Posts
Labour Home's Lulu SHOUT!: Broken Record
Over at Labour Home a poster name of "lulu" is using the old broken record routine to make their point, that Gordon Brown must be replaced. I can't say I agree with this analysis. But with Labour Home having recently attracted a backer and with an ambition to grow to rival Conservative Home I must say I worry about their editorial approach.
Basically this comes across as a free-for-all followed by precedence given by volume of comments.
Who exactly is this "lulu"? Do they have your own blog somewhere? Will they provide their identity before they post this again and again and again?
Why on earth does Labour Home allow anonymous/pen named Posts? Anonymous comments is one thing, but anonymous Posts? Picked up by the likes of Guido Fawkes? Calling for blood on the carpet?
On Friday 30 May, Tuesday 24 June, Friday 11 July, Friday 25 July, Tuesday 29 July and now Saturday 23 August "lulu" has posted variations on this self same message. This is the classic "broken record" approach to "communication".
Six times! The one other post dissing Obama I think it was on Sunday 17 August.
Gordon Brown is the leader of the Labour Party. Chosen by correct if not entirely satisfactory process. Despite the headline figures for the parties delving deeper into the raw figures from the pollsters you will find that when faced with the single and uncomplicated question :
"Would you prefer a Labour of Tory Government?" OWTTE
Under this clarity seeking question the whole thing is poised with only a couple of points between the parties and LABOUR IN THE LEAD (By 2%, Populus, July 2008).
The Tories say they DON'T want Brown to go. This obviously means that they DO! As it is they will have the longest established Leader come the election. Which will hopefully become a liability for them as the flaws in Cameron's offering finally gain the traction they deserve.
Change now would suit the Tories down to the ground. Either way, if they can feed off a scene of disloyalty and twaddle and anonymous trollery on the Labour Party's unofficial home of blogging they'll enjoy that. 
5 comments:
CP I will admit it is a bit annoying and rather immature of LuLu, and other similar posters, but unfortunately its the cost of free speech.
However, it would appear that no matter what GB does the public have basically got their fingers in their ears.
His leaderships skills are sorely lacking, the mantra he keeps spouting, and just the "need for change" feeling are all working against the Party.
Now you have to be honest with yourself and ask whether the New Labour way has actually worked?
For TB it obviously worked, he has left office an extremely better off person than when he got elected as prime minister!
But how about all the foot soldiers left behind?
Struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living soars, taxes are increased, and social mobility has come to a grinding halt.
I have a feeling we would have been in a better place had the Party followed a more John Smith inspired Labour policies, rather than those cooked up in the Granita Pact.
The next question you have to answer honestly is, whether GB is bigger than the Party, or the other way around if you wish to see the possibility of a four term in office?
I know my answer to both these questions!
Interesting questions no doubt. New Labour has worked on some levels. Electability has been strong. And there is no way of knowing if this could have been matched by a Smithsian take (which would have still been new Labour). I believe that it could have been. But we do have to start from where we are not where we wish to be.
GB is not bigger than the party or the movement or the supporters or the voters. But I'm not convinced a better result can be had from any different leader - but I am convinced that with better impression management and particularly better rebuttal of Tory tosh we can still win in 2009 or 2010.
Different answers to yours I suspect?
I like your answer actually CP not that we are on the same wavelength.
Perhaps electoral reform might be an avenue to go down for the "Big Idea" this time around - and proper electoral reform!
I think we should just attack the tories for taking cocaine and visiting brothels.
The tory leader has basically said he took cocaine
The shadow chancellor was picuted with some tin foil int front of him in a brothel.
How can they tlak about the broken society when they have connections to cocaine and prostitutues.
Because they are toffs with an unbroken record of using poor working people to satisfy their every desire?
I've missed this story however. Unless it is the same old same old Ozzy Osborne and his crack whores tale of yore?? This didn't do much harm to the progress in the polls.
There are worse things to be than someone who has taken coke in the company of whores. Completely excusable, even in a law maker, as past behaviour in this day and age.
Not so perhaps as current behaviour if that were to be revealed.
However these worse things would including the continuously lying to the electorate of the current Tory front bench and particularly their representation of themselves as people who care about the poor.
Post a Comment