We'll keep the Palestinian flag flying high

[RingoMcCartney]

They won over 11.3 million votes in last year's general election. That's one big Islington dinner party...

It's a large number of idealistic millenials, thatll become more conservative and less naive as they mature John

[Quickenthetempo]

They won over 11.3 million votes in last year's general election. That's one big Islington dinner party...

That's more to do with people hating the Tories rather than Labour doing well.

You get voted out rather than in.

[Spike]

the Palestine thing is just being used to detract from Labour's failings.

Corbyn couldn't control a tea party never mind one as random as Labour.

[Colburn_Claret]

They won over 11.3 million votes in last year's general election. That's one big Islington dinner party...

Just as Tories will vote for a pig with a blue rosette, there are a lot of people who vote Labour as a tradition, and are blind to how far left they've swung. I know, because it is hard to vote against the grain of what you were brought up to believe in. It's only a matter of time before the masses wise up, then they will be well and truly stuffed.

[Guich]

Just as Tories will vote for a pig with a blue rosette, there are a lot of people who vote Labour as a tradition, and are blind to how far left they've swung. I know, because it is hard to vote against the grain of what you were brought up to believe in. It's only a matter of time before the masses wise up, then they will be well and truly stuffed.

And an awful lot of voters backed their local candidate in spite of Corbyn, apparently safe in the knowledge he'd get no-where near Number 10.

A lot won't take that risk again while JC, McDonnell et al have started saying they are ready for government. Remember the Labour membership is about half a million, less than 5 per cent of the vote.

Problem is, it's allowing the Tories to shift right and still get elected. I hear Theresa May has announced today she is ready to make the UK an economic powerhouse, by keeping business tax low thereby attracting a flow of investment.

That's fine, but the Tories still have a few in their ranks who don't care much for the North and little empathy for the disadvantaged.

Only thing is the Labour party has a lot more nasty characters now.

It's shameful and I still can't believe they let it happen.

[dsr]

... The policy of re-balancing worker / employer relations is very good for the working man, and for businesses themselves (which will be focused not on short term gain but long term) ...

You have a very out of date idea of the working man. a lot of "working men" have private pensions; some of them own shares directly. The Labour policy of basically a 1 for 10 bonus share for the workforce will benefit those employees who work for a company on the UK stock market; but that benefit comes at the expense of everyone else's pension.

Why should a worker at Gregg's bakery get a windfall, paid for by a worker at Oddie's? Why should a worker for Easyjet benefit at the expense of a worker at Ryanair?

And why should a company list on the London Stock Exchange when it can just as easily list in Frankfurt?

[Dy1geo]

You have a very out of date idea of the working man. a lot of "working men" have private pensions; some of them own shares directly. The Labour policy of basically a 1 for 10 bonus share for the workforce will benefit those employees who work for a company on the UK stock market; but that benefit comes at the expense of everyone else's pension.

Why should a worker at Gregg's bakery get a windfall, paid for by a worker at Oddie's? Why should a worker for Easyjet benefit at the expense of a worker at Ryanair?

And why should a company list on the London Stock Exchange when it can just as easily list in Frankfurt?

That is Labour’s economic policy in a nutshell, good headlines but when scrutinised has more holes than a cheese grater. It’s like when they said they will pay for things by raising corporation tax back up to 26% as it will raise £x’s are they meaning levying tax increases on the many small businesses who are incorporated who could easily just revert back to sole trader, partnerships etc

Brown and Blair both knew that to get elected they had to be seen to have a credible economic policy and until the current leaders accept this fact they will be out of power

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

I think we need to examine the role of the Liberal Democrats in today's politics and there absolute abject failure in the centre ground. Whilst the Tories are veering off to the right, Labour heading off left, one would have thought the Lib dems would be gaining ground, they are the only party with a clear European policy. Yet they are so far behind in the polls. Maybe in the past party's moved to the centre because of the Lib Dems and now they are irrelevant they don't feel the need to fight for the centre ground of British politics anymore.

I wouldn't vote personally for a new centre political party, but maybe there's a need for one. The Lib Dems are history, hopefully they will make one final pledge to the British electorate and this time keep their promise to disappear permanently.

[AndrewJB]

You have a very out of date idea of the working man. a lot of "working men" have private pensions; some of them own shares directly. The Labour policy of basically a 1 for 10 bonus share for the workforce will benefit those employees who work for a company on the UK stock market; but that benefit comes at the expense of everyone else's pension.

Why should a worker at Gregg's bakery get a windfall, paid for by a worker at Oddie's? Why should a worker for Easyjet benefit at the expense of a worker at Ryanair?

And why should a company list on the London Stock Exchange when it can just as easily list in Frankfurt?

Under the current system, someone who works at Gregg's and whose pension owns shares in Oddie's already sees a windfall when the Oddie's shares rise, regardless of how hard they worked at Gregg's.

The scheme Labour are proposing involves companies with more than two hundred and fifty employees. The shares set aside (from what I heard it's whether the company is pubicly owned or not) benefit the employees, and belong to them collectively. Employees will also get representation on boards. So, someone working at Gregg's will be rewarded by good company performance, as will someone working at Oddie's. Their pensions might do slightly less well.

In the bigger picture this will curb wage growth at the very top end. How much more do company bosses earn compared to shop floor employees? And with employees on the board, companies will have to take a more holistic approach toward the company interest. It's moving away from the 'hire and fire' culture and toward the one more successful industrial economies like Germany have.

As for being in touch with the 'working person':

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/inv ... dream.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

Under the current system, someone who works at Gregg's and whose pension owns shares in Oddie's already sees a windfall when the Oddie's shares rise, regardless of how hard they worked at Gregg's.

The scheme Labour are proposing involves companies with more than two hundred and fifty employees. The shares set aside (from what I heard it's whether the company is pubicly owned or not) benefit the employees, and belong to them collectively. Employees will also get representation on boards. So, someone working at Gregg's will be rewarded by good company performance, as will someone working at Oddie's. Their pensions might do slightly less well.

In the bigger picture this will curb wage growth at the very top end. How much more do company bosses earn compared to shop floor employees? And with employees on the board, companies will have to take a more holistic approach toward the company interest. It's moving away from the 'hire and fire' culture and toward the one more successful industrial economies like Germany have.

As for being in touch with the 'working person':

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/inv ... dream.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oddie's is a small privately owned company and its shares aren't in anyone's pension scheme. That's the point. The people who work in big companies get a windfall of 10% of the value of the company; that windfall comes by reducing the value of the existing shares by 10%.

So my question was, why should employees at large companies get paid a bonus taken in part from the assets of employees at small companies?

The other obvious question is that many multinationals or foreign-quoted companies trade in this country, and this scheme can't apply to them; and that UK companies will be able to move their registered office abroad to avoid being forced into it. And they may take their jobs with them.

I agree that company directors of plcs get paid ridiculously too much. It's all right genuine risk takers who are successful getting paid vast sums on a risk-and-reward basis, while growing the company and creating employment. But the standard ticking-over plc directors shouldn't be earning the millions they do. But putting a 10% workers' collective on board won't help.

[Inchy]

I’m still going to vote labour because if they get in it’s going to be mental. Keeps life entertaining

[nil_desperandum]

I’m still going to vote labour because if they get in it’s going to be mental. Keeps life entertaining

Possibly not as mental as if Boris got in, but it's hard to call!
If you want entertainment Boris is your man.

[Colburn_Claret]

Under the current system, someone who works at Gregg's and whose pension owns shares in Oddie's already sees a windfall when the Oddie's shares rise, regardless of how hard they worked at Gregg's.

The scheme Labour are proposing involves companies with more than two hundred and fifty employees. The shares set aside (from what I heard it's whether the company is pubicly owned or not) benefit the employees, and belong to them collectively. Employees will also get representation on boards. So, someone working at Gregg's will be rewarded by good company performance, as will someone working at Oddie's. Their pensions might do slightly less well.

In the bigger picture this will curb wage growth at the very top end. How much more do company bosses earn compared to shop floor employees? And with employees on the board, companies will have to take a more holistic approach toward the company interest. It's moving away from the 'hire and fire' culture and toward the one more successful industrial economies like Germany have.

As for being in touch with the 'working person':

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/inv ... dream.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's little difference between handing out shares to employees, than there was to selling council houses.
Both are giving away something that isn't theirs.
I think it's a good idea to allow your workforce to become shareholders, but it has to be voluntary. Why should someone who has worked, sweated and scrimped to create a company, be then told he has to let the employees dictate the future.
The whole problem with old Labour, and the present shower, is they see it as so simple to screw the rich in order to provide for the less well off. That only makes the rich poorer, it never makes the poor richer. Without entrepreneurs, and the benefits of enjoying what you've worked for, the country will stop producing and evolving. How does that benefit anybody.
New Labour had it spot on. It has to be a partnership, with both employee and employer buying into a fair system.

[Damo]

Possibly not as mental as if Boris got in, but it's hard to call!
If you want entertainment Boris is your man.

Boris can't hold a torch to the momentum Moon bats when it comes to being mental

[Lancasterclaret]

Whoever wins the next election will make moom bats seem sane if we are being perfectly honest.

[If it be your will]

.

[Somethingfishy]

The Labour Party has become a joke, and it's a tragedy. Who, other than a student, a union leader or a North London wealthy leftie, could ever take Corbyn seriously?

Young people should be idealistic, but all this rubbish about the old Daily Mail readers popping off and us being left with a socialist utopia is about as dim as you can get.

Some people will always be Tory, some will always be Labour, but a huge number move gently to the right as they get older. It's when the lovely vail of naivity slips and you realise that politicians are all pretty similar apart from the extreme nutters. I, and a lot of my pals, were hard left at University, New Labour in the 90s, Liberal Dem after the Iraq War and now...

It's probably spoil the ballot paper time

That is precisely my journey. I think it is the journey of many. The young to claim it is the oldies that are wrecking their future but hasn't that always been the case? Growing up under years of Thatcher..seeing her re-elected and thinking when will things get better. Voting for new Labour and finally seeing an opposition worth of the name and toppling the Tories. Then seeing it all turn sour..turning to the Lib-dems in protest more than anything as i will never vote Tory. Now even they have gone **** up and are full on anti-Brexit. Thus i am left with nobody to vote for. I probably have good reason to vote Tory but my conscience will not let me. I would be betraying my roots and my younger self would be disgusted with me.

I would think quite a few are in the same position and it has happened like that over quite a period of time. Young and rebellious..thinking you are being ignored and have little..to starting work...earning a few bob and once settled the political attitude changes. So all those saying there is a huge swell in youth ranks of Labour..i would counter and say the voting tendencies of each age range is no different to what it has always been.

[Imploding Turtle]

Ah so they're not banned, you're just banned from waving them!

They're more "prohibited" than banned aren't they? Do you know, I don't think anyone had spotted this distinction before you pointed it out. Thanks for explaining it.

And as you say, it was almost certainly the work of a Brextremist.

Occam's razor. What's more likely? That Labour actually banned the EU flag, or that a steward was an idiot?

I understand that the former helps your narrative, but that's not a logical way to approach a question.

[If it be your will]

.

[Wile E Coyote]

labour ****, labour halfwits, choreographed bullshit, and a huge dose of self destruction.pathetic political party.

[tiger76]

Labour are caught out employing stewards on zero hours contracts at the conference.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7348604/c ... contracts/

This is not new either https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ocs-group

Now none of this is illegal,but if Labour wanted to claim the moral high ground,this is an epic fail.

[AndrewJB]

Interesting, this 'centre ground'. On this (probably completely unrepresentative) messageboard, there appears to be a substantial demand for 'a centre ground party', yet, as you say, the established 'centrist' party is performing abjectly.

Other than wanting to remain in the EU, can anyone immediately think of a single policy the Lib Dems actually have? Herein lies the problem: any centre ground party would need a raft of proposals. They can't win an election with a manifesto that lamely says "Let's trundle along just as we are! TOGETHER!" So the question is, what could these concrete proposals be? And what inspiring vision could a centrist party offer us? (I'd be interested if anyone on this messageboard calling for a centre ground party could help me here.)

I think too many people want something - anything - to change for a centre ground party to get a foothold.

edit - I've now taken the time to read the Lib Dem manifesto https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/t ... 1495011810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and it's utter dirge. They might as well have said Let's trundle along, TOGETHER!

Not sure if it's in their manifesto, but Cable made a speech recently on tax policy that was interesting. It was about making tax more equal however you earn the income, so that income earned through dividends, or capital gains, or through hard work were all taxed at the same rates. It doesn't change the world, but it's a start.

[TheFamilyCat]

Labour are caught out employing stewards on zero hours contracts at the conference.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7348604/c ... contracts/

This is not new either https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ocs-group

Now none of this is illegal,but if Labour wanted to claim the moral high ground,this is an epic fail.

Ever so slightly misleading headline from The Sun there. Labour aren't employing these people. There's nothing to even say whethet the party or the venue are responsible for the contractors. I suspect it will be the venue or another third-party event organiser.

Having said that though, you'd think they might have done some checking into the contractors and their working conditions.

[Lancasterclaret]

Those on the right and those on the left will continueally attack a centre party, and as both sides veer further towards their chosen orbit, then the attacks will just increase.

I'm not going to vote for a Conservative Party who moves when JRM tells them to, because that is clearly a really bad idea, but neither am I going to vote for one that moves when Momentum tells them to either.

To be perfectly honest, the idea of the members having a say in all policies is great, but if your members are complete moon bats, then you get moon bats policies. AND you can't suddenly disagree with the members just because they are saying stuff you don't want them too (Labour on Brexit being a case in point)

Lib Dems have member led policies, and that is their problem as well. There is a huge gap between the Consevatives and Labour, and they are failing to fill it, though as Andy says, they have some good ideas but its getting them out there is the problem. But they also (like the other two) have some really poor ideas as well.

Politically homeless is my current state, and my voting intentions in a GE are completely up in the air.

And my voice (and others) won't be heard till we have electoral reform (which the two biggest parties are against for completely selfish reasons)

[claretonthecoast1882]

As bad as the tories are, it isn't hard to see why a group of people who support the likes of Corbyn McDonnell Lammy Rayner Nandy Abbott Thornberry Butler Starmer Dent-Coad Long-Bailey and many other dickheads I have probably missed off come across as full blown lunatics.

The fact that Labour can't beat the current shambles of the tories seems missed by all of them, it is no wonder we have the 2 parties we have. Part of me actually thinks Labour have no interest in being ion charge as it suits them bitching from sidelines rather than doing anything themselves.

[Chobulous]

Labour have no interest in being ion charge as it suits them bitching from sidelines rather than doing anything themselves.

And that in a nutshell sums up Corbyn's whole political career.

[martin_p]

Local , Wavertree MP, Luciana Berger had to have a police escort into the party conference......

They used to be the British working class party.

They've become the Islington dinner party.

And with swathes of the North and Midlands seeing them clearly attempting to dismantle democracy, by backing a 2nd referendum. They're making the chances of Comrade Jezza picking up the keys for number 10, non existent.

Ha! Ringo thinks that wanting to have a vote on something is somehow dismantling democracy! You couldn’t make it up!

[Colburn_Claret]

Ha! Ringo thinks that wanting to have a vote on something is somehow dismantling democracy! You couldn’t make it up!

We already had the vote, democracy says you go with the result not vote again, and again, until you get the result that suits you.
That's democracy Brussels style

[AndrewJB]

Those on the right and those on the left will continueally attack a centre party, and as both sides veer further towards their chosen orbit, then the attacks will just increase.

I'm not going to vote for a Conservative Party who moves when JRM tells them to, because that is clearly a really bad idea, but neither am I going to vote for one that moves when Momentum tells them to either.

To be perfectly honest, the idea of the members having a say in all policies is great, but if your members are complete moon bats, then you get moon bats policies. AND you can't suddenly disagree with the members just because they are saying stuff you don't want them too (Labour on Brexit being a case in point)

Lib Dems have member led policies, and that is their problem as well. There is a huge gap between the Consevatives and Labour, and they are failing to fill it, though as Andy says, they have some good ideas but its getting them out there is the problem. But they also (like the other two) have some really poor ideas as well.

Politically homeless is my current state, and my voting intentions in a GE are completely up in the air.

And my voice (and others) won't be heard till we have electoral reform (which the two biggest parties are against for completely selfish reasons)

I would prefer PR.

The LIbDems got a lot of support (including my vote) in 2010, when they ran on a platform that was more progressive than Labour. Going into government with the Tories and enabling austerity did a lot of damage to their reputation.

[RingoMcCartney]

We already had the vote, democracy says you go with the result not vote again, and again, until you get the result that suits you.
That's democracy Brussels style

Cheers for that Colburn claret.

Saves me the myther of explaining how democracy works!

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[LeadBelly]

I'm with a few posters recently adding to this thread.
I was a Labour voter from the first time I voted (1970) right up to the middle of Blair's reign when the penny dropped that he was a complete charlatan. I then voted LibDem up to 2010, after which I felt utterly betrayed by Clegg & his love-in with Dave/ complete betrayal of stated principles.

Oddly I then joined the Labour Party, for the first time, when the (original) party leadership election was held & voted for JC because I thought he was honest & had some good ideas. I'm totally disillusioned with that now because of the people JC has surrounded himself with /cultivated alliances with.

Against my history, I've voted Tory in the last 2 elections & would probably do again as a Brexit supporter.

Of the main parties, LibDem is now the one I am least likely to vote for. I'd vote Labour again if JC/J McD/Abbot/Thornberry/ Momentum disappeared but that's not going to happen any time soon.

[ecc]

Irrespective of one's opinions about Israel and the Palestinians Labour should be focusing on the UK and Brexit.

[Spijed]

I'd vote Labour again if JC/J McD/Abbot/Thornberry/ Momentum disappeared but that's not going to happen any time soon.

But surely the alliances that were formed during the 80's were just as questionable. For example, was Arthur Scargill anymore reputable than many of the characters that JC aligns himself with today?

[charlyt]

Labour, as usual, have far too many irons in the fire.
Overnight, they want to start a seed change in the way we work are governed and taxed.
The net result, with their muddled headed leadership and policies, will lead to chaos, not unlike that we suffered after their last jaunt in office.

[Chobulous]

But surely the alliances that were formed during the 80's were just as questionable. For example, was Arthur Scargill anymore reputable than many of the characters that JC aligns himself with today?

Why do you keep harking back to the 80's, what point are you trying to make? They were totally unelectable in the 80's and it took a complete change in thinking as I posted earlier before they became electable. So what is your point about the 80's?
Are you trying to say they are no worse now than they were then?
Are you trying to say if it was OK then it is OK now?
What comparison are you trying to make?

[South West Claret.]

Reading some of the posts on here it can be difficult to know what some people actually want from a Government.

[Spijed]

Why do you keep harking back to the 80's, what point are you trying to make? They were totally unelectable in the 80's and it took a complete change in thinking as I posted earlier before they became electable. So what is your point about the 80's?
Are you trying to say they are no worse now than they were then?
Are you trying to say if it was OK then it is OK now?
What comparison are you trying to make?

The point I'm trying to make is that there are some on here who voted for Labour in the 80's, yet they are saying that what's currently happening is totally unacceptable and they might vote for someone else.

If it was OK to vote for the likes of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock why isn't it OK to vote for Jeremy Corbyn?

[Guich]

The point I'm trying to make is that there are some on here who voted for Labour in the 80's, yet they are saying that what's currently happening is totally unacceptable and they might vote for someone else.

If it was OK to vote for the likes of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock why isn't it OK to vote for Jeremy Corbyn?

Because we were 18 to 20 when we voted for Neil Kinnock and hadn't started working yet

[RingoMcCartney]

By the age of 20, if you're not a socialist. You have no heart.



By the age of 40, if you're not conservative. You have no brain.

[Colburn_Claret]

But surely the alliances that were formed during the 80's were just as questionable. For example, was Arthur Scargill anymore reputable than many of the characters that JC aligns himself with today?

I think it's unfair to label Arthur under that cloud. He fought tooth and nail for the miners, in the end only to undo them taking Thatcher on at her own game. Everything he forecast was ultimately right.
That's why it's so stupid to call for a general strike to force an election. What's to stop the Tories going on strike to force another........ The people who spout this crap are 60 years out of date. We are back in an era where the Unions through momentum are wagging the dog. The best thing Labour did was introduce OMOV, that's why they got elected, because the party started standing up for the people, instead of the Unions.
The pressure being put on to deselect moderate Socialists is suicidal for the party. In the eyes of momentum I'd be classed as a right winger, and I'm anything but. The people they think they represent, the working classes, aren't idiots, they will soon smell a rat.
I think others are probably right, they don't want to be elected, they'd rather have the power in the opposition, just so they can spout shite, but never have to do anything to prove it.

[Lancasterclaret]

Going into government with the Tories and enabling austerity did a lot of damage to their reputation.

it did, but what is the point in a political party if you can't get into government?

Labour were not an option at the time and there really was no choice for the Lib Dems.

And they had to compromise with the Tories to get some good stuff through. It happens. If we were a mature democracy, we'd understand that.

ITBYW - you can say that as often as you like, and I'm going to disagree with you. The right wingers in the Tory party have too much influence in the Conservatives, and Momentum have too much influence in the Labour Party. the lack of a counter balance in the parties to both is the problem.

[Pstotto]

The Palestinians used their children for war propaganda and it's now caught on worldwide rather than being condemned. They put their children on the front-line of the street battles and then said 'Look, you killed our children.' So many times on the news, that. To smooth the American-Korean trade agreement they get a seven-years old Korean girl to sing the star-spangled banner before the L.A. Galaxy match and it's headline news around the world. Absolutely awful screeching. If there were Viking long-ships now, they'd have a picture of a little cutesy girl's head on their sail instead of a griffin, and the Saxons would feel morally obliged to let them invade.

[bfcjg]

If the deliberately unwaged layabouts were banned from voting labour would be knackered. They know they are guaranteed their vote by promising them everything ie scrapping universal benefits etc.
They are a self interest party as opposed to the force for good that labour used to be. Can you imagine some of the great labour stalwarts getting almost orgasmic about Palestine ?

[Lancasterclaret]

Well, yes to be perfectly honest.

its a big bug bear for them.

The fact that it isn't for 99% of the population does appear to have passed them by though.

[Pstotto]

Meanwhile, 'Stoke is not productive enough.' (Corbyn)

[Chobulous]

The point I'm trying to make is that there are some on here who voted for Labour in the 80's, yet they are saying that what's currently happening is totally unacceptable and they might vote for someone else.

If it was OK to vote for the likes of Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock why isn't it OK to vote for Jeremy Corbyn?

Guich is correct in a way. We were all younger and more idealistic, plus the alternative then was Thatcher who was a totally different proposition to TM et al. Thatcher was a total class warrior, hell bent on destroying the Labour movement. If anyone of her ilk was in power today I would do everything I could to fight against it. In addition I don't remember Kinnock or Foot being associated with known terrorists, or being photographed at the graveside of murderers. I can't recall Kinnock or Foot inviting the leaders of terrorist organisations to visit parliament. I don't believe either Kinnock or Foot had a long history of voting against the Labour whip, but I do admit that they were associated with the then leader of the NUM, an elected official of one of the country's major trade unions, so obviously they must have been dodgy characters.

[walter the softy]

As bad as the tories are, it isn't hard to see why a group of people who support the likes of Corbyn McDonnell Lammy Rayner Nandy Abbott Thornberry Butler Starmer Dent-Coad Long-Bailey and many other dickheads I have probably missed off come across as full blown lunatics.

The fact that Labour can't beat the current shambles of the tories seems missed by all of them, it is no wonder we have the 2 parties we have. Part of me actually thinks Labour have no interest in being ion charge as it suits them bitching from sidelines rather than doing anything themselves.

I do not really get why people throw David Lammy in there as one of the "dickheads" and it is not the first time I have read similar on here. In my opinion, he is a forthright, honest and decent bloke and talks a lot of common sense about a lot of issues that affect normal people. I think he is the complete opposite of the "Islington dinner party set" or whatever the perception of the Labour leadership is.

[Lancasterclaret]

Aye, I listened to him being interviewed for a podcast and he's a million miles away from that. Came across really well.