I'm all for reaching out across political divides...

[miss_s_b]

... but WHAT THE BLUE BUGGERY FUCK is Our Glorious Leader doing writing for LabourLost?

Seriously, who thought that would be a good idea? He's pissing off the Labourites (Google for the post and look at the comments, I'm not linking to it and bumping up LL's Wikio ranking) and he's pissing off his own party. Lose/lose. If you're going to put something up on the site of another party, here are some ideas to make it NOT an exercise in shooting yourself in the foot:

1. Tell your own people you're going to do it first, so it doesn't look like an overture to defection
2. When the Tory press are already sowing rumours of a Lib/Lab coalition, and telling people that if they vote Liberal they will be supporting a failed government, for FUCK'S SAKE don't pour petrol on the flames.
3. Crosspost it from a Lib Dem site, to drive traffic TO us, rather than doing this which drives traffic AWAY from us
4. Don't pick the most discredited, hated and partisan of the other party's sites as the host for your post

It's a shame the mechanics of the post made it such a tactical cock-up, because the post itself is quite a good one. Oh well.

---

This blog is proudly sponsored by

Comments

[From: sassy_scot]

Why did you link to it? I took a lesson from what you said about linking to the Great Blue Tory One and decided that I didn't want to send lots of links to Labour List from outraged Lib Dems.

I am completely enraged by this - I will calm down eventually, cos in the scheme of things he's doing a good job, but what the fuck was he thinking?

[From: miss_s_b]

That's a good point, actually.

[From: softfruit]

Grrr. Also means I don't know if I can crosspost in its entireity to lgbt.libdems.org.uk - but the content is excellent.

Though democratically speaking - we've just become a pro-same-sex-marriage party without putting it to a vote, an outcome I utterly endorse but it perhaps should have a conference rubber-stamp! Or does this just count as the modern interpretation of the 1990s conference resolution on civil partnerships back when we figured that was the best we could achieve?

[From: miss_s_b]

Agreed on the content of the article.

I thought we already were pro-same-sex marriage?

[From: miss_s_b]

Suspect that if it was put before conference it would be passed - perhaps something for September?

[From: softfruit]

Too late for September now I think - we have one DELGA motion going in already.

[From: softfruit]

(deleted the previous comment to make it clear we are in 2009 not 20009 as I had sticky fingers!)

[From: miss_s_b]

Yeah, Mat says deadline for September was 1st July. Arse.

[From: softfruit]

Ah well. Next year. Or as with trident, accept policy by diktat just this once on account of most liberals agreeing with it :P

[From: softfruit]

Nah. DELGA is pro, but FedCon has never debated it. We debated the issue as a party so long ago that what we passed was RCP cos we thought marriage was too unattainable a goal - there was an initial policy debate around six options including abolition of marriage completely, supporting the status quo, etc -- RCP was the option that made it to the FedCon motion itself. And then got passed overwhelmingly.

Back in the 90s, when we were nearer to the introduction of section 28 than we were to 2009, it was an ambitious goal!

[From: miss_s_b]

You CAN edit comments, you know... ;)

[From: softfruit]

You can? That's going to be damn useful. But how?

I see buttons for * Track This * Reply * Parent * Thread

[From: miss_s_b]

... Ah. Maybe free users can't. Sorry.

[From: softfruit]

Ah. Then I shall continue frustrating people by trying to cover up my inability to type!

[From: burkesworks]

I noticed the link this morning over at LDV and thought "wtf?" All the Labour sites he could have chosen and he picks Dolly Draper's.

Running with it on LDV as I type.

[From: miss_s_b]

Noticed, and joined in.

[From: burkesworks]

Good...

There's one good thing that can be said for LabourList though; now we know who the anti-LD troll "John Zims" really is.

[From: miss_s_b]

We do?

[From: burkesworks]

It appears to be one Roger Alexander. His comment on LL is almost identical to the one by Zims on LDV.

[From: miss_s_b]

Ah! Useful bit of knowledge.

[From: matgb]

Not Dolly's site anymore. He 'resigned'. Basically, the funders (GMB I think) realised they'd made a mistake appointing an arsehole and he's no longer wanted.

Annoyingly, I think he would've been perfect running the touted RedRag site, but he fucked that one up by launching List first.

It's a better site than LabourHome, but then, that's not saying much.