this from John Prescott:
I'm coming to Reading to speak at Labour's South East regional conference on Saturday February 20th.So I thought why not ask local supporters to pop down for a chat.It's an opportunity for us to meet, chat about what we want from a Labour Fourth Term and get ready for the local and general elections.All Labour members and supporters are invited and attendance is absolutely free!And if you want to join the party, I'll sign you up there and then.Don't worry if you're not a member. Just RSVP to this invite so we can see who's coming from the Go Fourth Facebook group.We'll be in the bar of the Hilton Hotel, Drake Way, Reading, RG2 0GQ 2HQ from 5.30pm.Hope to see you then!
would be nice if he turned out a bit earlier to knock on some doors, perhaps in south Reading close to the venue, you would think Mr Powers, as regional director of the Labour Party and also a candidate in Church ward (2004 three Labour councillors, now, three Tory councillors) would want someone helping out there - wouldn't you? I have always thought John was the best electoral asset the party has, but the leadership of Reading Labour disagrees with me on that and has done little but slag him off since 1997.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Friday, 12 February 2010
the Reading Banner is an arsewipe, discuss
there, that's got your attention, but I am making a serious point. The Hansard Society has done an analysis of what people want from online communication and from communication by politicians, and here is an extract from an interview by Total Politics with Dr Andy Williamson, director of the Hansard Society's e-democracy programme.
What should politicians do to meet the requirements of an increasing political online community?Communicate – very simple. We have done a lot of research on how MPs communicate. This is mainly through publishing and the new research shows that people don’t want that. They want conversation – they want to be heard. They want to feel like what the MPs are saying is part of a wider conversation with the public and themselves. Not just issuing press releases and appearing for photo opportunities.What are the major differences between now and when the eDemocracy Programme was launched in 1997?What has changed is social media. There is now a culture of conversation online that didn’t exist 10 years ago when it was very much about publishing. The internet was an extra channel of publishing information and to a lesser degree there was the potential to then consult and engage through things like discussion boards. What’s happening now with the developments of Facebook and twitter is that the internet has become a parallel channel for the mainstream media. 10 years ago you were still relying on newspapers, television and radio to get a conversation that was based on their schedules and biases. Now you’ve got blogs, twitter, social media networks broadcasting the stuff around the story’s lifecycle and not the publisher’s lifecycle. Conversations happen when they happen not being based on deadlines.
Food for thought there boys, I hope. You have a good Labour candidate in Reading East who has been deliberately silenced and has no dialogue with the voters, you have, by design, possibly the worst candidate Labour in Reading has ever had in the West, whose only pastime, his old schoolfriends tell us, is calculating the decimal points of pi, and your communication strategies have not changed since the 1980s.
As Beth Ditto sings in "Heavy Cross" (on my new iPod hahahaha)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLxdcrk0-s
"you say it's been done so undo it"
and
"the choice is yours, so choose"
What should politicians do to meet the requirements of an increasing political online community?Communicate – very simple. We have done a lot of research on how MPs communicate. This is mainly through publishing and the new research shows that people don’t want that. They want conversation – they want to be heard. They want to feel like what the MPs are saying is part of a wider conversation with the public and themselves. Not just issuing press releases and appearing for photo opportunities.What are the major differences between now and when the eDemocracy Programme was launched in 1997?What has changed is social media. There is now a culture of conversation online that didn’t exist 10 years ago when it was very much about publishing. The internet was an extra channel of publishing information and to a lesser degree there was the potential to then consult and engage through things like discussion boards. What’s happening now with the developments of Facebook and twitter is that the internet has become a parallel channel for the mainstream media. 10 years ago you were still relying on newspapers, television and radio to get a conversation that was based on their schedules and biases. Now you’ve got blogs, twitter, social media networks broadcasting the stuff around the story’s lifecycle and not the publisher’s lifecycle. Conversations happen when they happen not being based on deadlines.
Food for thought there boys, I hope. You have a good Labour candidate in Reading East who has been deliberately silenced and has no dialogue with the voters, you have, by design, possibly the worst candidate Labour in Reading has ever had in the West, whose only pastime, his old schoolfriends tell us, is calculating the decimal points of pi, and your communication strategies have not changed since the 1980s.
As Beth Ditto sings in "Heavy Cross" (on my new iPod hahahaha)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLxdcrk0-s
"you say it's been done so undo it"
and
"the choice is yours, so choose"
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Labour candidate for Erith and Thamesmead
What is below is gossip. Tittle-tattle. Scuttlebutt. What you will. If a newspaper diary column or similar publishes vile lies about you there is no avenue of protest or retribution, because such columns are light-hearted, not presented as factual, and not meant to be taken seriously. That is what you will be told if you try to protest about the content of such a column. The law, and the rules, are just the same for bloggers. The difference is that bloggers do it for free speech and do not get paid to do it. So if you don't like what is published about you get over yourself, and get out of politics, because if you can't stand unhealthy episodes from your past being relayed in the present media then you are in the wrong career. I hope this is helpful.
one Theresa Pearce, whom I have never met, and who is glowingly described by the vile Kevin Maguire thus
and whose doings are reported by a correspondent thus:
Vomit-inducing puff in the vile Kevin McGuire's column in today's Mirror for one Theresa Pearce, Labour candidate for Erith and Thamesmead.
McGuire says how wonderfully 'real' she is - in her fifties, a tax inspector - somebody who knows all about looking after kids, studied at The Universioty of Life rather than Oxbridge and is an absolute cert to win - also will be a divine asset in the new House of Commons.
Pearce shared xxxxxx house with me, xxxx and xxxxxxx at a Party Conference in Brighton prior to 97 and after 92.
She proceeded to get steamingly pissed every night - and on the last night spewed up literally all over the house so we had to pay to get it specially cleaned.
Also, she began a shagging feste with a journalist on the Daily Express at same conference.
Police arrived at conference, sent by her husband who accused her of abandoning her children. She was supposed to pick up her kids from school but left them in the lurch while she pursued shag feste with Express journalist.
Police drove her to a special meeting at the school with the headteacher and her husband. So she had to abandon the conference.
Husband divorced her.
So, this is the example of sublime womanhood promoted by McGuire.
I think that we should be told .........
one Theresa Pearce, whom I have never met, and who is glowingly described by the vile Kevin Maguire thus
and whose doings are reported by a correspondent thus:
Vomit-inducing puff in the vile Kevin McGuire's column in today's Mirror for one Theresa Pearce, Labour candidate for Erith and Thamesmead.
McGuire says how wonderfully 'real' she is - in her fifties, a tax inspector - somebody who knows all about looking after kids, studied at The Universioty of Life rather than Oxbridge and is an absolute cert to win - also will be a divine asset in the new House of Commons.
Pearce shared xxxxxx house with me, xxxx and xxxxxxx at a Party Conference in Brighton prior to 97 and after 92.
She proceeded to get steamingly pissed every night - and on the last night spewed up literally all over the house so we had to pay to get it specially cleaned.
Also, she began a shagging feste with a journalist on the Daily Express at same conference.
Police arrived at conference, sent by her husband who accused her of abandoning her children. She was supposed to pick up her kids from school but left them in the lurch while she pursued shag feste with Express journalist.
Police drove her to a special meeting at the school with the headteacher and her husband. So she had to abandon the conference.
Husband divorced her.
So, this is the example of sublime womanhood promoted by McGuire.
I think that we should be told .........
refused to back Iraq
here is an extract from a post on Mr Salter's Telegraph blog:
Clare Short had far greater access to information and intelligence data about Saddam’s real threat to world peace than the rest of us 139 backbenchers who refused to back not "voted against" as you told everyone who would listen Martin. You abstained on that vote, possibly the most important one in any UK Parliament since the 1930s, at the urging of the whips. and then lied about it. Proud of yourself? the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Did this former Cabinet Minister seriously think that bombing Iraq was going to help kick start the Middle East peace talks or improve relations between the Arab world and the West? Probably not, but she was wrong. It did. Did she really cast aside all her worries about the illegality of the war in the absence of a second UN resolution on the promise of international rebuilding of the bomb-damaged country? No. She got pissed and changed her mind twice. Read Robin Cook’s resignation speech on 18 March 2003, it’s all there. Pity you weren't there to hear it Martin. What was more important that day?
Tony Blair was horribly wrong he was absolutely right about supporting the American invasion of Iraq there was no American invasion, which even you know Martin I am sure, but an invasion by allies, but at least he didn’t try and insult our intelligence by rewriting history at the Chilcot inquiry.
Shame he didn’t say sorry, though. for what? winning elections?
Clare Short had far greater access to information and intelligence data about Saddam’s real threat to world peace than the rest of us 139 backbenchers who refused to back not "voted against" as you told everyone who would listen Martin. You abstained on that vote, possibly the most important one in any UK Parliament since the 1930s, at the urging of the whips. and then lied about it. Proud of yourself? the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Did this former Cabinet Minister seriously think that bombing Iraq was going to help kick start the Middle East peace talks or improve relations between the Arab world and the West? Probably not, but she was wrong. It did. Did she really cast aside all her worries about the illegality of the war in the absence of a second UN resolution on the promise of international rebuilding of the bomb-damaged country? No. She got pissed and changed her mind twice. Read Robin Cook’s resignation speech on 18 March 2003, it’s all there. Pity you weren't there to hear it Martin. What was more important that day?
Tony Blair was horribly wrong he was absolutely right about supporting the American invasion of Iraq there was no American invasion, which even you know Martin I am sure, but an invasion by allies, but at least he didn’t try and insult our intelligence by rewriting history at the Chilcot inquiry.
Shame he didn’t say sorry, though. for what? winning elections?
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
in perpetuity
His Master's Voice is part of a package of regional "newspapers" owned by the Guardian Media Group which has now been sold by them. I think this is terrible. The Reading Evening Post, rightly described by independent Cllr Tony Jones as formerly an integral voice to the town, could disappear! The Murdoch people think this is OK, that the future is in paid-for online content. I am not so sure, though old Rupes is rarely wrong, he didn't get where he is today etc etc. However, if you read this you will see one of the grands fromages in GMG is informing us that the sale will "secure the future of the Guardian in perpetuity". No. This is something we do not want. The Guardian, as any fule kno, is the only national newspaper to give a platform to racists, to promote genocide, and it also (though it is not the only one to do this) reports known untruths as fact. It should die horribly. So come on readers, let's save the Reading Evening Post! Because the continuing existence of Murrill's brand of secondary-modern barely adequate cut-and-paste-Salter's-press-releases-and-stick-your-head-up-RBC's-arse is a small price to pay for the demise of the Filth. Hein?
the LibDems' top strategist
is called Tom Smithard and this is what he looks like. Really. Hat-tip Guido.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)