Labour Party Conference

[Deleted member 22389]

What empty quote? That well known classic quote of the word classic? No point in engaging in reasoned debate with people like him and you. Just smile and wave.

Do you have any idea what it feels like to be told you know longer have a job, and then the day you leave you see agency staff turning up to do the same job. That happened to me. I still knew people who worked at the place and they said they couldn't communicate with some of the workers, mistakes where made, and in manufacturing that can become expensive.

No I will not smile and wave, people have been put on the back foot in this country. Only recently I delivered leaflets, 4400 for two hundred quid, I ended up with blisters on my feet, earned about three pounds and hour and got paid two weeks late. People get treated like shit these days.

 

[W.C.]

Oh come on, that's being disingenuous at best. Even the Guardian, hardly a bastion of jingoism reports it as...

"What better way to mark the year the Labour party surged behind its leader/imploded than with a bit of memorabilia? There is a custom at party conference to sell a load of tat with provocative and hilarious messages. There must be those who still wear their £5 striped Ukip ties from the party’s 2014 conference, or who sip morosely from a sold-out Nick Clegg mug from last year’s Lib Dem gathering. The 2013 Tory conference was a good one for Thatcher-inspired items – the “Maggie” collection featured tea towels, cufflinks and bibs reading “Iron Baby”. Sadly, the ironing-board cover was withdrawn – it proved a fire hazard. The best merch, though, can be found at Momentum’s The World Transformed event, currently running alongside the Labour party conference. "

The "exhibition" is a Momentum-run event, is listed in the Labour Fringe and is solely there because the conference is there. It's clearly a part of the whole Labour Party conference.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tum-merchandise-pro-corbyn-tshirts-poems-mugs

It's not how the bloke who's stall sees it though is it?

Saying that it's 'merchandise at a Labour Party Conference' makes it sound like they (the party) have endorsed it and are selling them alongside Labour badges, pens and mugs.

And then to claim he, so by extension the Labour Party, is taking the piss out of wounded servicemen is, IMO, a tad hysterical.

 

[Buzzer]

It's not how the bloke who's stall sees it though is it?

Bloke allegedly bringing Labour Party Conference into disrepute downplays links to Conference shocker!

It's how everyone else sees it because that is how it really is. It's part of the Labour Fringe none of which is officially endorsed by the Party but is part of the conference, is crass, is shockingly offensive and does bring unnecessary bad press.

 

[Simster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-injured-british-soldiers-reveal-the-corbyni/

I can't say I approve of these jokes at the expense of the army because they are crass, open to criticism, and of course can easily be offensive to those who have given up the most, but that article is nothing if not completely bias. It barely pays lip service to the other side of the argument, which it points out in a single sentence out of this long winded diatribe:

"We need not trouble the young, fresh-faced Corbyn apologists for a defence of this travesty because we already know what it will be: it’s not an attack on soldiers – we have every sympathy with them. It’s an attack on the cowardly politicians who send these brave men and women to fight in illegal wars, etc."

I don't see why people shouldn't just take that explanation at face value. Instead, it just continues on and on detailing just why such a condescending attitude is so disgraceful (I agree that it is condescending, but that's hardly a hanging offence). This, let's not forget, is the same paper that advocated no changes to the make up of the House of Lords when Blair was trying to abolish hereditary peers, because apparently nothing was broken so why fix it? It doesn't get more condescending than that does it? Seemingly, condescending and sneering is only a disgrace when the Labour hard left do it.

 

[W.C.]

Bloke allegedly bringing Labour Party Conference into disrepute downplays links to Conference shocker!

It's how everyone else sees it because that is how it really is. It's part of the Labour Fringe none of which is officially endorsed by the Party but is part of the conference, is crass, is shockingly offensive and does bring unnecessary bad press.

That's not how he came across to me. Neither does his work come across as shockingly offensive. Not sure I think it's that great, but he doesn't come across as someone who wants to shock just for the hell of it.

 

[Buzzer]

That's not how he came across to me. Neither does his work come across as shockingly offensive. Not sure I think it's that great, but he doesn't come across as someone who wants to shock just for the hell of it.

Aye, there's the rub. Offence can only be taken, never given but I do think it's pretty certain the intention was to shock. That's not to say that I think it should be banned, I'm with Stephen Fry on the whole issue of being offended.

 

[alfredmizen]

I can't say I approve of these jokes at the expense of the army because they are crass, open to criticism, and of course can easily be offensive to those who have given up the most, but that article is nothing if not completely bias. It barely pays lip service to the other side of the argument, which it points out in a single sentence out of this long winded diatribe:

"We need not trouble the young, fresh-faced Corbyn apologists for a defence of this travesty because we already know what it will be: it’s not an attack on soldiers – we have every sympathy with them. It’s an attack on the cowardly politicians who send these brave men and women to fight in illegal wars, etc."

I don't see why people shouldn't just take that explanation at face value. Instead, it just continues on and on detailing just why such a condescending attitude is so disgraceful (I agree that it is condescending, but that's hardly a hanging offence). This, let's not forget, is the same paper that advocated no changes to the make up of the House of Lords when Blair was trying to abolish hereditary peers, because apparently nothing was broken so why fix it? It doesn't get more condescending than that does it? Seemingly, condescending and sneering is only a disgrace when the Labour hard left do it.

At worst it's taking the piss , at best it's crass and insensitive , but it personifies the sneering, condescending attitude that the left have toward the forces and British institutions in general , they could have found other ways to make their point but that wouldn't have afforded them the opportunity to have a dig at people they see as below them, there are regular posters on this board who have given a blanket description of the forces as "thick and stupid" , I'd say that a lot of momentum and labour members feel the same.

 

[Simster]

At worst it's taking the piss , at best it's crass and insensitive , but it personifies the sneering, condescending attitude that the left have toward the forces and British institutions in general , they could have found other ways to make their point but that wouldn't have afforded them the opportunity to have a dig at people they see as below them, there are regular posters on this board who have given a blanket description of the forces as "thick and stupid" , I'd say that a lot of momentum and labour members feel the same.

I think you're guilty of tarring that whole movement with the same brush. You can't seriously believe that whole movement is crammed with people who ALL think the armed forces are thick and stupid? Clearly it isn't.

That said, I don't see the point of any of it. Get into power, then scale down the army once you have the mandate, rather than make the institution the object of your sneering. Perhaps they just know they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting into power which is why they go down this childish path. Labour won't be in power for many many years.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I can't say I approve of these jokes at the expense of the army because they are crass, open to criticism, and of course can easily be offensive to those who have given up the most, but that article is nothing if not completely bias. It barely pays lip service to the other side of the argument, which it points out in a single sentence out of this long winded diatribe:

"We need not trouble the young, fresh-faced Corbyn apologists for a defence of this travesty because we already know what it will be: it’s not an attack on soldiers – we have every sympathy with them. It’s an attack on the cowardly politicians who send these brave men and women to fight in illegal wars, etc."

I don't see why people shouldn't just take that explanation at face value. Instead, it just continues on and on detailing just why such a condescending attitude is so disgraceful (I agree that it is condescending, but that's hardly a hanging offence). This, let's not forget, is the same paper that advocated no changes to the make up of the House of Lords when Blair was trying to abolish hereditary peers, because apparently nothing was broken so why fix it? It doesn't get more condescending than that does it? Seemingly, condescending and sneering is only a disgrace when the Labour hard left do it.

If you'd been a serviceman in the late 70's or early 80's you'd know that militant labour held the arm forces in utter contempt. The shadow chancellor in particular being one of those who had it in for us.

I travelled home in uniform from Pompey in 83 and was called ' a facist, then a 'nazi' and then topped of with being called a ' murderer'. It's always coloured my view of Worthing ever since!
A friend of mine was going out with a student from Pompey poly and whilst at a party was asked to leave because he was a serviceman and that they 'didn't want his sort around'. His girlfriend at the time came under a lots of pressure to dump him.
Whilst the vast majority of labour members are not like this, a small but very vocal and powerful element are.
My parents are die hard labour but both will not vote for Corbyn. My dad is an ex Union rep and he despises the militant left because and I quote 'the ba$tards have never done a days work in their lives'.

I never voted Tory but would consider it because of Corbyn and his followers.

 

[Soulman]

If you'd been a serviceman in the late 70's or early 80's you'd know that militant labour held the arm forces in utter contempt. The shadow chancellor in particular being one of those who had it in for us.

I travelled home in uniform from Pompey in 83 and was called ' a facist, then a 'nazi' and then topped of with being called a ' murderer'. It's always coloured my view of Worthing ever since!
A friend of mine was going out with a student from Pompey poly and whilst at a party was asked to leave because he was a serviceman and that they 'didn't want his sort around'. His girlfriend at the time came under a lots of pressure to dump him.
Whilst the vast majority of labour members are not like this, a small but very vocal and powerful element are.
My parents are die hard labour but both will not vote for Corbyn. My dad is an ex Union rep and he despises the militant left because and I quote 'the ba$tards have never done a days work in their lives'.

I never voted Tory but would consider it because of Corbyn and his followers.

Disrespectful, and you are spot on re MOST Lefties.

 

[whitelion]

Corbyn due up at 2pm. BBC2 covering this.

 

[Lower West Stander]

I haven't read the whole thread, but is there anyone out there who seriously thinks Labour will win the next election with Jeremy Corbyn as leader and John McDonnell as shadow chancellor?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Birdman]

Just seen the Dutch authority have confirmed the jet shot down in the Ukraine was a Russian missile and the Labour Party should not sing the red Flag in protest oh sorry the Russians deny it like the convey of aid. At least we owned up.

 

[Buzzer]

Please let this be true.

[tweet]781126058741563392[/tweet]

*not a cult*

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Please let this be true.

[tweet]781126058741563392[/tweet]

*not a cult*

Just keep focused on all that really important stuff.

Building half a million new council houses seems irrelevant by comparison.

 

[Buzzer]

Just keep focused on all that really important stuff.

Building half a million new council houses seems irrelevant by comparison.

In fairness, the Mike Ashley and zero-hour contracts comments are spot on but the rest so far....

Slags off Philip Green but fail to mention that Labour gave him a knighthood, claim that the disability u-turn was a Labour victory when it was a Tory backbench revolt that saw that one off, claims that the boundary changes are gerrymandering when it's an independent commission that MPs debated and agreed on. Pledges to return union powers back to the pre-80s.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Just keep focused on all that really important stuff.

Building half a million new council houses seems irrelevant by comparison.

The policies are very important.... But so is the fact that this is a cult not dissimilar to other religions like Scientology. All the signs are there in particular the tactic of recruiting, in the main, young and impressionable minds. This is achieved by selling a story that nobody could disagree with as cover for the real intentions of the leaders. I have heard so many young Corbynistas proclaiming that the policies are really not so different from Scandinavia, when the leaders of this movement are Marxists ! You need to study some history of countries that have followed Corbyn policies. Look at the repression and poverty these policies cause and see if you can reconcile them with your youthful ideals. Thankfully older voters have seen this all before and are not so easily persuaded.

 

[Diablo]

Corbyn as usual promises everything to everybody....But where`s the money coming from??

 

[Bozza]

I think I just heard Corbyn say that Labour are now preparing for a General Election in 2017. I assumed that was the start of a resignation speech, but it didn't seem to be,

 

[beorhthelm]

Building half a million new council houses seems irrelevant by comparison.

i'd like to know how they'll deliver this. first, is it council or just any one can build them? second, currently we build ~140k a year, so we'll assume this 500k is additional (otherwise the market would already deliver 500k in a 5 year parliament). third, the major obstacle is planning, getting sites and getting permission. assuming that *all* land in the pipeline was immediately granted, with no objections from any groups, building industry could deliver about 250k iirc. the target is ~240k a year. so we'd have to go from 140-240k a year, and as we'll have to train (or import?) workers and identify an awful lot of land for after year 1, and that build rate will be back loaded over a parliament so probably 300-400k a year in practice in later years.

i'm the first to support and advocate building more, so i say this because we need to know if the policy is "we'll target building 500k houses" or is the policy "we'll legislate to overhaul planning, and provide proper incentives and framework for housing development to be implemented". the former is a cheap empty slogan, the latter is a politically difficult challenge.