Rjd2 wrote: » He has been officially re selected so its highly unlikely he would flee now. I clicked on James Melville's twitter page, doesn't seem to be a journalist and somehow he seems to have got this scoop. Coincidentally all his other tweets are tory and Brexit bashing. I think we can wait a little while on this "exclusive".
Bit cynical wrote: » I think the voters can see that if Labour were to go ahead with their plans, the EU could insist on any terms they wanted knowing that the worst that would happen is that the UK would have to revoke A50. What would most likely happen is that the EU would insist on freedom of movement if the UK were to be granted a customs union with the EU. This deal, if Labour accepted it, would then be rejected by the electorate in the subsequent referendum.
theological wrote: » I think you're being overly optimistic about Corbyn's prospects here. This forum has a particular slant but when you look at things domestically in Britain you'll see it is a much harder fight for Corbyn than some suggest. Theresa May who shot herself in the foot because her advisors Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy thought it'd be a great idea to say that old aged pensioners would have to pay for social care in the election and Corbyn still only managed to get a hung parliament. Then you have the Liberal Democrats campaigning on a clear remain platform to simply revoke Article 50. Most people in Britain are deeply sceptical of Corbyn and the Momentum group within the Labour party. A lot of people are simply lethargic about Brexit and just want it done and dusted including a lot of remainers. The polls are suggesting that Johnson is starting off with a big lead also.
coastwatch wrote: » I think this will be easy for Boris, "Brexit, Let's get it done" Even soft remainers wont be able to resist that. All other issues, economy, NHS, re-negotiate, all way too complicated at this stage.
lawred2 wrote: » Ah I see. So they are going to tap the side of their nose and wink at the camera when they see say "we're going to renegotiate a better deal"
Rjd2 wrote: » The "exclusive" has been deleted. SHOCKED. :eek:
Bit cynical wrote: » I could see a lot of Labour people voting Tory in the upcoming election just to get Brexit over with then reverting back to Labour in subsequent elections.
Bit cynical wrote: » I think they know that what they are saying does not make a lot of sense. Their plan may be to try to attract both sides of the brexit divide however I don't see it working. It is a very roundabout way of saying we'll revoke A50.
L1011 wrote: » Cyprian Brady. Got under 1000 first preferences. Its really never happened to quite as extreme a level anywhere else. Wiki lead me to DeV transferring en masse to a running mate who got barely over 100 votes - in 1923!
fr336 wrote: » Voting Tory isn't getting Brexit done. It's May's crap deal with a fudge. If anyone voting for Boris didn't vote for May, they are unbelievably stupid. Also what kind of idiot votes to "get something done" in 2019 and then still be living with the consequences of a Tory government five years down the line?
Deleted User wrote: » Many in the north of England and south of Wales would rather vote for the Brexit Party. That's why a pact could prove advantageous between BP and the Torys. Many Labor voters would never consider voting for a Conservative government, but would be willing to vote for the Brexit Party.
Enzokk wrote: » Where is the economic impact assessment of his Brexit plan? Why has it not been released? Once the questions begin to be asked it will not be as simple for Johnson, why else did he try to ram it through so quickly without scrutiny?
Joe_ Public wrote: » It's the one thing i have to admit does boil my blood a bit in this whole saga, the wilful obscuring of the labour position that you'd imagine you'd need mensa level brain capacity to grasp it the way some go on about it. No one has to like it or vote for it, but to portray it as in any way complex seems disingenuous to me. Vote labour and you vote for a second referendum in all circumstances. That seems fairly plain to me at least. Do i really need to worry unduly about how individual labour politicians stand afterwards? I get the vote and so vote accordingly.
coastwatch wrote: » That's my point, the white, older voters in NE England dont care about economic impact assessments, thats just too complicated. They voted leave and they are pi$$ed off it hasn't happened, whatever the consequences. Soft Remainers dont care anymore, they just want it to end It will be an uphill struggle for Labour to win them over. They will need a simple message, but they dont have one.
schmittel wrote: » Agreed it seems a plain and simple message. But Labour's problem is all parties have a simple message: Vote Tory and you vote for Brexit in all circumstances. Vote Lib Dems and you vote for Remain in all circumstances. Vote Labour and you vote for a second referendum in all circumstances. You don't need Mensa level brain capacity to grasp any of the above. But Labours position is clearly more ambiguous than the other two, because party policy is completely unknown never mind unclear. I agree that how individual Labour politicians stand afterwards is not a big deal, but party policy should a big deal if you care one way or another about Brexit. If I was a Remain Labour voter I would feel pretty sore if the second referendum was a close win for Leave and Labour did not campaign for Leave. I wouldn't risk it and I'd vote Lib Dem instead. If I was a Labour Brexiteer I would vote BXP or Tory for obvious reasons. Sure if I was a voter who does not actually have a strong opinion either way on Brexit, but felt that the most important thing was that the country had a second referendum I'd vote Labour. I just don't think there are enough of these voters to win an election which is why I think it is a nice policy in theory, but daft in practice.
Sam Russell wrote: » But it is possible to win a seat on less than 35%, and if this was repeated in just over 50% of constituencies, a majority could be obtained by as small as 18% of the popular vote. However, that is based on the most unlikely of events
Bit cynical wrote: » The problem is that Labour's disingenuous tactics in parliament are a turn off for voters in an election.
Deleted User wrote: » Labor aren't sitting on the fence, though. It's to re-negotiate a deal "economically close" to the Single Market and Customs Union, then put that deal to the public versus Remain. It couldn't be clearer. It's not the clarity that's missing, it's the logic and sense of it.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Too much humbug?
Bit cynical wrote: » Well, for example, insisting that "no deal" be taken off the table in negotiations. That's fine if you want to throw the spanner in the works for the Tory's attempt at negotiation but is a disingenuous position in real life. The average punter knows you can't negotiate with that constraint especially if it is known to the other side.
Joe_ Public wrote: » They got the deal though, didnt they? The "great" deal Johnson talks about. So doesn't seem to have done much harm at all.
Bit cynical wrote: » Of course it is not that great in reality and Johnson only got it by hinting that he was going to go to whatever lengths fair or foul to leave on the given date despite being forced to ask for an extension. But I would still maintain that most people know that Labour was making it difficult for Johnson to get a deal for the UK. Rather than Labour being against brexit (which might alienate pro-Brexit Labour supporters), Labour's tactic was to try to make Boris fail at Brexit. Fair enough in parliament but may not play well in an election. It's the sort of thing you might do at the beginning of a term in opposition but then let some time pass.
Enzokk wrote: » This tweet has an interesting graph showing how the parties have done in the polls since July 2017. We can see it was quote predictable for most of the time but all of this changed when May's government started falling apart. Since then and with the EU elections and the rise of the Brexit Party it changed. So I guess the only conclusion we can draw is that everything is in flux right now.https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1189175533701128192?s=20
Joe_ Public wrote: » Thats very fair comment. It is obviously problematic which is unfortunate for them. My question for the lib dems would be: if we may discount your oh so very realistic revoke position for a second, how would you go about arranging a PV? My suspicion is they would fudge and turn it back to revoke. That is quite disingenuous to my eyes but hey, if it works for them, then good for them. Thats politics!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
