Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)
Options
Comments
-
Joe_ Public wrote: »Yeah, fair enough, it would really just be a pr move but it could be one with a bit of value for them.
The isle of wight is a big green target, so i would definitely consider giving them a free run there. I'm not sure all these alliances are a good thing in general, but this is a unique situation and labour would have a bit to gain by giving the greens a reciprocal gesture or two. Its not admitting weakness to do so, as some labour insiders suggest.
In the Isle of Wight Labour comfortably beat the Greens at the last election, so if anything the Greens should be the ones stepping down there. The Tories have more than 50% of the vote though so no amount of tactical voting would have mattered anyway.
I agree with the sentiment that Labour could do more to work with other parties, but in reality the Greens are the only ones on the same page as them and there isn't a single constituency in the country where the numbers make sense for Labour to step down for them. There are many constituencies where it would make sense for the Greens to step down, but I guess they don't want to do that if it isn't reciprocal in some way.
Labour could step down in some Lib Dem / Tory marginals but the constant open hostility from the Lib Dems seems to make that pretty impossible.
SNP are fairly aligned with Labour on most things but to step down for SNP would just play into the Tory attack line (which for once is pretty much based in truth) that Labour will allow a second Indy Referendum and hurt them in the rest of the country.0 -
Letwin_Larry wrote: »well it's been a most eventful morning.
the Lab socialist mask has well n truly slipped.
as if we needed any convincing, we now can see where Corbyn & Mcdonnell's crazy "let's nationalise everything that moves (even if it doesn't move)" will lead.
confidence will plummet, investment will collapse, talent will flee, strikes, increased taxes, 4 day weeks. SOCIALIST MADNESS.
Welcome to Corbyn's 1970s!
Investment has collapsed, talent has left in droves, and business confidence is, even according to the Tories, being held back due to Brexit uncertainty. 4 day weeks? Try Zero hour contracts!
What you fear most has already been delivered by the Tories.0 -
In the Isle of Wight Labour comfortably beat the Greens at the last election, so if anything the Greens should be the ones stepping down there. The Tories have more than 50% of the vote though so no amount of tactical voting would have mattered anyway.
I agree with the sentiment that Labour could do more to work with other parties, but in reality the Greens are the only ones on the same page as them and there isn't a single constituency in the country where the numbers make sense for Labour to step down for them. There are many constituencies where it would make sense for the Greens to step down, but I guess they don't want to do that if it isn't reciprocal in some way.
Labour could step down in some Lib Dem / Tory marginals but the constant open hostility from the Lib Dems seems to make that pretty impossible.
SNP are fairly aligned with Labour on most things but to step down for SNP would just play into the Tory attack line (which for once is pretty much based in truth) that Labour will allow a second Indy Referendum and hurt them in the rest of the country.
You can't hang everything on 2017, though. If you look at betting, greens are second to tories on isle of wight and rest not really in the picture. They believe they can win it and that would be good as a seat for labour. They won't do it though, so all moot really.
As for lib dems, they wont deal with corbyn so kind of moot as well. But stuff is happening on the ground - a lib dem candidate telling voters to support labour on one side, a labour clp (lewes) not campaigning in its own constituency (as per polly toynbee article 2 days ago). The leader of Lewes clp advocating a tactical vote (mark perryman) against his own party is a big corbyn supporter. You can expect more of that as we go on i think.
But on the greens, i think thats a no brainer for labour and it could backfire:
https://twitter.com/VixL/status/1194953557369327618?s=200 -
Investment has collapsed, talent has left in droves, and business confidence is, even according to the Tories, being held back due to Brexit uncertainty. 4 day weeks? Try Zero hour contracts!
What you fear most has already been delivered by the Tories.
what utter nonsense! the UK has one of the most vibrant economies in europe. it attracts investment and talent from all over the world. business confidence will skyrocket, so long as socialist Lab is not elected and Brexit gets sorted.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »You can't hang everything on 2017, though. If you look at betting, greens are second to tories on isle of wight and rest not really in the picture. They believe they can win it and that would be good as a seat for labour. They won't do it though, so all moot really.
As for lib dems, they wont deal with corbyn so kind of moot as well. But stuff is happening on the ground - a lib dem mp telling voters to support labour on one side, a labour clp (lewes) not campaigning in its own constituency (as per polly toynbee article 2 days ago). The leader of Lewes clp advocating a tactical vote (mark perryman) against his own party is a big corbyn supporter. You can expect more of that as we go on i think.
But on the greens, i think thats a no brainer for labour and it could backfire:
https://twitter.com/VixL/status/1194953557369327618?s=20
At the last election, Labour came second to the Tories in the Isle of Wight, with 17 thousand votes, which is thousands more than the Greens. The Greens came last in Southampton, with a few hundred votes.
"If you step down in a constituency you were the closest to the Tories and got thousands more votes than us, we'll step down in a constituency where we came last with a few hundred" is hardly reciprocal.
Those few hundred votes could of course make a difference in Southampton because it is indeed extremely marginal between Labour and the Tories. Which is why the Green party really ought to step down there if they want to achieve many of their policy goals.
Should Labour hand over a seat where they would otherwise beat the Greens in return? I guess there's an argument that the Tories are going to win there anyway so they could do so as a token gesture. They probably consider how such deals would mean losing out in "national popular vote" share to the Tories and how that might play out in media in future, but more than that the reality of the numbers is that if you want to look at the raw numbers and back the progressive party with the best chance, the Greens should be the ones stepping down in the Isle of Wight too.
The problem with FPTP is that the natural conclusion of a Green / Labour alliance that actually did what made sense mathematically, would realistically involve the Greens standing down every candidate in the country outside of Brighton.
A Lib Dem / Green alliance actually has some logical reciprocality because the Lib Dems tend to do poorly where the Greens do well and vice versa. Of course it makes less sense when you see they have practically no policies in common, but I guess the maths won out.
BTW I'm not sure why you think the Greens are so likely to beat Labour in the Isle of Wight. All the numbers suggest otherwise.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Isle%20of%20Wight
I'm guessing the bookie's odds are based on some speculative bets around talk of Labour stepping down. The Tories are still odds on by far with the bookies though.0 -
Advertisement
-
At the last election, Labour came second to the Tories in the Isle of Wight, with 17 thousand votes, which is thousands more than the Greens. The Greens came last in Southampton, with a few hundred votes.
"If you step down in a constituency you were the closest to the Tories and got thousands more votes than us, we'll step down in a constituency where we came last with a few hundred" is hardly reciprocal.
Those few hundred votes could of course make a difference in Southampton because it is indeed extremely marginal between Labour and the Tories. Which is why the Green party really ought to step down there if they want to achieve many of their policy goals.
Should Labour hand over a seat where they would otherwise beat the Greens in return? I guess there's an argument that the Tories are going to win there anyway so they could do so as a token gesture. They probably consider how such deals would mean losing out in "national popular vote" share to the Tories and how that might play out in media in future, but more than that the reality of the numbers is that if you want to look at the raw numbers and back the progressive party with the best chance, the Greens should be the ones stepping down in the Isle of Wight too.
The problem with FPTP is that the natural conclusion of a Green / Labour alliance that actually did what made sense mathematically, would realistically involve the Greens standing down every candidate in the country outside of Brighton.
A Lib Dem / Green alliance actually has some logical reciprocality because the Lib Dems tend to do poorly where the Greens do well and vice versa. Of course it makes less sense when you see they have practically no policies in common, but I guess the maths won out.
BTW I'm not sure why you think the Greens are so likely to beat Labour in the Isle of Wight. All the numbers suggest otherwise.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Isle%20of%20Wight
I'm guessing the bookie's odds are based on some speculative bets around talk of Labour stepping down. The Tories are still odds on by far with the bookies though.
I'm no expert and bookies odds are probably no more reliable than the polls they go by. However, they are a better guide than nothing and when i see the green candidate at 4/1 and labour way back at 33/1, I'm going to reasonably conclude its based on something more than a hunch. Greens have targeted this seat for a long time, its where they chose to launch their election campaign and i dont think they are basing their optimism on pure hot air. They would stand a hell of a good chance if labour agreed a reciprocal pact for Southampton.0 -
Letwin_Larry wrote: »well it's been a most eventful morning.
the Lab socialist mask has well n truly slipped.
as if we needed any convincing, we now can see where Corbyn & Mcdonnell's crazy "let's nationalise everything that moves (even if it doesn't move)" will lead.
confidence will plummet, investment will collapse, talent will flee, strikes, increased taxes, 4 day weeks. SOCIALIST MADNESS.
Welcome to Corbyn's 1970s!
Seems to be confusion if they can even nationalise the internet when in the EU. Its difficult to get many neutral takes on it, but looking at people I trust it would be really tricky. Might have to do a Lexit.:P
On immigration their stance may not be a vote winner, but Labour since Blair have always talked tough on immigration but its never cut through with the public who are obsessed with it.
Heck even Cameron said they were to hardline once.
Corbyn who I have issues with clearly has decided that for whom immigration is key Labour will never have their votes so may as well try and appeal to other demos and especially younger viewers who are not as immigration wary as older working class labour voters.
I dunno if it will work out for them, but I definitely understand his logic.
Also on immigration I think attitudes have softened on it since Brexit somewhat.0 -
Labour now at 20/1 on Paddy Power to get a majority.
Shocking stuff. Surely anything other than outright victory/majority means Corbyn has to stand down after this election? Like him or loathe him, the man cannot win elections for Labour.
No one can win a majority for Labour without Scotland.
Corbyn won because he was the best Labour had to offer, that says a lot about Labour.
The damage for Labour has been building for decades.
The Blair years did tremendous damage to the party at a root level.
Corbyn and co. are furthering that but his internal opponents had no interest in changing anything about the party.0 -
Letwin_Larry wrote: »what utter nonsense! the UK has one of the most vibrant economies in europe. it attracts investment and talent from all over the world. business confidence will skyrocket, so long as socialist Lab is not elected and Brexit gets sorted.
I guess all the statistics must be wrong then.
They narrowly missed a recession, they have massive downturn in investment, business confidence is down.
You are talking based on the pre Brexit UK, the very thing you want they already had, but have decided it was what they really wanted.
So the Tories have gone about making sure not only the economy takes a massive and lasting hit, but the UK itself is not open to question in terms of staying together.
Zero hour contracts, 1000's employed in the gig economy, massive parts of the North England suffering badly from lack of development, NI is a social state in all but name.
You need to take your head out of London and see what is really happening. There is a reason why many voted for Brexit, and it's not economics, or sovereignty or any of the other high level notions. There is a massive cohort of people in the UK that, rightly, feel utterly left behind. They mistakenly picked the EU are the reason for their ills, but their ills are nonetheless genuine.0 -
No one can win a majority for Labour without Scotland.
Corbyn won because he was the best Labour had to offer, that says a lot about Labour.
The damage for Labour has been building for decades.
The Blair years did tremendous damage to the party at a root level.
Corbyn and co. are furthering that but his internal opponents had no interest in changing anything about the party.
this article was linked to on AH recently. Daltry's outburst about immigration surprised me somewhat and it goes back to 2011
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2014979/Roger-Daltrey-reveals-attitudes-marriage-vows-far-straightforward.htmlWhen it comes to British politics he has a lot to say. A lifelong Labour voter, he’s disgusted by the last Government. ‘I was appalled at what Labour did to the working class — mass immigration, where people were allowed to come here and undercut our working class,’ says Roger.
‘It’s fine to say everybody can come into your country, but everybody should work towards a standard of living expected by people who live here. Not come here, live 20 to a room, pay no tax, send money home and undercut every builder in London. They slaughtered the working class in this country. I hate them for it because it is always the little man who is hurt badly. It’s terrible. It frustrates me.0 -
Advertisement
-
this article was linked to on AH recently. Daltry's outburst about immigration surprised me somewhat and it goes back to 2011
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2014979/Roger-Daltrey-reveals-attitudes-marriage-vows-far-straightforward.html
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »Have to agree with George Monbiot on bbc. Why are labour standing against caroline lucas in brighton? Not only should they be standing down, they should be talking about bringing her into government to work on the environment. A total no brainer for me. Greens going to win the seat anyway.
I believe that as the two traditional parties of power both the Tories and Labour don't want to set a precedent by standing down candidates in any constituencies. They both see party integrity as more important than Brexit.
By standing down candidates they would basically admit that they aren't as powerful as they once might have been which they are unwilling to countenance.0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »I believe that as the two traditional parties of power both the Tories and Labour don't want to set a precedent by standing down candidates in any constituencies. They both see party integrity as more important than Brexit.
By standing down candidates they would basically admit that they aren't as powerful as they once might have been which they are unwilling to countenance.
Labour is rapidly losing the Working Class, who despite years of being pissed on by them stuck around till now.
The middle class where much of its core now cones from and most of its activists, is the class where the Greens do the best.
Labour can't afford to see the Greens grow, it is at their expense.
They can hardly tell the White Van gammons they are sorry, want to be friends again and give us a vote.
The same snooty approach did for Scottish Labour.0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 64832
-
Blair won sufficient seats in England/Wales but that is a once a century landslide probably
True, corrected.
I always felt the Blair years were like taking an old car, sprucing it up and driving the living **** out of it for a few years.
It left the party a wreck but it got good mileage at the time.0 -
Brussels Sprout wrote: »I believe that as the two traditional parties of power both the Tories and Labour don't want to set a precedent by standing down candidates in any constituencies. They both see party integrity as more important than Brexit.
By standing down candidates they would basically admit that they aren't as powerful as they once might have been which they are unwilling to countenance.
That is true. I understand it is against party rules and all that so there would be opposition against it. However as we have seen, party rules are there to be broken whenever it suits them, and i think this is a one off situation they should be considering it. I think there will be considerable local pressure brought to bear over the course of the campaign in some areas, tactical voting will happen whether leadership endorses it or not.0 -
Nice to see a short piece quoting actual economists on Newsnight that pointed out buying assets means you now own those assets with their inherent value and potential future profits and the usual unchallenged economically illiterate arguments about affordability are completely spurious.0
-
Nice to see a short piece quoting actual economists on Newsnight that pointed out buying assets means you now own those assets with their inherent value and potential future profits and the usual unchallenged economically illiterate arguments about affordability are completely spurious.
of course once the govt. gets its' hands on anything, it wont be long before it's destroyed.0 -
With Labour's plan to Nationalist BT and create 'British Broadband' does that mean they are effectively giving up the ghost on stopping Brexit.
Such a policy would not have been possible due to EU competition law.
Have to despair really at both Labour and the Tories. Both of them resembling extreme forms of their former selves.0 -
Will Boris' number of children both confirmed and unconfirmed become an issue in the GE?0
-
Advertisement
-
beggars_bush wrote: »Will Boris' number of children both confirmed and unconfirmed become an issue in the GE?
I don't think so.0 -
With Labour's plan to Nationalist BT and create 'British Broadband' does that mean they are effectively giving up the ghost on stopping Brexit.
Such a policy would not have been possible due to EU competition law.
Have to despair really at both Labour and the Tories. Both of them resembling extreme forms of their former selves.
Labour is not planning or proposing to nationalise BT, merely its broadband supply network Openreach, which technically is not even owned by BT anyway. With the government spinning away like mad, the level of disinformation swallowed whole by a gullible public is alarming. Communism gone out of control, wouldn't you know. There are lots of nationalised industries, including in telecoms sector, across the EU, so people need to do better homework instead of dismissing it immediately out of hand.0 -
Have to despair really at both Labour and the Tories. Both of them resembling extreme forms of their former selves.
Would this be the same Labour who under Clement Atlee implemented a great deal of socialist policies like nationalising vital industries and bringing in the free at point of access NHS (which everyone agrees was a good thing - even the Tories who are intent on selling it off)?
Or the Conservatives who under Bonar Law deliberately stoked up Unionist sectarian sentiment in Ireland?
Hmmm... a socialist Labour Party and a fear mongering Conservative Party... seems to me both are merely going back to their roots.0 -
Yeah, just like the NHS, which was a complete disaster and highly unpopular with the British people, who desperately want a proper US style private healthcare system which bankrupts them if they get sick.Letwin_Larry wrote: »of course once the govt. gets its' hands on anything, it wont be long before it's destroyed.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Would this be the same Labour who under Clement Atlee implemented a great deal of socialist policies like nationalising vital industries and bringing in the free at point of access NHS (which everyone agrees was a good thing - even the Tories who are intent on selling it off)?
Or the Conservatives who under Bonar Law deliberately stoked up Unionist sectarian sentiment in Ireland?
Hmmm... a socialist Labour Party and a fear mongering Conservative Party... seems to me both are merely going back to their roots.
Possibly - although neither Law or Attlee were in power at a particularly stable period of history - Law was after WW1 and the Irish Crisis, while entering the depression period. While Attlee was post WW2, at a time when radical politics was needed to get Britain thriving again
I know too, that the instability of those periods, was not specifically caused by either of these characters - Granted Law was not a pleasant person to say the least - and Attlee gave the UK the NHS - so Labour emerge more positively IMHO
But Brexit is the cause of the Tory's, and BoJo in particular- they are responsible for it - and Labour didnt help by having an extreme Euro-sceptic as leader both during and after the referendum
It is fascinating in terms of politics - i just wish it were taking place in a far off land and that we in Ireland were entirely insulated against itSic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants
0 -
Possibly - although neither Law or Attlee were in power at a particularly stable period of history - Law was after WW1 and the Irish Crisis, while entering the depression period. While Attlee was post WW2, at a time when radical politics was needed to get Britain thriving again
I know too, that the instability of those periods, was not specifically caused by either of these characters - Granted Law was not a pleasant person to say the least - and Attlee gave the UK the NHS - so Labour emerge more positively IMHO
But Brexit is the cause of the Tory's, and BoJo in particular- they are responsible for it - and Labour didnt help by having an extreme Euro-sceptic as leader both during and after the referendum
It is fascinating in terms of politics - i just wish it were taking place in a far off land and that we in Ireland were entirely insulated against it
None of which has anything to do with the post I was responding to.
The fact remains that neither the LP or CP today are 'extreme' forms of themselves.
Both have 'form' when it comes to their current policies.
What I find fascinating is people freaking out because the LP might...*gasp*.. actually have socialist tendencies. Just shows those people know nothing about the history/reason for the formation of the LP.0 -
This is a time when radical politics is needed. The Tories are offering radical politics alright - the radical politics of the robber barons of the early part of the 20th century - the type of politics that led to things like the 1913 Lockout and the Great Depression.Possibly - although neither Law or Attlee were in power at a particularly stable period of history - Law was after WW1 and the Irish Crisis, while entering the depression period. While Attlee was post WW2, at a time when radical politics was needed to get Britain thriving again
I know too, that the instability of those periods, was not specifically caused by either of these characters - Granted Law was not a pleasant person to say the least - and Attlee gave the UK the NHS - so Labour emerge more positively IMHO
But Brexit is the cause of the Tory's, and BoJo in particular- they are responsible for it - and Labour didnt help by having an extreme Euro-sceptic as leader both during and after the referendum
It is fascinating in terms of politics - i just wish it were taking place in a far off land and that we in Ireland were entirely insulated against it
Labour at least recognise what the real 21st century issues are - inequality, the destruction of workers rights, climate change, technology infrastruture, as well as the old reliables of health and education, and have policies to address them.0 -
sid waddell wrote: »This is a time when radical politics is needed. The Tories are offering radical politics alright - the radical politics of the robber barons of the early part of the 20th century - the type of politics that led to things like the 1913 Lockout and the Great Depression.
Labour at least recognise what the real 21st century issues are - inequality, the destruction of workers rights, climate change, technology infrastruture, as well as the old reliables of health and education, and have policies to address them.Bannasidhe wrote: »None of which has anything to do with the post I was responding to.
The fact remains that neither the LP or CP today are 'extreme' forms of themselves.
Both have 'form' when it comes to their current policies.
What I find fascinating is people freaking out because the LP might...*gasp*.. actually have socialist tendencies. Just shows those people know nothing about the history/reason for the formation of the LP.
I don't think you could fit 6pence between our opinions on this guys.
I merely point out that in relation to the comparison between Law and Attlee, and BoJo/Corbyn - there is a difference in terms of the current political situation and its causes
Law - serves briefly during post WW1/ANGLO-IRISH-WAR period - and acted according to his own right wing unionist principles - of which i would not approve - But Bonar Law did not begin the great war, or trigger the War of Independence, nor did he personally create the Unionist V Nationalist divide in Ireland
Attlee - Britain did indeed need radical politics, and coming out of the Second World War, he made massive improvements to the health of the nation, in many ways, not just in terms of the NHS - the Time was ripe for change - but Attlee didnt trigger the Second world war
Where as i would hold the Conservative party entirely responsible for Brexit - and Boris Careerist Johnson as personally culpable for Brexit - i would also stand by my criticism for Corbyn, in that i dont believe he truely campaigned to the best of his ability during the 2016 referendum
Therefore while Law and Attlee behaved a certain, there behavior was impacted by events outside of their control - while BoJo/Corbyn arguably contributed to the creation of the current crisisWhat I find fascinating is people freaking out because the LP might...*gasp*.. actually have socialist tendencies.
OK look i want to make clear (again), that i am not anti corbyn in terms Left Wing politics - i am a leftie - id import a retired corbyn to come here, and slap Brendan Howlin in the face for being a champagne socialist - my problem with Corbyn is his policy on brexit which i rate as substantially more important than anything else right now- Re-nationalization of Railways - no problem with this in principle as long as its executed in an orderly way, which as far as i can see it is
- Create state owned pharma manufacturing company to sell to NHS - excellent idea, no complaints
- 4 Day week - who is complaining - as long as it is phased in
- Aboloshing Private schools - would not phrase it like that, but if he means elevating public schools to lessen the gap between Public and private education - yea go ahead
- Renegotiate Brexit so it fits in with Corbyn's view on the EU - while Dragging out the brexit process for a further 6 months (cause thats what it will take IMHO) -then offering a referendum on his deal - while allowing half the labour party to urge voters to reject it - while he sits on the fence tacitly endorsing the concept of a 'Good Brexit' that is 'Not Damaging at all' -
NO - to the last one - a resounding NO - and it will DAMAGE the labour party in my opinion - create the exact conditions that existed in the Tory party that led to this farceSic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants
0 -
Johnson is such a waffler, it is quite scary the amount of folk who think he is what the UK needs
https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/11953245249480048650 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think you could fit 6pence between our opinions on this guys.
I merely point out that in relation to the comparison between Law and Attlee, and BoJo/Corbyn - there is a difference in terms of the current political situation and its causes
Law - serves briefly during post WW1/ANGLO-IRISH-WAR period - and acted according to his own right wing unionist principles - of which i would not approve - But Bonar Law did not begin the great war, or trigger the War of Independence, nor did he personally create the Unionist V Nationalist divide in Ireland
Attlee - Britain did indeed need radical politics, and coming out of the Second World War, he made massive improvements to the health of the nation, in many ways, not just in terms of the NHS - the Time was ripe for change - but Attlee didnt trigger the Second world war
Where as i would hold the Conservative party entirely responsible for Brexit - and Boris Careerist Johnson as personally culpable for Brexit - i would also stand by my criticism for Corbyn, in that i dont believe he truely campaigned to the best of his ability during the 2016 referendum
Therefore while Law and Attlee behaved a certain, there behavior was impacted by events outside of their control - while BoJo/Corbyn arguably contributed to the creation of the current crisis
OK look i want to make clear (again), that i am not anti corbyn in terms Left Wing politics - i am a leftie - id import a retired corbyn to come here, and slap Brendan Howlin in the face for being a champagne socialist - my problem with Corbyn is his policy on brexit which i rate as substantially more important than anything else right now- Re-nationalization of Railways - no problem with this in principle as long as its executed in an orderly way, which as far as i can see it is
- Create state owned pharma manufacturing company to sell to NHS - excellent idea, no complaints
- 4 Day week - who is complaining - as long as it is phased in
- Aboloshing Private schools - would not phrase it like that, but if he means elevating public schools to lessen the gap between Public and private education - yea go ahead
- Renegotiate Brexit so it fits in with Corbyn's view on the EU - while Dragging out the brexit process for a further 6 months (cause thats what it will take IMHO) -then offering a referendum on his deal - while allowing half the labour party to urge voters to reject it - while he sits on the fence tacitly endorsing the concept of a 'Good Brexit' that is 'Not Damaging at all' -
NO - to the last one - a resounding NO - and it will DAMAGE the labour party in my opinion - create the exact conditions that existed in the Tory party that led to this farce
Tbh you are reading an awful lot into my post - none of which I either said or implied.
I merely said that neither the LP or CP in their current format could be considered to be 'extreme' when you look at their respective histories.
I did not compare the leaders or the political situations - I simply pointed out that Labour used to be a socialist party and the Tories had a tendency to scaremonger and create/exploit division to win votes. That's it.
As for renegotiate a Brexit deal - I have no issue with that. May's deal was shot down, no one knows the specifics of Johnson's deal but if it mirrors May's there is no reason to believe that won't be shot down and yet another version will have to be negotiated anyway or face a no-deal crash out.
The Tories have so far failed to secure a deal that is acceptable to either hardcore leavers or remainers.
Hardly the end of the world if Labour have a go - without the Tory red-lines causing issues.
Then let the people actually decide in a referendum.
See, then it doesn't matter what Corbyn himself thinks - and I for one don't think the personal preferences of the PM should be the basis for making a decision in the first place - what matters is what the people decide.
Not what govt want, not what the PM wants.
A simple choice put to the people without govt endorsing one choice or the other. Treating the electorate like grown ups.
Now that's radical.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement