Labour party conference, is no-one else interested?

I want them explained by his supporters on here Casdon But apparently no one can..

I’m sorry, I just don’t understand what you’re asking for - is there one specific issue, or shall we copy you the details of his speech, or what? Obviously the finer details of individual plans follow after conference agreement to the line, and quite rightly they won’t be rushed. I thought you would already know how it works. Or a you looking for a one pager?

Mollygo

Kali2 and MayBee70, that’s why I was surprised that it has suddenly appeared. It’s like mentioning what happened under Maggie T- and she’s dead!

Not really the same if what is mentioned "under Maggie T" is accurate.

I don't think anyone would condone the repeating of inaccuracies used to tar the character of one leader just because he isn't as lacking in character as another leader. Isn't this sort of thing why we have libel and slander laws.

If a poster has any sort of accurate, decent post it really shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps those are lacking too.

I've read his speech Casdon it doesn't give any pledges, but then why would it? This is a man who has manged to dump all the promises he made in his bid to be leader.
I just wondered if those supporting him could post what they thought he would do-obviously they can't.
But then he probably doesn't know either at least not until he has asked a focus group.

He has to wait to see what he will hve to deal with- after those Tories have made a massive mess of the country. he knows he must not make pledges that can't be fulfilled. It is wise to wait.

But THE FACT is, that divided Labour, with a far left leader, cannot and will not win, for all sorts of reasons. People have changed, aspirations have changed- and because of the FPTP system.

So, again, if the ONLY choice is between far right as now, and centre left with Starmer- you would prefer Tory ERG far right to continue? if that is the case, then what can I say? Despair.

I’m not one for pledges, they are like mission statements, all mouth and no trousers. What I want to see are clear plans for specific issues facing the country ready for the next election, yes, based on what people tell the leadership of the party they want to see, and for those to be delivered. We have spent too long with party members dictating the agenda, rather than the population. That’s what Starmer is about - and if not him, then enough people in the leadership team agree with that approach. It’s a very welcome change of direction from my perspective.

I read that Starmers speech had been fact checked and was 100% accurate. How boring that must make him…..

I’d almost vote for any party, even Starmer if their manifesto would come with clear statements of how it would be implemented, knowing the financial et al state of the country on takeover.
What I hate is the manifesto promises/pledges that are immediately put on hold “because of the previous government and how they left the country.” It seems to be a general policy for each new government.
You can either do it or you shouldn’t say you could.
So for example, if they say they are going to focus on increasing nursing staff, they need to say how it would be done, when it would be started, where the money would come from, how it would be sustained etc.

Gordon Brown has said it was brilliant speech

Corbyn has said he is not fit to be leader

I wonder how many potential LP voters might agree with Gordon Brown, rather that the man who took the LP to its worst electoral defeat - Corbyn?

I think if I remember rightly Gordon Brown has a good popularity rating when compared to other ex PMs but I might have made that up!

Gordon Brown was an unlucky PM.

He had to deal with the world wide financial crisis.

He had to deal with the Tory press.

He did make a mistake when he did not call a GE that he could have won

And he was finished by a silly mistake when his microphone recorded him saying that the woman he had just spoken to was "bigoted " it did for him.

He'd also lost a child not long before and then had another that was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis

Gordon Brown is a good man and we do need more good people in our politics.

varian

Gordon Brown is a good man and we do need more good people in our politics.

Yes. He’s spoken so much sense over the past twenty months hasn’t he. But he’s a bit boring and lacking in charisma! (what does that remind me off. )?

Yes I think hes a good man too.

MayBee70

varian

Gordon Brown is a good man and we do need more good people in our politics.

Yes. He’s spoken so much sense over the past twenty months hasn’t he. But he’s a bit boring and lacking in charisma! (what does that remind me off. )?

Hasn't he just. I do wish we could see more of some of our ex Primeministers - they seem to be able to say more than they could in office.

I doubt if we’ll be saying that about the current one in years to come. I first heard Gordon Brown speaking on the radio at the start of the pandemic and he came across so well.

He had charisma and a great sense of humour

MayBee70

I doubt if we’ll be saying that about the current one in years to come. I first heard Gordon Brown speaking on the radio at the start of the pandemic and he came across so well.

True. As the current one is taking the new and old conservatives round in circles, I would like to see Jokeson disappear up his own fundament at the earliest possible opportunity.

He was quite critical about previous Conservative governments in his speech today so I don’t think he’s made many friends there. And I think his reference to Gove in the night club was actually quite spiteful (and calculated): Gove looked very red faced and embarrassed. Much as I dislike the man I did actually feel sorry for him.

Friendly Fires are furious at Johnson for using their song without their consent and I doubt if Jon Bon Jovi would be happy about his name being parodied in that reference to Goves nightclub exploits either.

Funny isn't it that a thread about the Labour conference finishes up discussing a conservative PM. Possibly an indication that no one is really interested in the labour party under Starmer. I quite liked Gordon Brown as well but the poor man didn't stand a chance inheriting the back lash Tony Blair (who got out just in time) left behind him.

In my humble opinion put Andy Burnham in charge and Labour might stand a chance

trisher

Funny isn't it that a thread about the Labour conference finishes up discussing a conservative PM. Possibly an indication that no one is really interested in the labour party under Starmer. I quite liked Gordon Brown as well but the poor man didn't stand a chance inheriting the back lash Tony Blair (who got out just in time) left behind him.

That could be because time has move on and another conference has happened or is that too simple an explanation for you?