[Politics] *** Labour Party Annual Conference, 23-25 September 2018, ACC Liverpool ***

[Insel affe]

Labour are absolutely acting in the nation's interest and specifically in the interest of the millions of people who would be most vulnerable to the negative economic effects of Brexit.

Said a labour voter or a person who voted remain ?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I know it's Sky, but...

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-would-be-incompetent-brexit-negotiator-poll-11508078

Jeremy Corbyn would be "incompetent" in Brexit negotiations with the EU, a majority of people think.

A Sky Data poll found 22% of people thought the Labour leader would be competent to negotiate Brexit, compared to 71% who thought he would be incompetent.

The figure was slightly more positive for Labour when asked if the party would be competent in striking a deal with Brussels. A quarter of people - 25% - agreed Labour would be competent, while 68% said it would be incompetent.

Titanic - is there a Sky Data poll about how well JC would get on opening the batting against Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad...? It would be as important.

Given the shower of shit that we have been presented with for the past two years, anyone who confidently thinks any individual would be "competent in a striking a deal with Brussels" must be completely mental.

What is the mentalist % who think Theresa May is "competent in a striking a deal with Brussels"...?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

This is an interesting point that is worthy of expansion.

Which of Labour's policies do you feel would be the most damaging for their "old voters"...?

They are not going to deliver on Brexit, thats enough for me.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

They are not going to deliver on Brexit, thats enough for me.

And you believe that will be most damaging for Labour voters...?

Fair enough if that is your evidence based conclusion. I don't agree.

 

[abc]

What I'm saying is that the ONLY reason I would even consider voting Labour with this lot running the show is for them to offer a second Brexit vote, because in my opinion that whole process is going to wreck our economy. I don't think 5 years of Corbyn-led socialism will do an awful lot of good either, but IMO that is far easier repaired than Brexit.

So the question is which will do more long term damage to the future economy, our democracy, our security and our fundamental tolerance as a society: a Corbyn government or Brexit? As a business owner who is desperately concerned about Brexit but with no party loyalties, I would say go Brexit every time. Corbyn et al will destroy everything and in the long run it is the poorest that will suffer most as has been the case in every marxist/communist or extreme left society in history

 

[Titanic]

"Unity" didn't last long then... Starmer going off-piste with his 'Remain as an option" comments

Leadership bid?

 

[Tubby Mondays]

they don't give a shit about their old voters either.

This is a really difficult point for the Labour Party (I'm sure there is a more intelligent way of putting that - is it dichotomy?).

What they have is lots of people in areas of England that would never have though about voting against them but who all voted for leave for whatever reason; large areas of the North East for example.

They also have sitting Labour M.P's.

How can that work?!

 

[Moshe Gariani]

"Unity" didn't last long then... Starmer going off-piste with his 'Remain as an option" comments

Leadership bid?

Things are certainly moving very fast at the moment. I don't think a leadership bid is imminent though.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

This is a really difficult point for the Labour Party (I'm sure there is a more intelligent way of putting that - is it dichotomy?).

What they have is lots of people in areas of England that would never have though about voting against them but who all voted for leave for whatever reason; large areas of the North East for example.

They also have sitting Labour M.P's.

How can that work?!

It is all incredibly "difficult". The message from the Labour conference, which is representative of party members and voters, is to proceed with caution.

Nobody wants a bad deal Brexit that will damage the economy and hit the most vulnerable hardest.

Many at the conference favour a General Election after which a Labour government must negotiate a jobs first Brexit. Others think that putting it back to the people to check whether they still do, or don't, actually want any sort of Brexit is the right way forward.

 

[Chicken Run]

Others think that putting it back to the people to check whether they still do, or don't, actually want any sort of Brexit is the right way forward.

Yep that would be the remainers, what a shock!

 

[beorhthelm]

a call to nationalise the internet, may be from a fringe meeting but demonstrates the sort of views held within the party. control and dictate what is or isnt allowed, mentions an end anonymity, which can only be done through some form of license/state authorisation to use the internet.

 

[Simster]

"Unity" didn't last long then... Starmer going off-piste with his 'Remain as an option" comments

Leadership bid?

Smug rubbish again. The whole point of party conferences is that they debate the directions they take. Obviously you'll need reminding of this the next time the Tories debate anything. Regardless, we all know how "united" they are on a whole raft of issues. Nice to see them all squarely behind the Chequers agreement, for example.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

It is all incredibly "difficult". The message from the Labour conference, which is representative of party members and voters, is to proceed with caution.

Nobody wants a bad deal Brexit that will damage the economy and hit the most vulnerable hardest.

Many at the conference favour a General Election after which a Labour government must negotiate a jobs first Brexit. Others think that putting it back to the people to check whether they still do, or don't, actually want any sort of Brexit is the right way forward.

I don't see how that circle can ever be squared, not just by Labour but by any government.

The message of proceed with caution wont be acceptable to many who voted for Brexit 2 years ago and are no further forward with the process. That's is why the Tories are at sixes and sevens.

Terms like 'jobs first Brexit' don't actually mean anything unfortunately.

Putting it back to the public is a possible way forward, but there are those who will say 'I've already voted why should I vote again?'. It would make sense to put whatever deal the Tories end up getting to the public which would in effect be a vote of no confidence, but if Labour were to win any election after that, and that is a very big if, what could they do? Go back to try where the Tories failed after 2 years of trying to come up with a better deal? I don't see the public accepting that.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

a call to nationalise the internet, may be from a fringe meeting but demonstrates the sort of views held within the party. control and dictate what is or isnt allowed, mentions an end anonymity, which can only be done through some form of license/state authorisation to use the internet.

Excellent tax raising idea, £1 per thread started, 50p per post and 10p per view (trebled if not relevant!). NSC would raise millions!

 

[Gwylan]

a call to nationalise the internet, may be from a fringe meeting but demonstrates the sort of views held within the party.

It demonstrates a total ignorance about technology, an ignorance that seems to be prevalent in all political parties. I remember a complete GOON of a Tory saying that Virginia Bottomley should be in charge of the worldwide web (whatever that entailed).

In the mid-90s, I got asked by Geoff Hoon, then a DTI shadow minister, to explain the Internet to him. I had a couple of meetings with him but his level of technical understanding was dreadful. I've since spoken to politicians who do have a good understanding of technology ( a couple are very clued up) but, in the main, talking technology to them is liking talking to 7-year-olds

 

[dazzer6666]

It demonstrates a total ignorance about technology, an ignorance that seems to be prevalent in all political parties. I remember a complete GOON of a Tory saying that Virginia Bottomley should be in charge of the worldwide web (whatever that entailed).

In the mid-90s, I got asked by Geoff Hoon, then a DTI shadow minister, to explain the Internet to him. I had a couple of meetings with him but his level of technical understanding was dreadful. I've since spoken to politicians who do have a good understanding of technology ( a couple are very clued up) but, in the main, talking technology to them is liking talking to 7-year-olds

Known as 'Buff', wasn't he ? Not without reason.......

 

[Bozza]

All starting to get a bit tasty.

 

[Titanic]

Keir Starmer this morning: 'I don’t think at this stage anybody is talking about extending Article 50.'

Emily Thornberry this afternoon: 'We need to extend Article 50.'

Clear as mud.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Keir Starmer this morning: 'I don’t think at this stage anybody is talking about extending Article 50.'

Emily Thornberry this afternoon: 'We need to extend Article 50.'

Clear as mud.

Boris Johnson whilst in the cabinet agreeing to the Chequers Brexit deal.

Boris Johnson days later saying it would amount to 'diddly squat'.

Crystal clear.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I’ll wager most of the shares you had in LloydsTSB were either from profit sharing (ie freebies) or SAYE (bought at a decent discount to the market, 3-5 years after you’d saved cash to buy them, with any gain being tax free and if the price had fallen you’d have just taken your cash back). The risk taken on by most employees was through lack of portfolio diversification.......keeping all their eggs in one basket.

Staff having shares is a good move for most companies.....tend to work harder/care a bit more if you’ve git additional skin in the game. Trying to force it on smaller companies is daft though.

But this is a similar scenario - employees getting shares and dividends for nothing. Many of my ex-colleagues at LTSB and my current colleagues at Tesco had/have no clue as to how shares and dividends work. This will just be perceived by them as an additional income. They certainly will not understand what porfolio diversification means and will not understand if/when that income disappears. I do agree that staff having shares is usually a good idea (as long as they understand what it is they are getting into), but in the case of Tesco, it does not appear to make them work any harder