[Closed] Scum. Not the film.

Given the horrendous levels of pure snobbery she’s subjected to by some Tory MPs, I think she was remarkably restrained

She’d have been entirely justified in describing them as what they actually are, which my phones auto-correct has down as a bunch of ‘ducking aunts’

All i can see is the tories not caring that much and more in-fighting within the labour party, so no real forward momentum in the party for a bit longer, i can't see us having anything but a tory government over the next decade, they're not even seeing labour as a threat anymore to keep them from doing anything too drastic.

All she’s doing is handing the Conservatives more power.

The mask slipped and we all saw her for who she really is.

we all saw her for who she really is.

Devastatingly accurate?

I thought she was just speaking the truth but then again MP's ain't meant to do that.

Indeed, most MPs lie through their teeth. It's how you can tell when they are awake.

we all saw her for who she really is.

Authentic?

She was being honest and IMHO truthful, whether it’ll prove to be helpful (beyond the already converted) is another matter.

All she’s doing is handing the Conservatives more power.

The mask slipped and we all saw her for who she really is.

and what would that be im intrigued ?

No, she should rise above it, be polite, and make her point by arguing the facts and policies.
The Labour Party is having enough difficulties already, they could really do without any more 'controversies'. They now look to be no better than the idiots in Government, so people will, again, think they are better off with the idiots we've got, rather than the other bunch who argue amongst themselves more than with the Government, and cannot make an argument without insulting the other Parties Members,

Those of you who agree with her, odds are you’re labour voters so your view of how she acted doesn’t really matter - from an electoral science PoV, unless it’s a negative view.

When you look at it from ‘outside’ it actually damages the view of her/the party. Her words won’t make someone all of a sudden think ‘actually labour are for me’, they’re more likely to make previous non-labour voters think the opposite.

Remember it’s only an average of 20% of voters who actually make the difference.

Sauce: was part of a ‘think tank’ for the last GE.

Eta: Alanl gets it

The time for being polite and reserved has long since passed. As TJ is keen to point out, Tory policies are costing thousands of lives and hardship for millions. Pretending to be upset by some hard language is missing the point completely.

I don't think it was especially smart to use it in the first place but I admire her for not backing down tbh - shows some guts that have been sadly missing from the 'opposition' for a long while.

It absolutely is scummy to hand your mates huge contracts for doing bugger all, and all the other scummy things this government does, it's about time someone held them to account for it.

I'm not happy with her language to be honest, doesn't do a lot for her credibility. However when she listed Boris's traits, "racist, homophobic misogynist" I did realise she had a point.

No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Aneurin Bevan

and I agree

I have never had much time for her but my opinion of her has gone up for doing this

Need more politicians like her being brutally honest and calling out the Tories and the lies they tell

The most surprising thing is that someone on the Labour front bench has a pulse.

I think it draws attention to why she was using the language she did, without the politeness covering what's actually happening. The number of people fawning over Rees-Mogg and his politeness when he responded 'Im afraid so' when asked if he would support women being forced to have/raise their rapists children made me sick. This is also the party that voted against feeding the nations poorest kids, and putting an extra tax/NI burden on to those poorer families, whilst reducing a benefit before a crisis was over, arguably at the worst possible time.

And that before we mention the pack of lies they've been spewing for the last 5 years on pretty well any given subject.

Tory voters were always flooding to the 'straight talking' politicians. Here's one.

But how do these comments bring labour what they need, new voters who will switch allegiance from the tories to labour, when has insults ever worked in doing that, in the last few years we've had Trump, we've had Brexit, we've had the rise of the right wing and we've had Boris as our PM, all helped by the negativity pushing more people towards them.

I think this labour government need to look back at 1997 and how they managed to kick out the tories who had ruled for 18 years at that point, it wasn't insults and in-fighting, it was waiting for mistakes and capitalising, it was feeling the pulse of the nation and working their manifesto around that, weirdly that turned into a kind of one party nation with new labour being left, right and centre dependent on what was good press at the time!

in the last few years we’ve had Trump

A man famed for his politeness, and not stooping to insults.

I think this labour government need to look back at 1997

Why not go even further back to Harold Wilson or Clement Attlee? Similarly relevant.

Seems reasonable to me - the language is strong but making children go to bed hungry is despicable.

In terms of making labour electable I think it helps. It stops the argument being about class and makes it about decency. This is analogous to non-conformists campaigning against slavery.

When I read it I thought at last someone with some passion. Starmer is like a wet lettuce.
The tories are ****ing scum, tell it like it is.

I agree totally with her. However it is in danger of becoming The Story of the weekend which deflects some attention away from Boris Bullshit's 'bit of a mess'.

No, she should rise above it, be polite, and make her point by arguing the facts

But it was a fact.

So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin, They condemned millions of people to semi-starvation. I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying, do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. They have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse.

The Government decided the issues in accordance with the best principles, he said: "The weak first; and the strong next." Mr. Churchill preferred a free-for-all, but what was Toryism except organised Spivvery?

Rayner is Starmer’s John Prescott pit bull - he used to do exactly the same for Blair. Suspect has been orchestrated to tap in to the current public anger with Johnson due to the ensuing fuel, universal credit, transport etc etc debacles.

She was being honest and IMHO truthful, whether it’ll prove to be helpful (beyond the already converted) is another matter.

Is my take I think.

I agree with her opinion. She's quite entitled to voice her opinion. She's certainly allowed to do so in a meeting at a Labour party conference.

It could be said she was naive not to expect this level of fallout, but most people who I've spoken to think she's showing some balls, saying it how it is, being honest, and not putting up with Boris's shit. Which is something the Labour party hasn't exactly been covering itself in glory with the last couple of years.

I doubt anyone has been put off Labour on the back of this. I suspect a few are relieved someone there is talking tough at last.

Sauce: was part of a ‘think tank’ for the last GE.

Part of the problem then

Relying on think tanks / focus groups turns politicians into weathervanes not leaders

I think this labour government need to look back at 1997 and how they managed to kick out the tories who had ruled for 18 years at that point,

Any labour leader on any platform would have been elected at that point

the tories had collapsed in a mire of sleaze and corruption.

Stop rewriting history

It can't do any harm, she might as well call them all a load of ****s as well, my clueless work colleagues still love Boris because of his funny hair style. Drop the C-bomb.

My Lords, does my noble friend not recognise that the Conservative Party, both here and in another place, are very thin-skinned? Does he appreciate that my noble friend Lord Stonham's words this weekend are not incomparable with what Sir Winston Churchill said about the Conservative Party? He said: 'The Conservative Party is not a party but a conspiracy … the great vested interests handed together in a formidable federation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad, the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine, sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the imperial pint, the open hand at the public Exchequer. The open door at the public house, dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire … the Conservative Party is nothing less than a deliberate attempt on the part of important sections of the propertied classes to transfer their burdens to the shoulders of the masses of the people and to claim greater profits for the investment of their capital by charging higher prices.

You’re missing the point of what I said tjagain.

Basis being that a relatively small proportion of the electorate tend to decide the result.

The vast majority of people who hear her words and feel all warm and fuzzy don’t actually matter for electioneering as they would have voted labour anyway.

You need to consider her words with a view of voting intention impact for previous non-labour voters.

Before they can do anything Labour actually need to win.

The vast majority of people who hear her words and feel all warm and fuzzy don’t actually matter for electioneering as they would have voted labour anyway.

You need to consider her words with a view of voting intention impact for previous non-labour voters.

I'm not a natural Labour voter, see myself as more Liberal. But I'm definitely anti Tory, and I'm wanting to vote for anyone who is showing they want to take them on, expose them for what they are and defeat them at the next election

Those of you who agree with her, odds are your labour voters so your view of how she acted doesn’t really matter – from an electoral science PoV, unless it’s a negative view.

Well, you're completely wrong there.

Really not much to disagree with, is there?

I think her comments are pretty spot on.

Didn't one Labour MP get kicked out of the house for saying the truth about Johnson and his lies? How do you even start to fix the problem if you're not allowed to discuss it....?

@oldmanmtb2 - ‘Like’ 👍🏼

Rayner is Starmer’s John Prescott pit bull – he used to do exactly the same for Blair.

Blair had the sense to not publicly undermine him.

You’re missing the point of what I said tjagain.

Nope - I just disagree with yo and think you are 180degrees out in your opinion on this

You are right about it being a few tens of thousands of voters who decide elections but yo are wrong on the effects of this sort of thing. showing some passion galvanizes the boots on the ground and that will have a far greater positive effect than the small negative effect and it will also make "can't be bothereds" more likely to vote

Basis being that a relatively small proportion of the electorate tend to decide the result.

This is frequently trotted out, but appears a rather dubious, overly simplistic view of the way voting works.

It’s not an opinion, it’s just what the detail in the results shows.

If only I had a swing-O-meter I’d be famous

An awful lot of the ‘can’t be bothereds’ never really vote because they just don’t care, sadly.

No - its an opinion about the effect of this. Thats all it is. Your opinion

It is 100% true tho that its a small proportion of the electorate decide elections. Its the swing voters in marginal constituencies. some tens or maybe hundreds of thousands. Most seats are safe, most folk do not change their allegiance

Is 'scum' better or worse than 'pleb'?