Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Queen hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

There are probably more eloquent politicians out there, but I reckon she's picked all the right words this time.

Still, I expect more whining about "Keith" and Jeremy is probably more important. 

Edited by ml1dch
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dispatches from Labour Party Conference - Day 2

Decent breakfast, but streaky bacon, not back bacon. 

Met up with the other delegates and the team from HQ. Decent meeting, where we discussed what was going to happen over Conference, which rules changes we'd support or not, and made the decision that we'd vote against David Evans. 

Watched the first half of the match on my phone, then wandered down to the Conference centre. Walked past all the cranks, and the various different factional groups trying to give you a leaflet. Bloke stops me, "Do you want a leaflet?". I go, "Urg Labour To Win? God no." 

Get in the Conference easy enough. Had a little wander round the stalls. Got some free swag. Into the hall.

Margaret Beckett is chairing, and gives a speech. I immediately switch off. 

Someone from Sefton CLP gets up and make the point that it's a disgrace that people from the S*n are there (I won't call them journalists). Standing ovation. 

Angela Raynor gets up, and for some reason she has entrance music. She Bangs The Drum - Stone Roses. Fair enough. Speech is good. Saying lots of good things about employment, and taking it to the Tories. Decent.

Filler stuff happens, then David Evans gets up and gives his speech. Didn't go down particularly well I thought. Lots of laughing in not the right places. Says let's have a card vote. Feeling is they've already done the maths and he's gonna get in. To help him out the tellers are ignoring people and get collect the ballots so quick, people didn't even get chance to get their books out. Shambles. 

People getting up to raise points of order. Beckett is ignoring them, or just generally being a word removed. Standard Beckett.

Evans is announced that he won his ballet. 60/40 split. If I were him I'd be worried. He won't be though.

Rules changes debate madness. Everyone just wants to get on with it, but they're taking their time. Bloke gets up and makes a speech about Keef. Tells everyone he's a Marxist member of the Labour Party, and shows his t-shirt which ways something about Keef being a Tory. I get the feeling he's probably now and ex Marxist member of the Labour Party. 

Eventually they take the vote on rule changes, and we get to go. Drinks reception for the delegates at the hotel. Some free bottles of quaff. Happy days. Out for Italian food in swinging Brighton, then back to the hotel, and made last orders this time. 

8am start tomorrow. FFS. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

 

There are probably more eloquent politicians out there, but I reckon she's picked all the right words this.

Still, I expect more whining about "Keith" and Jeremy is probably more important. 

Not that I don't largely share her sentiments, but calling people racist while also using the expression 'banana republic' is possibly a touch rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Not that I don't largely share her sentiments, but calling people racist while also using the expression 'banana republic' is possibly a touch rich.

Give over!  If some Tory effwit MP wrote that it was a bit rich, her saying that, I would have been slightly less surprised. It’s not only bang on, what she said, it’s also the right use of both terms in context - windrush etc for the racism, banana republic for the exploitation of workers by the high society elite (NHS wages) and, though you didn’t mention it, scum for the likes of the Grenfell inaction and injustice tories with their snouts in the trough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
8 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

Dispatches from Labour Party Conference - Day 2

Decent breakfast, but streaky bacon, not back bacon. 

Met up with the other delegates and the team from HQ. Decent meeting, where we discussed what was going to happen over Conference, which rules changes we'd support or not, and made the decision that we'd vote against David Evans. 

Watched the first half of the match on my phone, then wandered down to the Conference centre. Walked past all the cranks, and the various different factional groups trying to give you a leaflet. Bloke stops me, "Do you want a leaflet?". I go, "Urg Labour To Win? God no." 

Get in the Conference easy enough. Had a little wander round the stalls. Got some free swag. Into the hall.

Margaret Beckett is chairing, and gives a speech. I immediately switch off. 

Someone from Sefton CLP gets up and make the point that it's a disgrace that people from the S*n are there (I won't call them journalists). Standing ovation. 

Angela Raynor gets up, and for some reason she has entrance music. She Bangs The Drum - Stone Roses. Fair enough. Speech is good. Saying lots of good things about employment, and taking it to the Tories. Decent.

Filler stuff happens, then David Evans gets up and gives his speech. Didn't go down particularly well I thought. Lots of laughing in not the right places. Says let's have a card vote. Feeling is they've already done the maths and he's gonna get in. To help him out the tellers are ignoring people and get collect the ballots so quick, people didn't even get chance to get their books out. Shambles. 

People getting up to raise points of order. Beckett is ignoring them, or just generally being a word removed. Standard Beckett.

Evans is announced that he won his ballet. 60/40 split. If I were him I'd be worried. He won't be though.

Rules changes debate madness. Everyone just wants to get on with it, but they're taking their time. Bloke gets up and makes a speech about Keef. Tells everyone he's a Marxist member of the Labour Party, and shows his t-shirt which ways something about Keef being a Tory. I get the feeling he's probably now and ex Marxist member of the Labour Party. 

Eventually they take the vote on rule changes, and we get to go. Drinks reception for the delegates at the hotel. Some free bottles of quaff. Happy days. Out for Italian food in swinging Brighton, then back to the hotel, and made last orders this time. 

8am start tomorrow. FFS. 

I was watching the live stream (1 of 220 people) and I couldn't get over how much of an arsehole Beckett was being. What a thoroughly dislikeable person. Someone trying to make a point of order so she says "I was about to mention the death of Sabina Nessa. Is your point of order more important than that?". Reprehensible.

I was only watching to see Evans get voted against and the ensuing chaos but sounds like it was a bit gerrymandered. The president of the Baker's union made a point of order to say they couldn't get their cards to vote and Beckett, again, was an arse and said "perhaps you haven't been here before but those of us who aren't as new already know that we can get cards at any time before". I didn't realise she was that nasty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
2 hours ago, blandy said:

Give over!  If some Tory effwit MP wrote that it was a bit rich, her saying that, I would have been slightly less surprised. It’s not only bang on, what she said, it’s also the right use of both terms in context - windrush etc for the racism, banana republic for the exploitation of workers by the high society elite (NHS wages) and, though you didn’t mention it, scum for the likes of the Grenfell inaction and injustice tories with their snouts in the trough.

It's a term that is an insult for non - Anglo countries whose economies were ruined by the United Fruit Company, I think it's pretty tone deaf when also accusing others of racism personally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's a term that is an insult for non - Anglo countries whose economies were ruined by the United Fruit Company, I think it's pretty tone deaf when also accusing others of racism personally. 

Not for me. My personal take is that racism is discrimination against people because of their ethnicity/race “these people are not x, y or z”. The shorthand allegory or comparison to the running of an economy in a nation, or the structure of a country, or the way a country’s industry or produce or finances or etc. is (mis)managed or exploited is not racist. To me conflating the two things is going down a road that downplays actual racism by “making everything” racist, like “Honduras was a banana republic”. - “you can’t say that, it’s racist”

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not for me. My personal take is that racism is discrimination against people because of their ethnicity/race “these people are not x, y or z”. The shorthand allegory or comparison to the running of an economy in a nation, or the structure of a country, or the way a country’s industry or produce or finances or etc. is (mis)managed or exploited is not racist. To me conflating the two things is going down a road that downplays actual racism by “making everything” racist, like “Honduras was a banana republic”. - “you can’t say that, it’s racist”

Fair enough, I don't agree. I think it's the difference between saying 'it's shit' and saying 'it's so shit it reminds me of a central American country'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is an absolutely terrible idea:

 

Because…?

My initial instinct is that it could be a really good idea. It would need to incorporate more than financial value/ harm to be game changing, but a formalised consistent process of review of cost, benefit, (environmental , social and financial etc) across programmes ought to remove a lot of ministerial pet project to please X party voters/donors/ their own ego etc. while also factoring in climate, wildlife, environment and sustainability, plus the benefit any program would bring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, darrenm said:

I was watching the live stream (1 of 220 people) and I couldn't get over how much of an arsehole Beckett was being. What a thoroughly dislikeable person. Someone trying to make a point of order so she says "I was about to mention the death of Sabina Nessa. Is your point of order more important than that?". Reprehensible.

I was only watching to see Evans get voted against and the ensuing chaos but sounds like it was a bit gerrymandered. The president of the Baker's union made a point of order to say they couldn't get their cards to vote and Beckett, again, was an arse and said "perhaps you haven't been here before but those of us who aren't as new already know that we can get cards at any time before". I didn't realise she was that nasty.

Yep she was a dreadful chair. The Sabina Nessa comment was total gas lighting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have any credibility, an Office for Value for Money would have to close down all Nuclear Power station projects on day one.

If it didn’t do that, it would clearly be a sham.

We are currently building nuclear reactors on the side of an estuary with the second largest tidal reach on the planet. It’s such a criminal waste of money and security risk and a risk to vast vast numbers of lives for tens of generations to come. It’s scary it ever got beyond the thinking out loud stage.

That’s the test for me, would this new office close that project down immediately and investigate how it ever had a penny spent on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angela rayner being asked to apologise for calling tories ‘scum’ really isn’t fair.

You look at any time a tory has an opinion on anything, that opinion will make them richer and / or other people less well off.

They are scum. Just because they don’t like being called out for it isn’t someone else’s fault.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
2 hours ago, blandy said:

Because…?

My initial instinct is that it could be a really good idea. It would need to incorporate more than financial value/ harm to be game changing, but a formalised consistent process of review of cost, benefit, (environmental , social and financial etc) across programmes ought to remove a lot of ministerial pet project to please X party voters/donors/ their own ego etc. while also factoring in climate, wildlife, environment and sustainability, plus the benefit any program would bring. 

1] It is well-known that the Treasury is already the most powerful department, and blocks needed spending for reasons of instutional small-c conservatism. This would be yet another obstacle blocking reforms or budget increases.

2] Large areas of policy will be exempted - nobody is going to declare that Trident or the Iraq War won't provide 'value for money' - so in practice it will only be used to prevent infrastructure being built or welfare being increased, ie it will in practice be a weapon used against the interests of poorer people.

3] It implicitly accepts a deeply conservative framing that government expenditure is primarily 'waste'.

4] It is in general bad to take political decisions out of the hands of politicians and park them with 'apolitical' bureaucrats. We're now decades into this project, and I note that central bank independence has been great for asset owners and really not great for wage earners. Politicians should be responsible for political decisions, because we have a way of holding them accountable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Angela rayner being asked to apologise for calling tories ‘scum’ really isn’t fair.

You look at any time a tory has an opinion on anything, that opinion will make them richer and / or other people less well off.

They are scum. Just because they don’t like being called out for it isn’t someone else’s fault.

 

Why would Angela Rayner say such a thing!?

Oh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â