I don't get it
It makes no sense.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
It makes no sense.
Ah so because Boris is trying to bypass parliament, so would Corbyn. Solid argument. Yet somehow not as many people brand Boris dangerous as they do with Corbyn. Fascinating.
Nooooo Jeremy Corbyn
Any chances of a no deal or Corbyn government poll?
Any chances of a no deal or Corbyn government poll?
If this is the result of the GE then Leave would almost definitely be the result of a second referendum. No one who doesn't want a No Deal Brexit should vote for a BOJO Tory Party in a GE.
My only chance of beating the Tories in my constituency is a Labour victory. Even in the Euro elections Labour were the highest main party behind the Brexit Party.
I voted Lib Dem reluctantly because I don't trust them not to back the Tories and they finished 4th behind the Tories.
Yes it is, isn't it? I wonder where they get all these dangerous ideas about Corbyn, its not as though he goes out of his way to be radical... at least not now he can sniff the air in Downing Street!
Nope. Vote-splitting and FPTP are a thing, you see. Also a (rather large) bunch of people are loyal Tory/Labour voters regardless of faces or policies. Doesn't mean they would vote with the party line in a specific referendum.
Last edited:
Maybe it's only a foreign perspective but Boris is and has always been seen as an absolute lunatic and a dangereous character. Trump, before Trump.
Yes very radical. You only need to repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it with no second thought it seems.
For all his massive left-leaning agenda, Corbyn has shown 0 indication that he's a threat to democracy. Unlike the right wing nuts in Tory/TBP circles, who are trying to convince us that having a strong-man in charge that overrules parliament is the right thing to do because the Parliament is the enemy of the people.
I totally agree with you but there are a large amount of people who go for his vitriol.
Some fear Corbyn not because of his politics per se but because...well, because they're tax dodgers, careerist politicians etc etc. This is presented to the public as 'Red Jezza eats your kids! (and YOU'RE paying for it!)'
Yes, Boris puts the fear of God into many in the UK as well, but not as many as Corbyn does, and that's what is likely to count in the end, when the dust settles.
Ever since Boris became PM they are both heading for a showdown, probably through a GE. Both men have shown themselves adapt at getting close to power, Boris is in the driving seat just now so he's winning by a head, but Corbyn is not going to waste the hand fate dealt him when the PLP added him to the list of contenders for the leaders role, even though he didn't get enough seconders to merit it. Jeremy has been 'against' everything in the established order in the UK for years and now he's on the cusp of power and apart from Boris there is no body to touch him.
Boris has bounced back so many times its unbelievable, whether its his public utterances, or his personal life, or his ability to whip up a storm, he always lands on his feet and his no deal play on Brexit will make or break him and he knows and accepts that risk. Both in their different ways are smart characters and show us only what they want us to see, the UK is in for a bumpy ride whichever of these two finally finishes up with the Crown!
Johnson doesn't care all that much about being PM - he's only here to facilitate no-deal.
Any distraction to make the public forget that the Tories are directly responsible for the current predicament.
He's barely been radical since he's taken charge as leader. In fact I'm fairly certain the same exact charges were thrown at Miliband.
It really is nothing to do with policy with Corbyn and more the perception and baggage. In fact I'd say the only radical policy is his refusal to commit to blowing millions up
...and other fantasy stories we know and love.
Flip reverse that. Johnson doesn't care all that much about Brexit, he's only used it to wriggle his way into the Premiership.
Getting into the Premiership in 2019 and was doing quite well back in 2008 - he's basically Aston Villa.
I'd say the reverse, being PM is the thing he cares about. He was as much Remain as Brexit at one time, but plumped for Brexit as he thought it would get him the backing of the Tory membership against other contenders who were likely to be Remain. Then when May won and pledged Brexit herself he went hard Brexit for the same reason, and to be fair it's worked, he's got what he wanted.
edit: what Pex said.
Consider his employment history - he's one of those historical chancers who flits from job to job, making money & trailing chaos wherever he goes...and frequently doing a master's bidding. Brexit is a money-grab, IMO, and Johnson's already achieved the Premiership; now he's pursuing the monetary reward for his Brexit efforts.
This thread pretty much gets the whole situation bang on, I think. Ultimately there's a small band of Remainers who, for some reason, think they're in a position to be calling the shots here when their power is, in actuality, fairly minimal.
If their claim to authority here is supposed to be that Corbyn's dangerous, or an anti-semite, or whatever else, then they automatically lose that claim to authority when you remember that any national unity government would still depend heavily on the support of...Corbyn! So they are willing to work with him...just only on their terms, with no compromise whatsoever. Even though Corbyn's the leader of the opposition here and therefore the one who holds the cards. Sure, we should expect him to compromise for the good of the country, but there's no reason for him to stand down purely because some Remainers don't like him when those Remainers, until now, have insisted stopping a No Deal Brexit comes above all else...only to now reverse their position because they don't actually want to work with Corbyn after all.
They both used to be american too.
Go read Labour's last manifesto and please point out to me all these radical policies that Corbyn proposed. I'll be waiting a long time I imagine. It might make for a good soundbite in The Sun as a scare-tactic, but it doesn't actually have any grounding in reality.
Maticmaker doing a sterling job of showing why some people think Remain have become radicalised.
The Tories can be in power and rip the country to pieces, but they are still considered a safer bet than some fantasy about Labour because ‘something, something 1970’s..’
Yeah, the view that Corbyn is a radically dangerous authoritarian and virulent anti-semite is...far-fetched to say the least. They've lost all nuance, even though the centrist types are the ones who usually bemoan their opponents for the exact same thing.
For what it's worth, I think there's plenty of room to criticise Corbyn for his attitudes to some leftist/communist dictators and a lot of his statements on Venezuela have not aged well at all considering what's happened since, and I think the left's attitude to anti-semitism has been fairly grim at times, but there's a fair difference between a valid critique of that and blowing Corbyn up into something he quite demonstrably isn't. And if you're going to highlight the very real instances when Corbyn's gotten it massively wrong on international issues, then it's probably worth highlighting the many cases where he's been in the right as well.
Not to mention that while it shouldn't be excused, sympathising with or giving tepid approval to authoritarian regimes has basically been commonplace among Tories and the right over the past few decades and indeed beforehand. Thatcher had a massive hard-on for Pinochet and Apartheid in the 80s (and her convictions there were arguably genuinely political as opposed to out of mere self-interest or economic benefit). And that's certainly not to, again, excuse Corbyn's more problematic elements, but if Lib Dems want to rule out a partnership with him based on that, they can expect their cooperation with the Tories to be thrown right back at them.
So, yeah, any analysis of Corbyn should be nuanced. But among centrist Remainers it demonstrably isn't.
Page 4 "Britain needs to negotiate a Brexit deal that puts our economy and living standards first. That won’t be achieved by empty slogans and posturing. We cannot put at risk our links with our largest trading partner. Instead we need a jobs-first Brexit that allows us to upgrade our economy for the 21st century"
Sorry forgot they're a Remain party.
Page 10: "Our manifesto is fully costed, with all current spending paid for out of taxation or redirected revenue streams. Our public services must rest on the foundation of sound finances. Labour will therefore set the target of eliminating the government’s deficit on day-to-day spending within five years."
Presume he means the impact of Brexit has been fully taken into account and if it hasn't this manifesto isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Last edited:
How to argue disengenuously
What's disingenuous about that - Brexit will devastate the UK economy so how does everything get paid for?
It’s incredible that a Manifesto written less than a year after the Referendum was performatively concerned with trying to present a compromise, and not just outright insisting it needed to ignore or over-ride the biggest act of Democratic rebellion in a century... which I’m pretty sure most die hard Remainers weren’t even doing at that point.
fecking bonkers or what!?
Some of you seem to be permanently bewildered that you can’t simply rant the political landscape into the shape you want it.
fecking bonkers or what!?
Some of you seem to be permanently bewildered that you can’t simply rant the political landscape into the shape you want it.
Last edited:
Needs more burial backing music.
Last edited:
But Labour expects the real remain parties such as the SNP and LibDems to jump into bed with Labour so Corbyn can be PM. The compromise you mention is a compromise between Corbyn's Remain voters and Leave voters but is actually a load of tosh.
The Lib Dem manifesto of the same year:
“Liberal Democrats campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. However, we acknowledge the result of the 2016 referendum, which gave the government a mandate to start negotiations to leave. The decision Britain took, though, was simply whether to remain in or to leave the European Union. There was no option on the ballot paper to choose the shape of our future relationship with the EU on vital issues including trade, travel or security.”
I'm no fan of the LibDems either but their current slogan is "Stop Brexit". I was replying to the poster who referred to Labour's manifesto.
What I really want to know is how Corbyn will stop a No deal Brexit which no-one seems to be able to answer.
Do you accept that the Torries caused all this and therefore the onus is on them to come up with a solution not to "devastate the UK Economy?"
Do you accept that the Torries caused all this and therefore the onus is on them to come up with a solution not to "devastate the UK Economy?"
I am not saying they didn't but if or rather when Brexit happens I fail to see how things will not get far far worse no matter who is in government.
Later in the same section:
"That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been negotiated (over the next two years on the Government’s timetable), 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 that'll be a no then. As you were.
I see you have no problems with that, oddly.
What about:
Page 24 "We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first." combined with Page 27 "Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change, but Labour will not scapegoat migrants nor blame them for economic failures."
Sounds plausible.