

What a waste of energy that was!

Please do not call me comrade, I am not your comrade.

If I had a choice of saving your socialist life or buying a new pair of shoes I'd get some shoes..

It was very sweet.

although pragmatic, this decision will have to reviewed - in the light of forthcoming social events.

I do not believe that the country will accept a party that does not have a zero tolerance policy with regards to community cohesion.

And that ain't possible if those who mock the institution of the state are allowed to flourish. Both Mr Hilton and Jag's time is up in terms of lieing in the same bed as a a prominent anarchist and someone who displays his racist and other unappealing tendencies through others.

Ash Cash, out of interest how exactly do you propose to stop "those who mock the institution of the state" from being allowed to flourish? Should we ban satire or do we need to go further?

i cannot answer this at present.
.
.

I was very concerned to observe that the extreme elements in society are gravitating towards each.

preachers of hate from both the free speech tier and those excitable folks at the far end of the religious divide.


The fusion of "violent" stirring,
and those who feel that actual violence is justified is not not going to lead to a happy outcome/outcomes

I fear.

"I do not believe that the country will accept a party that does not have a zero tolerance policy with regards to community cohesion."

Eh? A party with 'a zero tolerance policy?' that sounds a bit like an endorsement for the BNP!!

Yet again, Ash Cash, your belief is so wrong is it incredible that you hold it & I would seriously doubt your common sense as a consequence. Your principles are miles away from reality. If you think that "the country" cares significantly (at any time, let alone in present circumstances) about "community cohesion" then you are living in a socio-political bubble. You keep falling into this trap in your comments, which is odd when you do acknowledge pragmatism. Playing for the community cohesion vote will net a party in this country next to nothing in the polls in the great scheme of things; although, sadly, playing the opposite line does tend to achieve an irritating minority impact. It would only be if that minority impact started to become a significant one that perhaps the cohesion issue might become a determinator of acceptance for "the country" as opposed to a very small group of idealists. I write as one in a minority, as indeed arguably 50% of more of the country are on one level or another (age, race, creed, disability, sexuality, social background - the list goes on and just proves how little of a vote winner it is). You can NEVER make everyone equal unless you brainwash - there will always be disaffected parties.

Socio-political theory is fine and good as THEORY. However, no philosopher of whom I am aware ever expected that their theory would become reality, nor was that end their intention in expounding it, eg: Machiavelli, Smith, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, Nietsche and umpteen others. And, I suspect, they were greater thinkers than you and certainly were greater than me. I could be wrong but your meanderings do rather have the ring of a young idealist and yes, a lot of us were like that once: time will show you, however, even if your knowledge of history, and the difference between theory and reality, does not. No offence intended & do feel free to aim for the stars, but do not expect to get many travellers on your spacecraft.

Personally, I've always had a soft spot for J-JR's notions but I'd never remotely adhere to them & am dansure that they can never work in the real world.

Ye Gods.

Great, you have kissed and made up. But the point is that this should never have got out of hand in the first place. It is fine to have debate about the role of messagespace, but whoever made the mistake of threatening Mr Hilton in the first place should be ashamed - they merely ruined the discussion.

"But we have agreed to disagree on the issue of MessageSpace. What matters more is building Labour's online presence. "

.

wrong.

"We" have agreed? Derek and Alex apparently have, to be sure. But who are you?

And, yes, regrettably the spat did ruin thing. When the mainstream print media start reporting it (as they have, in varous contexts) then you have a problem. Do not over-estimate the power of the web.

So by this site having the threats to run a mass email campaign against a private business while having the other site agree to take down the statement that someone belonging to this site made threats against it makes this spat OK then?

If that is the way Labour people operate then there's no wonder you've lost the trust of a majority of the floating voters. A cavalier attitude to honesty and utter lack of understanding of how this makes you appear will be the legacy you lot leave for the future labour activists to get over.

You boys, tut tut, glad you're friends again. Did Peter tell you to sort it out?

I would have thought that at this point in the election timetable you would value every private business dealing with relish.

Think yourself lucky Derek, at least you aren't a Labour MP.

"Peace in our time"

How's that ego Derek?

If I was you Derek, I would have taken 500 lines from wee Dougie.

"I will not use Labour Party resources for my own ends....."

Which resources? Which ends?

I'm am glad that whoever was trying to bully Alex has been called off.

Comradeship!

We really are trapped in the 80s at the Student Union.

Again it's all about me, isn't it Mr Draper?

I wonder you don't start your own newspaper "The Daily Draper"

Perhaps that would satisfy your massive ego.

Actually, it is all about me.

"Actually, it is all about me."

Pfft! It wouldn't surprise me at all if you had a hand in the deletion of those threads, Mr Staines. Considering what you do for a living, you're a wee bit precious about your own dirty laundry.

So is it the policy of LabourList and Labourhome that inconvenient conversations will be disappeared down the memory hole as if they never happened?

Well, hang on a minute, isn't this a joint article posted across two separate sites in which both say 'it's not about us', it's about what we want to achieve in improving Labour's opnline presence? I think you've misread something there, Alan.

Yes Alex, but it's all about another of Mr Draper's feuds, started by Mr D himself 9the feud and the thread)