Labour Party Conference

[Green Cross Code Man]

Oh, great, that classic get out of jail free statement. "oh I did not mean what I said. You need to read between the lines" No! Just say what it is you mean.

You are honestly seriously deluded. There's no get out of jail free. I already explained in a previous post the inference that people were meaning, and yes, pedantically, it is not explained just so in a way that you are able to understand, but you ignored the post and many others since saying the same thing. It is my belief that Jeremy Corbyn has made the labour party unelectable. It's quite simple, but yet you choose to argue semantics over a point that my children could understand.

How about explaining why a far left politician who does not have the majority support of his parliamentary party and only won the leadership election on the basis of thousands of new members who were not in the labour party before, will win the votes of the millions of people who voted for Blair (who was a closet Tory IMO) at previous elections?

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The trouble with Corbyn is that he's not, and will never be a "leader" in the sense of someone who will formulate policy and do what he thinks is best for the country. He simply isn't intelligent enough. He'd rather listen to his activists, as they're the ones who have gifted him his position, and will do anything to please them. Him governing the country could be compared to someone making world changing decisions by way of a show of hands in a working mans club.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I would not call Corbyn or labour far left. But anyway, it should not be the point of a party to change its views to win votes, otherwise all the parties will end up the same. If the majority (ok around 30% in our system) agree you will get into power. If not, you don't. If you change your views to gain votes, what is the point?

I think we have common ground here regarding the changing of political views in order to win votes. And as an apolitical type, I take no pleasure in what I believe is a weakening of the opposition. I think it's rather more than 30% needed for a majority. In the hung parliament, the Tories scored 29% and in the last 36%. I honestly can't see labour achieving anything like that. Can you?

 

[jakarta]

I would not call Corbyn or labour far left.

Well that explains a lot about your postings. As a matter of interest just WHO would you classify as Far Left?

 

[essbee1]

It's quite simple - people in the country will never vote en masse for a party that is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be
left-wing. The days when that might have happened finished in the 70's or even earlier.

That is why the Labour party as we know it is going, well, nowhere.

 

[Mayonaise]

The trouble with Corbyn is that he's not, and will never be a "leader" .

I think this is the crux of the problem. JC may be a good bloke but just does not come across in the leadership stakes. Like Michael Foot before him - he will never get power because he doesn't appeal to the wider electorate.

John Smith was the last true Labour man who might have made a brilliant PM (I don't count Blair as Labour) who could appeal to the wider electorate whilst still being true to his values.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Like I said I will never vote for this party again. I will not vote for a party that loses control of it's borders, then decides to give the rest of us a lesson on diversity.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Highlights on BBC Parliament every evening at 8pm for those of you like me at work.

What time does it finish ?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I'm honestly not trying to snipe here but does the vast sums of money that Corbyn is talking about not worry you? He's talked about borrowing £500 billion to invest in various projects. That's going to add between 30% and 40% to our national debt.

No problem you can't retire. Just carry on working. It,s called Cradle to the Grave care.

 

[ROSM]

I think we have common ground here regarding the changing of political views in order to win votes. And as an apolitical type, I take no pleasure in what I believe is a weakening of the opposition. I think it's rather more than 30% needed for a majority. In the hung parliament, the Tories scored 29% and in the last 36%. I honestly can't see labour achieving anything like that. Can you?

For Labour, the magic percentage based on seat demographics is usually 36%. Given boundary changes it will more likely be 38% and that includes a recover in Scotland

Can anybody see that happening?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

No.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

For Labour, the magic percentage based on seat demographics is usually 36%. Given boundary changes it will more likely be 38% and that includes a recover in Scotland

Can anybody see that happening?

No, but does JC care ? His supporters are just having a great time fighting 'the man' so I'm pretty sure they dont care either.
Time for a new political party ? (for grown ups)

 

[studio150]

What time does it finish ?

8.01pm

 

[Chicken Run]

Says some very depressing things about our country, when you look at the two candidates. When did we become a nation of selfish xenophobic *****?

I would say sometime around 1939....

 

[jakarta]

Ah well another day dawns and no doubt more bollocks to come from the Peoples Party.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

State benefits for all, but **** all for all the hard working people who will end up paying for it. Typical Labour.
I can't believe I ever voted for this party all those years ago.

Seriously the thought that this party might one day run this country scares the hell out of me. It will be back to overspending and open borders and all the other politically correct bullshite we had last time from this party.

 

[The Birdman]

State benefits for all, but **** all for all the hard working people who will end up paying for it. Typical Labour.
I can't believe I ever voted for this party all those years ago.

Seriously the thought that this party might one day run this country scares the hell out of me. It will be back to overspending and open borders and all the other politically correct bullshite we had last time from this party.

All the sacrifices made over the last few years will be wasted if Labour get back in you are right the debts our grand children will be saddled with will be terrible. However we do need to help the poorest and vulnerable of our society and not the scrounges.

 

[Hastings gull]

All the sacrifices made over the last few years will be wasted if Labour get back in you are right the debts our grand children will be saddled with will be terrible. However we do need to help the poorest and vulnerable of our society and not the scrounges.

I am sure that the vast majority of us would agree with this, and the question is "how do we achieve this?" I suspect that there is enough dosh about to cover everything, in the way of helping others, but of course human nature gets in the way. Once folk realise that financial help is coming, then the queue will get ever longer, and, sadly, those genuinely in need will have less, as those who really don't need help also demand it, thus causing a situation where the money is more thinly spread or rationed. A radical left wing government is far less likely to aggressively weed out those whose motivation is sheer greed and fraud, convincing themselves that they are helping "the many" (as opposed to the few) as they would want their votes as well, to the despair of the working and honest majority.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

All the sacrifices made over the last few years will be wasted if Labour get back in you are right the debts our grand children will be saddled with will be terrible. However we do need to help the poorest and vulnerable of our society and not the scrounges.

The most needy in regards of people with disabilities, absolutely yes, people who have hit hard times through no fault of their own because of unemployment yes, financial help should be measured on how long they have contributed to the system.

Allowing people to arrive in this country with nothing for example, housing them, paying them benefits and so on, because this is exactly what Labour did at the tax payers expense, then the answer is No.

 

[The Birdman]

[/B]

I am sure that the vast majority of us would agree with this, and the question is "how do we achieve this?" I suspect that there is enough dosh about to cover everything, in the way of helping others, but of course human nature gets in the way. Once folk realise that financial help is coming, then the queue will get ever longer, and, sadly, those genuinely in need will have less, as those who really don't need help also demand it, thus causing a situation where the money is more thinly spread or rationed. A radical left wing government is far less likely to aggressively weed out those whose motivation is sheer greed and fraud, convincing themselves that they are helping "the many" (as opposed to the few) as they would want their votes as well, to the despair of the working and honest majority.

Labour want to keep the voters poor in there strongholds otherwise they will lose votes that's why the Tory's need to see through its sound bites of the Northern Power House and start delivering the projects to get new manufacturing in the Midlands and the North.