1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+21)?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by ff1d1l, Apr 21, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

  2. ff1d1l

    ff1d1l pfm Member

    I wasn't really meaning richer in the financial sense.
  3. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    What this leaves out is the referendum. For a lot of people this short circuits arguments about whether or not the EU’s priorities align with Labour’s. And it does so with something that looks more like a principle to me than anything that fans of the EU can point to. The referendum result has to be taken seriously - as a matter of principle. As a matter of strategy, the political establishment can’t run too far ahead of public opinion. The protracted failure of Brexit is a better argument for remain than anything a politician might muster.
  4. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr pfm Member

    Yes, I get all this. But I don't think it leaves out the referendum, it just allocates it less than the overriding importance 'a lot of people' ascribe to it. Let's not forget, a lot of those 'lot of people' are Tories pushing their own (eg ERG) agenda. It does Labour no favours to adopt the same argument as them.

    As I keep saying, I maintain you can 'honour' the referendum without having to carry out the mandate. That would differentiate Labour from the ERG on the point, and would have given Corbyn licence to press home the argument sooner and harder, possibly bringing matters to a head somewhat earlier, and with more Remainers firmly on board. Corbyn's tactical error, IMHO, has been to follow public opinion, rather than influence and mould it. Not great leadership.
  5. h.g.

    h.g. pfm Member

    Can you give an example of when Corbyn has followed public opinion or more rationally labour members/supporters opinion when it has been in conflict with own? He is a main of faith and significantly different to most politicians. This certainly has an upside if you share his faith but if you don't or want to achieve things in the real world of compromise it is pretty serious defect in a leader.
  6. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    Trident renewal. IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Two obvious and much-publicised examples.
    HarryB and h.g. like this.
  7. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    Not to mention whipping for a PV.

    You won’t move h.g. though.
    HarryB likes this.
  8. h.g.

    h.g. pfm Member

    Thanks for the examples. The position on Trident appears to be similar to the position on a 2nd referendum but I need to gather a bit more information through reading to confirm. The real position on a nuclear deterrent is an important position for any political party and so is worth time researching. Much less interested in researching labour's handling of the IHRA definition but will give it a quick go.
  9. Sashmo

    Sashmo Member

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    Injustices were done and some continue in a more subtle way but "essentially exterminated" is over the top.
  10. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    Truss Unchained was on Newsnight advocating Total Brexit, deaf to the negative economic analyses, with that blank stare and sounding more and more imperious, as if Laura Kunesburg was writing her lines.
  11. h.g.

    h.g. pfm Member

    The Trident support is exactly like the 2nd referendum support. Mumbled support but no action will be required because if the hard left get into government they will review the nuclear options. So what is in the manifesto won't matter when it comes to action rather than words. This is definitely not an example of Corbyn and the hard left conceding to the will of the majority in the labour party.

    The IHRA definition business is a bit different because, as best I can tell and I am happy to be corrected, the hard left controlled NEC appeared to tell Corbyn to behave. This is his hard left faction not the majority of the labour party even though the two were probably aligned on the issue. So close but not quite.

    Any other examples that might spring to mind?
  12. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    Well, Sean already mentioned whipping in favour of a confirmatory vote. To which I'd add the shift in position on the EU citizens' rights and free movement amendment where, again, the Labour leadership responded to pressure from members.

    But really, what's the point? In your "evidence-based" aproach Corbyn and the Labour leadership are "hard-left" dictators. Nothing I, or anyone else, can say is going to change your mind.
    HarryB, maxflinn and ks.234 like this.
  13. Konteebos

    Konteebos Ignorant Uninformed Hard Remainer

  14. stephen bennett

    stephen bennett Mr Enigma

  15. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    But clear about what?

    "If the party’s aim was to maximise support next week by appealing to both remain and leave Britain, it is failing spectacularly."

    I suspect that's not the aim. The polls have to do with the EU elections, and the EU elections are ... just not that important, in themselves. The aim is still to win a GE, and in relation to that aim, the EU elections really just represent another opportunity to mess things up.

    I don't disagree with the overall analysis of the article. But what's especially interesting is that it shows that working class Labour voting leavers are peeling off to support remain without Labour's leadership. This tends to confirm my suspicion that time is a much better teacher here than pronouncements from politicians. I know that for some people "lack of leadership" is the worst possible crime but in terms of winning support and legitimacy for a 2nd vote and for remain it is the right strategy IMO. As the excellent letter from Siôn Simon explains, Labour are de facto behind a 2nd vote but there is more to gain by letting things take their natural course than there is by making that an immediate demand.
  16. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    What's the point? It's a moving target with you. The Labour Party as a whole is OK, it just has a hard left leadership who won't compromise. Oh OK, they compromised...but only at the behest of another party institution who...OK they're also hard left. And, OK, despite that, for some reason keen on compromise. But the members, who are really really keen on compromise, they're not hard left: he'd never have listened to them!

    Why do you think the members elected a hard left NEC? Why do you think they elected Corbyn twice, by an overwhelming majority? It's not because of his charismatic media performances is it? It's because of his politics.

    Labour's current left wing position represents the triumph of the members, who have, historically, long been by far the most left wing bloc in the party.
    HarryB likes this.
  17. jackbarron

    jackbarron Chelsea, London

    You keep mentioning whipping for a Public Vote. Corbyn can do simple maths and could easily work out that it wouldn't pass.

    When it comes to Brexit he's a slimy politician.

  18. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    If you're determined to assume bad faith on the part of Corbyn, and total credulity on the part of Starmer and others, then this is definitely the best argument you've offered to explain how Labour can be red hot for Lexit and still whip twice for a public vote. But it's not compatible with anything else you've said on the subject. Once you admit the reality of parliamentary arithmetic all the Why Won't Jeremy Stop Brexit! arguments just dissolve.
    maxflinn and Steve Taylor like this.
  19. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr pfm Member

    I acknowledge this is the position you have taken for a long time. That the public had to come around of their own accord. I do get that if they do, then the outcome is going to be better because they’ll be properly behind it.

    But this doesn’t mean that the public couldn’t be led to this conclusion. They are taking their own sweet time getting there. My point remains that Corbyn, and the Labour Party in general, could have, should have been working for the last two years to get the public to this place sooner, not later, because ‘later’ risks being too late.
  20. lordsummit

    lordsummit Moderator

    Nobody said he can stop Brexit, that’s a facile argument. However he shouldn’t be enabling it, and many of us believe that to be the case.

    You can deny it till you’re blue in the face, but it appears Corbyn’s/Labour’s stance on Brexit is going to cost Labour dear just like Clegg hopping into bed with Cameron cost the Lib Dem’s.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice