Jeremy Corbyn's conference speech

[Herr Tubthumper]

I honestly thought this particular argument was long dead and buried, esp. so in an area so badly hampered by Southern.

This. Show me someone who opposes re-nationalisation and I'll show you someone who has their snout in the trough, or is plain mad.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

do fvck off mate , he's actively praised and encouraged the murderers of british citizens both civilian and military, it just suits you and all the others for it to be conveniently filed under 'working for peace'.

Me and all the others don't share your point of view, it's true. Clearly it's an emotive point for you.
I'll be honest I haven't digged deeply enough to establish whether he has encouraged murderers in the past, or whether these are just headlines designed to create such a negative reaction. I should investigate further and look at some impartial sources on the matter.

It's a fair point, this is the area where he will suffer the most damage in the public eye. I'm sure it will be front and centre of every media outlet, if his campaign does start building momentum.
He will need to be able to have a very good defence against this particularly point, if he hasn't he would be wise to stand down.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Yes, they may be silly examples, and minor in the grand scheme of things...

TBH, saying that a ticket machine not working a while back is proof of things getting better when taken out of everyone's hands and handed to profit-driven, listed companies at a bargain price is a bit like saying that experiencing a grumpy GP's receptionist undermines the whole ethos of the NHS.

We saw where supposed "cost efficiencies" can potentially end up at Hatfield: cheap, private contractors' work leading to a train barreling along a platform and killing four people.

My point is a simple one: aside from the mess of industry fragmentation and inefficiencies that come from that, there's obviously a finite pool of finances to spend on providing rail services. If you then also have to skim even more off the top to hand over to shareholders, there's inevitably to be less to go on providing services.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Thanks. I could not really begin to comment in any great detail on the railways as I do not use them enough, as I think I did say, and if you as a regular user have seen no real improvement, then I am happy to go along with that. I would perhaps add that it is easy to say that, though that is not to say that I don't believe you. If you lament the fact that there is no competition at present, and I don't argue with that, then of course nationalising it, will not bring improvements on that score. I base my impressions on nationalised industries on experience of East Germany hence I am sceptical as to whether this would bring the improvement that we all wish for. For me whatever works best is the answer, and not pure dogma., and from what I read of your posts, you are broadly in agreement with this?

I'd agree with you. Nationalised or Privatised the issue with the rail networks is that there is no competition. Therefore the service has a tendency to be poor, from a consumer's perspective.
I'd rather that all of the money that get's spent on this poor service, goes back into the service. this can only happen in a nationalised industry.

 

[Gwylan]

My point is a simple one: aside from the mess of industry fragmentation and inefficiencies that come from that, there's obviously a finite pool of finances to spend on providing rail services. If you then also have to skim even more off the top to hand over to shareholders, there's inevitably to be less to go on providing services.

Shareholders are small fry compared to the amount that's paid to lawyers and accountants. All those different companies have a gazillion contracts and different compensation levels. I remember reading that there's more money spent per year on legal costs than on track maintenance. I can't find the quote right now but it wouldn't shock me - it's certainly going to be a large amount

 

[beorhthelm]

Out of his fantastic 7,000 word speech - the mainstream media seem to be obsessed with a 350 word extract he used that was written in the 80's, and the fact he changed his tie at the last minute to a slightly different shade of red, rather than discussing the wide range of important issues he spoke about.

its clear to me that those that wanted to hear a good speech heard a good speech, others... not so much. and so it is in the analysis of the analysis. what i have read on the speech is usually a passing reference to the plagiarised part, at most a comment along the lines of "so much for new politics". most the focus has been on the lack of substance, the lack of really important, national issues, while he covered a range of interesting but ultimately bit part issues. yes, im sure the chap in Saudi is important to some, but to feature in a leaders maiden conference speech gives it a little too much significance.

the over all impression i have is when will the leader make their speech - it was Corbyn the MP for Islington, not Corbyn the leader the Labour Party.

 

[spring hall convert]

yes, im sure the chap in Saudi is important to some, but to feature in a leaders maiden conference speech gives it a little too much significance.

More so in the context of this story, I'd suggest - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...r-human-rights-council-place?CMP=share_btn_tw

However, I agree with your analysis in the main. He was preaching to the converted here.

The easy bit is done now (if you can call overcoming odds of 500-1, easy.) Far, far bigger challenges ahead.

 

[Hastings gull]

TBH, saying that a ticket machine not working a while back is proof of things getting better when taken out of everyone's hands and handed to profit-driven, listed companies at a bargain price is a bit like saying that experiencing a grumpy GP's receptionist undermines the whole ethos of the NHS.
We saw where supposed "cost efficiencies" can potentially end up at Hatfield: cheap, private contractors' work leading to a train barreling along a platform and killing four people.

My point is a simple one: aside from the mess of industry fragmentation and inefficiencies that come from that, there's obviously a finite pool of finances to spend on providing rail services. If you then also have to skim even more off the top to hand over to shareholders, there's inevitably to be less to go on providing services.

I made the point that this was a minor issue, as you well know, and it can hardly be used as proof either way. I am, however, quite certain that at the time, British Rail did not enjoy a good reputation. I am not sure that privatisation was necessarily to blame for Hatfield -yes, the work was shoddy, which was down to the workers, surely, but would not a nationalised industry go for three quotes and then take the cheapest, claiming that they are doing the right thing of the taxpayer in the way of cost efficiencies? That is what all schools have to do with major projects.
I have to admit that I did not follow your last para -may be me, as I am not an expert with economics. Don't the shareholders get a share of the profits -I understand you to mean that their dividend is being skimmed off the subsidy.

 

[Gwylan]

its clear to me that those that wanted to hear a good speech heard a good speech, others... not so much. and so it is in the analysis of the analysis. what i have read on the speech is usually a passing reference to the plagiarised part, at most a comment along the lines of "so much for new politics". most the focus has been on the lack of substance, the lack of really important, national issues, while he covered a range of interesting but ultimately bit part issues. yes, im sure the chap in Saudi is important to some, but to feature in a leaders maiden conference speech gives it a little too much significance.

the over all impression i have is when will the leader make their speech - it was Corbyn the MP for Islington, not Corbyn the leader the Labour Party.

I agree. The focus on the old parts is a bit of a distraction - they made up a small part of the speech - but they gave the opportunity for anti-Corbyn papers to be anti-Corbyn and the Corbynistas to decry the tricks of the press.

What was more worrying for me were not the old passages but the lack of focus. It jumped too much and didn't really set out a grand vision (or any sort of vision). I voted for Corbyn in the election so I'm certainly not an anti (and I'm content that it wasn't polished, we've had enough of overly-smooth politicos) but I wish he'd given us something to hope for

 

[Uh_huh_him]

the over all impression i have is when will the leader make their speech - it was Corbyn the MP for Islington, not Corbyn the leader the Labour Party.

Yes I think this is a fair point. The reality is he won't be the leader of the labour party until he has won around the hearts and mind of the majority of the party.

This conference is far more about deciding the direction of labour party policy than trumpeting himself as the new man in town ready to fight the tories.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

How about affordable housing, decent wages that people can afford to actually live off and an economy that is built on something other than property values and white collar gambling? Not to mention protecting the health service and increasing opportunities through education. I think the wider public is interested in all these things and that is where the election will be fought.

All issues the wider public have an interest in yes but the polls show immigration leads by a country mile. The public probably also realise largescale net immigration effects the availability of affordable housing, pressures on the NHS, decent wages etc etc. Is there any evidence the general public even realise the economy is far to reliant on (as defined by you) property values and white collar gambling? Most people see the economy generally doing well, unemployment at 5.6%, record numbers of people in work. At this moment in time there is no great clamour for a radical economic change in direction. There is only one issue that the general public regard as needing urgent action and that is immigration. Mr Corybn's answer ..... more the merrier.


https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...omistIpsos-MORI-August-2015-Issues-Index.aspx

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

do fvck off mate , he's actively praised and encouraged the murderers of british citizens both civilian and military, it just suits you and all the others for it to be conveniently filed under 'working for peace'.

Vladimir's lapdog has also previously come out in favour of Putin over invading eastern Ukraine, and by extension of that, the russian military that shot down the airliner. I guess he ' won't have formed a policy' if asked to comment when the Dutch report is published later in the year.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Shadow defence secretary says Corbyn shouldn't have answered questions in the way he did re Trident ..Corbyn says he'll be having a word about that ..nothing like actually debating policy ..didn't take long did it

 

[Moshe Gariani]

All issues the wider public have an interest in yes but the polls show immigration leads by a country mile. The public probably also realise largescale net immigration effects the availability of affordable housing, pressures on the NHS, decent wages etc etc. Is there any evidence the general public even realise the economy is far to reliant on (as defined by you) property values and white collar gambling? Most people see the economy generally doing well, unemployment at 5.6%, record numbers of people in work. At this moment in time there is no great clamour for a radical economic change in direction. There is only one issue that the general public regard as needing urgent action and that is immigration. Mr Corybn's answer ..... more the merrier.


https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research...omistIpsos-MORI-August-2015-Issues-Index.aspx

Andy Burnham (Shadow Home Secretary) today addressed this issue at the conference and described how Labour would formulate an effective policy on limiting immigration that was in keeping with traditional Labour values.

 

[LamieRobertson]

How about affordable housing, decent wages that people can afford to actually live off and an economy that is built on something other than property values and white collar gambling? Not to mention protecting the health service and increasing opportunities through education. I think the wider public is interested in all these things and that is where the election will be fought.

All things I would be interested in ..but surely it's far too early to say what issues the next election will be fought on..a week is a long time in politics?

 

[sparkie]

At least the Trident renewal decision is taken in 2016 so Corbyn can't muck that one up for us.

 

[Simster]

I made the point that this was a minor issue, as you well know, and it can hardly be used as proof either way. I am, however, quite certain that at the time, British Rail did not enjoy a good reputation. I am not sure that privatisation was necessarily to blame for Hatfield -yes, the work was shoddy, which was down to the workers, surely, but would not a nationalised industry go for three quotes and then take the cheapest, claiming that they are doing the right thing of the taxpayer in the way of cost efficiencies? That is what all schools have to do with major projects.
I have to admit that I did not follow your last para -may be me, as I am not an expert with economics. Don't the shareholders get a share of the profits -I understand you to mean that their dividend is being skimmed off the subsidy.

You don't like people glibly picking up your daft ticket machine comparisons yet see nothing wrong in comparing nationalised industries with East Germany. Your attitude and hypocrisy is laughable.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Andy Burnham (Shadow Home Secretary) today addressed this issue at the conference and described how Labour would formulate an effective policy on limiting immigration that was in keeping with traditional Labour values.

And Corbyn said http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34397258 If immigration is only a positive thing why limit it ?

His statement contradicts the Shadow Home Secretary as his comments on Trident flatly contradict the Shadow Defence and Foreign secretaries as well as rendering pointless any open democratic debate within the party.

 

[Simster]

do fvck off mate , he's actively praised and encouraged the murderers of british citizens both civilian and military, it just suits you and all the others for it to be conveniently filed under 'working for peace'.

I can see why vets of the NI conflict will feel like this. Personally, I really can't take you up on it as I think you have every right to feel aggrieved having risked your life serving the country. But it's also fair to say that some of those who are more detached and less emotionally involved will see his former conduct in a very different light. Things are often said and done that are either regrettable or perhaps misinterpreted for something they are not. As an example (and excuse the invocation of Godwin's law here), I'm fairly sure had Lloyd George gone to meet Hitler 4 or 5 years later, he wouldn't have described him as "the greatest living German", especially as he went on to staunchly disavow appeasement policy.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Andy Burnham (Shadow Home Secretary) today addressed this issue at the conference and described how Labour would formulate an effective policy on limiting immigration that was in keeping with traditional Labour values.

What a load of utter tosh.
Thus far, no-one in public office has had the guts to address the single most important issue that is affecting our lives and will continue to affect our lives for years to come. The inability of our infrastructure to cope with an ever increasing population. Agenda riven politicians pay lip service to the public and yet do very little. Our urban areas are bursting at the seams and spreading in all directions. Our roads, our schools and our hospitals are under pressure and our quality of life continues to diminish. This country has to build a new house every 7 minutes for the next 20 years to keep up with demand and that is only going to get worse.
No one seems to give a toss that this is a small island with finite resources. They just keep letting the population go up and up with no thought to the future. More and more vehicles on the roads. More and more pupils in schools. More and more people on waiting lists and filling hospitals. More and more ' no go areas ' More and more social divide. More and more simmering tension between different groups. Less and less quality of life.
Those responsible for allowing our population to rise upwards unabated should hang their heads in shame. They have helped to create a divisive multi-cultural society heading for urban unrest and upheaval.
Burnham can come out with all the garbage in the world but it was his own party that adopted a cynical and deliberate open-door policy on immigration to suit their own agenda and we are now paying the price for that.