What would you like to see cut?

At least you acknowledge that the Labour party does have to re-establish its credibility, papaoscar - many on here don't!

Interesting how the architects of right-wing chaos are falling over themselves to rubbish the Labour Party's attempts to re-establish their credibility. Here in the UK, after the utter catastrophe thrust upon us all by the greed of the international financiers and bankers, our government have used the situation to protect their own interests and impose savage austerity measures on the weakest members of our society. So cut - yes, I'd cut the strong links between big-business and politics and re-establish strong, sound public ownership.

If you haven't seen these new Labour guidelines, soontobe, here's an article from yet another right-wing newspaper giving its take on them

incoherent shambles

I don't see why we are all supposed to swallow the left's view on everything!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps a member of the Labour party would know. This sounds like fantasy from the Sun or the Daily Mail.
Therefore I cannot answer you. I thought you were talking about the new Labour party guidelines, not fantasy.

I am not talking about now. I am talking about say 2 years ago.
From Labour voters in particular [and I am talking voters, not the party], they would try and stop immigration talk by shouting "racist" at others on the internet and in rl who wanted to have an open discussion about immigration.
They did that partly because that was the Labour party line and thought - if a non labour voter talks about immigration, they are automatically a racist for even talking about it.
Now, and it seems to me to be all of a sudden, the labour party do not think that non labour voters talking about immigration, are racist anymore.

So how can non labour voters have been racist 2 years ago, talking about immigration.
Yet the exact same non labour voters are not now, if they talk about it.

I really did not want to answer that, soontobe. You imply that Labour canvassers think people are racist if immigration is mentioned. That is so wrong.
You also imply that they have been told not to mention immigration which is also wrong. What they have been told to do is to talk to people about immigration when they know what the problems of immigration are in the particular constituency. Some constituencies have particular worries about immigration in their area, and it's no good giving a one size fits all response.

If this isn't what you meant to imply, please put me right.

I think I did read that. But I dont see at all how that answers my post. Iam64 seems to get it, but I dont.

Thanks for setting it out durhamjen.

Well, soontobe, you obviously haven't read the relevant bit in the link I gave you, very much like most of the newspaper columnists.
This is it.

"There are electors for whom immigration is already a very high salience issue, who already plan to vote Ukip. For these electors, the issue needs to be addressed: there is no longer a risk of making it worse with that group. As always, it is preferable to first of all establish a relationship with such voters before discussing policy in detail. However this may not always be possible or desirable. Our advice is therefore that we should:

(a) listen carefully to electors' concerns on immigration on the doorstep and engage with their views before moving the conversation on to how Labour would tackle the issues they have raised (whether they be housing, education, the NHS, etc.). We should acknowledge electors’ concerns and contextualise the problem as something that Labour has a clear plan to improve."

He says that they should engage with the elector's concerns on immigration and engage with their views, before then talking about other issues with them. If the voter is going to vote Ukip, it cannot be made worse by discussing Labour party policy with them.
Nowhere does it say do not discuss immigration with them.

If I was a Labour voter I would feel betrayed.
I would presumably have gone around saying "you are racist" if someone mentioned immigration.
And now presumably they dont say it.

Soontobe, you asked me earlier what I thought about Labour's immigration stance. I agree with this take on it.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/12/15/the-attack-on-labour-s-ukip-leaflet-is-cynical-nonsense

I think it's fourteen now, and in important constituencies.
There was an NHAP member standing in one of the Ukip byelections, I think. He did not get many votes.
Richard Taylor, the member for Wyre Valley, has been an independent before. I think he stood against Hamilton, or someone else the Tories needed to get rid of.
The other leader, Clive Peedell is standing against Cameron, and Louise Irving, the woman who organised against the closure of A&E at Lewisham Hospital, is standing against Hunt.

Thanks for that.
It looks like they have 12 prospective MPs standing at the next election?

It took what seemed like decades for UKIP to make an appearance on our ballot box paper. So I wont hold my breath for NHA anytime soon!

To be honest, I sometimes forget there are other tiny parties existing. And we dont get bumf for them. Ever, I dont think. So when I arrive at the polling station, my eyes glaze over the smaller parties. And often, a lot of them have daft names, so I wouldnt vote for them anyway.

I suppose, if we were durhamjen, we might then bash what seems like all other parties, as only then will nhap win!

Soontobe, I've mentioned before about the NHA party. Saving the NHS is one of the topics I am most interested in.
Some people think it's not worth bothering about the NHA because they are a single issue party. This shows they are not single issue, but care about poverty as well.

nhap.org/acceptable-people-britain-going-hungry/

Of course, not everyone can vote for the NHA, but they do seem to have more of a manifesto they will stick to than Ukip.

It's a case of any stick to beat the tories with, soontobe - doesn't matter which to durhamjen!

It does seem to be any stick to beat any party with at times Ana. So many people are so anti rather than pro any party - not just on GN - you have to wonder how anyone gets elected.

Oh Ana, sorry.

durhamjen, apology to you too actually. I wasnt fishing, though I can perfectly see how you think that.
I make assumptions about people all the time, drives my sister nuts! I actaully dont think I can help it, my brain even whizzes in its sleep. I dream frequently, and I dont sleep deeply because of it I think.
It was acutally a serious question. I would have put money on you being a labour supporter!

Stop fishing, soontobe.

My post about making assumptions wasn't addressed to you, soontobe - your post hadn't appeared when I posted it.

Oh I see Ana. I dont think I have met anyone in rl who does that.

I dont read all threads durhamjen! And I have only been on here a month.

I am shocked! I assumed you must be a labour supporter!
So you are anti all parties?

Ana . I do make assumptions. I dont remotely care!
It is revealing.

It's a case of any stick to beat the tories with, soontobe - doesn't matter which to durhamjen!

Ana, I do know about some of you. Did not say who. Who's making assumptions?

Soontobe, never voted for Labour since Tony Blair took over with his Tory-light policies, which you would have known if you'd read some other threads. When you vote Ukip you'll get real Tory and destroy the NHS and any thing else run by local government.

Only if they've specifically posted on GN who they intend to vote for, or have always voted for. Otherwise, you're making assumptions again...

durhamjen. Serious question.

Do you think that Labour have done anything wrong. Ever?

And what do you think about their policy turn on immigration. Did you agree with them before? Or do you agree with them now?

By the way, 200,000 signatures on a 38 degrees petition has stopped Ipsa from keeping secret the names of MPs who are being investigated over their expenses. People power works.