Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Dobba said:
The Lib Dems would agree to a watered down Brexit within 24 hours of negotiating with the Tories. Maybe in exchange for 10p carrier bags.
Click to expand...

My post was in reference to the difference between a Labour-Lib Dem coalition Vs a Labour majority.

A Labour-Lib Dem coalition is more likely to deliver Brexit than a Labour majority. Simply because the former is far more likely to pressure into campaigning for remain in a second referendum whereas the latter is likely to campaign for a rehashed version of Theresa May's deal with he declaration being rehashed to include platitudes on "workers rights".

This is simple of course. A coalition of ardent remain and undecided is going to be far more remain than a majority of undecided.
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight, Labour refused to support remain, against the wishes of the majority of its members, on a dubious show of hands denying a card vote, all to support the policy of a man who has campaigned for decades for more democratic control of the party's policies.

They have done this to avoid alienating the 30% of their supporters who voted leave. The main problem these Labour supporting leavers have with the EU is free movement of people, which Labour now plan on guaranteeing in any event.

So they alienate (again) the 70% of their voters who supported remain to avoid losing the support of the 30% who backed leave, only to propose the one policy guaranteed to drive those voters into the arms of Farage or Johnson, all whilst proving their leader to be a hypocrite.

Oh, and just incase there was anyone left who still might vote Labour, they also want to ban fee paying schools and confiscate and 'redistribute' private property, exactly the kind of extreme left wing nonsense that scares the hell out of everybody else.

Jesus fecking Christ, I knew Corbyn wasn't too bright but these are the most absurd political moves I can think of in my lifetime, far worse than the '83 manifesto, which at least was popular with some. It's as if Corbyn is some deep undercover agent put in place to guarantee Labour lose the next election.

I cannot imagine Labour MPs voting for a GE with these policies.
 
NWRed said:
So let me get this straight, Labour refused to support remain, against the wishes of the majority of its members, on a dubious show of hands denying a card vote, all to support the policy of a man who has campaigned for decades for more democratic control of the party's policies.

They have done this to avoid alienating the 30% of their supporters who voted leave. The main problem these Labour supporting leavers have with the EU is free movement of people, which Labour now plan on guaranteeing in any event.

So they alienate (again) the 70% of their voters who supported remain to avoid losing the support of the 30% who backed leave, only to propose the one policy guaranteed to drive those voters into the arms of Farage or Johnson, all whilst proving their leader to be a hypocrite.

Oh, and just incase there was anyone left who still might vote Labour, they also want to ban fee paying schools and confiscate and 'redistribute' private property, exactly the kind of extreme left wing nonsense that scares the hell out of everybody else.

Jesus fecking Christ, I knew Corbyn wasn't too bright but these are the most absurd political moves I can think of in my lifetime, far worse than the '83 manifesto, which at least was popular with some. It's as if Corbyn is some deep undercover agent put in place to guarantee Labour lose the next election.

I cannot imagine Labour MPs voting for a GE with these policies.
Click to expand...
It's quite amazing isn't it.
 
Everything I’ve read about how Labour conferences work makes me want to stick pins in my eyes rather than ever experience one first hand.
 
esmufc07 said:
Yeah, it seems to have been a very bad conference this year. The party is badly divided, people don't vote for those at GE's.
Click to expand...

Even with previous ones though, apparently from what I've heard the processes for everything are incredibly arcane and complicated, people take up hours of meeting time rambling about their pet issues, and the whole thing just sounds like the most inefficient use of time ever. Not to mention everyone calling each other 'comrade' which is a personal pet hate I'll admit. :lol:
 
NWRed said:
So let me get this straight, Labour refused to support remain, against the wishes of the majority of its members, on a dubious show of hands denying a card vote, all to support the policy of a man who has campaigned for decades for more democratic control of the party's policies.

They have done this to avoid alienating the 30% of their supporters who voted leave. The main problem these Labour supporting leavers have with the EU is free movement of people, which Labour now plan on guaranteeing in any event.

So they alienate (again) the 70% of their voters who supported remain to avoid losing the support of the 30% who backed leave, only to propose the one policy guaranteed to drive those voters into the arms of Farage or Johnson, all whilst proving their leader to be a hypocrite.

Oh, and just incase there was anyone left who still might vote Labour, they also want to ban fee paying schools and confiscate and 'redistribute' private property, exactly the kind of extreme left wing nonsense that scares the hell out of everybody else.

Jesus fecking Christ, I knew Corbyn wasn't too bright but these are the most absurd political moves I can think of in my lifetime, far worse than the '83 manifesto, which at least was popular with some. It's as if Corbyn is some deep undercover agent put in place to guarantee Labour lose the next election.

I cannot imagine Labour MPs voting for a GE with these policies.
Click to expand...

My mother-in-law, in her 70s, voted Labour all her life, her father was a Labour councilor has told me last night she won’t be voting Labour for the first time ever though she doesn’t know who to vote for. She hates the tories and is wary of lib Dems
 
golden_blunder said:
My mother-in-law, in her 70s, voted Labour all her life, her father was a Labour councilor has told me last night she won’t be voting Labour for the first time ever though she doesn’t know who to vote for. She hates the tories and is wary of lib Dems
Click to expand...
If there’s nobody to vote for, there is always somebody to vote against.
 
golden_blunder said:
My mother-in-law, in her 70s, voted Labour all her life, her father was a Labour councilor has told me last night she won’t be voting Labour for the first time ever though she doesn’t know who to vote for. She hates the tories and is wary of lib Dems
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar situation, I've voted Labour all my life until the last EU election when I voted Lib Dem for the first time. The Tories under Johnson are obviously out of the question, Labour under Corbyn and momentum are simply a joke and the Greens is a wasted vote so I'm left with the Lib Dems again. I have doubts about them but what other choice is there?
 
NWRed said:
I'm in a similar situation, I've voted Labour all my life until the last EU election when I voted Lib Dem for the first time. The Tories under Johnson are obviously out of the question, Labour under Corbyn and momentum are simply a joke and the Greens is a wasted vote so I'm left with the Lib Dems again. I have doubts about them but what other choice is there?
Click to expand...

I think this is a view that an increasing number of traditional Labour voters now find themselves in.
 
Smores said:
There's a good few in here thst have taken this position but as i said nearly a year ago whenever they get something they just move the goalposts.
Click to expand...

Not being one of those you refer to, but the people you are referring are not getting anything. They're not getting to vote on the only actual possible deal, they're not going to be able to vote on Corbyn's unicorn deal because it will never happen and equally has already been rejected by parliament three times just like the actual Withdrawal Agreement.

On top of that most of the Labour MPs know Corbyn's proposal is ridiculous and would be campaigning for Remain anyway.

You can imagine the first serious meeting between a Labour Brexit Minister (presumably Starmer) and Barnier.
So if I let you have your unicorns,says Barnier, will you campaigning in a referendum for your unicorn deal or will you be campaigning for Remain?

If I was living in the UK I would do anything to try to get the UK to remain -any form of Brexit, unicorn or not will be a disaster and would never accept to vote for anyone who proposes to leave.
 
esmufc07 said:
I think this is a view that an increasing number of traditional Labour voters now find themselves in.
Click to expand...

I know, the thing is a sensible centrist Labour leader who listened to their membership (as it was before momentum/Corbyn took over) would walk the next election.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Not being one of those you refer to, but the people you are referring are not getting anything. They're not getting to vote on the only actual possible deal, they're not going to be able to vote on Corbyn's unicorn deal because it will never happen and equally has already been rejected by parliament three times just like the actual Withdrawal Agreement.

On top of that most of the Labour MPs know Corbyn's proposal is ridiculous and would be campaigning for Remain anyway.

You can imagine the first serious meeting between a Labour Brexit Minister (presumably Starmer) and Barnier.
So if I let you have your unicorns,says Barnier, will you campaigning in a referendum for your unicorn deal or will you be campaigning for Remain?

If I was living in the UK I would do anything to try to get the UK to remain -any form of Brexit, unicorn or not will be a disaster and would never accept to vote for anyone who proposes to leave.
Click to expand...

If Labour don't get any changes it'll be Mays deal they get to vote on so i don't know what you mean.

The People's Vote wanted a remain vs deal referendum and they didn't want Corbyn involved. It seems they've got both of those wishes.
 
NWRed said:
I know, the thing is a sensible centrist Labour leader who listened to their membership (as it was before momentum/Corbyn took over) would walk the next election.
Click to expand...

They didn't listen to their membership that's why we have the likes of momentum. They may have listened to their voters and non-voters and made policy as broad as possible but those same people who demanded a broad approach are now saying to ignore a sizable section of the electorate.

They can't really be called centrists anymore because they're not.
 
Smores said:
If Labour don't get any changes it'll be Mays deal they get to vote on so i don't know what you mean.

The People's Vote wanted a remain vs deal referendum and they didn't want Corbyn involved. It seems they've got both of those wishes.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that the people wanting another referendum want anything else other than to change the vote to Remain.
Why would anyone who wants to remain choose a version of leave, die slowly or quickly?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Do you seriously believe that the people wanting another referendum want anything else other than to change the vote to Remain.
Why would anyone who wants to remain choose a version of leave, die slowly or quickly?
Click to expand...

Perhaps i misunderstood your earlier statement. I'm not suggesting they'll vote leave I'm saying the people's vote stated position was that we should have a second referendum as we now know the deal on offer so it would be democratic to ask the public.

Just because you want an outcome doesn't mean you don't also have an opinion on the fairest method to decide.

It looks certain that parties will fulfil the people's vote wishes so now people need to find another element to complain about but in the grand scheme of things, the nation has got a second chance its a victory and people shouldn't be so angry.
 
Smores said:
Perhaps i misunderstood your earlier statement. I'm not suggesting they'll vote leave I'm saying the people's vote stated position was that we should have a second referendum as we now know the deal on offer so it would be democratic to ask the public.

Just because you want an outcome doesn't mean you don't also have an opinion on the fairest method to decide.

It looks certain that parties will fulfil the people's vote wishes so now people need to find another element to complain about but in the grand scheme of things, the nation has got a second chance its a victory and people shouldn't be so angry.
Click to expand...

I would guess that what makes people angry is that most people realise Corbyn's "deal" is a non-starter but he insists on it as a sensible deal which he would negotiate within three months (this is the most funniest bit) and that the EU would even possible agree to it and then put to parliament who have already rejected it three times as well as the current WA which has also been rejected three times by parliament and at the same time the majority of Labour MPs will be campaigning against their own deal.
People know what the Tories will campaign for, same applies for the LibDems and the Brexit party and the SNP but no-one has a clue what to expect from the Labour party and why would they trust them.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I would guess that what makes people angry is that most people realise Corbyn's "deal" is a non-starter but he insists on it as a sensible deal which he would negotiate within three months (this is the most funniest bit) and that the EU would even possible agree to it and then put to parliament who have already rejected it three times as well as the current WA which has also been rejected three times by parliament and at the same time the majority of Labour MPs will be campaigning against their own deal.
People know what the Tories will campaign for, same applies for the LibDems and the Brexit party and the SNP but no-one has a clue what to expect from the Labour party and why would they trust them.
Click to expand...
The Labour policy is so patently stupid that this bit has sort of slipped through without notice, but yeah, you're right.
 
finneh said:
Good god this is hard work with you being either disingenuous or merely contrarian.

Let's try again. Do you think Labour winning 230 seats and Lib Dems winning 100 seats would be more of less likely to result in Brexit than Jeremy Corbyn winning a 100 seat majority?
Click to expand...

It is hard work because you are incapable of understanding simple points, as your posited scenario once again makes clear because it is irrelevant to what I said. You are arguing against a position I have never adopted, namely that all Remain votes are wasted unless they are for Labour. I said Brexit cannot be reversed without the Labour party in office. They are two very different statements. Your hypothesis of Labour winning 230 seats and the Lib Dems winning 100 confirms the point I am making, it does not contradict it: Brexit will not be reversed without the Labour party in office. Unless, you are now making the argument that in that scenario Labour would happily step aside and put Jo Swinson in No. 10? If you are, you're an idiot. If you are not, then congratulations, we're on the same wavelength and you can stop pulling erroneous insinuations out of your arse :angel:
 
BobbyManc said:
It is hard work because you are incapable of understanding simple points, as your posited scenario once again makes clear because it is irrelevant to what I said. You are arguing against a position I have never adopted, namely that all Remain votes are wasted unless they are for Labour. I said Brexit cannot be reversed without the Labour party in office. They are two very different statements. Your hypothesis of Labour winning 230 seats and the Lib Dems winning 100 confirms the point I am making, it does not contradict it: Brexit will not be reversed without the Labour party in office. Unless, you are now making the argument that in that scenario Labour would happily step aside and put Jo Swinson in No. 10? If you are, you're an idiot. If you are not, then congratulations, we're on the same wavelength and you can stop pulling erroneous insinuations out of your arse :angel:
Click to expand...

Fair enough... I misunderstood the point as it was in reply to a poster stating there's "no point as a remainer voting Labour", which your statement doesn't really challenge. As a remainer you're still better off dragging Corbyn further towards remain by ensuring maximum representation for more remain parties (LD, SNP).

In Scotland for example as a remainer it would be crazy to vote for Labour over the SNP (or LD in a few constituencies), as the latter absolutely increases the chances of remaining. The same applies in London where the LD are polling favourable.

Plus with the current polling, combined with the ridiculousness of the latest policy announcements (one last week had LD at 23% and Labour at 21%, prior to the agreement to seize private assets as policy) by Labour and also the Lib Dems apparent willingness to have an election pact with other remain parties (who're polling at around 6% total)... I wouldn't be completely shocked if Labour and the Lib Dems got a similar number of seats!
 
finneh said:
Fair enough... I misunderstood the point as it was in reply to a poster stating there's "no point as a remainer voting Labour", which your statement doesn't really challenge. As a remainer you're still better off dragging Corbyn further towards remain by ensuring maximum representation for more remain parties (LD, SNP).

In Scotland for example as a remainer it would be crazy to vote for Labour over the SNP (or LD in a few constituencies), as the latter absolutely increases the chances of remaining. The same applies in London where the LD are polling favourable.

Plus with the current polling, combined with the ridiculousness of the latest policy announcements (one last week had LD at 23% and Labour at 21%, prior to the agreement to seize private assets as policy) by Labour and also the Lib Dems apparent willingness to have an election pact with other remain parties (who're polling at around 6% total)... I wouldn't be completely shocked if Labour and the Lib Dems got a similar number of seats!
Click to expand...

Thanks, glad that was cleared up. Apologies for my attitude.

I'd still dispute the idea that it is necessarily illogical for a Remainer to vote for Labour. Firstly, it involves the assumption that the only and overriding concern of all people who prefer Remain is stopping Brexit. I want to Remain but I'd rather have a soft Brexit and the Tories out of power than no Brexit but Johnson gets to remain in office for some time. But even if we disregard those voters like myself, it is still clear that Labour are offering the same route to Remain as any other party is. We can disregard the LD policy of revoking Article 50 as it's purely a soundbite policy as they have as much chance of winning the most seats as Watford do of winning the Premier League. So a second referendum it is, as is the policy of SNP, LD, Greens and Plaid Cymru.

Then the other difference is Labour would negotiate their own deal and put that on the second referendum. So, in fact, Labour in a second referendum would be offering a softer Brexit vs Remain than the Lib Dems would if they were implementing a second referendum as they have stated they would put May's deal vs Remain. There was so much clamour for Labour to endorse a second referendum from the "ultra-Remainers". And now Labour have adopted that, and still it is apparently illogical to support them? The goalposts are continually shifting and I imagine even if Corbyn became openly in favour of Remain the narrative would slowly start to turn towards 'well what does a second referendum solve? The risk of Brexit remains too great. We must revoke Article 50!'.

Now, yes, I do agree that depending on the constituency (or, disregarding that, on principle alone) it makes sense to vote LD or SNP over Labour if your predominant concern is Remain/stopping Brexit. Equally, would you not concur that in a seat where it is a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservatives, that a vote for Labour would be wiser than a vote for anyone else if you want to reverse Brexit? The honest answer can only be yes, and in that case you must agree that there can be a logic to a Remainer voting for Labour.

On a completely different note, I've been very impressed by Laura Pidcock's media appearances recently. Should the time come for Corbyn to stand down, she'd definitely be near the top of my list of preferred candidates.
 
BobbyManc said:
Thanks, glad that was cleared up. Apologies for my attitude.
Click to expand...

Likewise!
BobbyManc said:
Then the other difference is Labour would negotiate their own deal and put that on the second referendum. So, in fact, Labour in a second referendum would be offering a softer Brexit vs Remain than the Lib Dems would if they were implementing a second referendum as they have stated they would put May's deal vs Remain. There was so much clamour for Labour to endorse a second referendum from the "ultra-Remainers". And now Labour have adopted that, and still it is apparently illogical to support them? The goalposts are continually shifting and I imagine even if Corbyn became openly in favour of Remain the narrative would slowly start to turn towards 'well what does a second referendum solve? The risk of Brexit remains too great. We must revoke Article 50!'.
Click to expand...

I was of the understanding that no deal would be on the Labour second referendum ballot paper, whereas only TM's deal and remain would be on the Lib Dems? I might be wrong though?

Agree in terms of Tory/Labour constituencies that a remainer would be better off voting the latter... The quantity of these must have reduced hugely over the last few years though.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I would guess that what makes people angry is that most people realise Corbyn's "deal" is a non-starter but he insists on it as a sensible deal which he would negotiate within three months (this is the most funniest bit) and that the EU would even possible agree to it and then put to parliament who have already rejected it three times as well as the current WA which has also been rejected three times by parliament and at the same time the majority of Labour MPs will be campaigning against their own deal.
People know what the Tories will campaign for, same applies for the LibDems and the Brexit party and the SNP but no-one has a clue what to expect from the Labour party and why would they trust them.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world the Labour party would come out with a definitive position. But. We are not in that world. Why. Because they know that a significant number of Labour voters voted to leave.
It is easy for the Liberals to take a position because they know that they will not become the majority party.
We need to give Labour credit for working with other parties to legislate against a no deal exit. Same for legislating to request an extension beyond the end of October.
This now gives one last opportunity for the UK to attempt to get a withdrawal agreement approved.
If that happens then great.
If that does not happen then they will push for a second referendum.
If at that point the UK is stupid enough to vote leave again then they deserve all the problems that will come our way.
 
finneh said:
I was of the understanding that no deal would be on the Labour second referendum ballot paper, whereas only TM's deal and remain would be on the Lib Dems? I might be wrong though?
Click to expand...

No, it would be a binary one just as the Lib Dem's propose between a negotiated exit and Remain.
 
BobbyManc said:
No, it would be a binary one just as the Lib Dem's propose between a negotiated exit and Remain.
Click to expand...

Ah ok... My concern with that would be a very low turnout. I can imagine millions refusing to vote in those circumstances. For example if there were less than 50% voter turnout would it be legitimate?
 
Buster15 said:
In an ideal world the Labour party would come out with a definitive position. But. We are not in that world. Why. Because they know that a significant number of Labour voters voted to leave.
It is easy for the Liberals to take a position because they know that they will not become the majority party.
We need to give Labour credit for working with other parties to legislate against a no deal exit. Same for legislating to request an extension beyond the end of October.
This now gives one last opportunity for the UK to attempt to get a withdrawal agreement approved.
If that happens then great.
If that does not happen then they will push for a second referendum.
If at that point the UK is stupid enough to vote leave again then they deserve all the problems that will come our way.
Click to expand...

The Labour party would get more credit if they had a clear position and if they were preparing to negotiate a realistic agreement that hadn't already been rejected three times and which apart from to the most loyal ardent Corbyn supporters is obviously never going to be accepted by the EU.
The only point of a second referendum, in reality, is to change the result to Remain which will set the Brexiters off and if Leave win we're only back to where we are now.
The genie's out of the bottle and no-one can put it back in.
 
finneh said:
Ah ok... My concern with that would be a very low turnout. I can imagine millions refusing to vote in those circumstances. For example if there were less than 50% voter turnout would it be legitimate?
Click to expand...

It would be down to the government legislating for it to impose any conditions on thresholds that needed to be met such as voter turnout or the percentage needed for either side. I can't see why it would be in their interest to do so. Brexiteers might boycott it because they'd see Labour's deal as not representing Brexit at all but they'd likely be similarly inclined for May's deal anyway. Labour's deal would differ more in language rather than substance to May's deal (e.g. would remain part of CU, whereas May's deal I believe basically functions as a CU but without the political baggage of explicitly remaining part of it which she knew was anathema to a lot of the Leavers in her party).
 
BobbyManc said:
It would be down to the government legislating for it to impose any conditions on thresholds that needed to be met such as voter turnout or the percentage needed for either side. I can't see why it would be in their interest to do so. Brexiteers might boycott it because they'd see Labour's deal as not representing Brexit at all but they'd likely be similarly inclined for May's deal anyway. Labour's deal would differ more in language rather than substance to May's deal (e.g. would remain part of CU, whereas May's deal I believe basically functions as a CU but without the political baggage of explicitly remaining part of it which she knew was anathema to a lot of the Leavers in her party).
Click to expand...

I think a threshold would be needed, but don't know what would happen in the event of it not being met.

I could see 10 million people who voted leave boycotting a referendum that didn't have no deal on the ballot paper.
 
finneh said:
I think a threshold would be needed, but don't know what would happen in the event of it not being met.

I could see 10 million people who voted leave boycotting a referendum that didn't have no deal on the ballot paper.
Click to expand...

But if you impose a threshold then it is in the best interest of anybody who wants Brexit to not turn up to vote and thus the referendum would almost certainly be rendered impotent from the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.