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
Anyone listen to Nick Robinson on BBC R4 this morning?
Gave it Farage down the banks (wonder why, being the threat that they are to Cons) and then practically cuddled Ian Austin through an 'interview' where he, as an ex-Labour MP, actively told people to vote Conservative. Disappointed more than anything.
Gave it Farage down the banks (wonder why, being the threat that they are to Cons) and then practically cuddled Ian Austin through an 'interview' where he, as an ex-Labour MP, actively told people to vote Conservative. Disappointed more than anything.
Luckily I don't. Which I'm glad about, because he seems like a prick.
One of them will, so I don't get attacking one but not the other.
At least he's not using a disposable 
Pretty much seems like the Jewish Chronicle are more comfortable with the far right element in the Conservative party than with Corbyn.
Just exactly what is a 'credible deal' that Jeremy keeps referring to when he talks of renegotiating with the EU? Credible with who? Credible in terms of acceptance by Parliament? Credible with the EU?
The big problem is that with every deal negotiated, May's, Boris's and probably Jeremy's, is they seem to lack credibility with all but their own supporters, (and even then not all of them!) and its gets us absolutely nowhere. Then to compound the problem Jeremy is intending to put whatever deal emerges to the people (again) in yet another referendum but then says the Labour party will vote against its own deal and recommend opting for remain.
This is the politics of the madhouse writ large, whatever other policies Labour has to improve the lot of the poorest in society, to improve the Health Service, Education etc.they will get sunk under this lunacy of a Brexit policy. Yes, it is clearer than before, that is that the Labour party, as led by Jeremy doesn't want to be in power, not really. That after a life time of standing on the side lines (even within his own party) sniping away at others who do make decisions, Jeremy is actually very comfortable in that position; of continuous, endless, and futile debate, that making decisions is not his style, just making the bullets, but not firing the gun.
Maybe Tom Watson has at last realised this, and that he needs to leave, not so much a sinking ship, but one that is turning itself into the political equivalent of the Marie-celeste and is destined to sail the political seas and never reach port.
The big problem is that with every deal negotiated, May's, Boris's and probably Jeremy's, is they seem to lack credibility with all but their own supporters, (and even then not all of them!) and its gets us absolutely nowhere. Then to compound the problem Jeremy is intending to put whatever deal emerges to the people (again) in yet another referendum but then says the Labour party will vote against its own deal and recommend opting for remain.
This is the politics of the madhouse writ large, whatever other policies Labour has to improve the lot of the poorest in society, to improve the Health Service, Education etc.they will get sunk under this lunacy of a Brexit policy. Yes, it is clearer than before, that is that the Labour party, as led by Jeremy doesn't want to be in power, not really. That after a life time of standing on the side lines (even within his own party) sniping away at others who do make decisions, Jeremy is actually very comfortable in that position; of continuous, endless, and futile debate, that making decisions is not his style, just making the bullets, but not firing the gun.
Maybe Tom Watson has at last realised this, and that he needs to leave, not so much a sinking ship, but one that is turning itself into the political equivalent of the Marie-celeste and is destined to sail the political seas and never reach port.
Maybe it's credible in comparison to the Tory "LAlaland, we say whatever we please no matter reality" deal? Even Donald Trump understands the limitations of this "deal" yet tories be like: "Don't listen to Trump RIGHT NOW".
The BBC have been tripping over themselves to amplify Austin's message and stress how loyal he has been to Labour before. Meanwhile, not a peep about both Ken Clarke and Justine Greening admitting that they may not vote Conservative this election, and neglecting to note that Austin tried to oust Miliband as leader because he was deemed not tough enough on immigration; in fact, Austin deemed Cameron as far too soft on immigration. No one who is Labour 'to the core' could ever advocate voting for Johnson.
Edit -
Goodall addresses this rather well. He's definitely one of the best journalists on Twitter for political coverage at present.
Last edited:
I wish this forum had a like button.
Agreed. The interview finished when I got out of the car and on the walk in to the office I open Twitter to see them driving home the message there too. I do wonder if it was always scheduled to go ahead this morning or if he'd been wheeled in to mitigate some of the Tory self harm this week and double down on the Watson impact.
Either way, you can tell immigration is still a big factor in all this for him and his views clearly aren't compatible with a modern day Labour party. Not surprising then, that he wasn't tempted to advocate for Lib Dem's who may be slightly more palatable to traditional Labour voters, even though as discussed in this thread, those feelings are probably misplaced.
Exactly, no one who can claim to be loyal to Labour's values can justify endorsing Johnson. You can condemn Corbyn and refuse to support him, but to actively endorse Johnson is an untenable position for an allegedly die-hard Labour MP.
In other news, the Remain Alliance is continuing to conspire to deliver Brexit:
The more I look at this, the more it concerns me. There is literally no chance that the Lib Dems can win this seat. It is between Labour and the Tories. Why would you go to the effort of establishing a Remain Alliance in this seat when it is clear that the only party it benefits is the Conservatives?
I guess this is how Conservatives feel knowing Farage plans to stand 600 candidates in seats of all types. No idea what the net outcome of all that is going to be. Hoping it's that messy that Labour scramble out of it in a better than predicted position.
What are you saying, that the deal negotiated & agreed with the EU is not credible, whereas a deal that no one knows about is, somehow, more credible?
What evidence is there of Corbyn's alleged anti semitism? And no, criticism of Israeli foreign policy is not a valid example.
Go & read the Corbyn thread.
He's previously defended an anti-Semitic mural and I believe laid a wreath for the 1972 Olympics Munich terrorists, or at the very least was at a ceremony which paid tribute to them. There's been a fair few activists and party members and the like who've come out with anti-Semitic stuff as well. I think there's an argument Labour's anti-Semitism has been overplayed, and there's probably an argument they're not much worse in that regard than the Tories, but I don't think it's something that can just be swept aside altogether. Especially when a considerable number of the British Jewish community have huge concerns.
well the EHRC has only ever launched 2 formal investigations into political parties - the BNP and Labour
For a formal investigation to be triggered means that from the evidence they have seen they believe that there is a probability that criminal action has taken place, that a jury is in the balance of probability likley to convict and that prosecution is in the public interest and that action has not been taken to sufficiently address the problems in the organisation
If that pretty high evidence level is met they then start a formal investigation - in which they can demand additional evidence to see how much deeper the problem goes
You might think its been overplayed but the only political party who has had a formal investigation before is the BNP - not great company to be keeping and given the high bar for a formal investigation its hard to believe the report is going to be a nice read for Labour and of course a very realistic possibility that legal action ensues.
I dont know if they are worse than the conservatives but i do know that the institution i would trust more than any other to make that legal judgement is the EHRC and evidence so far is that they must be worse
That's fair enough - I'm aware I'm largely speaking about it from the perspective of an outsider, so it's obviously going to be a lot more concerning for those incredibly closely connected to it all.
JLM not happy at all...
Been there. Done that. Any specifics?
I can't really take the JLM very seriously after the suspended one of their own members for providing anti-semitism training.
Completely agree. Which is why voting Labour should be a pretty easy choice.
yeah thats one (very biased) way of saying what happened
seems pretty logical from JLM - seems ridiculous to say they cant be taken seriously on matters of antisemitism
I mean the labour party is pretty quick to expel people who voted lib dems in the euro elections
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/28/labour-expels-alastair-campbell-from-party
and without warning
The JLM had withdrawn the training years before as they didnt agree with it so it seems pretty logical they would suspend people who continued to offer that training
As always Jess Phillips sums it up well
Last edited:
Interesting that both the Tories and Labour are proposing to borrow to invest this time round, which is a very different conversation from way back in 2015 where Ed Balls had to sneak it in the manifesto. Im wondering which way it will go, whether the Tories borrowing will be perceived as the more sensible approach and they pull the rug out from under Labour? Or whether the Tories will be seen as validating borrowing, in which case Labour plans might be preferred as being the more full fat option?
Maybe if Labour weren't absolutely refusing to do any deals then the others might consider standing aside. Labour are the only ones on the Remain side insisting that they won't do any tactical deals, so its a bit rich of them to act like they're being hard done by when others don't drop out on their behalf.
Yes because the deal that might be negotiated may actually be a deal that solves the problems it says it solves.What are you saying, that the deal negotiated & agreed with the EU is not credible, whereas a deal that no one knows about is, somehow, more credible?
If EU membership was a rental agreement Boris' deal would be the agreement on how to get the furniture out. Nothing more. It solves nothing for the future, so yeah, it's even worse than a non existent deal.
Someone you know nothing about is more credible than someone you know as compulsive liar...
Are they on the remain side? - kin ell somebody better tell corbyn
If the Remain Alliances were only occurring in seats where they could win, you'd have a point. But they aren't, so you don't. Moreover, nobody is saying the Lib Dems/Greens should step aside in these seats to benefit Labour. Honestly, you cannot justify the Remain Alliance in a seat like Stroud. It can only have two plausible consequences. 1 - Labour retain the seat in spite of it. 2 - The Conservatives regain the seat possibly as a direct consequence of the Remain Alliance taking votes from Labour. Please explain to me how that is furthering the cause of Remain?
How is Labour running in seats where the Remain alliance parties could win furthering the cause of Remain? By standing in Stroud they're sending a message to Labour that if Labour cooperate then everyone can benefit. Why should they sacrifice their own party chances just to help Jeremy?
How many voters would Labour lose if he outright said we are pro remain? Saying there would be a second referendum on deal vs remain is ‘more democratic’.
The problem with this is - how will Labour campaign? Are they going to try and advocate their own exit deal, thereby taking the side of Leave again, and alienating the vast majority of their Remain voters?
Yeah, let's help a Conservative MP get in, that's a great message to be sending. Do you seriously expect cooperation between the Lib Dems and Labour in seats? That's never going to happen, no one on either side will contemplate that so there is no "message" to be sent. You are saying that it makes sense that rather than sacrifice their party chances to help Corbyn, as you frame it, they'll instead sacrifice them to help Johnson. That is a bizarre position to adopt.
Can we just get there first and then we can decide how to stich up the leave vote when we come to it?
They'll campaign on many issues, because for the majority of people in the country - Brexit isn't the only, nor is it the priority issue for them as @Ultimate Grib explained.
There are cross-sections of voters who are Remain, Leave & Unsure who will align with Labour's policies on other issues. In order for Labour to get in power they need as many voters as they can get.
It's surely worth a discussion, though? I'm not sure Labour should be given a blind free pass on their Brexit tactic throughout the election if it's a hypothetically crap tactic.
Why does it matter? Why would they need to campaign if they were putting it back to a public vote? Here's our deal to leave the EU - vote for it or vote to remain.
I was discussing specifically on how they'd campaign in any given Brexit referendum here. Arguing on the side of their own Leave deal strikes me as a move that could potentially end up backfiring on them massively, and leave the issue festering for even longer if all other sides go against them.
- Status