All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
The Labour conference have just voted abolishing private schools to be official Labour Party policy
While I rarely agree with @charles his view that state schools should be good enough for people to not need private ones. Have always believed that but whilst people with influence don’t experience the problems of the the state system little will change.
Even if private schools were abolished people with influence would send their children to a grammar school or an outstanding comprehensive, academy or free school anyway not a requires improvement or inadequate bog standard comprehensive with coaching, church attendance or moving to the right catchment area being used instead of school fees
So Labour Brexit policy will be to negotiate a deal including free movement, put this up against Remain, and think the result of this overrules the first referendum?
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
The Labour conference have just voted abolishing private schools to be official Labour Party policy
While I rarely agree with @charles his view that state schools should be good enough for people to not need private ones. Have always believed that but whilst people with influence don’t experience the problems of the the state system little will change.
Even if private schools were abolished people with influence would send their children to a grammar school or an outstanding comprehensive, academy or free school anyway not a requires improvement or inadequate bog standard comprehensive
Or do what they do in South Korea... have their kids go to state schools and then start with their private tutors at 4pm.
It hasn't tended to work like that . Parties more often than not receive a Conference bounce on account of having dominated the airwaves for a few days. We have forgotten that back in the late 60s, 70s & 80s, it was quite normal for Labour to have major conference rows - but was still usually rewarded with a post conference polling bounce.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
The Labour conference have just voted abolishing private schools to be official Labour Party policy
While I rarely agree with @charles his view that state schools should be good enough for people to not need private ones. Have always believed that but whilst people with influence don’t experience the problems of the the state system little will change.
Even if private schools were abolished people with influence would send their children to a grammar school or an outstanding comprehensive, academy or free school anyway not a requires improvement or inadequate bog standard comprehensive
Or do what they do in South Korea... have their kids go to state schools and then start with their private tutors at 4pm.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
Yes, those terrible attitudes about wanting compromise and ownership from all involved! I must be one of the enemy!
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
Except I also backed CU membership, which is completely contrary to the EEA Leavers, who wanted lots of bilateral trade deals. EEA + CU is the closest we get to Remain while respecting democracy.
It doesn't respect democracy at all. The referendum was fought and won on an anti-immigration prospectus. To fail to honour that is to fail to honour the vote.
It's just what you want.
People can make whatever arguments they want for whatever side. The question asked whether we should leave the EU. SM + CU does that. It was my preferred option right after and we could have got it if Remainers had backed it. But they didn't so the best option now seems to be May's deal with a fudge on the backstop.
Yet again, you’re coming up with a profoundly undemocratic answer that ignores the anti-immigration campaign that won the vote, to argue for your entirely illegitimate preferred outcome that is consistent with the vote in only the most technical sense. Blaming Remainers for not colluding with the EEA Leavers to pull off a switcheroo to a position that almost no one was seeking during the referendum campaign (and that would never have won in a referendum campaign) is a quite bizarre contortion.
A second referendum kills Brexit dead - one way or another.
Revoke or No Deal will ensure it's the only topic for the next 10 years.
It's a hard sell but a second referendum is the sane approach.
Nonsense. A referendum only kills Brexit dead if Leave wins. If Remain wins, the right will see it as illegitimate and have a manifesto pledge to Leave with no further votes. The Lib Dems have already guaranteed this by advocating Revoke on this basis.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
It probably wont be, but the attack line and public perception that Labour want to ban private schools will be there.
Removing charitable status could be marginally popular, banning private schools or stealing their assets is hugely unpopular. How many people, who are not already voting Labour, will be impressed? It is probably losing 10 votes for every one it brings in. Why on earth have such a policy making headlines on one of the few days when Labour have guaranteed control of the agenda?
It is simply bonkers whatever the objective, and could only happen in an echo chamber.
There will be negative headlines in the papers regarding it but TBH I get the feeling that is pretty much saturation point now anyway. What could the Mail/Sun/Times put in their newspapers to convince them not to vote Labour that hasn't worked already?
Interviewer: Have you thought of perhaps not flying to Barbados for a holiday and not using all those air miles?
Politician: I would, frankly, be reluctant to give up my holidays abroad.
Interviewer: It would send out a clear message though wouldn’t it, if we didn’t see that great big air journey off to the sunshine? . . . a holiday closer to home?
Politician: Yeah – but I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that. I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less. How – for example – in the new frames for the aircraft, they are far more energy efficient. I know everyone thinks Politicians shouldn’t go on holiday at all, but I think if what we do in this area is set people unrealistic targets, you know if we say to people we’re going to cancel all the cheap air travel . . . You know, I’m still waiting for the first politician who’s actually running for office who’s going to come out and say it ...
So Labour Brexit policy will be to negotiate a deal including free movement, put this up against Remain, and think the result of this overrules the first referendum?
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
The Labour conference have just voted abolishing private schools to be official Labour Party policy
While I rarely agree with @charles his view that state schools should be good enough for people to not need private ones. Have always believed that but whilst people with influence don’t experience the problems of the the state system little will change.
Even if private schools were abolished people with influence would send their children to a grammar school or an outstanding comprehensive, academy or free school anyway not a requires improvement or inadequate bog standard comprehensive with coaching, church attendance or moving to the right catchment area being used instead of school fees
I said nothing about abolishing private schools if state schools were good enough and people didn’t want their kids mixing with the great unwashed then fair enough
I feel like write ups on the prorogation case are still a little odd in some way
Ministers say the five-week suspension - or prorogation - is not a court matter, but critics argue the PM wants to limit scrutiny of his Brexit policy.
I mean, both parts of that statement might be true, right? The second definitely is, but it's not that he wants to do that which is the argument, it's that its unlawful for him to do it for that reason.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
It probably wont be, but the attack line and public perception that Labour want to ban private schools will be there.
Removing charitable status could be marginally popular, banning private schools or stealing their assets is hugely unpopular. How many people, who are not already voting Labour, will be impressed? It is probably losing 10 votes for every one it brings in. Why on earth have such a policy making headlines on one of the few days when Labour have guaranteed control of the agenda?
It is simply bonkers whatever the objective, and could only happen in an echo chamber.
There will be negative headlines in the papers regarding it but TBH I get the feeling that is pretty much saturation point now anyway. What could the Mail/Sun/Times put in their newspapers to convince them not to vote Labour that hasn't worked already?
That they are going to start stealing people and organisations assets against the law? Oops.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
Yes, those terrible attitudes about wanting compromise and ownership from all involved! I must be one of the enemy!
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
Except I also backed CU membership, which is completely contrary to the EEA Leavers, who wanted lots of bilateral trade deals. EEA + CU is the closest we get to Remain while respecting democracy.
It doesn't respect democracy at all. The referendum was fought and won on an anti-immigration prospectus. To fail to honour that is to fail to honour the vote.
It's just what you want.
People can make whatever arguments they want for whatever side. The question asked whether we should leave the EU. SM + CU does that. It was my preferred option right after and we could have got it if Remainers had backed it. But they didn't so the best option now seems to be May's deal with a fudge on the backstop.
Yet again, you’re coming up with a profoundly undemocratic answer that ignores the anti-immigration campaign that won the vote, to argue for your entirely illegitimate preferred outcome that is consistent with the vote in only the most technical sense. Blaming Remainers for not colluding with the EEA Leavers to pull off a switcheroo to a position that almost no one was seeking during the referendum campaign (and that would never have won in a referendum campaign) is a quite bizarre contortion.
But you like it, so stuff democratic principle.
The VoteLeave operation doesn't speak for all 17 million Leavers. The question was Leave vs Remain. The form of Leave is determined by General Elections. EEA/CU or No Deal or something in between fulfils it. I was advocating for my second preference after my first preference has been ruled out by a vote. That is democracy.
Anyway, my criticism is for those trying to back Remain as an option after the vote. Remainers accepting Leave and wanting a harder Brexit than me have a legitimate position.
Cry me a river Watson, cry me a fucking river. Your plans failed and the membership doesn't back you, get over it.
And if not Watson, the same message to whoever it was. It's frankly insulting they keep with this 'woe is us' crap, especially the anonymous ones. If you act like something is intolerable but tolerate it continually that sends the message loud and clear that it is tolerable, so stop whinging about it then.
Cry me a river Watson, cry me a fucking river. Your plans failed and the membership doesn't back you, get over it.
Boris thanks for you for your service.....
Peerage for Watson like Mann got, only seems fair.
Oh no, YOU are the one up for a peerage.....
That isn't usually how it works, if we take May's for example it is Conservative supporters and those that have helped the Conservatives (as well as some non politicians) so John Mann for example, or next time Tom Watson say.
Someone who actually supports Labour against the Conservatives would not be rewarded.
How did they accurately count the hands at Conference???
They don't unless it is unanimous. Unless the leadership wants a certain result. Card votes are available for all votes except when the Politburo does not want a result.
So Labour Brexit policy will be to negotiate a deal including free movement, put this up against Remain, and think the result of this overrules the first referendum?
Labour lose Bootle.....
as I learned today Liverpool Walton is the nailed on constituency. 85.7% vote for Labour and the Con lost his deposit.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Boeing used to do 120% funding for new low cost carriers, where you could borrow £120m for every £100m you spent on new planes.
Really? Presumably they’d list the planes at £120m and insist you insured them for that amount?
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
I don't think you can insure planes for above replacement cost. (Or at least, not legally.)
Both Airbus and Boeing have provided a metric fuck tonne of vendor financing to start-up airlines. Some people managed to start with airlines with $1bn of airplanes with just a few million dollars down, by making use of the generous loans guaranteed by the manufacturers*.
From Boeing's (or Airbus's) point of view, you'd make it up on maintenance and future plane sales. Not only that, but the loans would be contingent on the operator not buying any planes from your competitor.
* This is very similar to the mobile phone operator world, where Ericsson, Nokia and the like, would often finance the vast bulk of a startup company's costs.
I could see why a manufacturer would want to offer support and incentives for exclusivity, after all it makes sense for any airline to fly as few different types of aircraft as possible for various operational, training and maintenance reasons.
I also imagine that this scenario has a not-insignificant risk for those fronting the money, that someone goes bust and they lose their shirts!
I think the Lib Dems get a Labour conference bounce!
The public may yet surprise us on that score. I mean, has all that much really changed? Starmer and others will still go out and campaign and say Labour is for Remain no matter what, and people for whom remain is the main goal will need to be careful not to undercut labour remain MPs.
The West carbon output even including the USA which is by far the largest western polluter come nwhere near Chinas output. UK consumption per population doesnt even make the top 10 globally and is dropping faster than Chinas.
But anyway well done for engaging with all my arguments above.
I prefer the approach of thinking globally and acting locally, trying to change what I have some influence over, to your approach which seems to be that climate change is all "middle class bollocks" but simultaneously a real problem that is all the fault of China so we can't do anything about it.
You're just making excuses for inaction.
Also why is "middle class bollocks" such a terrible insult? I have my middle class bollocks to thank for my three beautiful children!
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
The Labour conference have just voted abolishing private schools to be official Labour Party policy
It was also Labour policy when Roy Hattersley was Shadow Education Secretary in the early 1970s!
You know at the 2017 election the Tories tried to paint the Labour manifesto as barking mad but struggled because it had a cloak of well-costed common sense? Yeah, that’s not happening this time...
Why not? Are we to expect a Tory manifesto that is not barking mad to distinguish the Labour one?
As it happens I don't recall a great deal about the manifestos last time, though I did read all the major party ones (and the Greens). My enduring impression of the Labour one was it was a bit chaotic and busy, lots of smaller things muddling up the message. The LD was confused about whether it was a pitch to be opposition or government, and the Tory one was dementia tax dementia tax (actually that didn't stand out so much at the time, it seemed reasonable in theory, but it's all I can remember now).
Repetition, repetition, repetition. The Conservative manifesto contained the phrase strong and stable 15 times, along with four or five smooth and orderly Brexits.
I do remember that the Tory manifesto did not contain the word 'Corbyn', while the Labour one did name drop May several times.
Three times but she was, after all, the prime minister. That's what oppositions do. In 2010, the Tories mentioned Gordon Brown six times.
It wasn't a criticism, I was just curious that given bashing Corbyn was such a big part of the campaign that they did not include it in their actual policy document.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
It probably wont be, but the attack line and public perception that Labour want to ban private schools will be there.
Removing charitable status could be marginally popular, banning private schools or stealing their assets is hugely unpopular. How many people, who are not already voting Labour, will be impressed? It is probably losing 10 votes for every one it brings in. Why on earth have such a policy making headlines on one of the few days when Labour have guaranteed control of the agenda?
It is simply bonkers whatever the objective, and could only happen in an echo chamber.
There will be negative headlines in the papers regarding it but TBH I get the feeling that is pretty much saturation point now anyway. What could the Mail/Sun/Times put in their newspapers to convince them not to vote Labour that hasn't worked already?
That they are going to start stealing people and organisations assets against the law? Oops.
Well if they have already got past the fact we are (according to those papers) the KKK, hate Britain, love its enemies, leader was a Czech spy in the 80's and countless other things then yeah that would be really small fry in comparison.
I think the Lib Dems get a Labour conference bounce!
The public may yet surprise us on that score. I mean, has all that much really changed? Starmer and others will still go out and campaign and say Labour is for Remain no matter what, and people for whom remain is the main goal will need to be careful not to undercut
These sources were wrong in 2017. They might be right this time, but it is no good to perform the same role and say things, they need to actually do things if they are right this time.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
It probably wont be, but the attack line and public perception that Labour want to ban private schools will be there.
Removing charitable status could be marginally popular, banning private schools or stealing their assets is hugely unpopular. How many people, who are not already voting Labour, will be impressed? It is probably losing 10 votes for every one it brings in. Why on earth have such a policy making headlines on one of the few days when Labour have guaranteed control of the agenda?
It is simply bonkers whatever the objective, and could only happen in an echo chamber.
There will be negative headlines in the papers regarding it but TBH I get the feeling that is pretty much saturation point now anyway. What could the Mail/Sun/Times put in their newspapers to convince them not to vote Labour that hasn't worked already?
That they are going to start stealing people and organisations assets against the law? Oops.
Well if they have already got past the fact we are (according to those papers) the KKK, hate Britain, love its enemies, leader was a Czech spy in the 80's and countless other things then yeah that would be really small fry in comparison.
It's true. You don't need to be an anti-Semite to vote Labour. You just have to be unbothered by anti-Semitism.
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
Except I also backed CU membership, which is completely contrary to the EEA Leavers, who wanted lots of bilateral trade deals. EEA + CU is the closest we get to Remain while respecting democracy.
It doesn't respect democracy at all. The referendum was fought and won on an anti-immigration prospectus. To fail to honour that is to fail to honour the vote.
It's just what you want.
People can make whatever arguments they want for whatever side. The question asked whether we should leave the EU. SM + CU does that. It was my preferred option right after and we could have got it if Remainers had backed it. But they didn't so the best option now seems to be May's deal with a fudge on the backstop.
Yet again, you’re coming up with a profoundly undemocratic answer that ignores the anti-immigration campaign that won the vote, to argue for your entirely illegitimate preferred outcome that is consistent with the vote in only the most technical sense. Blaming Remainers for not colluding with the EEA Leavers to pull off a switcheroo to a position that almost no one was seeking during the referendum campaign (and that would never have won in a referendum campaign) is a quite bizarre contortion.
But you like it, so stuff democratic principle.
The VoteLeave operation doesn't speak for all 17 million Leavers. The question was Leave vs Remain. The form of Leave is determined by General Elections. EEA/CU or No Deal or something in between fulfils it. I was advocating for my second preference after my first preference has been ruled out by a vote. That is democracy.
Anyway, my criticism is for those trying to back Remain as an option after the vote. Remainers accepting Leave and wanting a harder Brexit than me have a legitimate position.
Still more anti-democratic nonsense for your preferred outcome. The course was set but the referendum. Theresa May’s red lines accurately reflected the debate. And it turns out no one liked the logical conclusion. That was tested to destruction.
The original mandate has therefore expired. A new one is now needed.
I don't wish to (1) pour further difficulties on the LAB Brexit position or (2) try again to make my hackneyed shorthand for the pre- and post-EuCo 01/16 common parlance, honest.
But does anyone know whether the remain position Labour don't yet know whether they'll be backing yet is the Premain (UK membership unamended, no votes) or the Cameremain (UK membership amended to have referendum lock, emergency brake on migration etc; 16M votes)
The reason a card vote was being called for was: (1) that way it would be possible to see whether CLP delegates were voting as they had been mandated by their CLPs. (2) to ensure that only those entitled to vote could vote. It is telling - though totally unsurprising - that Len McCluskey appointee Jennie Formby jumped in immediately to ensure that there was no card vote. But in doing so she will undoubtedly have pissed off a lot of party members. Not that it matters very much. Labour has finally destroyed itself this week. The only sadness is that it will take too long to die, meaning Boris Johnson has a free run at the next general election.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
The abolishing private schools is peak echo chamber , this policy is a gift to both the Tories and Lib Dems .
People like choices , parents even if they don’t currently have the money to send their children to private school might one day dream they might be able to do that.
This policy falls apart because it’s economically illiterate, those children currently in private schools will now have to be accommodated in the state sector . How many people will lose their jobs who currently work in private schools .
The policy smacks of a government telling parents we know better and restricting choice.
On top of this it smacks of hypocrisy , some Labour MPs have sent their children to private schools or they themselves went through that .
This policy is a vote loser and I can’t see anyway that this helps Labour in a GE.
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
The Labour conference have just voted abolishing private schools to be official Labour Party policy
While I rarely agree with @charles his view that state schools should be good enough for people to not need private ones. Have always believed that but whilst people with influence don’t experience the problems of the the state system little will change.
Even if private schools were abolished people with influence would send their children to a grammar school or an outstanding comprehensive, academy or free school anyway not a requires improvement or inadequate bog standard comprehensive with coaching, church attendance or moving to the right catchment area being used instead of school fees
How do you 'send' your child to a grammar school? They have to pass an examination.
Everything not very mysteriously comes back to an EEA Leave position, a position occupied by no one except a few Leavers who leeched off the anti-immigration sentiment that won the referendum and constantly sought to insert their preferred policy position on a nation, almost none of whose citizens actually wanted it.
Except I also backed CU membership, which is completely contrary to the EEA Leavers, who wanted lots of bilateral trade deals. EEA + CU is the closest we get to Remain while respecting democracy.
It doesn't respect democracy at all. The referendum was fought and won on an anti-immigration prospectus. To fail to honour that is to fail to honour the vote.
It's just what you want.
People can make whatever arguments they want for whatever side. The question asked whether we should leave the EU. SM + CU does that. It was my preferred option right after and we could have got it if Remainers had backed it. But they didn't so the best option now seems to be May's deal with a fudge on the backstop.
But you like it, so stuff democratic principle.
The VoteLeave operation doesn't speak for all 17 million Leavers. The question was Leave vs Remain. The form of Leave is determined by General Elections. EEA/CU or No Deal or something in between fulfils it. I was advocating for my second preference after my first preference has been ruled out by a vote. That is democracy.
Anyway, my criticism is for those trying to back Remain as an option after the vote. Remainers accepting Leave and wanting a harder Brexit than me have a legitimate position.
Still more anti-democratic nonsense for your preferred outcome. The course was set but the referendum. Theresa May’s red lines accurately reflected the debate. And it turns out no one liked the logical conclusion. That was tested to destruction.
The original mandate has therefore expired. A new one is now needed.
So my position of accepting a result consistent with the referendum decision is undemocratic, but your position of ignoring the referendum decision and not feeling bound by it at all is democratic.
So over 3 years after the referendum and barely 5 weeks before Britain faces a disorderly withdrawal from the EU Labour have decided that they won’t decide whether they are in favour of Leave or Remain until later.
Is that right?
I suppose after 31 October - if Boris gets his way - it won’t matter anyway. Corbyn won’t campaign to Rejoin. The Lib Dems probably will. But that will be a very long uphill battle and the EU probably won’t want us back for a very long time, if ever.
I think today's vote as I understand it is worse than Corbyn's position just last week. If my understanding is correct, if there is a Labour deal , it will be on the ballot paper with Remain as the other option. So far so good. However, until this vote members would be free to vote [ or campaign ] which way they preferred. But now , I believe, there will be a Party line. So this is much worse.
The motion (or composite I guess) that was defeated was about there being a party line. Thanks to the votes today people will be free to vote and campaign on whatever side of the referendum they want.
So for example Caroline Flint can campaign for the Brexit deal and Clive Lewis can campaign for the remain deal.
If composite 13 had passed I think there would be much less chance of a referendum happening, delighted it was rejected. I say this as someone who signed the 2nd referendum petition and someone who has always wanted one (been prepared not to have one previously but wanted it still)
I don't see that. You'll have the same problem Cameron had. Half the party campaigned one way the other half the other. It'll end with Caroline Flint and others holding hands with Farage Raab on a Thames barge. It's a horrible look for a radical left party.
It worked for Harold Wilson in 1975. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell on the same side.
All party conferences end up being echo chambers to a certain extent however the current Labour one is plumbing new depths .
I can see removing charitable status, or charging VAT on school fees or one of a number of other things happening. I don't think abolishing private schools is going to be in the next manifesto.
It probably wont be, but the attack line and public perception that Labour want to ban private schools will be there.
Removing charitable status could be marginally popular, banning private schools or stealing their assets is hugely unpopular. How many people, who are not already voting Labour, will be impressed? It is probably losing 10 votes for every one it brings in. Why on earth have such a policy making headlines on one of the few days when Labour have guaranteed control of the agenda?
It is simply bonkers whatever the objective, and could only happen in an echo chamber.
There will be negative headlines in the papers regarding it but TBH I get the feeling that is pretty much saturation point now anyway. What could the Mail/Sun/Times put in their newspapers to convince them not to vote Labour that hasn't worked already?
That they are going to start stealing people and organisations assets against the law? Oops.
Well if they have already got past the fact we are (according to those papers) the KKK, hate Britain, love its enemies, leader was a Czech spy in the 80's and countless other things then yeah that would be really small fry in comparison.
It's true. You don't need to be an anti-Semite to vote Labour. You just have to be unbothered by anti-Semitism.
Eat me. Watson's boys have been routed and thanks to that Labour does now retain a chance at the next election. Today has been a good day and you can't bring me down.
It will be a sad day when a leading Tory politician can't cause hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money to flow into his mistress's pockets in unusual ways.
What the hell is the point of politics anyway, if one can't hand out a few pecuniary benefits in return for sexual favours? Before you answer, think about this question - how the hell are fat, ugly men going to have any sex, if this kind of thing is outlawed?
Comments
Revoke or No Deal will ensure it's the only topic for the next 10 years.
It's a hard sell but a second referendum is the sane approach.
As he says it's a load of nonsense. It's a gift for the Lib dems
But you like it, so stuff democratic principle.
Politician: I would, frankly, be reluctant to give up my holidays abroad.
Interviewer: It would send out a clear message though wouldn’t it, if we didn’t see that great big air journey off to the sunshine? . . . a holiday closer to home?
Politician: Yeah – but I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that. I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less. How – for example – in the new frames for the aircraft, they are far more energy efficient. I know everyone thinks Politicians shouldn’t go on holiday at all, but I think if what we do in this area is set people unrealistic targets, you know if we say to people we’re going to cancel all the cheap air travel . . . You know, I’m still waiting for the first politician who’s actually running for office who’s going to come out and say it ...
Ministers say the five-week suspension - or prorogation - is not a court matter, but critics argue the PM wants to limit scrutiny of his Brexit policy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49795111
I mean, both parts of that statement might be true, right? The second definitely is, but it's not that he wants to do that which is the argument, it's that its unlawful for him to do it for that reason.
Anyway, my criticism is for those trying to back Remain as an option after the vote. Remainers accepting Leave and wanting a harder Brexit than me have a legitimate position.
Someone who actually supports Labour against the Conservatives would not be rewarded.
I also imagine that this scenario has a not-insignificant risk for those fronting the money, that someone goes bust and they lose their shirts!
I prefer the approach of thinking globally and acting locally, trying to change what I have some influence over, to your approach which seems to be that climate change is all "middle class bollocks" but simultaneously a real problem that is all the fault of China so we can't do anything about it.
You're just making excuses for inaction.
Also why is "middle class bollocks" such a terrible insult? I have my middle class bollocks to thank for my three beautiful children!
The original mandate has therefore expired. A new one is now needed.
But does anyone know whether the remain position Labour don't yet know whether they'll be backing yet is the Premain (UK membership unamended, no votes) or the Cameremain (UK membership amended to have referendum lock, emergency brake on migration etc; 16M votes)
(1) that way it would be possible to see whether CLP delegates were voting as they had been mandated by their CLPs.
(2) to ensure that only those entitled to vote could vote.
It is telling - though totally unsurprising - that Len McCluskey appointee Jennie Formby jumped in immediately to ensure that there was no card vote. But in doing so she will undoubtedly have pissed off a lot of party members. Not that it matters very much. Labour has finally destroyed itself this week. The only sadness is that it will take too long to die, meaning Boris Johnson has a free run at the next general election.
New thread
What larks.
Tony Benn and Enoch Powell on the same side.
What the hell is the point of politics anyway, if one can't hand out a few pecuniary benefits in return for sexual favours? Before you answer, think about this question - how the hell are fat, ugly men going to have any sex, if this kind of thing is outlawed?