Bannasidhe wrote: » My personal politics have absolutely nothing to do with it. The Labour Party was formed as a socialist party. 'New' Labour was not a socialist party - it was more akin to the liberal Whigs. Many in the Labour Party at grass roots level resented this - as is their right. They are working to move the party back towards the left. And why shouldn't they? It's hardly shocking that a political party formed by socialists might contain socialists. Although it seems to have come as a shock to many Labour MPs. Momentum is a group of 40,000+ Labour Party members. They have every right to be heard and work towards having their views represented in the party. Corbyn isn't driving the UK into a crash out No Deal Brexit that will cause a recession. Johnson is doing that. And pulling all sort of stunts like proroguing parliament while he is about it. Who said anything about a 'better' deal- or a 'worse' deal for that matter? Corbyn - or more exactly the negotiators who are sent - will agree A deal with the EU. That deal will be put to a plebiscite. The people get to decide if they agree to it. Beats crashing out which is what the Tories are 'offering'.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I've been following this thread for nearly 10 iterations. I barely know what Labour's position is . It seem more than half the party don't agree with their own position and it's likely to change at a moments notice.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No, it won't die. It will get worse, with more blame aimed outwards at the EU and inwards at foreigners, remainers, LibDems, immigrants, treacherous businessmen deserting the UK, people who look like they might be immigrants etc.: people stabbing Brexit in the back and betraying Great Britain to the bullying EU Empire. A very dangerous course, a self reinforcing loop of xenophobia and isolationism leading to failure, leading to more xenophobia and isolationism.
Peregrinus wrote: » Exasperated as I am with Corbyn, it seems to me that Labour’s Brexit position is actually pretty rational. - Wisely or otherwise, the UK voted to leave the EU. I don’t think, having held the referendum, Parliament can ignore the result because it isn’t one they expect or welcome. - At the same time, they do have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the country. By their own choice, the referendum result isn’t binding on them. So, having reserved the final say to themselves, they do have a responsibility to exercise and act on their judgment as to what is in the best interests of the country; they can’t abdicate that by pointing to the referendum result. - And they certainly can’t abdicate it to whichever group of chancers and shysters honks loudly enough about what version of Brexit is the True Brexit™ that the people voted for, whether they knew it or not at the time. - It seems to me that a reasonable response to these circumstances is for Parliament to instruct the government to frame a workable proposal for Brexit on the best available terms, and then put those terms to the people for confirmation or rejection. Remainers should welcome this; what the People’s Vote campaign has sought all along is a referendum on a concrete Brexit proposal, with Remain as the default option. Labour party policy is now to give them exactly what they have been demanding. Leavers should welcome this; if the Will of the People™ is as they say it is, then in a confirmatory referendum Brexit on the best available terms should romp home by several lengths. And if it should turn out that the Will of the People™ is not as they say it is or as they want it to be, then the logic of their own position is that they should defer to the Will of the People™. The problem is, although the position may be rational, the UK isn’t living in rational times. Labour’s proposal is being rejected by both sides not, I think, because it is inherently bad but because neither side trust Jeremy Corbyn. And, if we’re honest, Corbyn is at least partly to blame for this. He has flatly refused to adopt or advocate for any concrete position on Brexit, the greatest political and public policy challenge to face the country in a generation. That’s an extraordinary failure of political leadership, at a time when the failure of the Tories to offer credible or even stable leadership creates a wide-open goal for any half-way competent opposition party. People conclude either that Corbyn really is as clueless about Brexit as he pretends to be (in which case why would you want him as PM right now?) or that he had definite views about Brexit which he conceals because he knows will be widely unacceptable (in which case people who care about Brexit will be very reluctant to vote for him). The upshot of all this is the he is squandering a chance to provide leadership, to bring the Labour party back to office, and to advance his broad agenda. His supporters must be bitterly disappointed in him.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Did you miss or are you deliberately ignoring the part about there being another referendum to decide if they leave with a deal or remain? That bit where the electorate get to decide one way or another? A deal which has been agree with the EU is put to the vote - not in Parliament where party politics trumps national interest but directly by the people. A plebiscite. IF the electorate voted for the deal they leave. If not, they remain. You see, when the decision is left to the electorate it doesn't matter what Corbyn personally wants. But apparently that is 'arrogance'.
Bannasidhe wrote: » My reading of that is different. To me arrogance is saying We'll crash out and all you millions who voted to stay will have to suck it up because that is Boris' plan to teach the EU a jolly good lesson. Arrogance is saying if Jo wins then we will remain and all you millions to voted to leave will have to suck it up because the LibDems won the most seats so there. Both the Tories and the LibDems are running on policies of 'It's my way or the Highway'. Corbyn is saying we will leave the ultimate choice to the people - having put an actual deal to them - and abide by their decision. And he's called arrogant?
listermint wrote: » There is very little Social democracy about labour it its current form. Yesterdays hand votes were a fine example of roughshod as you put it. A vote purely designed with 1 outcome, no counting. Counting was denied prior to the vote too. Laughable, how labour claim the upper ground and can stand over such practices. Members... Momentum are minority their voices should be heard but they arent heard they are an autocracy
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » Robbed from the FT correspondent (he won't mind). ***** Outcomes rankedNon-justiciable - government win Justiciable but lawful - government win (though court may say "careful now") Justiciable and declaration of unlawfulness - government defeat Above, with coercive order and/or finding of improper motive - bad government defeat
VinLieger wrote: » All of which Corbyn was forced into doing by the party members, he was against a 2nd referendum and thats still ignoring the massive arrogance of refusing to take a side in the most politically divisive issue the country has faced since their civil war and without a doubt the most important issue since the 2nd world war. His arrogance is believing he will never lose power once outside the EU and not seeing that the tories wont decimate every change he makes when they get back into power without EU protections in place
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is the supreme court judgement definitely being handed down this AM?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Do you mean the membership of the Labour Party agreed a policy and the leader has to implement it and not just do what he wants???
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh the horror! I have no idea where this 'will never lose power' stuff is coming from. Perhaps you could show me where Corbyn has made a statement along these lines? Is Jeremy planning on becoming dictator for life???
Seth Brundle wrote: » "This was not a normal prorogation" Not looking good for Johnson IMO!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
