tend to agree... there would need to be a softening of some of the rethoric and pre conditions from some of the Palestinians (seems unlikely) .... and I suspect Israel would be happy to wait out bernie (and I agree I think he wont be elected) as he will be 79 if he gets elected and will no doubt have a stacked domestic agenda (and a lot of push back from republicans over that) - seems to me it would be very unlikely to be something bernie could solve in two terms and lets be honest with his age and the fact he will probably energise a massive republican backlash in 2024 with his domestic policies a second term would be far from guaranteed
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Yep, the best hope for Bernie supporters is that a more conservative Democratic candidate selects him (or one of the younger brigade such as AOC) as their running mate. American voters still fear the red menace and both Republicans and Democrats will bash him endlessly about his age - and that will stick.
Ultimately, we probably need centrist figures in both Downing Street and the White House to bring about peace. The Israelis are going to turn their backs on the UK if Corbyn ever comes to power - and rightly so, given his rhetoric towards them. On the other side, someone like Trump will never have a chance of convincing Fatah, let alone Hamas, that they're an honest actor.
No American president or British PM can solve the conflict peacefully, to the satisfaction of both sides. It would be quite refreshing to have someone willing to acknowledge this, and act accordingly.
How does this look?
No pushes for grandiose peace plans or deals of the century which may leave things in a worse state. A more realistic appraisal of the significance of the conflict in regional terms and where US/British interests lie. Management of the conflict (to the degree it’s possible) to minimize the violence and extremism it produces.
That’s not to say the conflict can or should be largely ignored. But rather than engaging it in terms of the respective leaderships and a negotiating balance sheet which can never satisfy either side, I think outside powers should do more to encourage joint Arab-Jewish initiatives on the ground in the region and elsewhere. For me mutual recognition of the conflicting narratives and history is key to moving things along in any kind of positive direction, and if outside powers can play a role in encouraging that then they should.
If all this sounds very limited and unambitious, then yes, that’s the point.
Your mistake here is that you're comparing figures from Peterborough as an administrative area within the East of England European parliamentary constituency with an electorate of about 121,000, with Peterborough as a UK parliamentary constituency which has an electorate of around 70,000.
There's no disappearing Leavers or appearing Remainers; in the EU election The Brexit Party got 16,000 votes out of 120,000 (13%), in the by-election they got 9800 votes of out 70,000 (also 13%). If you look at the split between the Brexit-y parties and Remain-y parties in the by-election, 51% backed clear Leave parties and 15% backed clear Remain parties. Adding in Labour and assuming that, as per the national average, roughly 2/3 of Labour voters are Remainers and 1/3 Leavers, the Leave vote is more like 61% and Remain vote at around 36%. Compare these figures to the 2016 Referendum for the area; 60.9% Leave vs. 39.1% Remain
Again, when you compare the 2017 and 2019 election results for Peterborough there's a clear trend. The LD and Green Party gains correspond almost exactly to the 2/3rd of Labour's lost voters we'd expect to be Remainers (+10% vs -11%). The Brexit Party gains correspond almost exactly the to 1/3 of Labour's lost voters we'd expect to be Leavers + the lost Tory vote (+29% vs. -27% (21% Tory losses, 6% Labour losses)). The trend being that Labour loses support to the Remain and Leaves sides at a 2:1 ratio (as we'd expect) whilst the Tories lose support almost solely to the Brexit Party (again, as we'd expect).
From 2017 -> 2019
Labour - 48% -> 31% (-17%)
TBP - 0% -> 29% (+29%)
Tory - 46% -> 21% (-21%)
LD - 3% -> 12% (+9%)
GP - 2% -> 3% (+1%)
Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.
I don't think they can select AOC?
I believe there is a minimum age requirement for president (35 years old)
I assume this also applies to the v.p. incase they have to take over as well
Thats pretty much how I read the figures as well
looks like labour will have a huge fight internally about switching to backing remain (or at least a 2nd referendum) whilst the conservatives will be (at least in perception if not in fact) moving behind a harder brexit
Will be interesting to see the early polling if boris wins - he might just decide he does not want to make the same mistake as may and his time to call a GE is as soon as he has the initial bounce to try and change the westminister math in his favor
It's plainly obvious that a one state solution, with both sides being equal citizens under a single democratic state with the right to return for Palestinian refugees is what should be done. Anything else is just an acceptance of ethnic cleaning as far as I'm concerned.
c'mon Saj... get in line behind me... its clearly going to be "blarite scum" first
JEFF...
I don't disagree with your numbers and analysis....But a bit like my own summary, there's no hard evidence for your own belief that
Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.
because nobody has access to and can analyse the individual voting patterns of the 40,000 people who did vote - how they voted and why.
The great unknown is quite how Labour were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote as you suggest if, indeed, that's what happened and the total Labour vote was not manipulated by Postal Votes as many believe. I notice that Labour says that Mahmood was not involved in the By Election, yet he was seen regularly with Forbes in the run up to the election and, even, photographed withCorbyn
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/claims-of-peterborough-fraud-unearthed-across-social-media/
Whatever, latest ITV news, an hour or so ago -
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/201...terborough-by-election-investigated-by-police
But as I said yesterday, nothing will happen and the result won't be voided because ( 1 ) The Electoral Commission don't want to discover or be associated with Electoral Fraud in the UK and ( 2 ) The Government won't insist on an investigation because the Tory share of the vote will merely highlight how much The Tories have pissed off their own and swing voters by their incomptence the past six or seven years - particularly relating to Brexit.
I don't disagree with your numbers and analysis....But a bit like my own summary, there's no hard evidence for your own belief that
Labour won because they were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote onside than the Tories were and because only around a 1/3 of the votes they lost went to a party who had a chance of beating them.
because nobody has access to and can analyse the individual voting patterns of the 40,000 people who did vote - how they voted and why.
The great unknown is quite how Labour were marginally more successful in keeping their core vote as you suggest if, indeed, that's what happened and the total Labour vote was not manipulated by Postal Votes as many believe. I notice that Labour says that Mahmood was not involved in the By Election, yet he was seen regularly with Forbes in the run up to the election and, even, photographed withCorbyn
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/claims-of-peterborough-fraud-unearthed-across-social-media/
Whatever, latest ITV news, an hour or so ago -
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/201...terborough-by-election-investigated-by-police
But as I said yesterday, nothing will happen and the result won't be voided because ( 1 ) The Electoral Commission don't want to discover or be associated with Electoral Fraud in the UK and ( 2 ) The Government won't insist on an investigation because the Tory share of the vote will merely highlight how much The Tories have pissed off their own and swing voters by their incomptence the past six or seven years - particularly relating to Brexit.
You're sourcing "Unity News Network", which seems to be mainly set up to support brexit and features such hard hitting news as:
SHOCK REPORTS that Nigel Farage has been BANNED from meeting President TRUMP!
Nicola Sturgeon now PLOTTING with Corbyn, Soubry, Cable & others to SABOTAGE Brexit!
It is a bit mad that a politician can say this to a journalist and there be no follow up question.
Last edited:
No....Not sourcing Unity Network News, never heard of it before today.
I did a Google search for a photo of Mahmood with Corbyn in the run up to the election as is reported to have happened / to exist because it wasn't in the mainstream media and that site was the first that I found with a clear, indisputable picture that he did, indeed, spend time with Corbyn and Forbes despite what is claimed.
Sorry to have built up your hopes....
Is that true? Wow, didn't know that.
Indeed.
OH shit this goes further!
Last edited:
#SackTomWatson trending on Twitter
Surprised he's lasted so long tbh.
Why don't all these Corbyn-haters follow Chuka Umunna's lead and join the Lib Dems? It's not like they're going to get the party back anytime soon.
Because he thinks he'll be selected as the next labour leader. Although he's damaging his own cause in some respects.
If we get to a public gote he should be put in charge of remain so he can't blame anyone else.
So coming out to say Labour should back a new vote automatically makes you a Corbyn hater?
Watson will never be Labour leader. I agree with him on Brexit, and I think most Corbyn supporters do too, but a lot of the ire he gets is well deserved. The same membership that voted Corbyn in voted Watson in and in return he's treated them with nothing but contempt, I don't blame people for wanting rid of him.
Having said that, I see no value in disagreeing with everything he says on principle, as some of the most myopic Corbyn supporters seem to do. Given his past conduct I can understand why many think that his outspokenness on Brexit is another example of him using an issue as vehicle to attack Corbyn and promote himself, but that doesn't mean his view is wrong. There are bigger fish to fry than getting rid of Tom Watson, and the failure of a minority of Labour members to recognise that reflects very poorly on them.
Having said that, I see no value in disagreeing with everything he says on principle, as some of the most myopic Corbyn supporters seem to do. Given his past conduct I can understand why many think that his outspokenness on Brexit is another example of him using an issue as vehicle to attack Corbyn and promote himself, but that doesn't mean his view is wrong. There are bigger fish to fry than getting rid of Tom Watson, and the failure of a minority of Labour members to recognise that reflects very poorly on them.
They're still playing student politics instead of addressing the fact that Watson is right on Brexit and Corbyn is very wrong. Still, it's not like Brexit matters or anything.
He was also the one who demanded a broad church strategy of Labour and that they shouldn't ignore their traditional voters.
All he does is protest strategically to boost his profile no matter the contradiction. Once again pops up to protest when parliament is basically shut down and Labour couldn't force a people's vote even if they wanted.
I see, let's completely ignore the fact that Corbyn has been twisting and turning to avoid anything that might stop Brexit because he's a Brexiter, and concentrate instead on Watson speaking when parliament is in recess, which he's not allowed to for some reason.
Corbyn's last comments, that I can find:What you mean like voting for a people's vote? Twice? Okay....
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ugs-off-referendum-calls-after-byelection-win
"I have said all along that we would put to parliament our proposals on a customs union on a trade relationship and the dynamic protection of consumer and workers’ rights.
As our conference resolution agreed last September, we would then be prepared to put that to a public vote. We are not at the stage yet where parliament has actually voted on that.
We could of course have a people's vote on the alternatives actually before us, Hard Brexit, Remain or the negotiated transition deal, but Corbyn explicitly rules that out, he is merely prepared 'not to rule out' a referendum on a non-existent alternative.
Corbyn is a Brexiter and always has been. You're in denial.
Hasn't Corbyn already put his proposals to parliament which have already been rejected three times by them (and of course are not possible anyway) - or am I missing something.
It's never been in any doubt, but the Labour supporters in this thread are indeed in denial about it. I don't understand why they keep banging on as if the Labour Party were a remain party, it isn't. Corbyn is only pandering to the membership with is soft Brexit stance, in the same way the Tories are pandering to theirs in their hard Brexit stance.
Are you actually throwing quotes at me and claiming they supersede two actual votes in parliament? And then claim I'm the one with a distorted view!
That and listening to him speak for the last three years, not least at the last Labour party conference. The whole world knows he's a Brexiter, and his supposed 'sitting on the fence' is simply dishonest. You talk of votes in parliament, how did he vote when it came to article 50? Where was he when Labour drew up it's promise to Leave in their last manifesto? You picked the wrong man mate, simple as that.
I wouldn't bother with these people. It doesn't matter Corbyn actually does he will always be secretly trying to do the BREXIT! Oh and something something Seumas Milne.What you mean like voting for a people's vote? Twice? Okay....
Some secret
Corbyn was not for Brexit.
He like everyone else had issues with the EU.
He could not say 'we need to be in the EU without any conditions.'
The political stunt the Tories pulled backfired so bad with the Vote.
Many of use including myself felt at the time we should vote Leave as a protest vote, never realizing that leave would win.
Here we are.
He like everyone else had issues with the EU.
He could not say 'we need to be in the EU without any conditions.'
The political stunt the Tories pulled backfired so bad with the Vote.
Many of use including myself felt at the time we should vote Leave as a protest vote, never realizing that leave would win.
Here we are.
I think he was, and it's not really ambiguous either. Corbyn's Euroscepticism is well documented. He's from the socialist Bennite school of thought which sees the EU as anti-democratic and he has mostly been hostile to it throughout his political career. From a socialist viewpoint it's easy to see why someone would hardly be enamoured with the EU as an institution. However, whether that necessarily means it's better for you to be out than in is a different question.
Seems the story of your life
A protest vote in a binary win-lose referendum?!
Yep. Genie out of the bottle and it's never going to be put back in now. Farage will spit his last breath making sure that it doesn't.
We have to leave and the softer the better.
If Corbyn didn't want Brexit to happen, and doesn't support it now why doesn't he state that outright? Some may argue that it's a political ploy so as to not to isolate the leavers within the party, but a) since when has Corbyn been afraid of having unpopular opinions? (is remain that unpopular of an opinion??) and b) by not coming down on either side he has isolated the remainers within the party, as demonstrated by polls and the recent EU election (and this thread). So why the equivocation regarding such a divisive and binary issue such as Brexit?