[Closed] The nasty party conference...

Corbyn always reminds me of the idealist graduate who comes into a company throws a few ideas around some of which may be good, but they do so in such an annoying way that everyone just ignores them.

I think he's cleverer than that.

Re Cameron, he says 'war on poverty' but I think what he actually means is 'war on poor people'. I'm not sure he's clear on the difference 🙂

everyone warned that if the Labour party lurched left, Cameron would seize the middle ground, and all the lefties shouted in union 'lalala we're not listening', and look what he's just done

The middle ground is now punishing the poor for being poor, by removing the tax credits of millions of the poorest WORKING families in the country, and making their lives immeasurably worse?

Well... every day's a school day eh?

Fine but surely it is better to get in power and look to change things?

Corbyn always reminds me of the idealist graduate who comes into a company throws a few ideas around some of which may be good, but they do so in such an annoying way that everyone just ignores them.

Re Privy council I do agree that a modern leader should be able to to swear allegiance to the people and not the monarch

Maybe the Tories are digging their own graves. If the lives of the poor become shit enough during the next 4 years then Corbyn should be able to walk it.

Mol-

Poor people either don't vote, or already live in safe Labour seats (at least until the SNP came along)

they won't change the outcome of an election.

And DCs speech is clearly aimed at making people think that the poor will be supported so those in the middle can vote Tory with a clear conscience.

I think things will have to get really really shit for this to really play out in labour's favour to any significant degree - they need to somehow better educate people on the facts so that the blatant lies being put forth are seen as such more widely.

So to my mind you have labour lead by someone more genuine than most other politicians but in order to get his message across, the question is is he willing to be pragmatic and play the political game.

So to my mind you have labour lead by someone more genuine than most other politicians but in order to get his message across, the question is is he willing to be pragmatic and play the political game.

Sadly you are probably correct. The obvious alternative is to set up guillotines at street corners and alter the status quo that way.

I'm not so sure that he has to 'play the game'.
It would be a good start if he can collect data and get really good illustrating the flaws.

For example, not enough is done to show that the crash was global and a banking problem rather than a Labour one. They say it, but they need to really illustrate it. It's still widely thought that they are to blame.

When Andrew Neil interrogated Gove yesterday he needed to ask Gove what metric he could use to judge whether they had delivered on their promise. Gove was dismissing the decline in building as a delayed response to the crash, which means there will also be a delayed natural upturn, which of course they'll claim is due to their new policies.

I'm not so sure that he has to 'play the game'.
It would be a good start if he can collect data and get really good illustrating the flaws

That doesn't work, unfortunately. A good example was the Reagan presidency. He told lies from dawn to dusk, everyone knew they were lies, and nobody cared because he had a folksy manner and a nice smile.

For example, not enough is done to show that the crash was global and a banking problem rather than a Labour one. They say it, but they need to really illustrate it. It's still widely thought that they are to blame.

You're still trying to fight the 2010 election - The argument has been won and the public perception (right or wrong) is settled, you can try and argue it till you're blue in the face but all you're going to do is keep the story running. Sometimes you have to just say 'sorry', kill the story and move on. Labour have largely done this with Iraq and Afghanistan (even though there are a number of perfectly coherent arguments about why it was the right thing for Blair to do, that Labour really don't want to hear) and as a result it wasn't an issue in the election. Cameron did this with Mandela/Apartheid (again, lots of perfectly coherent arguments why engagement was a better solution than sanctions).

Stop fighting the last election, or the one before that, move on from the arguments of the past, and start thinking about how you are going to win the next election (and the one after that) - thats what Blair did, and thats how he won.

But do the voters move on, as the politicians would like. 'Let's move on' became a Labour mantra, was seen as such and lost effect. I'd suggest it was counter-productive, even.

I can see a case for that ninfan.
I'm not 100% sure you're right, because the swinging voters need to become confident that Labour can run the economy again.

The good thing (which supports your case) is that Corbyn is sooo different from Blair/Brown/Milliband that he is perceived as detached from those past policies anyway.

You're still trying to fight the 2010 election

is a fair point but when in PMQ's or any interview with a conservative and the questions get sticky the fall back position is to blame Labour for the global economic meltdown.

Even after 5 years in power

I'm not 100% sure you're right, because the swinging voters need to become confident that Labour can run the economy again.

Yeah, but Labour's not after the 'current' crop of swinging voters. They're after current SNP/Green voters and people who don't traditionally vote.

I suspect they might have a different view on the economy to traditional centerist swinging voters.

is a fair point but when in PMQ's or any interview with a conservative and the questions get sticky the fall back position is to blame Labour for the global economic meltdown.

Even after 5 years in power

And Labour were still blaming Thatcher for underinvesting in the NHS after a decade in power (hell, if we are honest we all know that Labour have spent the past five elections saying that if they won, the Tories were going to privatise the NHS, yet Labour were the people who actually did it!)

Thats the game - deal with it!

Do you think that the Tories had fought every election since trying to persuade the public that in fact NHS budgets under Thatcher only ever rose, and there were more GP's under Thatcher than ever before (both true) they would ever have won again?

Are they or is that in your head?

You're still trying to fight the 2010 election - The argument has been won and the public perception (right or wrong) is settled,

Also the running the economy or trust as they call it - even though they missed every single target and ended up doing what labour proposed - and they would have matched their spending and they would not have regulated more pre crash - is very important

Its one of those they sell the spin more and they do it well but few people actually believe that Labour caused the sub prime market in the US to collapse thereby triggering a worldwide global economic slump yet somehow the tories and their press have convinced the public this is true and labour need to embrace this.

One can argue they should have prepared better or done more but not that they caused it.

But how long are you going to spend trying to argue about the past (and by that very nature, keep everyone talking about 'did we or didn't we screw it up')?

Balls and most of the people who were running Labour policy at the time of the crash have gone, they certainly will have by 2020. Move on and start making your arguments about winning the next election

which involve convincing the electorate you can be trusted with the economy hence the need to dispel the lie/myth/spin

That was impossible while Balls was still there. Now he has gone, you blame it all on Balls and move on, just like you have with Tony.

You want to convince them that you can be trusted, then you disown the past, focus on your plans for the future and gain broad support for them, or you tie yourself to existing spending limits, just like Brown did in 1997.

@northwind 😀 iOS auto correction almost the definition of middle class problem.

Indeed @ninfan, the Tories don't even have to criticise Blair the Labour party do that for him. The Labour Party is not only dwelling on the medium past under Blair they are trying to return to the more distant past of the 1970s which I remember as a teenager being one of power cuts, strikes and having to go cap in hand to the IMF. I thought the panel comment on Newsnight was very perceptive. Aside from 10+ years of Labour government Blairs legacy was to have shown conclusively that the middle ground is what wins elections and that this was the basis for Cameron's "leftist" speech, Cameron wouldn't have made it without Blair's election victories. As an aside the quote was again repeated on Newsnight from the Tories election adviser that they had won the election but not the argument and people had voted against the SNP as much as for the Tories. That's clearly something the Tories have to work on.

The Labour focus groups post the defeat in key swing consituencies made it very clear that the three key issues in their defeat where quality of leader, lack of credibility on the economy and weak on immigration. The Tories are making their case very strongly on these issues and Labour are lurching very much in the wrong direction. IMO of course.

which involve convincing the electorate you can be trusted with the economy hence the need to dispel the lie/myth/spin

Just imagine how you must feel, if you were a swing voter who went from the Tories or Lib Dems to vote for Blair in the landslide of '97?

(And, for the record, even I voted for Blair in 97 - thats centre ground politics for you!)

By the time of the next election, Labour will have spent nearly ten years telling you that you are a c**t

Who is that going to motivate you to vote for?

lie/myth/spin to you and facts to others

Forgive me for misunderestimating your stupidity

Its a lie/untrue/incorrect to blame to Labour and everyone knows it.

By the time of the next election, Labour will have spent nearly ten years telling you that you are a c**t

Has this actually happened?

Junky - Straw man! you need to reread what was said by Turnbull and Blair here:

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/question-for-those-who-voted-conservative/page/2

Its a lie/untrue/incorrect to blame to Labour and everyone knows it.

And if they didn't what, ffs, were they doing managing an economy?

[quote=ninfan opined]Junky - Straw man! you need to reread what was said by Turnbull and Blair here:
> http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/question-for-those-who-voted-conservative/page/2
br />

yours is an appeal to authority and mine is not a straw man as clearly some people do blame labour for the crisis.

Yeah, but Labour's not after the 'current' crop of swinging voters. They're after current SNP/Green voters and people who don't traditionally vote.

If that's the case then they'll lose the next election simply because the numbers don't work. I think Labour need to go and spend some cash and get some better data analysts. In the same way that data has changed the face of sport it is also changing elections (i've no idea if Corbyn understands this), the team with the best real time analysis will win elections. You may hate Osborne but right now he has really grasped that, even if sometimes he is too clever for his own good.

Equally studies have shown people always say they hate negative campaigning but the reality it is, it has the biggest effect on the way people vote. Again the Tories understand this, which is why they are attacking Corbyn directly on defence as they know it will work.

when polled on policies without party names attached to them, most people go left.

What do the polls indicate when actions are discussed rather than words or box ticking?
Most people would 'say' they would stop to help someone out but when the opportunity arises most people walk right on by ('too busy to help my friend, I need to argue on the internet about caring for people!')

I would hope that most people would lean towards left libertarianism when questioned yet I fully expect most people to be self centred right wing authoritarianists in their actions. A quick scan of peoples posting styles and political leanings provides good evadunce of this contradictory trait. Humans are an odd box of frogs ya know.

Perhaps the thread title could be changed to [i]the 'ever so slightly more nasty than the others' party conference[/i]'

If that's the case then they'll lose the next election simply because the numbers don't work.

Yeah, "More or Less" covered it on R4.

Equally studies have shown people always say they hate negative campaigning but the reality it is, it has the biggest effect on the way people vote.

Didn't work out well for the other three in the Labour leadership election.......

Just imagine how you must feel, if you were a swing voter who went from the Tories or Lib Dems to vote for Blair in the landslide of '97?

(And, for the record, even I voted for Blair in 97 - thats centre ground politics for you!)

By the time of the next election, Labour will have spent nearly ten years telling you that you are a c**t

Who is that going to motivate you to vote for?

ninfan - Member

That was impossible while Balls was still there. Now he has gone, you blame it all on Balls and move on, just like you have with Tony.

You want to convince them that you can be trusted, then you disown the past, focus on your plans for the future and gain broad support for them, or you tie yourself to existing spending limits, just like Brown did in 1997.

TBH this is absolutely correct. It's crap, but Miliband and Balls decided not to fight that fight and this is where it's left the party, all they can do is deal with that. It'd be better if they could put the record straight, but that ship's probably sailed.

dragon - Member

Equally studies have shown people always say they hate negative campaigning but the reality it is, it has the biggest effect on the way people vote.

Well, nearly. Negative campaigning is very effective with voters. What it's terrible at, is motivating people to vote. But a third of voters chose this government, and a third of the public didn't vote at all, so that's potentially an important distinction.

Meanwhile- Cameron's "all out assault on poverty" is to drive an extra 200000 working households into poverty by 2020 directly via welfare cuts, according to the Resolution Foundation. In total they predict that an extra 700000 households will be in poverty by the end of this parliament- breaking the 4000000 barrier, with fully half being working households. But the solution is work, apparently.

Remember that time when we declared war on drugs, and as a result, there's no drugs anywhere. So then we moved on to terrorism, and resoundingly defeated terrorism. What will we do once we're finished with poverty?

footflaps - Member
It's the 21st century and we have a "Privy Council".
I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.

Agreed, it's a completely ridiculous institution in a "modern democracy".

Unless of course, the majority of the people ISPs said democracy remain in favour of the monarchy"""

labour fighting the 2010 election?? More likely fighting a phoney civil war based on false assumptions of why they lost the last election.

CMD and GO are far less concerning than the BS spouted by May on immigration. Not that I have listen to the actual speeches mind.

[url= http://lauramcinerney.com/2015/10/06/what-i-learned-wandering-around-the-conservative-conference-protests-as-a-journalist/ ]interesting read[/url]

More likely fighting a phoney civil war based on false assumptions of why they lost the last election.

What?

[s]what?[/s] pardon? C'mon mol 😉

They don't always help themselves do they

[img] [/img]

"More likely fighting a phoney civil war based on false assumptions of why they lost the last election"

What?

THM thinks it is likely that the Labour Party is fighting a fake civil war based on the incorrect reasons why they didn't win the last general election.

Although he doesn't say it I think we should assume that THM knows the real reasons why Labour lost the last election.

I have no idea why he thinks it isn't a genuine civil war, although to be fair he only talks about "likely" so he's presumably still entertaining the possibility that it might be a proper civil war.

HTH

Phoney in relation to the subject/battle ground.

I have my thoughts yes, but my comments are based more on the Labour Party/Fabian Society/independent polls' data - all pretty clear.

Rather than this inelegance lurch backwards, I would rather see a genuine opposition with forward looking policies capable of challenging the government. Society would be healthier for it. Plus as before, the whole LW v RW debate is completely out of date anyway.

HTH

Remember that time when we declared war on drugs, and as a result, there's no drugs anywhere. So then we moved on to terrorism, and resoundingly defeated terrorism. What will we do once we're finished with poverty?

That's a very good analogy!

I have my thoughts yes, but my comments are based more on the Labour Party/Fabian Society/independent polls' data - all pretty clear.

But this phoney civil war is based on false assumptions ?

Won't someone tell one side the truth. Obviously both sides can't be right in this phoney civil but I think side should be......don't you ?

@kimbers 🙂

@Northwind, we've been round in circles about responsibility for the crises but Labour where at the helm for 10 years prior, they oversaw and contributed to the conditions that lead to it (and remember Salmond encouraged RBS to pursue the merger which destroyed the bank) and they made critical errors in the aftermath including crippling Lloyds by facilitating their take over of Halifax-Bank of Scotland, paying too much for RBS and most importantly not reducing public spending after the crash. All this and Gordon Brown declared "boom and bust" was over, not smart.

Indeed hence the adjective "phoney", that is the second simple bit.

Obviously both sides can't be right

Of course not...

[img] [/img]

Plus as before, the whole LW v RW debate is completely out of date anyway.

Hmm - elements of it are not though.

Big state vs small state
Help each other vs help yourself
Public vs private

And so on.

is a fair point but when in PMQ's or any interview with a conservative and the questions get sticky the fall back position is to blame Labour for the global economic meltdown.

Even after 5 years in power

About 20 years ago I was listening to 'Today' on R4, when some Tory bigwig was trying to explain their latest F***Up, he gave the excuse that "We are still cleaning up the problems created by the last Labour government". What the one you replaced in 1979, and you have been in power for over 18 years.

To paraphrase Marcus Brigstocke, my Irony Meter went onto overload

Hmm - elements of it are not though.

Big state vs small state
Help each other vs help yourself
Public vs private

And so on.

More relevant now than ever before I'd say.

Entertaining video on the Tory conference from a Guardian journalist...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/08/hate-tories-conservatives-dominance-pointless-protest

Important role for the state v import role for the state
Punlic and private v public and private
Help each other v help each other

Yes, pretty redundant debate clearly

Its specially redundant if you ignore what was said and re write it.

About 20 years ago I was listening to 'Today' on R4, when some Tory bigwig was trying to explain their latest F***Up, he gave the excuse that "We are still cleaning up the problems created by the last Labour government". What the one you replaced in 1979, and you have been in power for over 18 years.

Not unique to Tories. Gordon Brown was still blaming Thatcher 16 yrs after she left office.

Another witty Guardian article taking the piss from all three conference parties:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/08/frankie-boyles-conference-roundup-haunted-tennis-ball-slytherin-chancellor-politics?CMP=share_btn_fb

This made me laugh...

Then came Theresa May, a woman who exudes all the compassion of stage 4 bone cancer, talking of her party’s “proud history” of helping vulnerable people. They have never helped vulnerable people and they are very proud of that.

Entertaining video on the Tory conference from a Guardian journalist..

A better article though, clearly a thread on here is not the ideal place for deep thought either.

bout 20 years ago I was listening to 'Today' on R4, when some Tory bigwig was trying to explain their latest F***Up, he gave the excuse that "We are still cleaning up the problems created by the last Labour government". What the one you replaced in 1979, and you have been in power for over 18 years.

To paraphrase Marcus Brigstocke, my Irony Meter went onto overload

But do you remember Andy Burnham at the 2009 Labour conference blaming the rise in hospital car parking fees on "years of shameful Tory underinvestment in the NHS"

Its the game - they both do it, stop pretending that one is better than the other for it.

irc - Member

Not unique to Tories. Gordon Brown was still blaming Thatcher 16 yrs after she left office.

You mean stuff like this ?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562097/Gordon-Brown-admires-Margaret-Thatcher.html ]Gordon Brown 'admires' Margaret Thatcher[/url]

[img] [/img]

[img] ?4[/img]

Your photo collection gets more impressive by the day Ernie? How many do you have now - is it 000s or 0000s?

You are so predictable THM.

Just admiration Ernie, it's a work of devotion clearly. No one else on STW comes close. I still reckon only 000s though.

Ah, the great lady 😀

C'mon lefties - have you figured out a response to this yet?

The problem with you oh-so-clever digs and retorts THM is they do make you seem rather dim. I genuinely cringe in embarrassment on your behalf.

😀 😀

[quote=footflaps > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/08/hate-tories-conservatives-dominance-pointless-protest
br />

Some here (and indeed in the Labour movement) might do well to reflect on this paragraph:

On Sunday, I spent time among the anti-Tory marchers and asked them if they understood why people voted for the enemy. Granted, a demonstration is not the ideal place for deep thought, but the replies were still depressing. Conservative supporters were “uneducated”, “selfish”, and “brainwashed”. It is strange, perhaps, to meet socialists with such a dim view of their fellow human beings, but there we are.

(and indeed on much else in that article)

As the Iron Lady once say ... No No No ... to bastid ZM EU bureaucrats!

More Nos to the bastid EU ZM bureaucrats!

The nasty party conference...

What? The SNP conference is next week you know...

What? The SNP conference is next week you know...

That's exactly what I first thought when I read the title

[img] [/img]

Some here (and indeed in the Labour movement) might do well to reflect on this paragraph....

Having watched the video, I'm sure the more aggressive protesters are counter-productive, if I was inside the ring of steel, I'd just think 'f*** those yobs, we'll show them' and feel much more emboldened to push through with certain policies....

Having watched the video, I'm sure the more aggressive protesters are counter-productive, if I was inside the ring of steel, I'd just think 'f*** those yobs, we'll show them' and feel much more emboldened to push through with certain policies....

I agree with this. As much as I loath the Tories I don't like to see people spat at. It does nothing to advance the protest, just makes them look bad.

[img] ?oh=95ac20cf843fef2b3685d0a9e079dd39&oe=56D1CF26[/img]

Political fortunes change quickly, I think Theresa signed her own death warrant with that speech, however George's magpie policies were a clear staking of his claim for 2020.

Boris is still very much in the running, still polls well and has made a couple of interesting snide remarks over Coke and hookers recently, and a long history of some fairly big philosophical differences with the right of the party, so is definitely in the running if they continue down the ONT path.

I'd just think 'f*** those yobs, we'll show them' and feel much more emboldened to push through with certain policies....

Maybe, but what a state we're in if govt. policy is decided on the basis of petty personal reactions!

Boris is still very much in the running, still polls well and has made a couple of interesting snide remarks over Coke and hookers recently

I think hes got a damn good chance

I could see the telegraph digging up the dirt on Osborne at just the wrong time, and the Hate Mail too, already turning on Cameron (and Osborne) for their pro EU/migrant stance

Borris would do well to not say too much about the EU as its a poisoned chalice for any wannabe party leader, especially a Torry one

I'm pretty sure that it's not the politicians being swayed by the yobs or the general disdain for Tory supporters but rather those who voted Tory or are more right-leaning (often because of the media scaremongering but that's a different topic...) but are potential labour voters who understandably don't like being called scum/nasty/etc.

To me it just switches them off and means that the better arguments aren't heard.

Of course, there's negative behaviour on both sides but it seems to me that the lefties tend to be called naive/stupid/soft/etc which are less harsh than the right wingers being called scum, selfish, etc.

I could see the telegraph digging up the dirt on Osborne at just the wrong time

You do get the feeling that there will be a pig ceremony or black bag and ropes buried in his past....

Boris is still very much in the running, still polls well and has made a couple of interesting snide remarks over Coke and hookers recently

I hope they do elect Boris. He'd be electoral kryptonite to everyone outside the Tory heartlands. The bumbling good egg shtick may play well to a receptive audience of Londoners, it looks very different from outside

Political fortunes change quickly, I think Theresa signed her own death warrant with that speech

I can't see that is necessarily true. May, or Theresa as you fondly like to call her, at this stage of the game needs to appeal to the party faithful - although only MPs will select the next leader. Did her speech really go down badly with her party?

I don't follow Tory Party conferences with any great enthusiasm but I would have thought that she told them exactly the sort of things they wanted to hear.

I can't imagine that despite the polite applause Tory delegates at the conference really wanted to hear Cameron waffling on about poor black people.