-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UK General Election 2017 |OT2| No Government is better than a bad Government
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
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
Member
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 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.
Look, in the current climate being anti-brexit is suicidal. The only reason the lib-dems can promise such a thing as reversing brexit is because they know they will never be in a position of power to actually do so, meaning they have the political capital for such expensive fantasies. Labour and Tories? They are the parties with the only chances of governing in the current climate meaning they actually have a responsibility to the people and can't just reject the results of the referendum.
This whole amendment is a joke and make Labour looks weak. The narrative is that the Tories will not be able to govern the country, this amendment is basically saying "actually if this thing passes you are legitimized in the eyes of labour and some of us will vote for your speech". You know what the problem is? This amendment never had a chance of passing and Chukka knew this, so basically all he did was damage the party for nothing. How can the party be united if they can't even be united in their fundamental belief that the Tories are bad fir the country and don't deserve another mandate?
One thing everyone should know if that the Labour infighting is not exclusive to Jeremy Corbyn, its almost a running joke in how prominent it has become. Heck even when they are in power its a thing, see: Blair v Brown
This whole amendment is a joke and make Labour looks weak. The narrative is that the Tories will not be able to govern the country, this amendment is basically saying "actually if this thing passes you are legitimized in the eyes of labour and some of us will vote for your speech". You know what the problem is? This amendment never had a chance of passing and Chukka knew this, so basically all he did was damage the party for nothing. How can the party be united if they can't even be united in their fundamental belief that the Tories are bad fir the country and don't deserve another mandate?
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.
One thing everyone should know if that the Labour infighting is not exclusive to Jeremy Corbyn, its almost a running joke in how prominent it has become. Heck even when they are in power its a thing, see: Blair v Brown
Huw_Dawson
Member
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?
At what point is this just a cult of personality and not a political party?
Brexit is done, the sanity has evaporated, only hope is damage limitation.
that's all it's ever been.
Look, in the current climate being anti-brexit is suicidal.
I thought this vote was about trying to stay in the single market after Brexit, not reversing the Brexit.
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.
The only reason the Tories aren't each other alive over Brexit (and they would do, see the 90s) is because they fear the genuine damage, rightly or wrongly, that McDonnell's ideas could do to the economy. They genuinely feel that, even those like Clarke. If it was your typical left of centre social democrats as the alternative you would have open rebellion in the Conservative party over Brexit.
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.
It will be a shitshow. I wonder when the realisation happens for many of these people.
Why I voted Labour...
The Friendly Monster
Member
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.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
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.
For me all the realisation happened a long time ago. The moment all the parties made their positions on Brexit known, which was a while ago now, I realised that choices are slim. I've already realised the country isn't really what I thought.
That said, what is their alternative?
If people have started to realise that Brexit is happening now, but still care about Labour's current policies, where are the other reasonable alternative avenues?
Which direction is there to go?
Turn the youth vote to lib dems and ultimately start a narrative of young people ruining Labour's chances? The youth vote would be a nuisance instead of something people are now talking about winning.
Have Labour take on a weaker Brexit stance that pushes all the UKIP votes into the Tories hands? Give the Tories the majority they wanted, while at the same time giving the Tories the ability to say that there is no political appetite for a weaker stance like the lib dems are suffering right now?
What other realistic thing is there to do that is the better option?
Dirtyshubb
Member
https://twitter.com/ConnorGillies/status/880485304410546181
Grenfell Tower council meeting decends in to chaos. Council leader scraps meeting due to media presence.
Grenfell Tower council meeting decends in to chaos. Council leader scraps meeting due to media presence.
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.
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.
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.
People keep going on about how he is such a great campaigner. Seemingly so but this puts his performance there in direct contrast to what he did in the general election.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
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.
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.
This is where I am. I am happy with a Labour government but only if it is through a weak majority or coalition so as to prevent the trots from being enable to push through any of their damaging nonsense.
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.
In terms of people to "blame" for the referendum result Corbyn would be way down my list.
That said, what is their alternative?
Any kind of clear, consistent and non-fantasy land stance would be nice.
Dirtyshubb
Member
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?
Maybe you're not used to party leaders honouring their manifesto commitments.
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?
This is rich coming from a guy who blindly defends the likes of Tim Farron and Nick Clegg.
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. Labour has (and had) basically the same hard brexit position as the tories.
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.
Only at the point of jumping off the cliff. Maybe mid-air.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
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.
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.
Never. At best, only when it is too late.
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's bullshit is causing unnecessary turmoil at the worst possible time. How exactly are they representing their constituents? Are they more likely to get into power now and actually affect their constituent's lives? Have they made it more likely that we will now go for a softer brexit? Is Britain now more likely to stay as part of the single market because they voted for an amendment which was never going to get passed? Fuck it, if their constituents largely voted for remain they might as well represent them some more and table an amendment calling for a second referendum.
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.
Agree with this post.
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.
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.
Edit: I just saw that you wrote a bit more after I first read it.
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.
Great post. In general blaming Corbyn for Brexit is fruitless, the way the debate was framed was irreparable- you can thank Cameron and BoJo for that. When I went to London earlier in May, I was surprised to learn that my cousin living in London voted to remain while his parents out in Daventry voted to leave, even though they were university educated labour-voting Muslim immigrants. Point being, this wasn't liberalism vs conservatism- it was urban vs. rural.
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.
This is the post I was responding to:
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.
And my point is that this is the one and only thing this amendment can possibly achieve:
Well done you fucking idiot. You've successfully changed the news cycle from how weak May is to the mess labour is.
Genius.
So yeah, noone is calling anyone a dick head for wanting to remain in the single market. Most of us here want that, I just don't see how we're any closer to that now than we were this morning.
For the record I hate how Corbyn handled the EU referendum, but what I want now is the election of a party that can begin to reverse the damage the Tories have done to this country: and Corbyn is the best chance I can see of that happening by a country mile.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/ConnorGillies/status/880485304410546181
Grenfell Tower council meeting decends in to chaos. Council leader scraps meeting due to media presence.
Jesus wept.
Legal advice? Get fucked.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
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.
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.
TomWaitsForNoMan
Banned
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.
Corbyn' position on immigration is disgusting, but if you think Labour "transformed" into an anti-immigrant party under his watch I have bad news for you. Bad news carved into a stone monolith, or perhaps painted onto a coffee mug
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.
I disagree. Hopefully it will make the Labour leadership wake the fuck up and take a real stance.
They should have had one by now. This thing might have not even happened or would be of a smaller size were they not still garbage on this issue. People here lambast May for her fatuous statements, but they're perfectly willing to eat the shit that is fed to them by Labour.
The Friendly Monster
Member
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.
I agree that the timing of this wasn't good for Labour. Umunna needs to accept Corbyn is the leader and stop trying to undermine him.
Your post about the referendum is completely illogical.
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.
Your post is faceitous when it comes to Labour vs. LD leave voters. 3.3m Labour voters therefore voted leave 800k lib dems (who the fuck are these people?) based on 2015 data. What's more given the level of turnout it was probably more Labour voters than normal that voted leave.
I don't buy that the referendum was already lost (I maybe in denial). There were many mitigating factors to it but there is significant blame to be shared between all parts of the remain campaign. It was hubris, they didn't believe were actually that thick. They are.
The current Labour coalition of urban Remainers and traditional Labour voters is fragile. If Corbyn wants to be Tory-like on Brexit....I can't see it holding especially if the Tories have a competent campaign.
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.
I agree with this but what is Labour's "soft" stance. All situations in which you exit the Single Market will destroy the economy.
Wrestlemania
Banned
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.
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.
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.
Remember his leadership campaign that lasted all of 48 hours? He's the political equivalent of the fucking idiot in a pub saying he could knock out the boxer on tv. Then shitting it when someone stands on a balloon.
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.
A lot of people seem to eat labour magical deal while attacking the tories for their nonsense.
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.
Red White and Blue Brexit. It's a fucking nonsense position but allowed so much wiggle room to really get EEA at the end of the day. It was basically saying "jobs first, fuck your racism." Umuna absolute pissed that potential away with the pointless amendment today.
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.
Coriolanus
Banned
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.
Indeed. Good thing that they aren't in charge of the negotiations and will thus be in a perfect position to shit on whatever is the outcome, tho.
Can't quite see a reason to get annoyed over it (not saying that you are, mind. i just find the raising of the point a bit odd). Is what the oppo is supposed to do if it can pull it off: talk out of both sides of your mouth, please your constituents, yadayadayada deepest red.
Wrestlemania
Banned
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.
As a remain supporting constituent with a Labour MP who voted for the amendment - she does not represent me with that vote. It was a joke.
TomWaitsForNoMan
Banned
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
That would never be an issue, he'd shit himself and pull out again
whyamihere
Banned
EDIT: whip me for my sins.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
NC GOP did something right! We absolutely won't be having an Article V constitutional convention now.
Wrong thread?
whyamihere
Member
(Today, 09:41 PM)
Quote
- Status
- Not open for further replies.