Pre-election party conferences

It's party (conference) time! Yes, indeed ladies and gentlemen, this is the season in which political parties all bugger off to somewhere they pretend they care about, in order to regale their members with their breathtaking new ideas. Even better, there's an election in ten months, so the topics being discussed will probably end up on manifestos. We'll all be voting on them in May 2015.

Ready to rumble?

In the Red Corner, it's "Red" Ed Miliband, the Labour leader looking to trounce the Tory toffs at the next election. Ed gets a lot of criticism. People think he's unelectable, speaks funny, is a bit nerdish and seemed perfectly happy solving animal-led crimes with his canine pal Gromit. He has a couple of nice ideas, but doesn't go far enough with any of them. Why bother with mansion tax when land tax has a much more profound chance to effect taxation and supply and demand? Minimum wage rise of £1.50? By the end of 2020? Why, Mr Miliband, you spoil us! Also, if saving the NHS is such an admirable mission, why bother planting the seeds of its destruction with your Proper Fúcked Initiative, better known as PFI? Suffice to say, this Labour lot have one of the strongest opportunities to build a positive platform of policy and have largely failed. They've spent most of their time attacking the Tories instead of crafting desirable policy. All fart and no shít. Shít would actually be preferable.

In the Blue Corner, it's David Cameron and his aristocratic band of bandit brothers. I honestly don't know what qualifies people who've had it all handed to them on a plate, and not really had to work a fúcking day in their lives to demonise the poor quite the way they do, particularly when they, and people like them have done their level best to keep the poor where they are. Osborne talking about people getting "something for nothing" is "Tony Blair Envoy For Peace in Middle East" levels of hypocrisy. Ok, ok - his vast inherited wealth means that he has probably never been a burden to the state, but you'd think that someone who'd had such advantage would have a teeny bit of self-awareness about his own privilege. Still, hordes of mindless c**ts will believe it because it confirms their own prejudices, compounded by the fact that they think voting Tory in a secret ballot somehow takes them up a social grade. Meanwhile, anything public and not nailed down will be flogged off at low cost to their mates.

What a depressing fúcking spectacle.

Thoughts?

As I always say, you can't generalise...

Vote UKIP

Vote UKIP

Loads of people are. Labour have been pretending that's not happening. Wouldn't vote for them myself, but they've got the benefit of having one big policy people can get behind, a bloke-down-the-pub leader and the perception of being anti-establishment, whether that's true or not.

I will be voting UKIP

[video=youtube_share;GtxLAIIxLOQ]

The Tories will probably walk the election if they can get Boris up front. In an age of vapid obsession with celebrity, he's ideal.

The Tories will probably walk the election if they can get Boris up front. In an age of vapid obsession with celebrity, he's ideal.

do you want characters pap, or not....?

do you want characters pap, or not....?

The character Boris plays in public is fine. The angry bastard I hear reports about, not so sure.

The whole red v blue thing is just depressing, some tory ***t on the radio summed it up the other day by saying "don't vote for UKIP because you will get Labour". I guess UKIP will take over from the Lib Dems as the party to vote for if you hate the f*ckers most likely to get in. It's just a shame the mong masses used the electoral reform vote as a stick to beat Clegg with instead of actually using their brains.

Labour should have walked it but managed to spectacularly **** it up by appointing the less intelligent, less articulate brother who just looks and sounds weird. I guess it will be another coalition of some sort, cant see anyone getting a majority.

The whole red v blue thing is just depressing, some tory ***t on the radio summed it up the other day by saying "don't vote for UKIP because you will get Labour". I guess UKIP will take over from the Lib Dems as the party to vote for if you hate the f*ckers most likely to get in. It's just a shame the mong masses used the electoral reform vote as a stick to beat Clegg with instead of actually using their brains.

 

Labour should have walked it but managed to spectacularly **** it up by appointing the less intelligent, less articulate brother who just looks and sounds weird. I guess it will be another coalition of some sort, cant see anyone getting a majority.

David milliband would have won them the election easily. Not sure why they were so idiotic.

Loads of people are. Labour have been pretending that's not happening. Wouldn't vote for them myself, but they've got the benefit of having one big policy people can get behind, a bloke-down-the-pub leader and the perception of being anti-establishment, whether that's true or not.

UKIP are merely taking over the mantle of 'the party of rhetoric'. Lib Dems mk II.

It's this anti-establishment line their taking when Nigel Farage has been an MEP for the last 15 years and has been part of the political establishment for many years. The other telltale sign is that they merely support anything that they think is popular. They'll win a few MPs at the next election, but long-term the inevitable "tuition fee" moment will come and they'll get found out.

UKIP are merely taking over the mantle of 'the party of rhetoric'. Lib Dems mk II.

 

It's this anti-establishment line their taking when Nigel Farage has been an MEP for the last 15 years and has been part of the political establishment for many years. The other telltale sign is that they merely support anything that they think is popular. They'll win a few MPs at the next election, but long-term the inevitable "tuition fee" moment will come and they'll get found out.

Found out about what? Everyone knows what they are. Very much anti EU and pro Middle England.

David milliband would have won them the election easily. Not sure why they were so idiotic.

"They" were the unions, who used their block vote to usurp the individual party members who voted for DM. Funny old game this democracy malarkey sometimes....

"They" were the unions, who used their block vote to usurp the individual party members who voted for DM. Funny old game this democracy malarkey sometimes....

Voting for a party leader isn't really democratic though is it.

You got the choice of labour or 2 conservative partys.one led by Cameron and the other led by Nigel farage which is just the thatcherite wing of the of the old conservative party. What a crap lot of third rate political party's.

Found out about what? Everyone knows what they are. Very much anti EU and pro Middle England.

Political opportunists; the kind of people who'll say anything to get votes with the almost certain knowledge that they'll never have to produce. The Lib Dems were top drawer at this until they accidentally got into government. Ended up choking on their own promises. The tuition fee was particularly damning as all the Lib Dem MPs were photographed holding up pledges to abolish them.

They were done after that point, really.

You got the choice of labour or 2 conservative partys.one led by Cameron and the other led by Nigel farage which is just the thatcherite wing of the of the old conservative party. What a crap lot of third rate political party's.

I wonder if they'll be led by the same people come election time.

Boris has clearly got broader appeal than either Cameron or Miliband. I think the ship has sailed for both Miliband brothers. Andy Burnham is being talked about as a possible successor to Ed. Delivered a decent speech at their party conference and gained a lot of credibility in the run up to the Hillsborough inquests.

Voting for a party leader isn't really democratic though is it.

Indeed....that was my point.....

Vote UKIP

No thanks, Farage is entertaining, but the majority of his candidates have some very dodgy ideas.

The main parties are all central ground, but maybe that's not a bad thing either?

Political opportunists; the kind of people who'll say anything to get votes with the almost certain knowledge that they'll never have to produce. The Lib Dems were top drawer at this until they accidentally got into government. Ended up choking on their own promises. The tuition fee was particularly damning as all the Lib Dem MPs were photographed holding up pledges to abolish them.

 

They were done after that point, really.

The Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees if they won the general election. They didn't win the election ergo they didn't (couldn't) break any manifesto pledges.

Vote UKIP

The only party that has a clear policy that could actually make a difference to the lives of many working people in this country.

The Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees if they won the general election. They didn't win the election ergo they didn't (couldn't) break any manifesto pledges.

Nope. The wording is not only clear, but damning.

There is no such qualification, and every expectation that they will be outside the government they planned to pressure.

EDIT:

Fair do's; voting against an increase is not the same as pledging to abolish them. But they broke this pledge, which doesn't have a general election victory qualification.

The Tories will probably walk the election if they can get Boris up front. In an age of vapid obsession with celebrity, he's ideal.

do you want characters pap, or not....?

The character Boris plays in public is fine. The angry bastard I hear reports about, not so sure.

So you DO want characters then? The "angry bastard" that you refer to is, i assume, you saying thats what he is really like? In which case its not a character.....thats just him. But you are happy with his "character" that he portrays in public. Interesting take on it all, but, to be honest, not surprising.

They're all bellends aren't they.

every expectation that they will be outside the government they planned to pressure.

That's my point though. The pledge was made on the basis that they wouldn't be in government (implicitly or otherwise). The minute they became part of the government anything they pledged to do as an opposition party was null and void.

That's how coalitions work. You come up with a compromise arrangement rather than implement any "promises" you were making in the event of a different outcome.

They're all bellends aren't they.

Indeed. All we can hope for is that we get those who do the least damage.

Exactly right.

 

The only party that has a clear policy that could actually make a difference to the lives of many working people in this country.

Yep, it will make them poorer and with less rights.

So you DO want characters then? The "angry bastard" that you refer to is, i assume, you saying thats what he is really like? In which case its not a character.....thats just him. But you are happy with his "character" that he portrays in public. Interesting take on it all, but, to be honest, not surprising.

I thought Boris was very funny on HIGNFY, and his popularity has been an asset to the Tory party. The stage-managed buffoonery and off-the-cuff remarks are great copy.

Put it this way. I'm pleased Boris' powers is presently constrained to the city of London. This is a bloke that can't pick people correctly, suggesting few real political allies. He loses his rag on numerous occasions and with the benefit of hindsight, has plainly sought power all his adult life. Just gone the wolf in sheep's clothing route via the media. Don't get me wrong, he's very good at that. I'm just not sure he's a safe pair of hands off the leash.

Yep, it will make them poorer and with less rights.

Andy Burnham is being talked about as a possible successor to Ed. Delivered a decent speech at their party conference and gained a lot of credibility in the run up to the Hillsborough inquests.

But he still landed the NHS with the ridiculous PFI debt and delayed the Mid Staffs enquiry.

There are some decent MP's but they are the ones who work quietly behind the scenes for their constituents. The top ones irritate me so much I don't want to vote for any of them and Farage can go fuck himself with his jolly man down the pub vote pleasing bullshit rhetoric.

How on earth will it make the average working person poorer? Add what rights will they lose?

All tax credits will be abolished and probably child benefits too. Health and safety rules will go out the window. Other labour rights no doubt too, basically anything with a whiff of union about it.

But he still landed the NHS with the ridiculous PFI debt and delayed the Mid Staffs enquiry.

 

There are some decent MP's but they are the ones who work quietly behind the scenes for their constituents. The top ones irritate me so much I don't want to vote for any of them and Farage can go fuck himself with his jolly man down the pub vote pleasing bullshit rhetoric.

You are thinking of Alan Milburn.

You are thinking of Alan Milburn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9875660/Mid-Staffs-Labour-Government-ignored-MP-requests-for-public-inquiry-into-deaths.html

And this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-skidmore/mid-staffordshire-andy-burnham_b_2970110.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9875660/Mid-Staffs-Labour-Government-ignored-MP-requests-for-public-inquiry-into-deaths.html

Milburn introduced PFI to the NHS.

Fair play on your second point.

All tax credits will be abolished and probably child benefits too. Health and safety rules will go out the window. Other labour rights no doubt too, basically anything with a whiff of union about it.

Milburn introduced PFI to the NHS.

 

Fair play on your second point.

OK, Milburn introduced it, but Burnham carried it on:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/andy-burnham-hits-out-royal-3358005

Anyway, I'm not on a witch hunt against him, just examples of how an MP can make a few speeches to increase their standings in the public eye while still having made what many people would see as ridiculous decisions.

Maybe it's churlish, but to me it seems like it doesn't matter who wins the election. We're screwed whatever happens.

Personally I think it will be another hung parliament.

Party conferences are a complete and utter waste of time and money . There was a time when the labour one was worthwhile and a forum to formulate policy , but New Labour put and end to that. The Tory one has always been pretty much staged managed . Even the lib/dumbs one is a waste of time as the leadership just ignore the sandal wearers . My mate who is a journo claims that the events away from the main hall are interesting with some decent debates and thought provoking speakers , but that stuff never gets reported. If anybody thinks giving more public money to political parties is a good idea, the party conference season is a great reflection of how the self serving parties don't deserve another penny of our hard earned cash.

Milburn introduced PFI to the NHS.

 

Fair play on your second point.

I don't usually disagree with you Pap but I have to correct you on this one! PFI was first mooted for the NHS in 1994 by the then Major government. I know this to be true as I worked on one of the first tranche of schemes. The first scheme was IIRC the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. I worked on a scheme in High Wycombe and the planning was well underway when the election was called in 1997. A moratorium was imposed (technically the Treasury cannot approve / monitor schemes during an election period) but it was lifted when Labour was elected.

Labour can't be accused of inventing PFI but, for sure, it continued it. However, it did revisit the financing of such schemes. In the original schemes, the 'rent' was calculated on the outset costs of the building and, ususally, the hard and soft FM for the building. Because the outset costs were calculated on the cost of borrowing for the scheme developer, the costs were very high as loans to developers for buildings not yet constructed were very high. The developers then refinanced the schemes once the buildings were up and running and this put a lot of money in their pockets. Labour changed the rules so that savings from refinancing were distributed between the developer and the NHS.

I don't usually disagree with you Pap but I have to correct you on this one! PFI was first mooted for the NHS in 1994 by the then Major government. I know this to be true as I worked on one of the first tranche of schemes. The first scheme was IIRC the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. I worked on a scheme in High Wycombe and the planning was well underway when the election was called in 1997. A moratorium was imposed (technically the Treasury cannot approve / monitor schemes during an election period) but it was lifted when Labour was elected.

I did know that Major's govt introduced PFI, but didn't know that they were using it for the NHS. The Labour shadow cabinet called it privatisation by the back door, only for Milburn to later declare "PFI or bust" when using it for the Health Service.

Labour can't be accused of inventing PFI but, for sure, it continued it. However, it did revisit the financing of such schemes. In the original schemes, the 'rent' was calculated on the outset costs of the building and, ususally, the hard and soft FM for the building. Because the outset costs were calculated on the cost of borrowing for the scheme developer, the costs were very high as loans to developers for buildings not yet constructed were very high. The developers then refinanced the schemes once the buildings were up and running and this put a lot of money in their pockets. Labour changed the rules so that savings from refinancing were distributed between the developer and the NHS.

Going from your previous description of events, sounds like they were the only real implementers of PFI in the NHS, even if it was a matter of getting booted out of the office that prevented the Tories from implementing it fully themselves.

If nothing else, the education you've provided here makes it more depressing. PFI run by Tories vs PFI run by Labour. What choice.

I did know that Major's govt introduced PFI, but didn't know that they were using it for the NHS. The Labour shadow cabinet called it privatisation by the back door, only for Milburn to later declare "PFI or bust" when using it for the Health Service.

 

 

 

Going from your previous description of events, sounds like they were the only real implementers of PFI in the NHS, even if it was a matter of getting booted out of the office that prevented the Tories from implementing it fully themselves.

 

If nothing else, the education you've provided here makes it more depressing. PFI run by Tories vs PFI run by Labour. What choice.

I have to say, I was very anti PFI especially as my team had worked so hard to plan a viable Treasury funded option that was disbanded in favour of the privately financed option.

The basic premise of PFI was centred around risk. The NHS takes out 30 year mortages for want of a better description and, at the end of the term, can walk away from the buildings if they are no longer fit for purpose (as they surely will be given the huge changes in the delivery of health services already). Also, many hospitals were ancient and unable to deliver safe and cost effective services but the government just couldn't afford to stump up for the necessary improvements. The developer runs the risk of being left, at the end of the mortgage, with empty buildings that are very specific in potential use unlike, say, an empty office block.

But the very big downside was, in my view, the associated provision of hard and soft FM. As part of the deal, the developer's consortium provided these services. Not only did this lead to cost cutting in services such as catering, cleaning, maintenance etc. it also led to the deterioration in the working conditions for these services' already low paid workers but indeed led to many redundancies and the loss of staff who took with them huge experience and dedication.

And, already, thanks to the Tories' reconfiguration of health services, many of these buildings only 15 years old are already being mothballed.

Labour did try to introduce alternative methods of providing state of the art health buildings such as an idea called Procure21 that tied developers to an agreed cost and time envelope where any build savings were shared with the NHS and developers were punished if the building was late or over budget. As ever, developers continue to exploit changes to specifications and requests for information.

The Lib Dems pledged to abolish tuition fees if they won the general election. They didn't win the election ergo they didn't (couldn't) break any manifesto pledges.

Oh Lord trousers, you've provoked me into responding. It's just that part of me "literally" dies when I read statements like this.

It's the sort of fact-laden, truth-endowed, yet humanity-bereft statement that we see our politicians serve up as soon as they're shaken out of the Westminster reverie, and called to account by those that put them there. I just wouldn't allow myself to leave those words here, unaccompanied by a smiley or other emoticon that might suggest irony.

Lib Dem voters saw their party's leader exchange his pledge to vote against an increase in tuition fees for the right to be able to grasp Cameron's cock nearer to the hilt that anyone else.

Having not won the election, and having decided to enter into arse-coitus with the Conservative party, can I ask what you think Lib Dem voters should rightfully have expected from their leader on the subject of tuition fees?

For me the word pledge has a couple of connotations - one involves cleaning furniture and isn't important here, whilst the other evokes intangibles such as honour, promise, loyalty and obligation.

Given the use of the term "pledge" and given that it undoubtedly led people to vote for the Lib Dems, I would have expected Clegg to have made tuition fees a non-negotiable component of the

discussions to form a coalition government. And by non-negotiable I mean that if the Conservative Party didn't agree, then they would go back to the people and run another election.

Whilst by your analysis Nick Clegg didn't break a manifesto commitment, by my analysis he broke a personal pledge to hundreds of thousands of first-time voters; our children.

Using a form of words that is semantically vague enough to turn the shit you've just done in the mouths of those that voted for you into a "Nutella-like gift", doesn't change the taste you've left in their mouths.

It'd be like me trying to convince you that the global recession that the, well, "world" went through is evidence that Labour didn't mismanage the economy, but instead were simply victims of a global phenomenon. But I wouldn't do that, I have too much respect for you.

Whilst it's "probably a fact" that no party in power during that period would have been able to stop the recession that followed, to suggest that "The recession isn't Labour's fault", whilst being true, would be to only tell half the story.

And you'd rightfully look in the mirror and wonder what made your teeth so brown.

Nice post, bletch - and just a teeny bit to add.

This was no mere line item on a manifesto. This is something their MPs held up next to students, while canvassing the student vote, each sporting a fúcking big placard and a cheesy grin. It was a tangible enough pledge for it to have been a core value for them. They could and should have walked away from any deal that didn't honour it.

They didn't know it then, but they were signing death warrants for not only their own credibility, but also the entire party.

Good thread pap.

I listened to all of Miliband's speech on the radio whilst painting the shed and the decking last week. I have to say that whilst I can't take him seriously as a leader of the Labour party, he is a technically very accomplished speaker. Forgetting to mention the economy is laughably stupid, but the mechanics of his speech, if you can put aside the overly sincere delivery, committed to memory as it was (or wasn't!), was very impressive.

I thought the structure of Miliband's speech was very good, and he got his messages across very well. This is not a comment on the validity of his policies, simply looking at the way he communicated. This was undoubtedly helped by the fact I only listened and didn't have to see him.

Still, the fact that he forget to mention the economy is perhaps rightfully all that will be remembered.

Ed Miliband is an electoral liability, I reckon. I read this week that his stuff appeals to Guardian readers, but he's failing to address the concerns of Labour's core vote. The economy is not the only elephant in the room he is not ignoring. The fringe groups at the Labour Party conference were talking about the UKIP threat, even if the leadership is pretending it's a Tory only issue.

I've recently left the Labour Party, and have no intention of going back. Very tired of the negativity, the electoral gamesmanship and the fact that they expect people to go to blue collar houses without an appropriate answer on what Labour will do about the EU situation. Oh yeah, and cash to pay for it all!

When genuinely seeking change, it's better to build new stuff than attack the existing system. Labour have failed to do this; the left-wing revolution that the unions thought they'd get by choosing "Red" Ed hasn't materialised. The nickname is fúcking preposterous in hindsight.

I dont pretend to understand the complexities of why we should or not be in the EU, but it does unnerve me if Britain tries to go it alone in this very competitive world.

Whilst all the social issues are very important eg the NHS, unless you have a country that earns money the rest cant follow.

It is all very well following the Pompey model in your spending plans for the nation, unless we as a nation make the money we cant have all the spending the Left want.

Therefore all the banging on about mansion tax and all the other rafts of taxes of envy you will discourage the money earners of the nation staying here.

One thing is sure, the very wealthy can move and invest in many countries and don't have to sit here and be fleeced and feel unwanted. Just look at France with Hollande.

Make the country prosperous and then we can spend more on the needy.

watching Millibands speech did depress me, the country has gone through some very tough years, the working people have had it tough and now he will breeze into power and undo all the good that has been done.

His ideas are great in a students union debate, but in the real world it is a disaster waiting to happen.

I dont pretend to understand the complexities of why we should or not be in the EU, but it does unnerve me if Britain tries to go it alone in this very competitive world.

 

 

Whilst all the social issues are very important eg the NHS, unless you have a country that earns money the rest cant follow.

It is all very well following the Pompey model in your spending plans for the nation, unless we as a nation make the money we cant have all the spending the Left want.

Therefore all the banging on about mansion tax and all the other rafts of taxes of envy you will discourage the money earners of the nation staying here.

One thing is sure, the very wealthy can move and invest in many countries and don't have to sit here and be fleeced and feel unwanted. Just look at France with Hollande.

Make the country prosperous and then we can spend more on the needy.

watching Millibands speech did depress me, the country has gone through some very tough years, the working people have had it tough and now he will breeze into power and undo all the good that has been done.

His ideas are great in a students union debate, but in the real world it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Well said.

Cameron's announced at the conference that the personal allowance will go up to £12,500 under a future Conservative government.

I genuinely don't know what will happen at the next election, with a general election I don't see enough people trusting Miliband for Labour to form a majority. The key is how many votes Cameron's pandering to the Eurosceptics & poor gets before the next election.

Frankly if the country does decide to vote Miliband and Balls in, then it deserves everything it gets.

I dont pretend to understand the complexities of why we should or not be in the EU, but it does unnerve me if Britain tries to go it alone in this very competitive world.

 

 

Whilst all the social issues are very important eg the NHS, unless you have a country that earns money the rest cant follow.

It is all very well following the Pompey model in your spending plans for the nation, unless we as a nation make the money we cant have all the spending the Left want.

Therefore all the banging on about mansion tax and all the other rafts of taxes of envy you will discourage the money earners of the nation staying here.

One thing is sure, the very wealthy can move and invest in many countries and don't have to sit here and be fleeced and feel unwanted. Just look at France with Hollande.

Make the country prosperous and then we can spend more on the needy.

watching Millibands speech did depress me, the country has gone through some very tough years, the working people have had it tough and now he will breeze into power and undo all the good that has been done.

His ideas are great in a students union debate, but in the real world it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Yup