Corbyn has lead Labour's transformation into an anti-immigrant, pro-brexit party and you still have remainers thanking him for its "success". I applaud the open contempt displayed by the rebellion today.
I've been following UK politics quite a bit, and I must say the state of Labour Party is just sad. I understand that there are a mixture of opinions and stances within the party about Brexit and JC's leadership, but after the last election, I would've thought that the Labour MPs are smart enough to coordinate the opposition's agenda more cohesively. This is similar in the US as well - both the Republicans and the Tories also have internal divisions, but the major difference compared to the Democrats/Labour is that they are disciplined to hold their noses and vote/work as one party when it matters to hold on to the political power. The latest move by Chuka and other MPs just showed the that Labour has a long way to go to beat the Tories, who may be horrible but are extremely skilled in party politics.
Brexit is done, the sanity has evaporated, only hope is damage limitation.
Look, in the current climate being anti-brexit is suicidal.
I've been following UK politics quite a bit, and I must say the state of Labour Party is just sad. I understand that there are a mixture of opinions and stances within the party about Brexit and JC's leadership, but after the last election, I would've thought that the Labour MPs are smart enough to coordinate the opposition's agenda more cohesively. This is similar in the US as well - both the Republicans and the Tories also have internal divisions, but the major difference compared to the Democrats/Labour is that they are disciplined to hold their noses and vote/work as one party when it matters to hold on to the political power. The latest move by Chuka and other MPs just showed the that Labour has a long way to go to beat the Tories, who may be horrible but are extremely skilled in party politics.
Billy_Pilgrim said:I do wonder when they'll realise what they're actually promoting with him but if it means a Labour government I don't give much of a fuck atm. Brexit is done, the sanity has evaporated, only hope is damage limitation.
This is bullshit. Corbyn whipped the vote, Corbyn fired them. They are representing their constituents. God forbid there can be a difference of opinion in the pro hard Brexit Labour party.These frontbenchers annoy me almost as much as Umunna. They gave up their positions and damaged Labour for what exactly? If the amendment had any hope of being passed then I'd have some more respect for them.
I do wonder when they'll realise what they're actually promoting with him but if it means a Labour government I don't give much of a fuck atm. Brexit is done, the sanity has evaporated, only hope is damage limitation.
I voted for Corbyn as leader. I am not anti left.
However, I am yet to for forgive him for his conduct during the referendum. He did the absolute bare minimum to campaign for Remain. I believe that if he had actually fought for it properly, there is a good chance the result would have gone the other way.
Thus, while I support Labour, I cannot help but support anyone who calls him out for his abject failure last summer.
This is bullshit. Corbyn whipped the vote, Corbyn fired them. They are representing their constituents. God forbid there can be a difference of opinion in the pro hard Brexit Labour party.
The changes he's made to the party have been put forward by his trot backers (who are definitely actual trots and the people he's closest to) to change it towards democratic centralism like their heroes from 1917.
I can't be arsed with more civil war, Tories are fragile and Corbyn is safe as houses as much as he might be a shit.
That said, what is their alternative?
Great post, I was disappointed with Corbyn at the time but since then I think he has done everything right with the options available.A large part of the vote was a fuck you to London and the Tories, but Corbyn had only been leader for what, 9 months before the vote, had to deal with a hostile parliamentary party from the get go and saw the damage done to the party during the Scottish referendum by standing side-by-side with the Tories. Cameron was right that the EU "question" had been poisoning British politics for years and since Corbyn locked up a decent percentage of the Labour vote, I don't think it's fair to overly criticise his leadership with regards to the referendum. First and foremost blame the Tories for their stupidity and arrogance. I'd also give part of the blame to New Labour for shouting down concerns about immigration, allowing inequality to widen and not doing enough for its heartlands outside of London.
In terms of people to "blame" for the referendum result Corbyn would be way down my list.
The fact that this is somehow Umunna's fault when it was Corbyn who stuck to his hard Brexit guns is entertaining to me.
At what point is this just a cult of personality and not a political party?
The fact that this is somehow Umunna's fault when it was Corbyn who stuck to his hard Brexit guns is entertaining to me.
At what point is this just a cult of personality and not a political party?
I thought this vote was about trying to stay in the single market after Brexit, not reversing the Brexit.
Staying in the single market is basically like staying in only that you don't have a voice in the EU anymore.
I do wonder when the country will wake up.
Staying in the single market is basically like staying in only that you don't have a voice in the EU anymore.
I do wonder when the country will wake up. Labour has (and had) basically the same hard brexit position as the tories.
This is bullshit. Corbyn whipped the vote, Corbyn fired them. They are representing their constituents. God forbid there can be a difference of opinion in the pro hard Brexit Labour party.
Let's take, as a baseline for "did the most possible to persuade their supporters", the Liberal Democrats. Is anyone here going to argue that they weren't sufficiently pro-Europe? I don't think so.
68% of 2015 Liberal Democrat voters went Remain.
Meanwhile, 65% of 2015 Labour voters went Remain.
Suppose that Corbyn had been as hugely enthusiastically in favour of Europe as you wanted. Suppose he hits the Liberal Democrat benchmark, and 68% of Labour voters went Remain.
The referendum result doesn't change.
The EU referendum was lost long before Corbyn. No hypothetical Labour leader was changing that result. You're into fantasy politics if you think Yvette Cooper was spearheading a populist pro-Europe surge.
So, let's take as our starting point: the EU referendum is going to be lost. What do you, as Labour leader, do from this point?
You can't refight old ground, especially when 35% of your voters disagree with you. You have to cut your losses. That's centrism. Centrism doesn't always look like Macron. Sometimes the political centre isn't especially near liberalism. Sometimes it's very far away. At best, you can aim for 'softest possible Brexit within the bounds of popular opinion'. That's making the best of a bad situation. That's where the Labour Party is. There's not a better play than that.
A more enthusiastically pro-European Union Labour campaign just means the same EU referendum result, but then Labour getting absolutely decimated in any consequent election (as very nearly happened when this was the Brexit election and not the dementia tax election). That would make any Brexit much harder than what we'll get now, where we have the Conservatives constrained by a hung parliament.
From the moment the EU referendum was called and Cameron and Osborne fluffed it, this was the best possible world for Remainers. That's just the way it is. If you were hoping for anything more, you're not a realist.
Staying in the single market is basically like staying in only that you don't have a voice in the EU anymore.
I do wonder when the country will wake up. Labour has (and had) basically the same hard brexit position as the tories.
Let's take, as a baseline for "did the most possible to persuade their supporters", the Liberal Democrats. Is anyone here going to argue that they weren't sufficiently pro-Europe? I don't think so.
68% of 2015 Liberal Democrat voters went Remain.
Meanwhile, 65% of 2015 Labour voters went Remain.
Suppose that Corbyn had been as hugely enthusiastically in favour of Europe as you wanted. Suppose he hits the Liberal Democrat benchmark, and 68% of Labour voters went Remain.
The referendum result doesn't change.
The EU referendum was lost long before Corbyn. No hypothetical Labour leader was changing that result. You're into fantasy politics if you think Yvette Cooper was spearheading a populist pro-Europe surge.
So, let's take as our starting point: the EU referendum is going to be lost. What do you, as Labour leader, do from this point?
You can't refight old ground, especially when 35% of your voters disagree with you. You have to cut your losses. That's centrism. Centrism doesn't always look like Macron. Sometimes the political centre isn't especially near liberalism. Sometimes it's very far away. At best, you can aim for 'softest possible Brexit within the bounds of popular opinion'. That's where the Labour Party is. There's not a better play than that.
A more enthusiastically pro-European Union Labour campaign just means the same result, but then Labour getting absolutely decimated in any consequent election, and therefore Brexit being much harder than what we'll get now, where we have the Conservatives constrained by a hung parliament.
From the moment the EU referendum was called and Cameron and Osborne fluffed it, this was the best possible world for Remainers. That's just the way it is.
Trying to force his party to adopt it as their Brexit stance rather than the manifesto's wishy washy bullshit. Corbyn didn't have to whip an abstention...
I'm not arguing that Corbyn is pro-Europe or about what Chukka did or didn't do in the past, I am asking how pushing this amendment (which as demonstrated by other amendments is guaranteed to fail no matter how popular) contributed towards the goal of remaining in the single market.Chukka put as much work into remain as anyone. St Jeremy is the one who actively sabotaged remain.
It's weird to see Gaffers calling someone a dickhead and wishing he'd fall in line and obey for trying to keep the UK in the single market. Imagine, daring to take a stand.
Well done you fucking idiot. You've successfully changed the news cycle from how weak May is to the mess labour is.
Genius.
Only at the point of jumping off the cliff. Maybe mid-air.
Never. At best, only when it is too late.
Yes, but it's a different thing from what the Lib-Dems proposed. And there were voices even from the UK government lately that pulled some strings in the same direction.
What is Corbyn / Labour position in the end? Still in the same fantasy land as some Tories (access to the single market without freedom of movement)? Hard Brexit?
Because according to recent votes in the parliament both main parties are strongly for hard Brexit.
https://twitter.com/ConnorGillies/status/880485304410546181
Grenfell Tower council meeting decends in to chaos. Council leader scraps meeting due to media presence.
Corbyn has lead Labour's transformation into an anti-immigrant, pro-brexit party and you still have remainers thanking him for its "success". I applaud the open contempt displayed by the rebellion today.
And yes, what Splinter says. I'd love to stay in Europe. I'd love to. But this did absolutely nothing to help us stay in Europe. It was never going to pass, even if every single Labour MP voted for it.
The only practical effect of voting for this was to create the media narrative that Labour is weak and divided. And, like it or not, of the two parties in a position to win an election in the near future, Labour is the one with the relatively softer Brexit stance. So by portraying Labour as divided, you make them less likely to be elected, and you make a harder Brexit more likely.
It was enormously counterproductive.
But it isn't softer, it's for a hard Brexit. Huw is right on this.And yes, what Splinter says. I'd love to stay in Europe. I'd love to. But this did absolutely nothing to help us stay in Europe. It was never going to pass, even if every single Labour MP voted for it.
The only practical effect of voting for this was to create the media narrative that Labour is weak and divided. And, like it or not, of the two parties in a position to win an election in the near future, Labour is the one with the relatively softer Brexit stance. So by portraying Labour as divided, you make them less likely to be elected, and you make a harder Brexit more likely.
It was enormously counterproductive.
Let's take, as a baseline for "did the most possible to persuade their supporters", the Liberal Democrats. Is anyone here going to argue that they weren't sufficiently pro-Europe? I don't think so.
68% of 2015 Liberal Democrat voters went Remain.
Meanwhile, 65% of 2015 Labour voters went Remain.
Suppose that Corbyn had been as hugely enthusiastically in favour of Europe as you wanted. Suppose he hits the Liberal Democrat benchmark, and 68% of Labour voters went Remain.
The referendum result doesn't change.
The EU referendum was lost long before Corbyn. No hypothetical Labour leader was changing that result. You're into fantasy politics if you think Yvette Cooper was spearheading a populist pro-Europe surge.
So, let's take as our starting point: the EU referendum is going to be lost. What do you, as Labour leader, do from this point?
You can't refight old ground, especially when 35% of your voters disagree with you. You have to cut your losses. That's centrism. Centrism doesn't always look like Macron. Sometimes the political centre isn't especially near liberalism. Sometimes it's very far away. At best, you can aim for 'softest possible Brexit within the bounds of popular opinion'. That's making the best of a bad situation. That's where the Labour Party is. There's not a better play than that.
A more enthusiastically pro-European Union Labour campaign just means the same EU referendum result, but then Labour getting absolutely decimated in any consequent election (as very nearly happened when this was the Brexit election and not the dementia tax election). That would make any Brexit much harder than what we'll get now, where we have the Conservatives constrained by a hung parliament.
From the moment the EU referendum was called and Cameron and Osborne fluffed it, this was the best possible world for Remainers. That's just the way it is. If you were hoping for anything more, you're not a realist.
And yes, what Splinter says. I'd love to stay in Europe. I'd love to. But this did absolutely nothing to help us stay in Europe. It was never going to pass, even if every single Labour MP voted for it.
The only practical effect of voting for this was to create the media narrative that Labour is weak and divided. And, like it or not, of the two parties in a position to win an election in the near future, Labour is the one with the relatively softer Brexit stance. So by portraying Labour as divided, you make them less likely to be elected, and you make a harder Brexit more likely.
It was enormously counterproductive.
Labours brexit position is nice on paper until you realize it's fantasy land since they want to stop FoM but stay in the single market.
Corbyn just like May are still telling the public they want to achieve a deal that is not available while being under time pressure and having almost no cards to play.
That's Chukas entire career. He's been on a tear of fuck ups ever since he first got the 'heir to Blair' label.And yes, what Splinter says. I'd love to stay in Europe. I'd love to. But this did absolutely nothing to help us stay in Europe. It was never going to pass, even if every single Labour MP voted for it.
The only practical effect of voting for this was to create the media narrative that Labour is weak and divided. And, like it or not, of the two parties in a position to win an election in the near future, Labour is the one with the relatively softer Brexit stance. So by portraying Labour as divided, you make them less likely to be elected, and you make a harder Brexit more likely.
It was enormously counterproductive.
Labour proposes a soft Brexit that isnt available.And yes, what Splinter says. I'd love to stay in Europe. I'd love to. But this did absolutely nothing to help us stay in Europe. It was never going to pass, even if every single Labour MP voted for it.
The only practical effect of voting for this was to create the media narrative that Labour is weak and divided. And, like it or not, of the two parties in a position to win an election in the near future, Labour is the one with the relatively softer Brexit stance. So by portraying Labour as divided, you make them less likely to be elected, and you make a harder Brexit more likely.
It was enormously counterproductive.
They don't want to stay in the single market - they want "the exact same benefits the UK has as a member of the Single Market and the Customs Union". That's how they put it in Corbyn's own amendment.
This is basically the same nonsense as david davis theres going to be a court with european judges but its not called ECJ So its not ECJ.They don't want to stay in the single market - they want "the exact same benefits the UK has as a member of the Single Market and the Customs Union". That's how they put it in Corbyn's own amendment.
Labour proposes a soft Brexit that isn't available.
A lot of people seem to eat labour magical deal while attacking the tories for their nonsense.
This is bullshit. Corbyn whipped the vote, Corbyn fired them. They are representing their constituents. God forbid there can be a difference of opinion in the pro hard Brexit Labour party.
What a farce, all Chuka has done here is make the party look like a mess again just when there was the opportunity to pull together. Can't say he'd ever have my vote in a future leadership contest
NC GOP did something right! We absolutely won't be having an Article V constitutional convention now.
whyamihere
Member
(Today, 09:41 PM)
Quote