Inspired? Bizarre? Welcome embrace of the relaxed approach to reusing content that Web 2.0 should in part be about? Or the sort of stuff that gives political blogging a bad name? You decide…
Derek Draper’s LabourList site has come in for a fair amount of plaudits and brickbats, which given his controversial Labour history and the site’s high profile PR campaign is perhaps no surprise. In amongst these arguments have been comments about its moderating style.
And so, enter Labourist (note the missing L), which was mentioned in a comment posted here:
A grassroots alternative to LabourList has launched today. LABOURIST.org has the same content (which Derek kindly agrees to share) but without the heavy handed comment moderation. We welcome open and lively debate from everyone, not just the Labour-minded.
So there we have it: LabourList.org and Labourist.org. Take your pick.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The former Black Boy pub in Leicester is to be redeveloped with a touch of facadism
Inheritance tax and its discontents
Rishi Sunak - the pointy finger PM.
Braverman admonished
Full slate of Lib Dem candidates and up into second in Rishi Sunak's constituency
Getting things done - Scott Street #dundeewestend
Anyone try the West Cliff Lift?
Dropping the 1p tax rise has political costs too
Chris Perry
Marco
Steve Trevethan
Peter Martin
Joe Bourke
17 Comments
“So there we have it: LabourList.org and Labourist.org. Take your pick.”
Two nostrils of the same nose.
I don’t know why, but I smell some fishes.
Mind you, there are some interesting things in there.
Did the Lib Dems really use the “two-horse race” line in a by-election in a ward in Haringey where they had come fourth last time? That must merit some kind of award for sheer, shameless effrontery!
The Haringey Focus bar chart was of overall council seats: Labour most, Lib Dem close, Tories and Greens zero.
More a borough-wide two horse race than a ward one, but still a valid point.
Oh, come off it! It was a blatant attempt to mislead.
No wonder people hold politicians in such contempt.
Oh, Brave Anonymous @9.19am, LabourList has even done us the favour of reproducing the bar-chart which says quite clearly it’s showing “The councillors you voted for last time: Lab 30, Lib Dems 27”.
How is that a blatant attempt to mislead. Do you really have such contempt for the people of Haringey that you think they’re incapable of reading?
Stephen
You really are beyond belief.
Yes there is a get-out – in tiny print, which as a matter of fact is so small that it’s anything but “quite clearly” legible on the link you provide.
But you know, and I know, and everybody reading this knows, precisely what a bar chart labelled “It’s a two-horse race” in a by-election leaflet is meant to convey.
Just as we know what “Tory fact file: 3rd or worse in the last five elections” – in much larger print, of course – is meant to convey.
Of course the leaflet was intended to mislead, and you do yourself no credit at all in trying to defend it. (And I see you’re reduced to personal insults in your very first post on the thread. A new record?)
Hmm, not sure I can see the personal insults in my comment. I would invite you to point them out, but I really don’t want to put anyone without a name to any trouble.
I think we do all know what the leaflet’s meant to convey: what it says. Which is all factual.
Still, glad we could help you unload: better out than in.
Stephen
Astonishing!
Are you really willing to put your hand on your heart and say you honestly believe that the leaflet was _not_ intended to convey to the casual reader the impression that the by election was a “two-horse race”, between Labour and the Lib Dems?
It is a two-horse race between Labour and the Lib Dems for who runs Haringey council. As the leaflet says.
Bored now. Feel free to argue amongst yourself.
“It is a two-horse race between Labour and the Lib Dems for who runs Haringey council. As the leaflet says.”
That wasn’t what I asked.
The question was, can you put your hand on your heart and say you honestly believe that the leaflet was _not_ intended to convey to the casual reader the impression that the by election was a “two-horse race, between Labour and the Lib Dems?
If there was no intention to mislead, you should have no difficulty answering that question with a simple “Yes”.
“last night the Lib Dems were humiliated in their attempt to win the Seven Sisters ward”
I’m not going to list electoral humilations I have known but an 8% vote gain isn’t anywhere near that territory.
It’s a spoof, right?
Take this piece:
“There are two competing histories of the Middle East conflict, two competing narratives of right and wrong, and of political responsibility for the failure of previous peace efforts. Yet there is little secret about how the conflict would finally be settled, if it is to be settled politically at all. The internet can be a civic space where creative efforts are made to build the mutual empathy on which peace depends.”
Anon,
it would help to trust your motives if you were at least a little more candid in your identity.
Can you put your hand on your heart and say you’re giving the benefit of the doubt in this matter and not automatically assuming the worst?
“Can you put your hand on your heart and say you’re giving the benefit of the doubt in this matter and not automatically assuming the worst?”
Yes. We all know what message these “two horse race” bar charts are meant to convey. You know it just as well as I do.
I do not give politicians the benefit of the doubt. Trust is earned, not given away.
Maybe I am a starry-eyed idealist, but I want to vote for people who take a position of high morality.
To take a recent story as an example, Richard Lochhead (SNP) campaigned for a bybass but has failed to deliver this.
Should we still vote for him?
Surely that is just rewarding failure and as a progressive I find it hard to take such a step
“I do not give politicians the benefit of the doubt. Trust is earned, not given away.
Maybe I am a starry-eyed idealist, but I want to vote for people who take a position of high morality.”
What I find depressing is that the accepted rule of thumb within the party seems now to be that it’s OK to be as misleading as you like, provided you don’t tell an outright lie.
In the London elections last year I was delivering leaflets with a “two-horse-race” bar chart based on the borough, even though the constituency for the assembly was two boroughs stuck together, which left us in a poor third place.
And the annoying thing is that it’s not only dishonest, but stupid. It may result in a short-term gain of a few votes in a seat that’s unwinnable anyway, but for everyone who’s hoodwinked by it there’s going to be someone else who sees it for exactly what it is. Or – worse – doesn’t look at it closely enough to see that it’s a half-truth, and concludes that it’s an outright lie!