liamtech wrote: » Why should corbyn resign? Membership like him and are behind him. Endorsed him at conference recently. Farron resigned after a poor election performance, perhaps corbyn will too. He is incapable of leading a remain labour - when that is arguably what the country needs. He is at least partially responsible for the divisions in Labour over brexit - and by divisions i am referring to both the Parliamentary party AND the electorateIt is NOT that a REMAIN LABOUR PARTY is not credible - it is that HE IS NOT CREDIBLE to LEAD SUCH A PARTY Therefore i maintain that he had the option to stand aside - he chose to remain based on a swell of labour membership and corbyniestas - He is not a pragmatic person - he is a principled campaigner - i would still import him to ireland to teach our labour party who to be ACTUAL LEFTIES! but the moment he strays into his rampant euroscepticism he would rightly lose the audience - in my opinion
LeinsterDub wrote: » How do you reckon? Current predictions suggest the SNP take Scotland or nearly all of it . Lib dems pick up seats and the leave vote has now been split in Labour seats . Where do you see the Tory getting the numbers?
liamtech wrote: » Its a strange situation. In one way Farage is being a proper pragmatist - he is not standing against Tory incumbents, which means they are relatively safe for those He also spoke relatively positively about BJ's deal - TBP seem to be rolling in behind the deal as being not the hardest, but better then any possibility of a a second ref - from their POV
Joe_ Public wrote: » Why should corbyn resign? Membership like him and are behind him. Endorsed him at conference recently. Farron resigned after a poor election performance, perhaps corbyn will too. Just to post again, lib dem position 2017: "Liberal Democrats believe the British people should have the final say. That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been negotiated, we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper. We continue to believe that there is no deal as good for the UK outside the EU as the one it already has as a member. Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say to the British people." So all fair and good, but what deal do they propose to put in that referendum? Lib dem pm, in theory, how do they organise that vote? Lets forget revoke because they wont get away with that. At least labour are dealing with that tricky question, others just fudge it because there are no easy answers.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » If Russian tanks roll into baltics tomorrow and US and UK and Turkey ignore their NATO commitments, which is no longer in realm of impossibility as it was few years ago, then NATO and EU are finnished as there be nothing to stop them rolling all way to English channel in days. What he gains is fataly undermining the only institutions that can put a check on his ambitions. Even if Putin has no plans invade more of Europe he gains the fact that his enemies are too busy with internal issues leaving him to tsar over his people. What he is afraid the most is being sodomised like Gaddaffi was.
liamtech wrote: » To address your first point which i highlighted - yes it is a valid point to make. Jeremy's principles wouldn't let him endorse a remain platform - So why then didnt he step aside? WHY not take the position, that it is NOT that labour urging remain is NOT CREDIBLE - but it is that JC LEADING A REMAIN LABOUR is IMPOSSIBLE? - before anyone attacks this point let me point out two examples - Tim Farron, lib dem leader - resigned because he realized there was a conflict between his faith and his politics; as an atheist i disagree profoundly with Farron but as someone who is interested in and engaged with politics, i commend him. and lest we not forget David Cameron - profoundly disagree with him, and his politics, and the disaster of calling the ref in the first place - But at least he had the grace to realize that he would be in deep conflict, to pursue a policy which he himself had campaigned against-- Second point - Labours Referendum is not the same as the peoples vote referendum - by the time it takes place 6+ months will have passed where much of the negativity around brexit will have been removed, and indeed JC will have argued publicly that his Brexit is good -in that scenario the public attitude may have changed by then - JC will perfume brexit as being a positive - it isnt As too having a referendum with 3 options on the ballot (remain, leave deal, leave no deal) it is precisely for the reason that it splits the leave camp in two that it would not work, or be accepted. If there is to be a three way question, it needs to ballot papers Leave v Remain if leave wins Leave Deal v Leave No Deal Finally im not a fan at all of the Lib Dems under Swinson, and i think revoke and move on would settle nothing. there would be a clear mandate for a second ref, by the leave side, and the tories would give it to them as soon as they could. I will say however, that to suggest Lib Dem 2017 is roughly the same as Labour 2019, that is a bit of a stretch. similar, but didnt involve more delays, a socialist renegotiation of brexit (by an ardent partly-closeted brexiteer) - and then finally a referendum Complicated as always, happy to discuss respectfully
briany wrote: » Once Farage stands down his candidates in Conservative areas, that has to be it surely. Easy majority for the Cons?
Quin_Dub wrote: » £100 to "stand" or was it just a donation - How many of those would actually put their name on the list. Only a fraction of that number had actually declared and put their names forward at constituency level.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » You use very strong negative adjectives on Corbyn when your actual position as explained above is that you simply disagree with his approach and dislike that he hasn’t rowed in behind a specific group on the issue. Corbyn will redraw red lines so that will absolutely open things up for further negotiation. He’ll also commit to new transition period dates. And then he’ll put whatever is received in a new deal to the people versus remain. Given the difficulties Labour have on Brexit and considering the genuine deep divisions in the country I think it’s a very sensible approach. But whether you agree with it or not, it isn’t hapless, fanciful, unclear, etc - it’s a simple straightforward position that would lead to a better outcome for the people of Britain. Flat out revoking or rerunning 2016 with parameters that do not respect the desire to leave of 40%+ of the electorate is a frankly dangerous position on the issue. Might win a few more votes, but it is far from credible.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Last point is fair. They are suffering electorally because many voters just want labour to be an out and out remain party which, of course, corbyn is never going to be, no matter how much we wish it. Although there are some signs the key northern battleground seats might not desert them - that would put kiss of death om on any tory majority. So maybe corbyn strategy might yet not be a write off, far too soon to tell. But if I'm reading this right, here's what i think is being suggested here. Labour continue with its PV policy - because we understand revoke is a cynical election ploy - but they reassure voters that they wont be facilitating any credible leave option so the whole thing will be weighted in favour of remain. Indeed why not go whole hog and put 2 leave options against remain and ensure victory, as many remainers want? I think he should have fudged it more, like lib dems are doing - their 2017 position is exactly same as labours now - but he's tried to deal with it in a reasoned, quite sensible manner and, yes, they are paying for it, it seems.
Valentino Abundant Thug wrote: » TBP appear to be handing Labour a massive head start in all this. Just days ago JC's crowd were about 10/1 to win most seats, today it's about half the value due to significant overnight shortening:
LeinsterDub wrote: » They have 3000 people who paid 100 pound to stand
Quin_Dub wrote: » I don't believe they ever actually had 600 candidates to stand anyway.. It was bluff and bluster. He didn't get the "deal" he was trying to con the others into so he had to back down.
Shelga wrote: » So what was the point of Farage saying he was going to stand Brexit Party candidates in every constituency? That was only a few days ago. And yet he criticises Johnson for flip-flopping on the most important issue of the day. These people are incapable of self-reflection or humility. Can’t stand them.
hotmail.com wrote: » Farage says the party won't stand in all 600 seats as earlier promised.
hotmail.com wrote: » It seems a Tory majority is heavily likely and that Britain will leave the EU in January. It will be interesting to see how this affects voting intentions in the North.
Injuryprone wrote: » So farage is only going to split the Tory vote in labour held seats?
Farage says the Brexit party will not stand against the Tories in the 317 seats they won in 2017.
liamtech wrote: » Ok well i dont think they are lying - i believe this policy of renegotiate and then a referendum is what Labour are about. As to your first point. If you subscribe to the idea of Brexit (Any Brexit, soft, hard, no deal) being negative to some degree, then a peoples vote ASAP is the way to go. And polling has shown that the appetite is there for a second ref, and for a remain victory. Brexit has been weakened to a large degree over the last few years, and now would be the moment when it could be cancelled, provided the polls are correct this time (obviously it is to a certain degree unpredictable, but if leave won, after all this, i think most of us would sigh and move on)By running on Renegotiate FIRST, Referendum SECOND manifesto, which is looking like Labours policy, Corbyn is going to reduce the negativity around brexit - he is effectively saying 'No - Brexit CAN BE POSITIVE if im running the country' - 'If Its Jeremy's Brexit it will be great' If you want to believe this - fine. honestly im not criticizing your right to chose and have an opinion. But if you are a remainer who believes ANY BREXIT WILL BE BAD, you cannot wholeheartedly endorse JC, or this Labour Parties election plan/manifesto So while yes, brexit will be alive after the election, it would only be so until the second referendum - If Labour were on board for an immediate Referendum, in the shortest available time, then they and all the Non Tory TBP groups could spend that time highlighting how negative brexit is. Instead Corbyn through renegotiating is implicitly perfuming Brexit with shroud of legitimacy, and positivity. And he will get to do this throughout his renegotiation, which could be 6 months. And when he supposedly sits on the fence during his Referendum, he will split the Labour vote, with Eurosceptic LP MP's being able to sell Jeremys deal as being great for Britain. Its so difficult to wrap my head round why he is doing this, but i said yesterday its a case of JC's Principles over-riding pragmatism. and it is damaging Labours credibility - and their chance of gaining seats in this election will suffer
liamtech wrote: » Ok well look it is complicated and TBH people will have differing views - my own view on these issues would be as follows Corbyn will now support a referendum, Yet he is not supporting the peoples Vote Movement - WHY? Because a peoples vote is saying STOP BREXIT NOW - 2nd REF - The peoples vote is proceeding on the basis that the majority will be for remain now that they have seen the debacle Jeremy Corbyn's 2nd Referendum is a choice between remain, and HIS DEAL (as yet non-existant) - now it is still a second referendum which i think is positive. But the idea is pure and simple. It will take 6 months MINIMUM to secure a Corbyn Brexit deal (assuming the EU wish to negotiate it, which granted it being soft they may well do) - but Corbyn will get massive amount of media coverage during this time where he will implicitly sell his deal, as the Sensible Soft Socialist Brexit. Then he comes back, sits on a fence, and lets the country have at it - the people will know by that time that he is for this deal, as he is the one who negotiated and AGREED IT! Its a second Ref on HIS TERMS Now given that the labour party in government would undoubtedly be in coalition with SNP, LIB DEM, GREEN, PLAID, all of these parties would actively campaign AGAINST a Corbyn deal - which would increase strain on an already barely stable coalition (before anyone suggests im ruling out a Labour majority situation, let me be fair and balance, and Rule it out explicitly - they will not get a majority, and would be incredibly lucky to get to the point of having a working coalition to command a majority) The point is Corbyn will not stop brexit, he will transform it into a socialist brexit, but still a Brexit - and an unstable coalition like that outlined above could easily collapse before the deal was negotiated - or worse still after it had been agreed - which would allow the tories back in - and we would be back to where we are now, but with the Caviat that the Tories could genuinely claim that their opposition had got their chance and failed - put simple this would be disastrous What happens if the Corbyn Rainbow coalition collapses midway through the second round? And the Tories get back in? What happens when the SNP get their second ref, and Corbyn will fight against them - coalition intact? What happens when Corbyn is going on about how great a Leftwing Brexit is, and the Lib Dems in government with him, see the polls shift in favor of that brexit? and What happens when half the Labor party urge remain in Corbyns referendum - how will momentum behave - how will lansman behave - ? because Corbyn might sit on the fence but with a wink and a nod (not to mention Corbyn working for 6 months on this) they will know - the leader wants this to pass On your second point, yes i do give credit to Corbyn for gaining in the 2017 election and denying a conservative majority - no question - but you cannot merely credit corbyn for defeating Mays and Boris's - On the contrary, there was bravery and genuine 'Country before Party' patriotism from members of the Tory Party, that effectively crippled both May and Boris - it was very admirable I feel like im gonna end every post on Brexit with the same tired but relevant phrase from now on - so il end by saying Its complicated
