Labour Party Conference 2021: Labour Leader Live (Heckler Carol Vincent B.B.)

[arista]

Starts Tomorrow in Brighton.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAC9s0UXEAAzrSg?format=jpg&name=small


One Main problem is Corbyn is there
but he is still not an Official MP
Some want him reinstated.


A chance for Leader Starmer to give the big speech
on Weds.

[arista]

1441374690522566658


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_-GxPtXIAQQi9C?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

Labour is going for £10 a min. an hour

They have started their Conference
but it is not on the Parliament Channel.



Good on SkyNewsHD
giving a good Brighton Report.

Starmer in the Hotel
in a Meeting about his rule change


https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-forced-into-humiliating-retreat-ahead-of-labour-party-conference-12417213

[joeysteele]

Well unfortunately, probably not even going to matter what else is discussed or decided here at this conference now.
Starmer has just about ensured, in my view, that the media across the board will be ONLY in the main discussing the thoughts of changing how the leader is elected.

I'd hope not, however I'm not expecting much to celebrate after this conference closes.

Of course I'll wait and see, and hope.
Because I doubt there's been a more urgent need to get to the point where a totally across the board, incompetent and uncaring government needs to be got out than there is now.

[arista]

Yes Joey
Next Election is Starmer's chance
to Win for Labour.

He must Stop Raw Sewage
being pumped into UK Rivers
Thats just Criminal
being done to save money in treating it

[arista]

Angela Raynor
the Deputy Leader
is more normal for all that conference
although a bit rough.

Ref:SkyNewsHD(at Brighton)/ GBnewsHD (at Brighton)/LBC

[arista]

[Angela Rayner, 41, claims her mother fed her dog food
and shaving foam because she could not read labels
and in 'modern times' she 'definitely' would have
been taken away by social services as
she opens up about growing up in poverty]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/24/12/48336177-10024579-image-m-14_1632482607150.jpg
[Ms Rayner said in 'modern days' she and
her siblings would 'definitely' have been
taken into social services.
Her mother, Lynn Bowen (pictured), suffered
from mental health issues]


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10024579/Angela-Rayner-opens-growing-poverty.html

[arista]

https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1440224279283441666?s=21


1441728604862394368

[bots]

i wont be watching it. It's irrelevant as labour are a long way from being an electable government

[arista]

1441670080111206400

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAH_Mt7WQAI3kCD?format=jpg&name=medium

[arista]

1441703140412334083

[joeysteele]

Angela Raynor
the Deputy Leader
is more normal for all that conference
although a bit rough.

Ref:SkyNewsHD(at Brighton)/ GBnewsHD (at Brighton)/LBC

I like her straight talking presentation of issues.
I have a fair bit of respect for Angela.

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAIP6FNXoAMy8O6?format=jpg&name=900x900

Leave Sunday Trading Alone

[joeysteele]

i wont be watching it. It's irrelevant as labour are a long way from being an electable government

That's fine and I wouldn't expect a Con supporter to find much of interest to them at a Labour conference.

It's nothing like impossible or even unlikely that Labour can take away your government's overall majority.
Then with the votes of the SNP, who aren't even a mile from Labours positions, never mind miles.

The Cons would be out.
Such a connection too could then open the door to real democracy and and electoral system that ensures no party that doesn't get 50% of the votes in elections, can take overall power likely ever again.

I hoped for a PR policy before the next election, however, I'd be happy with a Labour/ SNP parliament.
One thing's certain, the SNP will NEVER help your Con government back into power, if it can do anything at all to prevent same.

[arista]

I like her straight talking presentation of issues.
I have a fair bit of respect for Angela.


1441714793891594240


Angela is Going Live at 3PM

[arista]

i wont be watching it. It's irrelevant as labour are a long way from being an electable government


Yes
Starmer should be Live on Marr Tomorrow
AM BBC1HD 9AM

Also Trevor Philips maybe 8:30AM SkyNewsHD

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/25/14/48377543-10027775-image-m-131_1632576315346.jpg


Angela is speaking live in few mins

[arista]

Deputy Leader Angela Raynor
is now Live

Telling us about the New Deal
to start within 100 days of power

SkyNewsHD
BBCnewsHD
GBnewsHD

[arista]

She has started by saying
she got Covid, and is happy she got through it

[arista]

She says in NZ
their sister party gives workers rights.

You are Worker or Self Employed
Banning all Zero Hour Contracts

Labour will Ban
Fire and ReHire

[arista]

She has Concluded

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAIRS1_XoAEqOxG?format=jpg&name=small


No one Cares about that.

[arista]

The Beef:


1441776057472851976

[arista]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/live

Listen online free.


Times Radio DAB
like LBC
are at the Labour Conference until 7PM

[Oliver_W]

She says in NZ
their sister party gives workers rights.

You are Worker or Self Employed
Banning all Zero Hour Contracts

Labour will Ban
Fire and ReHire

Fire and rehire should absolutely be banned. But zero hour contracts? Surely they're handy for students, carers,.parents ... People whose lifestyle is varied and might not be able to commit to a rota, but still want work?

Like, before I started work at the school I'm at now, I'd do supply work through an agency. If I couldn't be bothered or just wanted to go away, I'd just have to update my online calendar (or ignore my phone lol). Would that flexibility still exist if zero hour contracts were banned?

And I think the NHS has the same thing? My mum calls it the "Nurse Bank", but as far as I know it's for all NHS roles?

[bots]

i don't understand this obsession with banning zero hours contracts either. There are many situations where its advantageous to both the employer and worker

[joeysteele]

Personally, I would permit zero hours contracts for those who want them, on a voluntary basis.
Not zero hours contracts enforced.

No one should be forced to have to accept one.

I concede there's groupings who like zero hours contracts.
However, of those I've learned who are on them or have been on one, well I've yet to find anyone who would not prefer them gone.

[Alf]

She has ConcludedEvery cloud has a silver lining.

[bots]

Personally, I would permit zero hours contracts for those who want them, on a voluntary basis.
Not zero hours contracts enforced.

No one should be forced to have to accept one.

I concede there's groupings who like zero hours contracts.
However, of those I've learned who are on them or have been on one, well I've yet to find anyone who would not prefer them gone.

yeah, i can go with that. The aim, i believe, is to stop exploitation, if it's the workers personal choice, there is no exploitation

[joeysteele]

yeah, i can go with that. The aim, i believe, is to stop exploitation, if it's the workers personal choice, there is no exploitation

Oh I can see the benefits of them bots.
I agree with your last lines completely.

[arista]

Owen Jones
on BBCnewsHD
claims Labour are at war.

And he hates Starmer.

[Oliver_W]

Owen Jones
on BBCnewsHD
claims Labour are at war.

And he hates Starmer.

Who cares what that sanctimonious cntu thinks or says?

[Alf]

Owen Jones
on BBCnewsHD
claims Labour are at war.

And he hates Starmer.The lad needs to get a proper job, like the rest of us. Time to muck in, Owen.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i can see kids being impressed

but not adults

[bots]

Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop changes to the way Labour elects its leaders after they were rejected by the party's left wing.

He had wanted to scrap one-member-one vote - but opponents said that would give Labour MPs too much say over who gets the top job.

Sir Keir is now hoping to get members to back a watered-down package of reforms in a conference vote on Sunday.

He says they will help the party win the next general election.

The row over Labour's constitution began earlier this week, when the leader proposed changing the way his successors would be chosen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58689884

------------------------

Failing miserably is not a good look. Rule number 1 as a leader, don't make a stand if you are not certain to win

[joeysteele]

Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to drop changes to the way Labour elects its leaders after they were rejected by the party's left wing.

He had wanted to scrap one-member-one vote - but opponents said that would give Labour MPs too much say over who gets the top job.

Sir Keir is now hoping to get members to back a watered-down package of reforms in a conference vote on Sunday.

He says they will help the party win the next general election.

The row over Labour's constitution began earlier this week, when the leader proposed changing the way his successors would be chosen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58689884

------------------------

Failing miserably is not a good look. Rule number 1 as a leader, don't make a stand if you are not certain to win

You may be surprised here bots but I agree with you.
He has in my opinion ill advisedly created overshadowing his first major conference as leader with this leadership farce.

It is a fact Labour leaders do lose policies and votes at party conferences.
This leadership one however is what the media have instantly picked up on, and are unlikely to let go of it.

It is as you said, a fail, not to have got it how he really wanted it to go.
Sadly a lot of good that will be presented at this conference, will more than likely find itself lost amidst his, to me anyway, unnecessary and puzzling leadership nomination and voting change issue.

[Oliver_W]

Never hand over the control of the narrative. When Angela Raynor finished a speech by calling Tory MPs scum, everything else she said was instantly obselete. Her speech before may well have been brill, but the apparent inappropriateness of calling a spade a spade is all that people remembered...

[bots]

Apart from being completely inappropriate. Boris won a landslide election and labour were all but annihilated, so she is by association calling all the people who voted conservative scum. Bet that works out well for her :laugh:

Remember how well it went for Hillary and her deplorables comment

[Oliver_W]

Apart from being completely inappropriate. Boris won a landslide election and labour were all but annihilated, so she is by association calling all the people who voted conservative scum. Bet that works out well for her :laugh:

Remember how well it went for Hillary and her deplorables comment

Deplorables, I forgot all about that :joker: : joker: wasn't there an event called the DeploraBall? :laugh:

But anyway, I can't feel too put out over an MP getting impassioned. I didn't vote for either party, so them exchanging barbed remarks means next to nothing to me :joker:

[joeysteele]

Cons have called Labour worse than scum in conference speeches in the past.

I'd go further, in MY VIEW, before I get pounced on as usual.

My view is, of voters who actually vote, I'd say around 30% of them are extreme hardline, heartless and selfish who all vote for the Cons.

They are the hard base of Con votes now in my opinion.
The other percentage who take the Cons votes to higher 30s or on or over 40%
They are less firm Con voters.
They are who Starmer and Labour should be aiming for.

It's a waste of time trying to reason with the hardliners who don't give a jot for the most vulnerable, poorest, sick and disabled.

The Con party has listened to the harder extreme of its party since Michael Howard resigned as leader.

I'm like a broken record here but even in the last election, around 57% voted AGAINST having this Con government.
A ridiculously antiquated electoral system put this lot in to dismiss and rule out those near 57% of voters.

Labour has to find any way to maximise gaining most of those 57% of anti Con voters.
Which is why I still wish, the voices now rising in Labour for PR, among members, unions and MPs, would push harder to get it debated and made policy.

Yes, it would mean Labour would never be a majority government again after doing so.
However it would ensure too, we never get again, a heartless, rotten from the core hardline government with absolute power like this current Con one.
Who treat the most vulnerable, poorest, sick and disabled with suspicion, ridicule and contempt only.

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/t4SHXORJqnU2-DlcELniBA/https/media.fyre.co/bwxIc5SLSWWyaR9EBISw_starmer.png

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/WHhqM0ANiyfW-hef6N7Pjw/https/media.fyre.co/bRdOfM5TU21EhB2Go8yg_obs.png

[arista]

[Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner brands
them ‘bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic,
absolute pile’ – before insisting she ‘held back a little’ in rant
Angela Rayner reportedly launched an outspoken
attack on the Conservatives
MP described the Tories as 'a bunch of scum,
homophobic, racist, misogynistic'
Government minister Amanda Milling
called the Labour MP's remarks 'shocking']



She is Rough.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10028865/Fury-Tories-Deputy-Labour-leader-Angela-Rayner-brands-scum.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

what a shambles of a conference and that vile attack by that woman just shows you what Labour really are

The GBP will not be fooled by this one little bit

[Cherie]

Angela playing to the gallery

Not that long ago she called for a kinder form of politics :idc:

[joeysteele]

She could have held back a bit but what the Cons and their supporters have called Labour senior figures, and Labour supporters too, this pales into near significance compared to their vile comments and false accusations.

I can't disagree they are scum for the heartless, discriminatory, unnecessary persecution almost of the poorest, most vulnerable, sick and disabled in society.

The humiliation of terminal cancer patients with limited time left, having to go to court to win back benefits wrongly taken off them by this cruel government's heartless assessments procedures.

Yeah, pretty much, only scum could do actions as heartless as that.

[Liam-]

I love me a bit of Angela and she didn’t utter a single lie, it’s probably not ‘professional’ but then when you’re up against a bunch of lying, cheating, charlatans who have spent the last 10 years or so deliberately destroying everything that that is good about the country and purposefully attacking the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable of our society, I think a little bit of unprofessionalism is the least of our worries, especially when she’s just telling the truth.

[bots]

As i said earlier, the tories won the election with a landslide. Angela is taking a shot at everyone who voted for them and that will not improve her party's chances.

Labour should be on the front foot, they should lead by example, without needing to resort to inappropriate abuse. They should be way ahead with the complete shambles there has been over the last couple of years, but if anything, they are even less likely to win an election now. Labour have had tough times in the past, but nothing compares to the way they are now. I think it's entirely feasible that they drop to being as inconsequential as the lib dems at the next election.

[bots]

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "Angela and I take a different approach and that is not the language I would have used."

Pressed on whether he would asking her to apologise, he said that was a matter for her but added: "I will talk to her later."

[joeysteele]

Why should she apologise.
Labour supporters never mind Labour figures have been accused of being wholly antisemitic, as supporters of terrorists by Con MPs and Con supporters too.
When should they apologise for that ???

I know Con supporters keep predicting the end of Labour.
Public opinion changes and can quickly too.
That may well be Con supporters hope who only think their party has a divine right to govern.

Labour can remove the Cons overall majority.
No other party now in parliament except for the even more extreme DUP would help the Cons back in power.

As for winning with a landslide.
Under this unrepresentative and now insult to democracy, where in the absurd electoral system we have.
Winning a landslide while only getting 43% of the votes cast.
Is to me, and should be a national disgrace.
That any party gets unfettered power while 57% voted against it.
Ridiculous.

[Oliver_W]

[Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner brands
them ‘bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic,
absolute pile’ – before insisting she ‘held back a little’ in rant
Angela Rayner reportedly launched an outspoken
attack on the Conservatives
MP described the Tories as 'a bunch of scum,
homophobic, racist, misogynistic'
Government minister Amanda Milling
called the Labour MP's remarks 'shocking']



She is Rough.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10028865/Fury-Tories-Deputy-Labour-leader-Angela-Rayner-brands-scum.html
Podium-Pounding-Politics.

That sort of behaviour is fine for parties which will realistically never see real power -UKIP, Green- as they largely exist to bring ideas to the table and have an influence, but will never be the leading party or the official Opposition.

It's also fine for "mavericks", members of the main party who float around the backbenches but don't touch the (Shadow/) Cabinet.

But when they're leading figures among the mainstream parties, it's just not very becoming.

Floating voters like my favourite apocryphal couple, Joanna and Michael, might not really care about politics and could vote on a whim, or based on whoever the current party leader is. They don't really follow the ins and outs of the world of politics, and voted for Boris because he's a Good Old Boy(tm). They're starting to be put off him because of the way he's been handling the pandemic, and now he wants to steal more of their hard-earned ... but they're getting called SCUM by a shouty little madam who they've barely heard of ... why should they swing to Labour next time?

Angela playing to the gallery

Not that long ago she called for a kinder form of politics :idc:
I think we've learned by now that #BeKind only applies to certain people ... both as perpetrators and targets ...

[joeysteele]

Podium-Pounding-Politics.

That sort of behaviour is fine for parties which will realistically never see real power -UKIP, Green- as they largely exist to bring ideas to the table and have an influence, but will never be the leading party or the official Opposition.

It's also fine for "mavericks", members of the main party who float around the backbenches but don't touch the (Shadow/) Cabinet.

But when they're leading figures among the mainstream parties, it's just not very becoming.

Floating voters like my favourite apocryphal couple, Joanna and Michael, might not really care about politics and could vote on a whim, or based on whoever the current party leader is. They don't really follow the ins and outs of the world of politics, and voted for Boris because he's a Good Old Boy(tm). They're starting to be put off him because of the way he's been handling the pandemic, and now he wants to steal more of their hard-earned ... but they're getting called SCUM by a shouty little madam who they've barely heard of ... why should they swing to Labour next time?


I think we've learned by now that #BeKind only applies to certain people ... both as perpetrators and targets ...


Actually she didn't call Con voters scum.
Not at all.

She was getting at the Cabinet from their leader down.
The ones who make the heartless decisions that crush the weakest, poorest and sick and disabled.
Not the voters.

I'll make no apology though for saying myself, again, I believe of the voters who all go out to vote.
30% of them, are hardline Con voters, extreme and heartless, not caring a jot for anyone lower or weaker than they may be.
So support heartless policies.

Frankly, I think scum is too good a word for them, those that support those polices and even moreso as to those implementing such heartless policies too.

After all scum means a layer of dirt or froth on top of something.
So maybe it IS the very appropriate word to describe the very top of this governmental Cabinet.

[arista]

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "Angela and I take a different approach and that is not the language I would have used."

Pressed on whether he would asking her to apologise, he said that was a matter for her but added: "I will talk to her later."



Yes Angela is alone
she asking for Johnson to apologise
before she does


So it could make a Great Front page.

[joeysteele]

Yes Angela is alone
she asking for Johnson to apologise
before she does


So it could make a Great Front page.

Well he never really apologises for anything, so neither should she for telling the truth.
In my view.

If I was to say what I'd term him and most of his Cabinet, I'd for sure be banned.

[rusticgal]

Oh dear Labour just keep going downhill. A weak pathetic leader with a potty mouth unprofessional second in command….:laugh:

[arista]

Well he never really apologises for anything, so neither should she for telling the truth.
In my view.

If I was to say what I'd term him and most of his Cabinet, I'd for sure be banned.



Let it all out
No ban
As you are talking of Johnson Prime Minister
not a Tibb member

[Mystic Mock]

Podium-Pounding-Politics.

That sort of behaviour is fine for parties which will realistically never see real power -UKIP, Green- as they largely exist to bring ideas to the table and have an influence, but will never be the leading party or the official Opposition.

It's also fine for "mavericks", members of the main party who float around the backbenches but don't touch the (Shadow/) Cabinet.

But when they're leading figures among the mainstream parties, it's just not very becoming.

Floating voters like my favourite apocryphal couple, Joanna and Michael, might not really care about politics and could vote on a whim, or based on whoever the current party leader is. They don't really follow the ins and outs of the world of politics, and voted for Boris because he's a Good Old Boy(tm). They're starting to be put off him because of the way he's been handling the pandemic, and now he wants to steal more of their hard-earned ... but they're getting called SCUM by a shouty little madam who they've barely heard of ... why should they swing to Labour next time?


I think we've learned by now that #BeKind only applies to certain people ... both as perpetrators and targets ...

Tbf on the bottom paragraph, why should people be kind to a party that's never really been kind since beating Gordon Brown in 2010?

If the party wants respect then they need to be respecting the people.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Hopefully, she will apologise for bringing politics into the gutter

we don't need this nasty bigotry from Labour

We need politicians to be respectful of other views even if their members cannot

we dont want this

[Mystic Mock]

Oh dear Labour just keep going downhill. A weak pathetic leader with a potty mouth unprofessional second in command….:laugh:

What type of Labour leader do you think would be good though?

Imo the party have tried three different types of leaders out recently and our very biased Media keeps demonizing them all whilst bizarrely not pulling up any of the clowns that have led the Tories.

I mean for example in what way is Starmer a weaker leader than Boris? Miliband than Cameron? Or Corbyn than May? It's become as bigger Myth as Obama's Presidency was gonna be "the end of the world" at this point as neither opinion has any evidence to support them with all due respect.

I think it's clear at this point that the 00's (a decade run by Labour) was by and large a more happier time and a better time than the 10's/early 2020's (run by the Tories) and I'm going off the fact that by and large people are far more unhappy with the way the country is run nowadays than they were back then.

Also it did feel like there were less Homeless people on the streets back in the 00's under Labour than there is nowadays under the Tories, but in fairness I could be wrong on that front as I've never checked any stats to do with that topic.

Apologies for the rant, but I really don't like people trying to justify the Tories by saying "but Labour's worse" when tbh I just don't think that's possible for Labour to be worse than this current Tory Government.

[joeysteele]

What type of Labour leader do you think would be good though?

Imo the party have tried three different types of leaders out recently and our very biased Media keeps demonizing them all whilst bizarrely not pulling up any of the clowns that have led the Tories.

I mean for example in what way is Starmer a weaker leader than Boris? Miliband than Cameron? Or Corbyn than May? It's become as bigger Myth as Obama's Presidency was gonna be "the end of the world" at this point as neither opinion has any evidence to support them with all due respect.

I think it's clear at this point that the 00's (a decade run by Labour) was by and large a more happier time and a better time than the 10's/early 2020's (run by the Tories) and I'm going off the fact that by and large people are far more unhappy with the way the country is run nowadays than they were back then.

Also it did feel like there were less Homeless people on the streets back in the 00's under Labour than there is nowadays under the Tories, but in fairness I could be wrong on that front as I've never checked any stats to do with that topic.

Apologies for the rant, but I really don't like people trying to justify the Tories by saying "but Labour's worse" when tbh I just don't think that's possible for Labour to be worse than this current Tory Government.

Needless to say how refreshing it is to read all you've said there Mock.

The Archangel Gabriel could be leading Labour and he'd still get demonised by hardline Tories, the closet hardline Tories and the biased media.

I see not much wrong with any party in fact, not just my own party Labour.
Whose aim is to end the discriminatory vindictive heartlessness the poorest, sick and disabled have had to suffer the last 11 years under first Cameron's coalition, then the utterly incompetent May and this dangerous cretin we have as PM now.

If that's extreme to want to end those vindictive policies, then I'm extremely proud to be termed extreme, loony left or any other rotten unjustified insult hardline Cons may fire out at me.

[joeysteele]

Let it all out
No ban
As you are talking of Johnson Prime Minister
not a Tibb member

Unusually for me arista, when it comes to this PM and most of his Cabinet, my anger goes through the roof at his deceit and lies, the language I'd love to fire to him and about him, would turn the air blue.

So I'll keep it in.
I wouldn't want to get into trouble here for upsetting hardline Cons and closet Cons.
I'm learning to be very careful what I say and post, IF and when I post on here now.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I do think if Labour members are defending this, as i have seen on the Guardian, you are part of the problem.

It really is that simple.

smh

[Mystic Mock]

Needless to say how refreshing it is to read all you've said there Mock.

The Archangel Gabriel could be leading Labour and he'd still get demonised by hardline Tories, the closet hardline Tories and the biased media.

I see not much wrong with any party in fact, not just my own party Labour.
Whose aim is to end the discriminatory vindictive heartlessness the poorest, sick and disabled have had to suffer the last 11 years under first Cameron's coalition, then the utterly incompetent May and this dangerous cretin we have as PM now.

If that's extreme to want to end those vindictive policies, then I'm extremely proud to be termed extreme, loony left or any other rotten unjustified insult hardline Cons may fire out at me.

For me personally I'm not someone that is extreme in my policies (I don't think anyway) but I do agree with everything you've said in this post Joey.

I honestly don't get in what way that people think Labour's gonna be worse than a party that can't even run the country on a basic level?

[arista]

Rachel Johnson starts her 7PM LBC live show
show saying Government in Waiting?
More Like Eastenders

[Crimson Dynamo]

Rachel Johnson starts her 7PM LBC live show
show saying Government in Waiting?
More Like Eastenders

wise words from this experienced broadcaster

[MTVN]

There's been quite of a lot of surveys and polls which have found that left leaning people are more intolerant of people with a different view than right leaning people and Rayners comments kind of exemplify that. It's like how a lot of people celebrated Thatcher dying. I always smile at the number of people who have 'no Tories' in their social media profile and things like that

I know Starmer isn't enjoying much success atm but in that Labour party he actually comes across as one of the only serious faces in the circus and I quite admire him for that

[joeysteele]

For me personally I'm not someone that is extreme in my policies (I don't think anyway) but I do agree with everything you've said in this post Joey.

I honestly don't get in what way that people think Labour's gonna be worse than a party that can't even run the country on a basic level?

Indeed Mock, I'll just say I'll agree with all that.
As I said your view is refreshing to read.

For me however, any party creating deliberately more and more policies of hardship for the weakest, poorest and sick and disabled, well to me they are the real EXTREME ones.

Not the parties which genuinely want to try to ease such hardship for those groupings.

[GoldHeart]

For me personally I'm not someone that is extreme in my policies (I don't think anyway) but I do agree with everything you've said in this post Joey.

I honestly don't get in what way that people think Labour's gonna be worse than a party that can't even run the country on a basic level?

Labour isn't the problem, but the leader Starmer gives me Nick Clegg vibes. And I don't trust him.

But I still think sadly we're stuck with a Tory government.

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[MTVN]

Ah, it's basically the old 'you're not tolerant unless you tolerate MY intolerance!' ****. Load of old bull****.

It's just right wing people desperately trying to be seen as victims while they refuse to acknowledge or condemn the bigotry that runs riot on their side of the aisle. If you don't want people to think Tories are scum, then perhaps stop wringing your hands and being all like 'waaah, the intolerant left!' and actually acknowledge the reasons why people hate the tories. It's not for no random reason, it's not tribalism, it's for the damage that party has done for years to this country and will continue to do.

You admire Starmer because he's weak and spineless and that benefits the tories, let's not be disengenuine with our reasoning here, MTVN.

Case in point :hee:

left leaning people are more intolerant of people with a different view than right leaning people

[joeysteele]

I don't agree at all that left leaning people are more intolerant of people with a different view.

I think it would be pretty much of equal measure as to both of left and right.
Just my view but there it is.

[Mystic Mock]

There's been quite of a lot of surveys and polls which have found that left leaning people are more intolerant of people with a different view than right leaning people and Rayners comments kind of exemplify that. It's like how a lot of people celebrated Thatcher dying. I always smile at the number of people who have 'no Tories' in their social media profile and things like that

I know Starmer isn't enjoying much success atm but in that Labour party he actually comes across as one of the only serious faces in the circus and I quite admire him for that

Tbf I've seen both sides be intolerant of each other's views, I just think that both sides express their intolerance in different ways to each other.

Personally for me I think it should be judged on a case by case scenario, and imo every leader that the Tories have sent out recently seem to think it's more important to have "catchy slogans" or be a buffoon rather than run the country properly, I don't expect perfection from Politicians, but I do expect them to have a basic level of competence & empathy, both things that I personally feel that the Conservatives have been lacking recently.

[Mystic Mock]

Labour isn't the problem, but the leader Starmer gives me Nick Clegg vibes. And I don't trust him.

But I still think sadly we're stuck with a Tory government.

Oh I think we're stuck with a Tory Government too sadly.

Imo I feel like our right wing Media won't be happy until Labour literally has a leader like Boris Johnson or ideally for them Nigel Farage.

[Marsh.]

Why should she apologise.
Labour supporters never mind Labour figures have been accused of being wholly antisemitic, as supporters of terrorists by Con MPs and Con supporters too.
When should they apologise for that ???

I know Con supporters keep predicting the end of Labour.
Public opinion changes and can quickly too.
That may well be Con supporters hope who only think their party has a divine right to govern.

Labour can remove the Cons overall majority.
No other party now in parliament except for the even more extreme DUP would help the Cons back in power.

As for winning with a landslide.
Under this unrepresentative and now insult to democracy, where in the absurd electoral system we have.
Winning a landslide while only getting 43% of the votes cast.
Is to me, and should be a national disgrace.
That any party gets unfettered power while 57% voted against it.
Ridiculous.

:clap1:

[GoldHeart]

Oh I think we're stuck with a Tory Government too sadly.

Imo I feel like our right wing Media won't be happy until Labour literally has a leader like Boris Johnson or ideally for them Nigel Farage.

If that DOES happen then we might aswell say GOODBYE to Labour ,as they'll be a forgotten waste like the Lib Dems .

I honestly dread to think what will happen in the next few months ,and years in this terrible awful government.

[Oliver_W]

Tbh I'm conflicted!!

I don't really take politics seriously, and it's refreshing to see an MP speak so freely ... Especially when she's calling scumbags what they are :joker:

But like I said before, it's not good to pretty much hand the headlines to the guttertrash tabloids on a silver platter - now they can badmouth her and the party, and turn that little molehill into a mountain to make the party look bad. I don't have a problem with Rayner saying whatever she wants, I have a problem with the Deputy Leader writing the bad headlines.

The Cabinet doesn't deserve oxygen an apology, all that being said.

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/115DA/production/_120703117_times-nc.png

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/EECA/production/_120703116_tele-nc.png

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[bots]

the press keep being blamed for people not voting for labour it's such a joke. People don't vote for labour because they are simply unelectable as this latest conference has shown

[arista]

I'll never vote for Labour again while that blue wolf in red clothing continues to be it's leader. **** him off, stop trying to appeal to the cultists who will lick Boris' ass clean no matter what, and be an actual opposition party and not the pathetic waste of space that Labour has become under Starmer.


But that's all there is?

[arista]

GMBHD itv Live Debate
said there is No Northern Mayors like Andy Burnham
at this conference, some kind of a threat?

[arista]

Thats a First
Rachel Reeves who is giving a speech later today
has not gone on SkyNewsHD Westminster first

She has gone on BBC1 AM
and now GMBHD itv

[joeysteele]

But that's all there is?

I can go with Dezzy in that I don't like Starmer as leader.
Then again as a member of the party, I haven't liked any Labour leader, or really other parties leaders there's been in the last 2 decades.

However there is one simple fact in politics of the UK, with this now even more divisive and ridiculous archaic electoral system.

That simple fact is, IF people who vote, don't REALLY want a Con government, then the ONLY way to ensure the Cons don't win is to vote Labour.

Under this awful first past the post system, the Cons could have 37% , Labour around 24% the Lib Dems 24% , the others 15%.
The Cons would govern with an overall majority on those figures.
Yet, 63% will have voted against the Cons.

That is atrocious in a so called democracy.
PR is desperately needed.
There's ONLY one party which would NEVER want PR and that's the Cons.

There are continuing growing numbers in Labour now who would support PR.

In that scenario above take half the Lib Dems votes and add them to Labours.
Then the Cons couldn't govern with an overall majority.
In fact they would more likely be out, with a then Labour led government of a coalition or with the support of say the SNP.

It's a simple and maybe for many a sad fact.
HOWEVER if voters don't want a Con government, but they then go out and vote for other parties other than Labour, then another CON government is all they'll get.
Under this now in no way fit for purpose electoral system.

As a Labour member, I accept under PR Labour would not be an overall majority government again.
I consider that a price worth paying to FORCE parties to work more closely together, and moreso to ensure we never get the rotten extreme government we've got now.
So the Cons too could never either be an overall majority government again.
So their extremes would be well curbed.

I believe, the day Labour has a leader, it could yet be this leader.
Who will say, if elected PR will be the format for the next election after that.
That would gather massive support from voters and indeed all other opposition parties too.
Delivering at last true representative democracy to the UK too.

In addition too, I'd like scrapped, the oath new MPs have to take to take their seat in Westminster.
The oath of allegiance to the Queen and her heirs.
Bonkers and hypocritical.

The one place the Queen cannot freely go to is the House of Commons.
She's BARRED from it!!!
Yet Sinn Fein supported by voters in elections for Westminster, cannot come and vote at Westminster until they take that oath.

We call that democracy that we deny the voters in a free election their voice via their chosen party and candidates for Westminster.
Absolutely bonkers.

[Oliver_W]

the press keep being blamed for people not voting for labour it's such a joke. People don't vote for labour because they are simply unelectable as this latest conference has shown
Again, the whole conference has now been rendered obselete just because one of the speakers didn't act like the usual stuffed shirts we see in politics.

What did other speakers say? What new positions were made clear? We don't know, because the press has something to run with.

ETA
That's not a problem with the party itself, it's a problem with the way the press operates. Now I am all for freedom of the press, but we all know how they operate, and Rayner should have known what would happen.

As far as the press is concerned, all that happened over the conference is:
Starmer won't defend women's rights, or women within his party
Rayner said a naughty word

[bots]

Again, the whole conference has now been rendered obselete just because one of the speakers didn't act like the usual stuffed shirts we see in politics.

What did other speakers say? What new positions were made clear? We don't know, because the press has something to run with.

ETA
That's not a problem with the party itself, it's a problem with the way the press operates. Now I am all for freedom of the press, but we all know how they operate, and Rayner should have known what would happen.

As far as the press is concerned, all that happened over the conference is:
Starmer won't defend women's rights, or women within his party
Rayner said a naughty word

The conference is streamed live, people can listen to every word uttered. No press needed.

[Oliver_W]

The conference is streamed live, people can listen to every word uttered. No press needed.

People can ... But most won't. Joanna and Michael's only insight will be what the press tells them. While they're miles better than the Tories, Labour aren't currently "my" party so I'm not going to watch it all either. I might watch a couple of speeches from people I like later on, but I'm not anxious to do so.

My meandering point is, I'm politically homeless right now, and a good conference is what may keep me from spoiling another ballot.

[joeysteele]

Again, the whole conference has now been rendered obselete just because one of the speakers didn't act like the usual stuffed shirts we see in politics.

What did other speakers say? What new positions were made clear? We don't know, because the press has something to run with.

ETA
That's not a problem with the party itself, it's a problem with the way the press operates. Now I am all for freedom of the press, but we all know how they operate, and Rayner should have known what would happen.

As far as the press is concerned, all that happened over the conference is:
Starmer won't defend women's rights, or women within his party
Rayner said a naughty word



It wasn't even said on the conference platform.
It was said at a fringe meeting.

I say again however.
Scum means dirt or froth on top of something.

So for me it's quite appropriate to describe Johnson and most of his Cabinet.

Cons and closet Cons, will ignore and even defend Johnson's many outbursts and careless offensive wording, no matter what.

There's still a wife and Mother held in Iran, under house arrest in part because of Johnson's careless comments while actually Foreign Secretary, as to why he said she was in Iran.

Cons will let that pass and jump on someone in effect calling that same person and his top henchmen and women, dirt at the top, re scum.

Perfectly appropriate in my view.
It's not what I'd like to call him for sure, I really wouldn't dare say in public what I call the deceitful odious creep.

[bots]

People can ... But most won't. Joanna and Michael's only insight will be what the press tells them. While they're miles better than the Tories, Labour aren't currently "my" party so I'm not going to watch it all either. I might watch a couple of speeches from people I like later on, but I'm not anxious to do so.

My meandering point is, I'm politically homeless right now, and a good conference is what may keep me from spoiling another ballot.

but if you were genuinely interested in what labour had to offer, you would watch it. If their leadership were worth listening to, people would listen. These very people speak directly on news channels all the time, in their own words.

People have made their minds up at the moment and don't find labour a compelling option. You can't escape that simple fact

[Oliver_W]

It wasn't even said on the conference platform.
It was said at a fringe meeting.
It happened during conference, and that's enough to craft a narrative around.

Again my only problem with it is the possible repercussions.

but if you were genuinely interested in what labour had to offer, you would watch it. If their leadership were worth listening to, people would listen. These very people speak directly on news channels all the time, in their own words.

People have made their minds up at the moment and don't find labour a compelling option. You can't escape that simple fact

I'll be more interested nearer the election. If anyone wants to timestamp the best speeches, I'll watch 'em. I want to support a party.

But chances are I'm not going to spoil a ballot, or vote for or against a party in a few years based on what happens this year.

[joeysteele]

but if you were genuinely interested in what labour had to offer, you would watch it. If their leadership were worth listening to, people would listen. These very people speak directly on news channels all the time, in their own words.

People have made their minds up at the moment and don't find labour a compelling option. You can't escape that simple fact

If you believe the polls, which I don't trust at all no matter whose ahead particularly.
Seen too many way out polls in election results.

However the current ones have at best the Cons 5 to 6% ahead or the 2 parties with margins of error more neck and neck.
One of the latest ones citing 38% each.

The latest polls if they were right, would have the Cons with an only around 20 overall majority or even being around 25 short of an overall majority.

As to the conferences, I don't know of many people, even interested in politics who watch ANY of them.
Plus they aren't televised on the likes of the 3 main channels anymore.

You get it on news channels at times.
So they're not really presented to the public how they used to be.

I've yet to find one person who watched Ed Davey's speech at the Lib Dem one.

I know some Labour friends who will watch Starmers.
They'll watch Johnson's too when the Cons are on.
As I will.

However, the party conferences don't get the public airing they used to command.
I'll even admit I've only caught bits of it and I'm a staunch Labour supporter.

You may hope the Cons are still where they were near 2 years ago but they aren't.
They are not 11% ahead of Labour and in current polling may even be neck and neck more like.
No one knows because the polling is now rarely right.

There's no way I can see Labour winning with a majority the next election, however it only needs to be around 2 to 3% behind the Cons, to remove it's overall majority.

If it got level in actual voting,or slightly ahead, then in fact, with SNP support even, Labour could be a minority government with SNP support, or even a coalition with the SNP.

Your Con party is not home and dry by any means.
Although the boundary commission, if Johnson decides to wait for that, are presenting the Cons with around 10 more seats and removing 3 or 4 from Labour.

Of course if he doesn't go until 2024 for the election with new boundaries in place.
Then he risks the results of the full inquiry into his handling of the pandemic comin out, for or before a 2024 election, which he doesn't want.

Politics can change in an instant.
Theresa May thought from polling she was near at least 15% ahead of Labour.
Once the votes were cast she was in fact only 2% ahead.
So to trust polling, when politics is so volatile, I find unwise.
So I don't.

I'm basing my thinking on those I'm in contact with who vote one way or another and I'm finding currently more disillusioned those who voted Con.
They may not vote Labour admittedly but they may not vote at all, which would also hurt your government too.

[bots]

If you believe the polls, which I don't trust at all no matter whose ahead particularly.
Seen too many way out polls in election results.

However the current ones have at best the Cons 5 to 6% ahead or the 2 parties with margins of error more neck and neck.
One of the latest ones citing 38% each.

The latest polls if they were right, would have the Cons with an only around 20 overall majority or even being around 25 short of an overall majority.

As to the conferences, I don't know of many people, even interested in politics who watch ANY of them.
Plus they aren't televised on the likes of the 3 main channels anymore.

You get it on news channels at times.
So they're not really presented to the public how they used to be.

I've yet to find one person who watched Ed Davey's speech at the Lib Dem one.

I know some Labour friends who will watch Starmers.
They'll watch Johnson's too when the Cons are on.
As I will.

However, the party conferences don't get the public airing they used to command.
I'll even admit I've only caught bits of it and I'm a staunch Labour supporter.

You may hope the Cons are still where they were near 2 years ago but they aren't.
They are not 11% ahead of Labour and in current polling may even be neck and neck more like.
No one knows because the polling is now rarely right.

There's no way I can see Labour winning with a majority the next election, however it only needs to be around 2 to 3% behind the Cons, to remove it's overall majority.

If it got level in actual voting,or slightly ahead, then in fact, with SNP support even, Labour could be a minority government with SNP support, or even a coalition with the SNP.

Your Con party is not home and dry by any means.
Although the boundary commission, if Johnson decides to wait for that, are presenting the Cons with around 10 more seats and removing 3 or 4 from Labour.

Of course if he doesn't go until 2024 for the election with new boundaries in place.
Then he risks the results of the full inquiry into his handling of the pandemic comin out, for or before a 2024 election, which he doesn't want.

Politics can change in an instant.
Theresa May thought from polling she was near at least 15% ahead of Labour.
Once the votes were cast she was in fact only 2% ahead.
So to trust polling, when politics is so volatile, I find unwise.
So I don't.

I'm basing my thinking on those I'm in contact with who vote one way or another and I'm finding currently more disillusioned those who voted Con.
They may not vote Labour admittedly but they may not vote at all, which would also hurt your government too.


People are not invested in politics, that's not how it works anymore. People like sound bites, but for those who want it, the information is all there on whatever politics takes their fancy.

Labour haven't kept up with the trend, they don't do sound bites. They seem to have some snobbery toward them and they are shooting themselves in the foot as a result.

For me, i don't find any politics particularly interesting anymore. I don't like the current generation of politicians for a myriad of reasons, but I can see what works and what doesn't at least for now and labour are just not on the pulse at all

People seem to think that because I can't stand labour that i must be a die hard tory, and nothing could be further from the truth, but it's obvious to anyone that the tories have a strategy that works and labour just don't

[Crimson Dynamo]

You cannot seriously defend a senior politician calling another scum

It's just not British and thankfully has been roundly condemned

Oliver Dowden, the Conservative Party chairman, said: “At a time when the country is
trying to pull together to recover from Covid, the last thing we need is the deputy leader
of the Labour Party calling people 'scum' and yelling insults.”


He added: “We need to make politics better, not drag it into the gutter. Let's see if we
get an apology.”

[arista]

1442432862540623873

[Cherie]

1442432862540623873

Like being at school, I want the people who don’t normally put their hands up to do so :laugh:

[arista]

Rachel Reeves
is now Live
both news channels.



Shadow Chancellor and her dreams

[joeysteele]

Rachel Reeves
is now Live
both news channels.



Shadow Chancellor and her dreams


She can be effective can Rachel.
I've some respect for her myself.
Maybe her dreams could be better than the nightmares from Johnson.

[Oliver_W]

1442432862540623873

He can feck right off.

We're meant to be against reducing people to their demographic traits and acting like they define them.

[user104658]

He can feck right off.

We're meant to be against reducing people to their demographic traits and acting like they define them.

To be fair he's not saying "we don't want to heard from white men" but when you're operating in a limited time frame and you can't literally hear everyone's point of view, it's important to make sure you have a broad spectrum of perspectives, and a 5th middle class white bloke's POV is of limited utility when you already have the other 4. For example in my organisation (because full disclosure - it's full of middle class white folks) when I'm adding a perspective to a discussion I like to come at it from the angle of a parent/full time carer of a child with additional needs, because that's a perspective I can offer that others can't, rather than just another generic "working age male" perspective. The team already has that.

So yeah in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking diverse perspectives. Demographic traits don't "define people" in their entirety but it would be foolish to try to claim that people have full understandings of other people's issues... to use my example again; a layperson's thoughts on the things that might affect the parent of a disabled child mean precisely jack **** to be completely blunt about it. And likewise it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that I can offer a full perspective on issues affecting an ethnic minority or a female.

[arista]

1442453713902260227

[arista]

He can feck right off.

We're meant to be against reducing people to their demographic traits and acting like they define them.




Yes a silly comment
Been sent around the World
now.

Labour Party Conference that is never ending in edits

[Crimson Dynamo]

They alose need to stop referring to people as comrades

outdated and fake

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FARox_wVkAYFy-K?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

1442231472451096580

Ex Leader backs the Scum word

[arista]

1442473041884241923

[Alf]

Well as long as they have this nonsense to talk about then they don't have to talk about what's happening in Australia.

Let's just say both parties are scum, and let's move on. This really isn't important, she's entitled to an opinion.

[arista]

She can be effective can Rachel.
I've some respect for her myself.
Maybe her dreams could be better than the nightmares from Johnson.



Yes Popular,
is her saying get rid of Business Rates


Rachel Reeves Today

[Crimson Dynamo]

So she had been on the sauce it seems...

[Alf]

I say both parties are scum, what they gonna do about it, put my opinion on the news?

[arista]

Well as long as they have this nonsense to talk about then they don't have to talk about what's happening in Australia.

Let's just say both parties are scum, and let's move on. This really isn't important, she's entitled to an opinion.


No Alf
no one should call an MP
"Scum"



Thats gone around our World

[arista]

So she had been on the sauce it seems...



Yes Emily on Politics Live Ending
BBC2HD
saying the Drinks did not help.



Scum
easy to Shout out after some booze

[arista]

I say both parties are scum, what they gonna do about it, put my opinion on the news?


Of course Alf
you can call them that,



But Not a Deputy Leader
using "Scum"
that stinks

[Cherie]

To be fair he's not saying "we don't want to heard from white men" but when you're operating in a limited time frame and you can't literally hear everyone's point of view, it's important to make sure you have a broad spectrum of perspectives, and a 5th middle class white bloke's POV is of limited utility when you already have the other 4. For example in my organisation (because full disclosure - it's full of middle class white folks) when I'm adding a perspective to a discussion I like to come at it from the angle of a parent/full time carer of a child with additional needs, because that's a perspective I can offer that others can't, rather than just another generic "working age male" perspective. The team already has that.

So yeah in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking diverse perspectives. Demographic traits don't "define people" in their entirety but it would be foolish to try to claim that people have full understandings of other people's issues... to use my example again; a layperson's thoughts on the things that might affect the parent of a disabled child mean precisely jack **** to be completely blunt about it. And likewise it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that I can offer a full perspective on issues affecting an ethnic minority or a female.


He is the Chairperson he can choose whose question he wants to take

He is more or less forcing people to put their hands up even though they may not want to :laugh:

[Alf]

Of course Alf
you can call them that,



But Not a Deputy Leader
using "Scum"
that stinksBut that deputy leader has equal freedoms to me, so why is it OK for me but not her.

I can’t even believe I'm having to defend Raynor here.

Even if it's not becoming of a deputy leader to say that. It's not the big story the media are making of it.

[arista]

1442472497207726088

[Oliver_W]

To be fair he's not saying "we don't want to heard from white men" but when you're operating in a limited time frame and you can't literally hear everyone's point of view, it's important to make sure you have a broad spectrum of perspectives, and a 5th middle class white bloke's POV is of limited utility when you already have the other 4. For example in my organisation (because full disclosure - it's full of middle class white folks) when I'm adding a perspective to a discussion I like to come at it from the angle of a parent/full time carer of a child with additional needs, because that's a perspective I can offer that others can't, rather than just another generic "working age male" perspective. The team already has that.

So yeah in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking diverse perspectives. Demographic traits don't "define people" in their entirety but it would be foolish to try to claim that people have full understandings of other people's issues... to use my example again; a layperson's thoughts on the things that might affect the parent of a disabled child mean precisely jack **** to be completely blunt about it. And likewise it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that I can offer a full perspective on issues affecting an ethnic minority or a female.
I see your point but again it's about optics. He's handing the opportunity for people to clip it and share it round, making the party look bad.

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FASsYx2XsAQ7Yj5?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FASsYx2XsAQ7Yj5?format=jpg&name=900x900https://i2-prod.dublinlive.ie/incoming/article14105630.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/GD6263082.jpg

[Alf]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FASsYx2XsAQ7Yj5?format=jpg&name=900x9006NlX70XjD2M

[Cherie]

I see your point but again it's about optics. He's handing the opportunity for people to clip it and share it round, making the party look bad.

If the aim is to win back the red wall, that won’t help

They are literally the gift that keeps on giving to the Tory’s currently

[Oliver_W]

If the aim is to win back the red wall, that won’t help

They are literally the gift that keeps on giving to the Tory’s currently

Well exactly :joker:

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[user104658]

If the aim is to win back the red wall, that won’t help

They are literally the gift that keeps on giving to the Tory’s currently

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

[Oliver_W]

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

Well said! Identity politics appeals to such a small amount of people, and it's at best off-putting to basically everyone else ...

[arista]

1442392346889539585

[Cherie]

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

Great post

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2B2B/production/_120715011_guard28sep-nc.png

[Livia]

At least this time Labour haven't had to arrange security for members of their party who have been threatened with violence and death. No need for security this time because the woman being threatened has stayed away for her own safety.

They are a ****ing shambles.

[Livia]

They're trying to cater to the hard left, the left of centre, and progressives all at the same time with apparently no insight into the fact that those groups do not overlap in the ways they thought and are perhaps also not as large as they imagined. I genuinely think that Labour has in part fallen for the "social media illusion" - which to be succinct, I would sum up as, the mistaken belief that the groups shouting the loudest are actually large in number. They often are not. They are just passionate and quick to cluster. This applies on both the left and right; the best interests of the centre (80% of people fall only slightly to the left or right) are being lost in a lot of very loud voices from the extremes of both sides. The problem Labour has there is that the voices from the left want more drastic changes, and when you're hearing bellowing from the extremes from both sides, the old "better the devil you know" comes into play. Tories, at least on the surface, offer something closer to "what people are used to". It's an illusion of course and what they actually offer is a descent into neoliberal capitalism and privitisation that benefits only the rich, but they don't openly admit that. Whereas at this point all the left seems to offer these days is banal identity politics and whiney hyperindividualism. The choices are truly grim.

Excellent post, TS.

[arista]

1442822970167152640

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[joeysteele]

Well yes, he did believe that at the time
We have had a pandemic and other things going on since then.

It's foolish to say a figure until the general election is near.
No one has any idea really, the position we'll be in, in 2 to near 3 years time.
What will inflation be like.
Plus what else may throw itself up as a crisis or issue needing addressing.

He didn't want a £15 min wage debated and voted on at this time.

He's calling for a £ 10 one now.
Which makes sense as to where things are now.

If he was advocating only a £10 min wage in say near 3 years time, then with this government's increases to it, he's barely adding pence to it.

This is the minimum he would set it at now surely if he was in government.
It will be meaningless as a figure of £10 by the time of the next election however.

The desire to aim for a £15 min wage is fine.
Putting it in place from now not so wise with all the uncertainty.

However I think it should be higher than £10 but there's many workers who warrant so much more wage rates anyhow, especially any who have been hardworking and demonstrated endless efforts during this pandemic.

I don't see a contradiction from Starmer here re McDonalds.
However he should be still saying that £15 min wage rate is his aim.

Why on earth do political leaders, Johnson is the same, as was the hopeless Jo Swinson, get themselves into crazy confusing messaging, as to their real aims and beliefs too.
Such as Starmer has here.
Starmer is not the person I wanted as leader, I haven't changed my mind.
I hoped to see him show some passion and really take on this disaster of a government this week.

I'm almost left thinking Starmer doesn't really want to even try to win the next election, let alone actually do so.

We really do have a set of the worst possible leaders of Parties in the UK at present.
Except for Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland and Mark Drakeford in Wales.

I have to say, in Manchester for me, is the man I believe was always and remains so, the best candidate for leader of Labour, namely Andy Burnham.

How MPs and members seem to have lost the ability to elect as leaders, their best talents, is beyond me honestly.

[Oliver_W]

Well yeah, the current minimum wage may be pathetic, but to try to rocket it all the way to £15 right now just isn't realistic. Make it clear that's what he's building toward, sure, but acting like a £15 minimum wage at this point is or should be a priority? Not happening.

[bots]

nobody can make financial commitments for 6 months time at the moment let alone 2 or 3 years in the future :laugh:

The tories messaging is awful, labours messaging is awful and that is actually the problem. Everyone knows that labour will increase workers rights/benefits ... it's what they do so they shouldn't even be talking about it. If Stammer was to commit to a huge minimum wage, in a covid hit economy, it would likely mean a huge tax rise which would lose them the next election. So why would he commit to it now. You commit to things when you have won the election, that is the biggest lesson labour need to learn

[joeysteele]

nobody can make financial commitments for 6 months time at the moment let alone 2 or 3 years in the future :laugh:

The tories messaging is awful, labours messaging is awful and that is actually the problem. Everyone knows that labour will increase workers rights/benefits ... it's what they do so they shouldn't even be talking about it. If Stammer was to commit to a huge minimum wage, in a covid hit economy, it would likely mean a huge tax rise which would lose them the next election. So why would he commit to it now. You commit to things when you have won the election, that is the biggest lesson labour need to learn


I agree with all that.

[arista]

The Bakers Union has Disaffiliated
with the Labour Party.

Live on BBCnewsHD
in Brighton



Fighting over the £15 an hour
that Starmer no longer wants

[Oliver_W]

Also coming out of a pandemic with a commitment to massive payrise for burger-flippers when frontline care workers get paid the bare minimum isn't a good look.

Fast food isn't a necessity, and bloated companies like McDonalds just contribute to the destruction of the environment, and the homogenisation of high streets threatening smaller businesses. So on that hand I'd be happy for them to have to spend more of their income on staff wages.

But on the other, their workers aren't who we should be fighting for right now*. If anyone's gonna be given higher wages, it should be our health workers.

[Marsh.]

Frontline health care workers are, of course, important and that can be addressed without needing to be derogatory towards staff who work in fast food as "burger flippers" or any other inane insult. It isn't a good look.

[arista]

The Floor Voted for £15 an hour,
against Starmer's wishes.

Tomorrow midday is Keir Starmer's long speech.

Ch4HDnews report.

[Crimson Dynamo]

one word:

car

crash

[joeysteele]

The Floor Voted for £15 an hour,
against Starmer's wishes.

Tomorrow midday is Keir Starmer's long speech.

Ch4HDnews report.

I agreed with bots you can't make figures now at this time stick really.
As no one knows what the situation will be in months never mind years.

With an election up to 18 months to near 3 years away.
Any figure could be obsolete.

This government planned by the time of the next election to have the min wage of around £9.50.

In fact, by the time we get to 2023 or 2024, depending on inflation and other elements.
It could be £15 could amount to a pay cut, not rise.

We are years off an election.
This vote today may have no meaning at all in a couple of years time.

Plus were Labour to be in a position to be a minority or coalition with the SNP.
Even a £15 min wage level, would only need to be implemented 'sometime' from the first year of government to the fifth.

All this furore over £5, is ridiculous.

My guess would be a figure of more like £12 to £13: would make more sense by the next election, if no more unexpected events occur that is.

[arista]

one word:

car

crash


There is a Split
Corbynistas Vs the Starmers

[bots]

Keir doesn't need to implement anything so the vote was quite meaningless. All it did was expose the divisions there are in the party. People can call it democracy, but all it does is create a bad impression. This conference has been a complete disaster for labour, and I will guarantee that the Tory conference next week will present a united front, whether the members agree or not. Perception is everything. Will the public vote for a rabble that cant agree on anything or a party with a plan. It's a no brainer

[arista]

"the vote was quite meaningless.
All it did was expose the divisions there are in the party."


Yes very true.

[joeysteele]

Keir doesn't need to implement anything so the vote was quite meaningless. All it did was expose the divisions there are in the party. People can call it democracy, but all it does is create a bad impression. This conference has been a complete disaster for labour, and I will guarantee that the Tory conference next week will present a united front, whether the members agree or not. Perception is everything. Will the public vote for a rabble that cant agree on anything or a party with a plan. It's a no brainer

There's divisions in all Parties, the only difference is Labour's aren't hidden.
If they were of course we'd be called being deceitful.

All through it's history Labour has been in conflict with its differing wings.

George Brown was a thorn in the side of Harold Wilson apparently.
He was his Deputy PM even all that time ago in the 60s.

Somehow eventually they do and can come together.
It takes however a strong sort of leader.
Even Kinnock has his conflicts with a lot in his party.

Corbyn couldn't unite and neither is Starmer.
We've the wrong leader.

Then again I think all Parties except for the SNP have the wrong leader anyhow.

[Oliver_W]

I agreed with bots you can't make figures now at this time stick really.
As no one knows what the situation will be in months never mind years.

With an election up to 18 months to near 3 years away.
Any figure could be obsolete.

Keir doesn't need to implement anything so the vote was quite meaningless.

I think the term "virtue signal" is overused, but in this case it literally is a virtue signal.

Although if we're being technical, anything said by the party at this point is a virtue signal, as they won't potentially be in a position to implement anything for years : joker: but it's easy to say PAY MCDONALD'S STAFF FIFTEEN QUID when they're miles away from being able to do anything about it.

[arista]

Labour plans to put Police Hubs across the UK.

[arista]

From NewsnightHD BBC2
in Brighton.

Starmers's speech has used Blair's Writer Phillip Coliins.

[Liam-]

Of course he ****ing did

[Oliver_W]

Wow using the same speechwriter as the last successful Labour leader? How very dare he.

[arista]

The Labour Leader is about to give us an Hour Long speech

[arista]

Starmer now Live



All Media

[arista]

After he said he has got his own party sorted.

Someone is Shouting at him.

He says it is normal on a Wednesday, a Joke

[arista]

A Lady is stopped Starmer speaking




She was shouting something

[arista]

Now he is going through
his own Cases of Murder?

When Starmer was practising Law

[arista]

Some Bloke Shouted Out
"where is Peter Mandelson?"

[arista]

1443175689272836105

[arista]

1443179742610530306


That Floor is Dirty

[arista]

1443175983863971840

[Crimson Dynamo]

1443175983863971840https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/big-brother-contestant-carole-vincent-arrives-at-southwark-crown-picture-id805198822?s=612x612

was she in BB?

[bots]

was she in BB?

she looks exactly like the lady that was on BB :laugh:

[Cherie]

she looks exactly like the lady that was on BB :laugh:

Pretty sure it is Carol :laugh:

[arista]

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/big-brother-contestant-carole-vincent-arrives-at-southwark-crown-picture-id805198822?s=612x612

was she in BB?



Not Sure
Looks like her

[joeysteele]

A way to go BUT impressive.
I do have still reservations, however this was good.

Of course they'll dig out those who have moans at him.
There's Laura Pidcock now, who was slung out of her seat in Durham, yes Durham, in the last election.
So what does she say to her former voters.

He came across genuine, as I say I moan at leaders of all parties really.
A good start though.

[arista]

90mins

He took it so slow.

[joeysteele]

90mins

He took it so slow.

90 minutes isn't that long.
Most leaders go on over an hour.

His style is slower, not to rush through rambling on and bumbling where some statements just disappear from Johnson.

There was a lot to say after the pandemic holding up things, what's an hour or up to an hour and a half.

I've been to meetings where I've been asked could I spare an hour, where it's gone on for over 2 hours.

If some Cons can only moan at the running time of the speech, then that seems a good thing too for me.

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/29/13/48543539-10040947-image-a-70_1632917240650.jpg

The Angry Heckler

[arista]

He did a sentence
waits for Claps

To much
to slow

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/HwUJN1NgVuv3wj7dOrcVEg/https/media.fyre.co/5eKzjpRNTSOCqgFFuVSG_2.62755978.jpg


Very Large

Starmer and his Wife

[arista]

1443196301311713283

[Crimson Dynamo]

not sure he can now survive this?

[arista]

One thing he stated Wrong
was Dom Cummings trip to that Castle :
was not for his eyes to be tested.

Cummings updated that
saying he left his home to get away from the Press.


The Prime Minister excepted he needed a break
from the Press.


Starmer skipped the truth.

[Oliver_W]

I'd be interested to see a rundown of his speech, as I didn't watch it live.

Looking through twitter it seems like it went down fairly well.

[Oliver_W]

Summary
* Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer gives his first speech to a full conference
* He says Labour under his leadership will not have an election manifesto "that is not a serious plan for government"
* There are heckles from the audience, to which he responds with "shouting slogans, or changing lives?"
* Sir Keir says rape and serious sexual assault cases will be fast-tracked under a Labour government
* And he pledges mental health spending would not be allowed to fall
* He focuses on education, calling for digital skills in schools and reinstating compulsory work experience
* He criticises Boris Johnson as "a trivial man, a showman with nothing left to show"
* The speech also focuses on science and research, with target investment of 3% of GDP
* He adds: "Without a strong economy we cannot pay for the good society"
* He finishes outlining his priorities: work, care, equality and security
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-58721590/page/4

Sounds good to me!

[Tom4784]

Deleted Post

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAdPMaOWEAU4W0Y?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

At the End
Loads raised up Red cards

[joeysteele]

One thing he stated Wrong
was Dom Cummings trip to that Castle :
was not for his eyes to be tested.

Cummings updated that
saying he left his home to get away from the Press.


The Prime Minister excepted he needed a break
from the Press.


Starmer skipped the truth.

No Starmer was right.
He left London to get away he said, from the press to go to his parents.

The trip to Barnard Castle was later taken from his parents home.

He'd had, he said issues with his eyes, so he did a round trip to Barnard Castle to see if his eyes were okay while driving.
Before setting off to drive back to London.

[arista]

Labour Party Political Broadcast was on ITV1HD

And it will be on BBC1 at 6:55PM

It starts with young people in Stoke
Then Starmer goes by train to meet them.

[LaLaLand]

Not Carole from BB8 heckling!! :omgno:

[joeysteele]

Not Carole from BB8 heckling!! :omgno:


In fact it was they say.

[joeysteele]

What really pleased me most about today and Labour was the very welcome news Louise Ellman has returned to Labour.

I've always had immense respect for her.
Really good news.

[Oliver_W]

What really pleased me most about today and Labour was the very welcome news Louise Ellman has returned to Labour.

I've always had immense respect for her.
Really good news.

Thankfully they're actually doing something about antisemitism nowadays, so if anyone else was harried out around the same time as her, hopefully they'll feel comfortable returning too :)

[joeysteele]

Thankfully they're actually doing something about antisemitism nowadays, so if anyone else was harried out around the same time as her, hopefully they'll feel comfortable returning too :)

So do I hope they may return too Oliver.

[Oliver_W]

1443246347130449935

[arista]

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/big-brother-contestant-carole-vincent-arrives-at-southwark-crown-picture-id805198822?s=612x612

was she in BB?



Yes it was Big Brothers Carol Vincent

It was a ITV1 London News.
She lives in East London.

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/29/16/48552143-10041697-image-a-16_1632929692128.jpg

The Angry Heckler



2007 Big Brothers Carol Vincent.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10041697/Woman-heckled-Sir-Keir-Starmer-ex-Big-Brother-contestant-Carole-Vincent.html


Now aged 67
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16285240/big-brother-star-led-brigade-lefties-sir-keir-starmer/


https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/29/17/48553165-10041697-image-a-3_1632932530950.jpg

[arista]

From a 2017 page
on Carol Protesting
Big Brother section.
https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290495

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDpbaG6XUAIHB1G.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

Typical hard left labour nutjob

They will never run this country

Awful

[arista]

Typical hard left labour nutjob

They will never run this country

Awful



A good pick for 2007 Big Brother

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/16DB8/production/_120742639_guardian30sep21-nc.png

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/816E/production/_120743133_pink_1front_20210930_100-nc.png

[arista]

Starmer is Live
On GMBHD itv


He is in the Westminster studio.



His Last Comment
was he would like a female Bond 007
he does not have a favourite.

[Cherie]

Carol is on LBC now :laugh:

[joeysteele]

I can't warm to him myself.
However, I do get that for 2 elections we put forward policies, (which yes, Brexit a big issue), were rejected.
As was the Miliband policies in 2015.

So I do support his cautious approach to offer policies which resonate with voters but also sound credible to do.
In whatever circumstances the UK is in when the next election is fought.

To win outright, to me seems a pipedream.
Labour needs to be close to or over 10% ahead to gain overall majority status.

To be in government however an overall majority doesn't need to be achieved.
Labour can easily with the right policies and ones which are also attractive to other opposition parties.
Labour can take away the Cons overall majority, it is even likely Labour can get to be the largest party.

However the best it can hope for is to be a minority government with the support of a strong grouping like the SNP.
Who thankfully would always ensure the Cons were out too.
Even moreso after the incompetence of this Con government.

Or a full coalition with possibly the SNP.
Which for me would be no bad thing either.

I haven't liked a Prime Minister in my 29 years of life.
So I can tolerate Starmer too.
However I liked his vision, I liked his caution and I liked the things he listed as potential firmer policies once we know when the next election will be.

The road he's going on it seems, is not far enough for me but it's a start.
I'm disappointed the nationalisation policies of Corbyn are in doubt.
However there are other avenues than full blown nationalisation.

I wasn't born in the 80s but looking back, listening to much older people than myself.
The view I've come to is privatisation was one of the biggest cons ever in politics.

It has led only to ever rising bills and still lack of investment.
So my position would be to re- nationalise.
However again, it is an issue that could still feature in the next election or elections after.

So overall, I think he did well, I like the personal account of his life which brought him to politics and shaped his political thinking.

Whenever the next election comes, 2023 or 2024.
It's essential he presents to voters, new hope, with a programme which will do enough to take Labour to be the largest party or substantially take the Cons to a position where they cannot govern by removing not only their overall majority but many more seats too, to make it even with the Lib Dems and DUP, they can't get the numbers to govern with an overall majority.

That can be done.
That can be actually, more likely than not achievable.

[bots]

the tories don't go into any great detail on policies at the last few elections. They concentrate on a couple of key issues and hammer them home. Thats what labour should do as well. The more detail they publish, the more ammo everyone else has. If I remember correctly, it took labour weeks to produce the last manifesto and it was published in about 43 volumes :laugh:

[user104658]

the tories don't go into any great detail on policies at the last few elections. They concentrate on a couple of key issues and hammer them home. Thats what labour should do as well. The more detail they publish, the more ammo everyone else has. If I remember correctly, it took labour weeks to produce the last manifesto and it was published in about 43 volumes :laugh:

They should just take a page from the Tory playbook and straight up lie. Promise people the world, get their vote, they'll have forgotten all about it by the time you fail to provide it and then you just promise some more imaginary stuff.

[Crimson Dynamo]

They should just take a page from the Tory playbook and straight up lie. Promise people the world, get their vote, they'll have forgotten all about it by the time you fail to provide it and then you just promise some more imaginary stuff.

they have already done that with what they have said as they wont win the next election so really they should have gone full Trumpion and said they would tax Amazon 99%, re-open the coal mines and then shut them all down again to save the climate

plus deport all white middle-aged people in Kent and replace them with refugees

also free Wispa bars for every hate crime reported

[bots]

plus deport all white middle-aged people in Kent and replace them with refugees



:nono::nono::fist:

[user104658]

they have already done that with what they have said as they wont win the next election so really they should have gone full Trumpion and said they would tax Amazon 99%, re-open the coal mines and then shut them all down again to save the climate

plus deport all white middle-aged people in Kent and replace them with refugees

also free Wispa bars for every hate crime reported

Well no anything they promise before getting into power doesn't become a lie until they do get in and fail to deliver, because the premise of anthing said is "if/when we get into power we will..."

Like for example...

LT, I promise that if I ever win the lottery, I will paypal you £10,000.


Now realistically if I did win the lottery you'd be lucky if I'd lend you a tenner, but the above doesn't become a LIE until I win it and refuse to give you the £10,000.

And I don't even play the lottery so the likelihood of any of it happening is basically zero.

Which is really carte blanche to make as many promises as desired without having to worry about those promises becoming lies.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well no anything they promise before getting into power doesn't become a lie until they do get in and fail to deliver, because the premise of anthing said is "if/when we get into power we will..."

Like for example...

LT, I promise that if I ever win the lottery, I will paypal you £10,000.


Now realistically if I did win the lottery you'd be lucky if I'd lend you a tenner, but the above doesn't become a LIE until I win it and refuse to give you the £10,000.

And I don't even play the lottery so the likelihood of any of it happening is basically zero.

Which is really carte blanche to make as many promises as desired without having to worry about those promises becoming lies.

and of course if you did win the lottery you would swan off to Cuba on a fact finding mission with a 40-year-old scorcher local councillor called Sonia for 2 weeks on the tax payers expense

:fist:

bloody labour

[bots]

Well no anything they promise before getting into power doesn't become a lie until they do get in and fail to deliver, because the premise of anthing said is "if/when we get into power we will..."

Like for example...

LT, I promise that if I ever win the lottery, I will paypal you £10,000.


Now realistically if I did win the lottery you'd be lucky if I'd lend you a tenner, but the above doesn't become a LIE until I win it and refuse to give you the £10,000.

And I don't even play the lottery so the likelihood of any of it happening is basically zero.

Which is really carte blanche to make as many promises as desired without having to worry about those promises becoming lies.

the lib dems have been playing that game for years, they can promise anything and everything if they are not actually in power. Unfortunately, they came a cropper when they were part of the coalition and then got annihilated and are unlikely to recover to that level again in the next 50 years

[user104658]

the lib dems have been playing that game for years, they can promise anything and everything if they are not actually in power. Unfortunately, they came a cropper when they were part of the coalition and then got annihilated and are unlikely to recover to that level again in the next 50 years

As soon as they got a little power they outed themselves as Tory-lites. They're still snuggling up to the Tories up here in Scotland :suspect:.

[joeysteele]

the tories don't go into any great detail on policies at the last few elections. They concentrate on a couple of key issues and hammer them home. Thats what labour should do as well. The more detail they publish, the more ammo everyone else has. If I remember correctly, it took labour weeks to produce the last manifesto and it was published in about 43 volumes :laugh:


I agree, and I think quoting a mantra does work.

He has 2 things he could fire out continuously now before any election.
Which he more or less said in his speech yesterday.

' Really changing lives not slogans'

Plus when he stated.
' To really make Brexit work '.

Both represent a moving on, a positive move

Of course for me, IF he really wants to win the next election, and not have to have nonsense from the Lib Dems of them not working with either main party again.

Adopt PR.
Appeal to those who don't vote, it's around a quarter of voters who in the main feel it's pointless because their votes are wasted.

All other opposition parties support PR.
Crikey even the DUP.

If he really wants to be a party of government in and of the future, then adopt PR as policy.
Ever growing numbers of Labour members want it, even John McDonnell of Labour, would support it.

It's been overdue for decades.
Forms of it are used in Holyrood elections, the Welsh assembly, N Ireland, Mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections.

Just bring local and general elections now in line with all that too.

Really make ALL votes count as to government not just some votes.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why are Labour not banging the PR drum?

[joeysteele]

Watching the Politics Live programme today.
Although I disagreed totally with leaving the EU as to UKIP.

Listening to Richard Tice on the programme today from the Reform Party, he was talking far more sense than most from the Con Party.