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

But that's all there is?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

It happened during conference, and that's enough to craft a narrative around.

Again my only problem with it is the possible repercussions.

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.

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

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.”

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

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.

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.

Yes a silly comment
Been sent around the World
now.

Labour Party Conference that is never ending in edits

They alose need to stop referring to people as comrades

outdated and fake

Ex Leader backs the Scum word

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.

Yes Popular,
is her saying get rid of Business Rates


Rachel Reeves Today

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

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

No Alf
no one should call an MP
"Scum"



Thats gone around our World

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



Scum
easy to Shout out after some booze

Of course Alf
you can call them that,



But Not a Deputy Leader
using "Scum"
that stinks

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:

But 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.

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.