Leroy42 wrote: » Suddenly. The last election was in 2017. Hardly can be accused of simply pretending to be Labour to get elected. So when should they announce it? 2 months before, a week? Is there a perfect time?
Havockk wrote: » The alternative of potentially decade long Tory dominance? I'll have to disagree with you on that point OB.
oscarBravo wrote: » That's a perfectly valid argument - if you subscribe to the belief that the Labour party as it currently stands can win an election. As it is, Labour are polling well behind the Conservatives. Think about that for a second. A flaming bag of dog turds should be polling ahead of the current Conservative party. It's all very well saying "either we unite behind the current leadership or the Tories will win" - but the Tories are winning, which practically defies the laws of physics.
Havockk wrote: » Actually, this polling data makes the decision from these 7 seem even more insane. If there is no mass defection from Lab, and no one joins from the Tories to fracture them.... what exactly will they achieve?
quokula wrote: » Once an election campaign begins manifestos get published and people start thinking about actual policies and not just media smears, which is why Labour did so much better than polling last time, and likely would again.
Leroy42 wrote: » They won the seat, it was their name, not the party.
oscarBravo wrote: » A principled stand against a party whose values they no longer recognise as compatible with their own?
MrMusician18 wrote: » Are they? I thought the polls were quite tight? Surely then the Tories wouldn't fear an election then? Or isn't it the case that once people get to hear what Corbyn has to say, they quite like it?
Havockk wrote: » I can barely stomach the argument that it's somehow 'more principled' to risk total tory political dominance than to somehow accept someone of the left to lead a labour movement. The truth is the collective centre has lost all sense of itself and is now possibly paving the way for something even worse.
listermint wrote: » What like shepherding the Tories into a brexit deal which has already killed thousands of labour jobs and will continue to risk thousands more. Good Shepherding their Jeremy , ace job. This is ultra Socialism, Its not social democracy which is demonstrated cleanly and clearly by the leadership ignoring their membership.
Havockk wrote: » What about the labour supporters who elected them, what about them?
Havockk wrote: » I can barely stomach the argument that it's somehow 'more principled' to risk total tory political dominance than to somehow accept someone of the left to lead a labour movement.
oscarBravo wrote: » Would those be the Labour supporters who overwhelmingly back a second referendum, and who are being pointedly ignored by the party leadership? Politicians change parties between elections. It happens. If their constituents think it's an unforgivable breach of trust, they won't be re-elected. You're reframing this as a rejection of left-wing policy. This isn't about rejecting left-wing leadership of Labour; it's about rejecting an abject failure of leadership of Labour.
Leroy42 wrote: » But if that were true then surely Labour would be riding high in the polls now? He got an uplift during the election for sure, but it should be very worrying that he was not able to hold that, or since the Tories are such a mess, capitalise on it. All the Labour have left at this stage is hope. Hope that what happened last time (and btw people seem to have forgotten that Labour still lost) will happen again. But people are now very aware of Corbyn and what he stands for and seemingly are no longer feeling like they did in 2017.
quokula wrote: » Labour don't have the numbers in parliament to stop what's happening. What exactly could they have done differently? They've voted against the Tories every step of the way. And Corbyn's letter last week proposing staying in the Customs Union and Single Market was widely welcomed by people like Tusk and Verhofstadt. It's a blatant mistruth to try and paint Labour's Brexit policy as anything close to the Tories. But yes, it's true that he hasn't openly campaigned for a second referendum that has no chance of happening and would disillusion many labour voters (but not their membership)
Havockk wrote: » a 2nd ref was never going to fly. Only way was going to be via a GE but teh Tories refused that pressure. Besides, as a remainer I'm also not completely unaware that a lot of LAb voters supported Brexit which makes it very delicate for leadership to organise a consensus. Corbyn as always backed a CU, something the EU themselves have pointed toward as a possible solution but it all falls on deaf ears. Ultra socialism? Like nationalising railways? Give me a break. I wish the consequences were not so dire, otherwise, I could almost enjoy this centerist complete meltdown.
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: » Losing seven centre-right MPs is hardly the break-up of the party. The anti-Semitism nonsense exists solely because the 'IRA supporter', 'Russian spy' smears didn't work. The idea that Corbyn, a life-long anti-racism campaigner, is an anti-Semite is absolutely ludicrous. They were right to leave - because they don't support the socialist policies that attracted 12.8 million voters in 2017 - they should be honest and cite those ideological differences as the reason, rather than repeating the same well-rehearsed lies about anti-Semitism.
MrMusician18 wrote: » He has held it, but to be fair not built on it. Remember they were expected to be trounced at the last election, to lose by over 100 seats. And the reason he hasn't been able to build stopped is because a good number of MPs come from leave constituencies.There are a lot of myths being pedalled as fact about Corbyn in this thread - with the real issue is that he is not pro remain enough for some posters.
Havockk wrote: » I pointed out to you that on Monday both were polling exactly the same. You just brushed over it.
listermint wrote: » The MEMBERSHIP voted for a Second Referendum. Corbyn has been actively fighting this. Stop trying to rewrite history. This is only in the last few months lads. These points are easily disproved. Corbyn's labour is not acting democratically. Which is the platform he launched himself on. And the leadership is going along with it. Awful setup, they are enabling the Tories with Glee... Killing jobs along the way.
MrMusician18 wrote: » He has held it, but to be fair not built on it. Remember they were expected to be trounced at the last election, to lose by over 100 seats. And the reason he hasn't been able to build stopped is because a good number of MPs come from leave constituencies. There are a lot of myths being pedalled as fact about Corbyn in this thread - with the real issue is that he is not pro remain enough for some posters.
oscarBravo wrote: » I'm not brushing over it. I'll reiterate my point: polling neck and neck with the disaster-of-old-testament-proportions that is the current Tory party is, and can only be seen as, an abject failure of leadership.
Havockk wrote: » A 2ndRef mandate is going to do F-All for Labour at this point. Brexit can't be stopped, it's too late.