So how many Corbyn election promises (or "discussion ideas") will make it to the end of the week?

 

So far I count at least 3 key ones dropped maybe more. I wonder how optimistic his voters will be at finding out they were just pie in the sky?

 

He's only backtracked on things like Trident, which in my experience (anecdote alert) was not one of the main reasons for his win - it was mainly the anti-austerity stance.

his idiot right to buy stand is also in flux (hopefully) and the bank of England as printer of money is in doubt.

 

Fairly big reasons one might have voted for him, or at the least fairly big reasons to view his promises and assertions as the same as every other politician's (ie not worth the HM stationary they are printed on), which, when you're making an attempt to encourage appeal by making up policies week on week and throwing them into a hat makes them look the shambles they always were.

 

At least when the libdems backtracked on one policy (yes I know we've been over this) it was imposed by another party, more or less, Corbyn has backtracked (with good reason or not) before they were even adopted having used them as a means of getting votes to become lected leader (while his more sensible colleagues didn't). Not impressed by his supposed virtuousness and breath of fresh air....

He didn't 'backtrack' on Trident. Corbyn has said conference will vote on positions and that will be the official position of the party. It was on the conference delegates' ballot voting on what they would discuss at conference. Conference delegates voted not to discuss it. Corbyn hasn't changed his position.

The speech was OK, I liked it when he said 'Housing is absolutely top priority. Nowhere has the Tory failure been so complete'.

 

BANG ON.

As a speech itself it was probably the worst conference speech by a major leader in living memory - rambling, no proper general theme, very few memorable passages. Barely any attempt to reach out beyond the already converted (apart from the really good stuff on a safety net for the self-employed - but delivered so diabolically it was almost unusable for news coverage).

 

What Corbyn really needed to do was to reach out - a 'those of you who aren't sure about me, here's why my plan is good for you'. As it was it was talking to all of the same groups that we've been mostly talking to for the last five years, and had nothing to say to those who are open to Labour but don't think life under the Tories is a misery - when it very well could have done. (A 'to those the Tories have taken for granted, but left behind' theme would've been brilliant - if Corbynomics is going to make the point that most ordinary people would be better off, it could at least say how it would make most ordinary people better off)

 

I'd say sack the speechwriter, but it was probably him. Actually, sack the speechwriter.

I'd say sack the speechwriter, but it was probably him. Actually, sack the speechwriter.

 

:D

 

Yes, he did rather fall into the trap of preaching to the converted rather than connecting with the wider public. Though he did mention supporting the self-employed. Anyway it probably could have done with being a lot tighter (1 hour was too long) but I don't think I'd describe it as 'the worst conference speech by a major leader in living memory'

I struggle to think of one that was more ineffectively written, worse delivered and more insular. There've been one or two that have done one of those. None that have done all three.

The only party leader whose delivery matched Corbyn's was Bob Maclennan. However, his leadership of the SDP was so short-lived (because of the merger with the Liberals) that he didn't actually make a leader's speech to conference. I did hear Maclennan make one good speech. I later found out that most of it was written by Charles Kennedy.

 

To me, it was very evident that he hadn't made that sort of speech before. He is more used to single-subject speeches to a narrow audience. As I suggested on Twitter earlier, I also suspect he wrote the speech himself.

 

I liked the way he mentioned some of the more absurd press stories (what did he really say about asteroids?). Of course, his problem is that the very papers he attacked (with good reason) are the same papers that will be reporting his speech. They will either fail to mention his attacks on the press, or portray him as paranoid.

 

One of the best parts of the speech was the section on refugees. Coincidentally, it was also the best part of Tim Farron's speech last week. Farron's speech on that subject was better, largely because he focussed more on the fact that he was talking about real people, our fellow human beings. At least Corbyn sounded reasonably passionate in that part although, again, not as passionate as Farron.

 

I also liked his attempt to defend the idea of people actually disagreeing with each other. He was certainly right to say that any disagreement is portrayed as a massive split but that agreement is portrayed as compromise and capitulation. That is why so many politicians are afraid to say what they really think.

 

I agree that too much of the speech (pretty much all of it) was aimed too much at the audience in the hall. Again, large parts of Farron's speech was explicitly aimed at the television audience. Of course, in both cases, that audience will not have been very large.

He didn't 'backtrack' on Trident. Corbyn has said conference will vote on positions and that will be the official position of the party. It was on the conference delegates' ballot voting on what they would discuss at conference. Conference delegates voted not to discuss it. Corbyn hasn't changed his position.

 

sounds like a convenient Get Out Of Jail Free card: "I'm not backtracking, I'm being democratic". certainly a novel approach to being in charge "vote for me and I'll push through whatever everybody else votes for". Being pragmatic and practical about it, he probably is doing what he has to do to keep support going and avoid major infighting which will do Labour no good whatsoever and provide ammo for the Rich B'Stards.

 

Re: the housing comment about Tories failure regarding Housing. Short memory Mr Corbyn, the very same comment applies to New Labour. They did exist (New Labour), I remember them pissing me off year after year letting the housing situation worsen with empty promises and vast ridiculous dashes to get into debt (which savers are now paying for, still, as the guilty get off scot-free) on mortgages for ever-diminishing available houses and ever-escalating prices.

 

 

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn is very well known as a fan of New Labour.

Indeed. But leading the party that fanned the flames and then blaming the party that added a bit more coal (and started the fire in the first place) is a bit rich.

 

I'd prefer he not make comments which are attempts to rewrite history and just in those situations essentially say "we find ourselves now with this problem, here's my solution regardless of how we got here, and by the way the Tories aren't proposing to do anything helpful". That's a better more positive new politics.

New Labour's failures on housing pale in comparison given that the Tories have since pushed house completions to a postwar low despite tilting the rules in favour of development AND declaring war on planners. Incompetence doesn't even begin to cover it, at least the Barker Review actually tried.

Indeed. But leading the party that fanned the flames and then blaming the party that added a bit more coal (and started the fire in the first place) is a bit rich.

I mean, literally nobody (apart from people trying to piously point score) would ever call it 'a bit rich' to blame the party that started the fire.

Oh theres plenty of blame to go around, as Jeremy has opined on other matters. another phrase for pious is pointing out inconvenient truths.

 

Other point on house builds in the private sector well weve been in a recession for 7 years builders dont build unless they can make money out of it and 106 contributions and the suchlike (which i support) means they prefer building new houskng slowly for bigger profits than all at once and risk losing money. the private sector cant be relied on, and i do support corbyns general intention to build council housing which would free up rented stock for sale and put buy to renters under pressure to drop prices or sell. I dont care about them at all, i care about those who dont have decent homes And i would drop any policy that gets in the way of that like right to buy.

Oh theres plenty of blame to go around, as Jeremy has opined on other matters. another phrase for pious is pointing out inconvenient truths.

 

Other point on house builds in the private sector well weve been in a recession for 7 years builders dont build unless they can make money out of it and 106 contributions and the suchlike (which i support) means they prefer building new houskng slowly for bigger profits than all at once and risk losing money. the private sector cant be relied on, and i do support corbyns general intention to build council housing which would free up rented stock for sale and put buy to renters under pressure to drop prices or sell. I dont care about them at all, i care about those who dont have decent homes And i would drop any policy that gets in the way of that like right to buy.

Of course, in their standard dim-witted way, the government are looking at ending S106 agreements. In my days as a councillor, these agreements were often the only way Woking could afford to carry out certain projects. With local authority budgets already slashed, I'm sure many councillors will now feel they might as well give up. The thought of campaigning on the slogan "We will spend our budget of £4.26 better than the other parties" isn't exactly inspiring.

Re: the housing comment about Tories failure regarding Housing. Short memory Mr Corbyn, the very same comment applies to New Labour. They did exist (New Labour), I remember them pissing me off year after year letting the housing situation worsen with empty promises and vast ridiculous dashes to get into debt (which savers are now paying for, still, as the guilty get off scot-free) on mortgages for ever-diminishing available houses and ever-escalating prices.

 

I think he is quite clearly distancing himself from New Labour - besides which the Liberal Democrats had 5 years to influence policy on housing and did precisely ZILCH.

 

I completely forgot there was a Lib Dem conference. Even UKIP got more coverage and they've only 1 MP! :lol:

 

 

This made me laugh:

 

Originally it said 53% see Corbyn as PM. But that was soon changed to....

 

I'm not even sure why they needed to. Only half being able to *imagine* the Leader of the Opposition as a PM is a terrible figure anyway when compared with the results previous leaders have had on that question.

I think he is quite clearly distancing himself from New Labour - besides which the Liberal Democrats had 5 years to influence policy on housing and did precisely ZILCH.

 

I completely forgot there was a Lib Dem conference. Even UKIP got more coverage and they've only 1 MP! :lol:

This made me laugh:

 

Originally it said 53% see Corbyn as PM. But that was soon changed to....

 

 

True the libdems did nothing either abouthousing. Might or might not have been a different story had they won a majority and not making deals with the tories following inheriting of a devastated economy - still not fixed and none of the parties were advocating any significantly diffedent way of dealjng with it at the time. The labour party ignored it during boom times so they have no excuse. If the new leader of the labour party can divorce himself conveniently from the past actions of previous party leaders then so can all of the other parties. I believe the libdem leader wasnt a major fan of the way the party went anymore than jezzer was in his.

Of course, in their standard dim-witted way, the government are looking at ending S106 agreements. In my days as a councillor, these agreements were often the only way Woking could afford to carry out certain projects. With local authority budgets already slashed, I'm sure many councillors will now feel they might as well give up. The thought of campaigning on the slogan "We will spend our budget of £4.26 better than the other parties" isn't exactly inspiring.

Our very tory council has some substantial criticisms of their own government. Yes things are that bad (though obviously they arent being voiced in the media) that even tories arent happy with the level of cutbacks. To be fair to them - and i rarely am - they are at least making a big effort to build more council houses on every bit of spare land that can be found in a very limited area size-wise. The problem is things are so desperate buying back right to buys is now a Necessity. So we sell houses at half price the buyers then buy a better house and the council buys it back at twice the sale price. This is a fact of financial life in these perverted economic times. Any child could grasp that is insanity on any number of levels but top politicians have touble with the concept. thick twats.

The idea that Corbyn's 'conveniently' divorcing himself from New Labour is laughable. He REBELLED FOUR HUNDRED TIMES DURING! It's hardly Andy Burnham turning around and disavowing New Labour having been a CABINET MINISTER...