Is there any chance Johnson is actually against a no deal, and has just positioned himself in the way he has to eliminate the threat of the Brexit Party?
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Johnson isn’t for or against anything. He blows my with the wind and will do whatever serves him best personally.
He's for and against nothing because he's a man who has no principles and cares only about being in power. There's no plan outside of that because he doesn't live outside of his London bubble.
And so after a long night, the man had had his question answered. He shall sleep soundly tonight.
Bonne nuit, sweet prince
Indeed, I think it'd be a bit of a death knell for them as a party. A second referendum should see Remain win in principle, but would potentially be hampered by the fact their campaign would have no real leader: Swinson is deeply unpopular and no one seems likely to emerge for Labour. Sturgeon is a strong speaker but is hardly going to galvanise voters across the UK.
I also get the impression that a lot of the Lib Dem rank-and-file members are a lot more uncomfortable with the Tories than Swinson is. For all the party's faults there's a fairly solid liberal tradition dating back to before the current party which has been abandoned and subsumed by Brexit and nothing else, and which as a result has basically turned the party into a haven for moderate Tories who aren't exactly liberal.
I'm not really sure Boris knows what he wants. Ultimately I think his goal above all else is to be in the limelight and to advance his own ends as a leader who's well-liked and approve of across the country, to enhance his own power. The irony, in that regard, is that he's spent so much of his life being repugnant to the point where swathes of the country will just never like him no matter what he does...and with good reason.
The fact he wasn't really sure who he wanted to campaign for ahead of the Brexit referendum itself should show voters where he lies. Devoid of any ideology, backing Brexit was a way for him to cosy favour among the Tory members and Eurosceptic MP's when he had no real party base beforehand. And you could argue the vapidity of Brexit itself is demonstrated by the fact its chief cheerleader and the man who will make it happen is someone who never gave much of a feck about it in the first place.
So if No Deal is genuinely likely to wreck the country's economy, I suspect he'll be firmly against it, because people will only take so much before they boot him out of office. But I do think he'd be willing to take the plunge if necessary, because while his reputation will go tits up if it fails, he'll personally be fine for the rest of his life.
But but but...........the Labour party will tax my second home.
While I sympathize with Robert I don't feel that my inheritance to my children should be affected. I want to be able to give them each their own home fully paid when they're older as they won't be able to afford one otherwise because they'll have to pay for private healthcare and a new energy shield every month to protect them because the planet is dying.
People will vote for that man, why? Because in truth they care little for anyone else's plight if it costs them a single penny. Maybe they want to wreck the economy with brexit or stop dem immigrants too.
Good job Tory voters, good job.
A thread worthwhile reading but pulled this one out as I've seen this in conversations myself. Many people don't believe in change they've bought the line that this is as good as it gets. It's depressing
Do you think if the Labour Leader was someone other than Corbyn they’d be heading for victory? I know it’s easier said than done to pick somebody else but he’s been poor and from the people I speak to and from the political commentary I’ve read, the lack of support for Labour centres more around a huge distrust of Corbyn than the idea of people believing this is as good as it can get.
yes
Nope, media would smear any Labour leader right now.
I've been having chats about politics in one of our homeless hostels recently, which has been kind of interesting. Quite apart from the depressing fact that none of them intend to vote or really give a shit about politics, the most interesting thing for me was how little difference people saw between Corbyn and Johnson. Essentially they saw them both as distant upper middle class guys from down South, and neither of them really meant anything to them.
Johson they just see as a typical Tory, no different from the usual. A twat was one description. Corbyn was seen a bit of a Chorlton type. One of them described Corbyn as being like one of our volunteers that serves breakfast in the hostel - an ernest older chap who means well but can come across as condescening - and the other two I was talking to at the time laughed in agreement. There's a sense that "he's not one of us". Kindly perhaps, but just another person who doesnt get them. They see two leaders who represent other people, not them.
Among our guys I think it all plays into the sense that nothing will change, because both leaders are viewed as not understanding them, so any change will be in someone else's interest not theirs. So yeah I think that someone else would make a difference in our little corner of the world at least and it might help convince them that their world can change.
However its also worth remembering that, internally, Labour was out on its feet after the 2015 defeat. Corbyn has opened the door to a lot of internal energy & new ideas (irespective of whether they're good ideas or bad ideas). Without Corbyn they might have had a more popular leader, but at the same time the party might have still been as confused and downbeat as it was in the late Ed & Ed era. So its difficult right now to say for sure whether replacing Corbyn would have helped because other things would have changed too.
Interesting insights. Thank you.
A victory being a majority? Not a chance, it's just not going to happen until brexit is resolved. Swinsons demise should have put to bed this simple idea that just go remain with a centrist means a big lead.
Do i think if Labour changed leader 6 months ago to Starmer they'd have picked up more votes/seats? Absolutely
I will say i think the issue of Corbyn is overstated. The media set the narrative and it becomes an easy go-to answer for people. Anecdotal time but a mate who has been able to campaign was telling me the IRA nonsense comes up more than anti-semtism which shows it's not about credible complaints but anything that sticks.
Yep. Just like they did with Milliband.
You mean red ed who was picked by the unions... Perhaps if they had picked his brother we might never have ended up with an EU referendum and the maybot / johnson
To be fair I’m not sure how successful any Labour leader would have been in the 2010-15 period. After 13 years of Labour I think most were just ready for a change. My big criticism of Ed is he didn’t do enough to dispel the myth that Labour crashed the economy, in fact if memory serves correctly he sort of went along with it.
Saw him in Liverpool though when he did a live podcast, nice guy.
In an alternative timeline
2010: Labour Lefties fail to get Ed elected as leader. Instead, David Milliband becomes Labour leader and he runs his campaign on reforming the NHS, stopping the financial crisis, and being business-friendly.
5 years of Labour in opposition. No pictures of David are taken eating a Bacon sandwich like a monster. David is competent is his rhetoric and his arguments. He pushes Labour into the centre-ground.
2015: The Toris fail to get a majority. No EU referendum. Labour has enough seats to govern with the help of the SNP and the Lib Dems (remember how close that exit poll was, it suggested no Tory majority).
Labour gives the SNP their IN-OUT referendum, just like Cameron did, and just like before, IN wins.
The Labour-Lib Dem-SNP alliance continues its business reforms, including reforms in business rates. They also invest in green energy, devolve new powers to regional governments.
2016: There is a referendum on going to Proportional Representation. No wins (let's be realistic) which put the Liberal-SNP-Labour coalition in doubt.
2017: There is a new general election and Labour win a surprise majority fighting on a stance of ending the bits of austerity caused by the Tory Coalition government.
Depends, If there was some one like Blair, who lets face it was basically a a marginally more liberal conservative, in charge of Labour then maybe.
You have to remember the UK hasn't had a government that you could describe as left wing since 1979. So for Corbyn to change that was always going to be a big ask.
I think the only way Labour were going to win this election was if the basically picked a more right wing leader. Which for me dfeats the object of the labour party
I’ve been speaking to people at work about this. They all ask why Boris keeps having the lead he has as I’ve basically said this exact point. Politician A lies to get to the top so all politicians get painted as liars, so when Politician B comes out saying we can do better everyone instinctively calls him a liar, refusing to vote for him or her because, “They’ll just feck is over anyway”. Politician A gets re-elected and people complain about the liars in power.
It’s a crippling self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's like a piece of RAWK fan fiction.
Cassetteboy vs Boris Johnson
You prove my point. There will always be a smear from the Tories and Guido readers for any Labour leader.
Exactly the point.Ed Milliband
You wouldn't see David Milliband eating a sandwich like that.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...t-page-antisemitic-save-our-bacon-ed-miliband
If the right wing media are not calling the Labour leader a terrorist sympathiser or a communist they will call them a liar or smear them in any other way. The only time in recent history they didn't is when Labour had a much more right wing leader.
hypothetially a massive yes, given that his policies and the party generally are far more popular than him personally.
realistically -
He was elected in 2015 due to an actual grassroots desire for a left candidate, and he had a *long* record on that front. He has managed very good youth numbers as well as volunteers, and i think his personality and policies are both a big part of that. I'm not sure many others could have managed that - in the rest of Europe, the youth vote goes to the Greens, and in US, it goes to a similar figure (Sanders).
According to the thread posted by @Smores, the problem is traditional labour voters who dont like his links to the IRA/terrorism, and equally don't like the fact that he is a remainer. it suggests that a lot of facebook attacks, real or otherwise, have percolated into people's heads. I personally thought that going for remain would be a disaster and this re-negotiation/2nd ref stance would be the correct way forward. But it seems that Labour leavers see it as a breach of trust that the referendum hasn't been respected. this is objectively a divide that i think no labour leader ould have bridged, and will surely harm the party i the future (seriously, read that thread, its very good).
from his wing of the party, the people i know of are diane abbott and john mcdonnell, who would be at the same position or worse. from the others, i'm guessing equal alienation with leave voters, solid personal ratings*, and no youth surge, so not too much either way.
...
I think what the left has to reckon with is the utter failure of corbyn to resurrect the party in scotland, and the floundering in old labour areas. the left had planned to marry young voters with traditional labour voters and has failed.
*absolutely no doubt that every leader would be attacked viciously, but i'm assuming fewer would hit against others.
Firstly, he has no links to IRA terrorism. But he has links to working towards the eventually successful peace process. The fact you describe it any differently demonstrates a problem with our media or your understanding more than a problem with Corbyn.
Also, to criticise not winning back Scotland after it was lost due to Labour moving too far to the right from 97-2010 is ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that he has moved the party more in alignment with socialist ideas which poll well in Scotland. He can't be expected to undo decades of damage in Scotland in 3 years.
He really wasn't. He was worse than that. A populist!
They campaigned on:
- Introducing a minimum wage (You think a Tory would have done that?)
- Devolution referendums (You think a Tory would have done that?)
- Cracking down on crime and introducing asbos.
- Fiscal responsibility
on the first part, i'm repeating what the reporter heard.
on the second i don't agree. i've read that the scottish part of the party is a mess, but he's the one in charge. and this was part of what he was supposed to fix.
(from 2015)
Labour did win more than 6 seats previously held by SNP 2 years ago I believe.
So you are right.
I was talking to my GF's family last night, who are full on pro-brexit and were talking about voting BJ and was very surprised to hear 5 out of 6 of them are no longer voting him. Now this is a bunch of people with very strong, albeit wrong (in my opinion of course) views, it was shocking to hear them actually admit he's a cnut.
However, the sad thing is, they all argued for now voting for no one. Because they all still hate Corbyn. Just when I thought I was making progress with them
It's anecdotal I know, but it does kind of sum up what's happening.
However, the sad thing is, they all argued for now voting for no one. Because they all still hate Corbyn. Just when I thought I was making progress with them
It's anecdotal I know, but it does kind of sum up what's happening.I was talking to my GF's family last night, who are full on pro-brexit and were talking about voting BJ and was very surprised to hear 5 out of 6 of them are no longer voting him. Now this is a bunch of people with very strong, albeit wrong (in my opinion of course) views, it was shocking to hear them actually admit he's a cnut.
However, the sad thing is, they all argued for now voting for no one. Because they all still hate Corbyn. Just when I thought I was making progress with them
Voting for nobody is a huge gain over voting Tory.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-view-on-general-election-and-who-to-vote-for
This is where we're at.
This is where we're at.
- Status