I voted Labour for over thirty years, but never again! Now it’s a case of choosing the least worst option, though it will be “Anyone other than New Labour”.

As you note the Tories do well just now because they’re in Opposition. But that will no doubt eventually change once they’re in government (whenever that may be).

The most successful sites seemed to grow naturally, building up a following as they went. And that’s the only way it really can work.

Trying to just create a ’super blog’ from scratch and overnight is never really going to work, especially if it’s only going to be pro-government (again, whatever party).

It’s also not clear about the type of site LabourList wants to be is what’s popular - the busiest sites are obviously Dale, Fawkes and Recess Monkey - and they’re about political gossip (generally) rather than policy debates.

His presence serves only to hasten the demise of the Labour party. If an election is not called before the last possible moment, then I fear Labour will never be “in power” again.

The next election is a lost cause, but a period in opposition will see an improvement.

@Jag: yes, a million small things is a good way to go but this is clearly not the Labourlist approach. The main reason I wrote about Labourlist is because it has been so obviously endorsed by the party hierarchy, and that speaks volumes.

—————–

@Mark: If, as you say, it takes someone like Derek Draper to “make things happen at the top of the Party” then I fear that tells us more about the dire problems with the Party’s approach to the internet than anything else.

—————–

@Philippe: Well I’m used to being punished for, how can I put, “the sins of the father”, but rather than have a go at me via the proxy of Nick Brown why don’t you address the arguments I put forward about the subject of my post: Labour and the internet? I’ll not hide my disappointment with many aspects of the way that Gordon Brown has performed as PM and his failure to move on from some of the bad policies of the Blair years, and as Clark says, I’m not blaming Draper for the party’s policies or its current unpopularity. I am merely suggesting that the fact that Draper was chosen to head up Labourlist should give us cause to worry about the competence of those at the very top of the party harness the potential of the internet.

—————–

@madasafish: Yes, you’re quite right. This is one of the virtues of the American approach to party politics, not such severe whipping and a willingness to admit that there may be more than two (or two-and-a-half) points of view in politics.

Labourlist is pants. The above article is correct.

Why no-one used Harris for the job, I cannot understand but I suspect there is animosity at the centre. Maybe some of his blog comments are too near the mark.

Put bluntly, until Labour get a leadership which appear human and act human not like bullies and allow dissent then Labour blogging will be like Labour poll ratings. Awful.

It is not an MPs job to blog, but it is Derek Draper’s (MA). It is not any MPs job to sort out Labour’s profile on the internet, and it is Derek Draper’s (MA).

MPs of all parties are on average not very teched-up, but that will improve, and some are of course already all over the requisite channels of technology - John Prescott is a fine example, and a quick learner.

Your criticisms pertain more to Labour’s general problems, which are several and many no doubt, but Jack’s post is titled ‘The sorry state of Labour on the internet’. The architect of the solution to that state was supposed to be Derek Draper (MA), as it says on LabourList, ‘the must read online forum for Labour minded people to come together to share news and views’; in other words, their place on the internet. Sadly it is merely a platform, shrouded with the thinnest of facades, on which Derek Draper (MA) spends lonely evenings lying about his qualifications, ranting at people more successful than him (everyone) and mocking the disabled.

You cannot blame Derek Draper (MA) for your failure as a party and a Government; of course not. But you can blame him for your current failure to gain traction online, because it was and still is (correct at time of writing) his job to sort that out. Instead, he finds himself standing in the middle of the internet playground, pants round his ankles and a broken catapult lying at his feet.

Shame. But quite funny.

Good luck with the debate.

I am staggered Mr Draper was given this as a project - it was inevitable that someone with his reputation for starting a fight in an empty room was not the right temperament to run an engagement website.

What I find so depressing is not so much the 80s student union level of argument (embarrassing but entertaining) but the Our Glorious Leader content that reads like a bog roll of Party Officials.

I see that Labourlist is in stasis since Mr Draper’s Licker-gate comments.

I guess it’s not just that effective blogging is easier in opposition - the “democratic centralism*” of Labour will always make it more difficult to operate effectively in the blogosphere - it will be too easy for non-Labour (not just Tory) critics to snipe at line hugging posts. But above all Labour is now mired in the same sort of mess that theTories were in in 1997 - worse if anything. A Labour/labour blog truly independent and truly critical of the party might have a chance and play a role in putting labour back together - but it’s not LabourList - it could be Labour Home, but that doesn’t seem to catch fire.

Finally, I’m almost reluctant to visit LabourList now - it’s rather painful watching DD allowing himself to be destroyed.

Great post, though.

However there’s a little too much anti-Lablist/Derek Draper doing the rounds.

DD is making things happen at the top of the Party in a way no one else really has with the exception of Liam Byrne/Tom Watson. He’s a guy who makes things happen. Unfortunately he’s also a target.

May be he shouldn’t have picked so many fights and may be he over-fuelled expectations of Labourlist but this thing has to grow.

There’s many other things that Labour is starting to do well online that are less about ‘big bang’ but that DD has played a big part in getting going.

There’s also lots of good things that other people are doing eg Alex H with Go Fourth.

That would be the entire population of the UK as Labour supporters then, would it ?

DD heal thyself.

Alan Douglas

alex

I wonder if they allow you to take your own gear in and stream live? My MacBook could handle the quality better than this.

It would help if the discussion was actually of anything of interest as well.

When you listen to Kennedy, you felt there was a way out. When you listen to Agnew…you just feel depressed.

This explains it:
http://pl.atyp.us/misc/votefaq.txt

———————————————————————-
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a system for electing multiple candidates in a constituency.
Each voter marks ‘1′ against the candidate they most like, ‘2′ against
their next favourite, and so on until they have no preference for the
remaining candidates.

The highest preferences for each candidate are counted. If any
candidate has more votes than the Quota, they are elected. The Quota
is calculated as:
Quota = int(V/(N 1)) 1

where:
V = number of votes
N = number of candidates to be elected
int() = convert to integer, rounding down

The rationale for this formula is that the quota is the smallest
number of votes such that the candidate is certain to be within
the top N candidates.

If someone is above the quota, the additional votes above the quota
are reallocated to the other candidates according to the voters’
lower preferences. This is done by giving each vote of the candidate
a fractional value according to the fraction that the candidate was
above the quota.

(In Ireland they use the simpler, but less precise, system of simply
picking a bunch of the candidate’s ballot papers at random and using
those for reallocation.)

If no-one is above the quota, the candidate with the smallest number
of votes is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated to other
candidates.

When votes are reallocated, if the voter has expressed no further
lower preferences, their vote is discarded.

This procedure is continued until all N candidates are elected.

Fractional transfer is pretty rare, certainly for mass elections. I believe it is used more for elections with a rather smaller electorate (say a University board or such like).

http://openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.499054&mlon=-0.199341&zoom=14

This is something which has really taken off. Your water fountains would get tagged under the following feature:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Potable_Water

hi,

you have a wonderful dataset, and i admire your work for transparency. have you considered overlaying it on a map? i suspect that the juxtaposition of where the money goes and whether that area is even rural will be highly interesting and drive your point home even more.

the easiest to do this would be with google maps.

i’d be happy to provide pointers if you are interested, but for now, consider these examples:

http://gecensus.stanford.edu/gcensus/index.html
http://www.healthcarethatworks.org/maps/nyc/
http://www.bethefullstop.com/map
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/03/us_government_p.html
http://forwardtrack.eyebeamresearch.org/

there are many more at http://del.icio.us/tag/mapping advocacy

best,

-gregor

And yes, the trick is to have the slides illustrate, decorate, not dictate what you say.

Our favorite example of how bad Powerpoints are the death of real communication is Peter Norvig’s celebrated send up of the Gettysburg address:

http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/

Enjoy.