Some idiot just charged on to stage at Labour conference

these tories

 

Good job Labour Party grass root members aren't in charge of policy innit. Bit like Tories who wanted Liz Truss - leave it to the experts.

 

On the other hand, we've had 'experts' in charge of economic policy for 45 years now, and where did that lead us? To Liz Truss.

Economics isn't a real science in the same way as others, and nor is politics. It's not like putting physicists in charge of the LHC, or virologists and doctors in charge of disease prevention.

 

I believe all attendees go through metal detectors on entry - to prevent that kind of thing.

 

I was being deliberately twa-tt-ish so apologies for that, but my main point was more it's absolutely barmy to try and have government policy driven by membership. It's like having BFC run by polls on this place.

 

Shocking security response.

 

Party policy, not government policy. It's supposed to be a democratic party and a democratic vote should hold sway in policy decisions.

 

The issue fundamentally is that 95% of the people in the country aren't Labour members. So you can have policies Labour membership want that the majority of the country don't.

Power first. And stuff like that doesn't help get Labour into power.

 

I think the problem is that the membership still think that it's a democratic party (or want it to be), and the leadership don't,

I think there'll be a reckoning at some point. At the moment it's midway between the greens (where policy is fully democratic, and you tend to get mad decisions from their small number of members) and the tories (where the membership are essentially irrelevant when it comes to deciding policies, so you tend to get mad decisions from their leadership). I could easily see Labour membership dropping even more than it has done already over the next few years, and I think that would suit the current leadership just fine. It comes down to how you see the Labour Party as a concept, I suppose. Does it act in the theoretical interests of what it considers to be the working class as best it can, or does it represent its members? Arguably, in my opinion, it's currently doing neither.

 

yeah privatised energy is working great for everyone isn’t it? And water. What could be better than swimming in ****. Rail. Why would we want trains that work and get places on time. Privatising the NHS why not.

possibly you support the wrong party. Rishi would probably be a bit to the left of you but hey ho.

 

literally no party ever has got more radical in power in the UK. If you think that’s gonna happen I have a bridge to sell you.

 

You know all this, but those are things that were used to hit Labour over the head with 4 years ago. Can't afford it, playing into the point and perception of not being able to trust us with the economy etc etc. So why go big on that stuff now when the economy is arguably even more important electorally?

I think the vast majority of people would support those things, but would they support them now whilst interest rates are at a massive high and living standards have dropped? Bit risky innit? Puts some doubt in their mind about same old Labour. And don't forget we're trying to attract TORY VOTERS. Not Labour members.

I don't get why you have to get so personal either. It's almost as if you try to live up to the perception many have of the left - fair or not. Ignore people's views, shout a bit, call them a Tory and then ultimately lose by 100+ seats and go back to being angry on the Internet.

 

My view is if you're looking to govern, you need the Tory model. If you're looking to posture and feel good about yourselves it's Green.

Leadership is hard. Government is mental. Democratising strategy for a country is crackers and instead should be left to leadership that's voted in based on their credentials. IMHO and all that.

 

This one has & I think the Labour Party of 1997 did (considering how conservative - small c - they were in the first few years).

 

Sure, I can see that. I just think that if you vote people in based on their credentials under an aggressively neoliberal system then all you get is the most aggressive neoliberalism that money can buy.

I can definitely see the argument that it'll improve things in the short term, and maybe that's enough? I just personally don't see it as a long term solution. There will have to be a reckoning at some point, and my suspicion is that those that come after us will look at us all as cowards. You can already see this starting to develop in the voting patterns.

Then again, the alternative right now is the tories, so maybe history will judge the electorate of '24/25 kindly, and that they made the best they could out of a bad situation! I honestly have no idea.

 

If it happens, as it hopefully will, you'll find it was an electorate-approved decision, something that the Momentum lot could never quite get the grasp of.

 

Starmer and the shadow cabinet are all members of the Labour Party. So some members will be driving policy if and when there's a Labour Government.
Having said that, contextually, I thought that was Starmer's best speech to date. No real indication of how these growth targets and policy objectives are going to be realised but he was better than Davey and better than Sunak. Even Tories on here would be hard-pressed to find fault with his analysis of how crap the Tories have been for this country.
If you want an inspirational speech without any real substance apart from a criticism of the nasty party then Starmer did really well. I'm not being facetious either. It was a decent speech.
I do think someone from the shadow cabinet should have gone on stage and brushed him down at the start though. He may have glittered but he aint gold.
And, finally, on another point, I hope he's ok after that bloke intimidated him. Hope he's not shaken up and his wife and kids are ok. And I'm not a fan either!

 

I had hoped it was Simon Brodkin, doing another prank lol.
Like when he came on stage that time and threw a pile of fake money at Sepp Blatter.

 

I have to say that's an unexpectedly balanced post compared to the one I was anticipating, given your previously expressed views on Starmer.

It's consistent with the coverage I've seen of it from the heavily pro-Tory media too. Greg Hands' tweets-a-minute apart, there's been little meaningful criticism of it, and many favourable comparisons to Sunak's conference speech in particular. Ultimately, that's the main goal of conference season, and two main party conferences couldn't have shown a greater contrast between the two parties.

To whatever extent the conference season has an impact on voters (which is debatable, given the limited engagement in general) it's pretty much played out perfectly for Labour over the last two weeks.

 

I'm always balanced, always correct and my views are always much more informed than anybody else on here. You should all know this by now
Joking aside, I still think he's a liar and that's always been my bugbear with him. I can't see how anybody can deny that he is. However, his speech WAS good. His critique of the Tories was correct, clear and motivational even if one disagrees with his lack of substance like I do. He should also not be subjected to crap like he was at the start of his speech. I think that's appalling. I genuinely wouldn't wish that on Johnson or Braverman.....could have been a knife attack!