It wasn't Brexit that caused Labour's vote to rise. People on the left are delighted to have an option again.
People didn't elect Corbyn as leader of Labour to fight Brexit, there weren't two surges in membership, to elect him and then re elect him to fight Brexit. People elected him because they want a left wing Labour leader. Brexit isn't going to take away from any of those people's desire.
There are people whose vote it will affect and Labour's Brexit policy could heavily influence the next election but the affection felt for him and the reason he has such strong support is not because of Brexit.
You are describing why you voted Labour. You do not speak for "the people". None of us do. We can only talk for ourselves. Roughly one third of the Labour party voted against Corbyn and should not be ignored. They are the difference between defeat and victory.
I would be interested in seeing the membership figures. I bumped into a friend who was a Corbyn fanatic who has now lost faith. She'd given up on him and she suspected the feeling was widespread though she had no knowledge beyond her immediate circle.
And will your friend at the next GE
a) not vote at all b) vote for another party than Labour c) reluctantly with nose peg on vote Labour?
Corbyn is calculating that, whatever the disillusionment, the answer for your friend and many others will be c).
An interesting question which I can't answer because I only bump into her ocasionally in a coffeee bar. However she was a member of Momentum and she is not any more and she opined that things are not going Jeremy's way in the organisation. She is beyond livid with him.
Speaking for myself I won't be voting for Corbyn despite having been a regular Labour voter. It'll be Lib dem or Green for me
Corbyn [snip] voted and campaigned for remain.....
Did he fuck
He was there but he wasn't involved
^This.
With respect* to Jezziah there is a basic rule at play here that as long as we remember that he is under the influence of the black sleep of the Kali Ma Corbyn cult, you can trust every word he says to be unadulterated truth
The Labour Party is fucked. As deeply and as badly as the Tories are fucked. Brexit will smash the ability of both parties to pretend that they remain single parties where even if we retain FPTP neither party will have a "majority" even if on paper they do.
Time for TSE to roll out a Christmas PR thread. Perhaps PR is how the country is able to move on. We could have a German style CDU/CSU group for the Tories and a Lab/Co-op/Green group for the left.
And have permanent coalition between the centre right group and the centre left group regardless of who the people actually vote for? Genius.
Yes - that would satisfy most people. It would only be the extreme left and right wingers who would complain.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because 30% support party A and 30% support party B, it does not follow that 60% support the combination of parties A+B.
In the UK, we usually have a government that is supported by a minority of voters. Think about it. That can't be right.
With coalitions, it is highly likely that over 50% will be satisfied. The composition or policies of the coalition would change over time to reflect changes in the priorities of a majority of voters. It would be strong and stable.
We just need to be careful that a PR system (like Israel's) doesn't give leverage to a small minority. This happens also under FPTP (DUP). A system such as Germany's where a party needs at least x% of the vote before it gets any seats addresses that problem.
It wasn't Brexit that caused Labour's vote to rise. People on the left are delighted to have an option again.
People didn't elect Corbyn as leader of Labour to fight Brexit, there weren't two surges in membership, to elect him and then re elect him to fight Brexit. People elected him because they want a left wing Labour leader. Brexit isn't going to take away from any of those people's desire.
There are people whose vote it will affect and Labour's Brexit policy could heavily influence the next election but the affection felt for him and the reason he has such strong support is not because of Brexit.
Many people clearly did vote Labour as an anti-Brexit tactical vote. It would be a mistake to ascribe this to enthusiasm for Corbyn.
With any other leader Labour would be 10-20% ahead against this government. The only thing keeping Jeremy in the game is that he's the only anti Brexit (or so we thought) leader on offer
So why didn't all the people voting Labour in 2017 do so for anti Brexit reasons?
Is there some conspiracy by voters to lie and pretend they are voting for Labour for different reasons?
Also the 20 ahead thing is a fantasy number that someone once mentioned and people like to bring up...
I would be fascinated to see the original workings or some polling evidence, I mean I assume people didn't just like the sound of something and start repeating it without any idea if it is true or not.
Anyone...?
Suspect that for many moderate voters, the perceived anti-Brexit position of the party was the only thing that made a Corbyn Government (just about) palatable, despite other reservations. Heard this from many friends and colleagues.
Losing those incremental voters (or, more likely, they just don't vote) is the problem that I suspect Labour now faces in relation to the above.
You (or the hard left) might not want these "moderate" voters but I suspect you need them.
Corbyn [snip] voted and campaigned for remain.....
Did he fuck
He was there but he wasn't involved
^This.
With respect* to Jezziah there is a basic rule at play here that as long as we remember that he is under the influence of the black sleep of the Kali Ma Corbyn cult, you can trust every word he says to be unadulterated truth
The Labour Party is fucked. As deeply and as badly as the Tories are fucked. Brexit will smash the ability of both parties to pretend that they remain single parties where even if we retain FPTP neither party will have a "majority" even if on paper they do.
Time for TSE to roll out a Christmas PR thread. Perhaps PR is how the country is able to move on. We could have a German style CDU/CSU group for the Tories and a Lab/Co-op/Green group for the left.
And have permanent coalition between the centre right group and the centre left group regardless of who the people actually vote for? Genius.
Yes - that would satisfy most people. It would only be the extreme left and right wingers who would complain.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because 30% support party A and 30% support party B, it does not follow that 60% support the combination of parties A+B.
In the UK, we usually have a government that is supported by a minority of voters. Think about it. That can't be right.
With coalitions, it is highly likely that over 50% will be satisfied. The composition or policies of the coalition would change over time to reflect changes in the priorities of a majority of voters. It would be strong and stable.
We just need to be careful that a PR system (like Israel's) doesn't give leverage to a small minority. This happens also under FPTP (DUP). A system such as Germany's where a party needs at least x% of the vote before it gets any seats addresses that problem.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
Corbyn [snip] voted and campaigned for remain.....
Did he fuck
He was there but he wasn't involved
^This.
With respect* to Jezziah there is a basic rule at play here that as long as we remember that he is under the influence of the black sleep of the Kali Ma Corbyn cult, you can trust every word he says to be unadulterated truth
The Labour Party is fucked. As deeply and as badly as the Tories are fucked. Brexit will smash the ability of both parties to pretend that they remain single parties where even if we retain FPTP neither party will have a "majority" even if on paper they do.
Time for TSE to roll out a Christmas PR thread. Perhaps PR is how the country is able to move on. We could have a German style CDU/CSU group for the Tories and a Lab/Co-op/Green group for the left.
And have permanent coalition between the centre right group and the centre left group regardless of who the people actually vote for? Genius.
Yes - that would satisfy most people. It would only be the extreme left and right wingers who would complain.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because 30% support party A and 30% support party B, it does not follow that 60% support the combination of parties A+B.
In the UK, we usually have a government that is supported by a minority of voters. Think about it. That can't be right.
With coalitions, it is highly likely that over 50% will be satisfied. The composition or policies of the coalition would change over time to reflect changes in the priorities of a majority of voters. It would be strong and stable.
We just need to be careful that a PR system (like Israel's) doesn't give leverage to a small minority. This happens also under FPTP (DUP). A system such as Germany's where a party needs at least x% of the vote before it gets any seats addresses that problem.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
I can't understand all of these Labour Remainers spitting their dummies out and throwing their toys out of the pram just because Jezza restates the policy set out in our 2017 manifesto.
If you think that stopping Brexit is the number one priority for a radical Socialist party you need to think again.
I'm sure that the LibDems would welcome those who just want to be members of an anti-Brexit pressure group. Some of us want to transform the country.
(Sorry I can't stay around to debate)
If Brexit is intolerable to an MP, why vote to trigger A50, or stand on a Brexit platform?
Corbyn [snip] voted and campaigned for remain.....
Did he fuck
He was there but he wasn't involved
^This.
With respect* to Jezziah there is a basic rule at play here that as long as we remember that he is under the influence of the black sleep of the Kali Ma Corbyn cult, you can trust every word he says to be unadulterated truth
The Labour Party is fucked. As deeply and as badly as the Tories are fucked. Brexit will smash the ability of both parties to pretend that they remain single parties where even if we retain FPTP neither party will have a "majority" even if on paper they do.
Time for TSE to roll out a Christmas PR thread. Perhaps PR is how the country is able to move on. We could have a German style CDU/CSU group for the Tories and a Lab/Co-op/Green group for the left.
And have permanent coalition between the centre right group and the centre left group regardless of who the people actually vote for? Genius.
Yes - that would satisfy most people. It would only be the extreme left and right wingers who would complain.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because 30% support party A and 30% support party B, it does not follow that 60% support the combination of parties A+B.
We just need to be careful that a PR system (like Israel's) doesn't give leverage to a small minority. This happens also under FPTP (DUP). A system such as Germany's where a party needs at least x% of the vote before it gets any seats addresses that problem.
It’s worth mentioning that the German system also includes direct mandates, so it’s possible for a candidate to enter the Bundestag even if their party is below the threshold if they win their constituency.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
Several reasons I think.
1.) Tuition fees/coalition. It's oft repeated but they won't make any headway until they've had a fresh start and rebranded under a new 'cleanskin' leader capable of generating headlines and movement building. It's notable that the much-maligned Labour moderates have been far more effective advocates for the insurgent pro-EU campaign.
2.) As the Lib Dems found in the 2000s it's much easier for third parties to draw in protesty type voters . Whatever Corbyn Labour's other faults they've got this group pretty well locked up - even if there are pangs of doubt among the most strident remainers. To solve this they'd need to enact 1.). In contrast, the centrist voters that are alienated from the big two are only likely to jump ship when their vote doesn't look a wasted one. Which brings us to...
3.) Their lack of a parliamentary base. With even 20 more MPs they'd have a strong argument to request votes as kingmakers who could force either Labour or the Tories into either a People's Vote or a soft Brexit. This could, but hasn't been solved by...
4.) A lack of high profile defections - Labour moderates haven't jumped ship in any significant way. Sadly for the Lib Dems, thanks to their collapse there aren't many target seats with MPs disgusted with the Labour leadership they could convince to jump. Alex Sobel, Neil Coyle Daniel Zeichner would appear the only ones within range - and the latter two have 12,000 majorities and none are exactly big names.
5.) They have their own history, quirks and traditions which are off-putting to some would be defectors. Labour members/voters fed up of battling Corbynistas over CLP motion and wrangles can likely look over and see they'd have their own Lib Dem frustrations.
6.) We're still lacking an inflection point on Brexit. Corbyn's policy on it may be dire for the country, but he's quite successfully boiled his party's remainer frogs. That may change but the Lib Dems will struggle to take advantage without sorting some of the other five.
It wasn't Brexit that caused Labour's vote to rise. People on the left are delighted to have an option again.
People didn't elect Corbyn as leader of Labour to fight Brexit, there weren't two surges in membership, to elect him and then re elect him to fight Brexit. People elected him because they want a left wing Labour leader. Brexit isn't going to take away from any of those people's desire.
There are people whose vote it will affect and Labour's Brexit policy could heavily influence the next election but the affection felt for him and the reason he has such strong support is not because of Brexit.
Many people clearly did vote Labour as an anti-Brexit tactical vote. It would be a mistake to ascribe this to enthusiasm for Corbyn.
With any other leader Labour would be 10-20% ahead against this government. The only thing keeping Jeremy in the game is that he's the only anti Brexit (or so we thought) leader on offer
So why didn't all the people voting Labour in 2017 do so for anti Brexit reasons?
Is there some conspiracy by voters to lie and pretend they are voting for Labour for different reasons?
Also the 20 ahead thing is a fantasy number that someone once mentioned and people like to bring up...
I would be fascinated to see the original workings or some polling evidence, I mean I assume people didn't just like the sound of something and start repeating it without any idea if it is true or not.
Anyone...?
Are you sure they didn't? All I heard from Mrs May was BREXIT MEANS BREXIT. From Corbyn I heard nothing memorable at all. I voted for him because I assumed for Labour Brexit didn't mean Brexit and if it did they wouldn't be on a mission.
I'd be curious to see the polling but if Mrs May's siren call BREXIT MEANS BREXIT didn't put off sufficient voters to rob the Tories of their majority I'd be amazed.
Corbyn [snip] voted and campaigned for remain.....
Did he fuck
He was there but he wasn't involved
^This.
With respect* to Jezziah there is a basic rule at play here that as long as we remember that he is under the influence of the black sleep of the Kali Ma Corbyn cult, you can trust every word he says to be unadulterated truth
The Labour Party is fucked. As deeply and as badly as the Tories are fucked. Brexit will smash the ability of both parties to pretend that they remain single parties where even if we retain FPTP neither party will have a "majority" even if on paper they do.
Time for TSE to roll out a Christmas PR thread. Perhaps PR is how the country is able to move on. We could have a German style CDU/CSU group for the Tories and a Lab/Co-op/Green group for the left.
And have permanent coalition between the centre right group and the centre left group regardless of who the people actually vote for? Genius.
Yes - that would satisfy most people. It would only be the extreme left and right wingers who would complain.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because 30% support party A and 30% support party B, it does not follow that 60% support the combination of parties A+B.
In the UK, we usually have a government that is supported by a minority of voters. Think about it. That can't be right.
With coalitions, it is highly likely that over 50% will be satisfied. The composition or policies of the coalition would change over time to reflect changes in the priorities of a majority of voters. It would be strong and stable.
We just need to be careful that a PR system (like Israel's) doesn't give leverage to a small minority. This happens also under FPTP (DUP). A system such as Germany's where a party needs at least x% of the vote before it gets any seats addresses that problem.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
Corbyn's Brexit position is entirely sensible from a political perspective. Labour inclined Remainers have nowhere else to go. They aren't going to reward the tories for their ArmEUgeddon and the LibDems are deader than their erstwhile bootie leader.
Yes cannier than he looks. It's a risk, but as you say they're not going anywhere.
Just because something has worked doesn't mean it will carry on working.
I don't think Corbyn has said anything different now to what he has been saying since the referendum. But revolutions are like that. What was radical in France in 1789 could get your head cut off as reactionary by 1793.
Corbyn [snip] voted and campaigned for remain.....
Did he fuck
He was there but he wasn't involved
^This.
With respect* to Jezziah there is a basic rule at play here that as long as we remember that he is under the influence of the black sleep of the Kali Ma Corbyn cult, you can trust every word he says to be unadulterated truth
The Labour Party is fucked. As deeply and as badly as the Tories are fucked. Brexit will smash the ability of both parties to pretend that they remain single parties where even if we retain FPTP neither party will have a "majority" even if on paper they do.
Time for TSE to roll out a Christmas PR thread. Perhaps PR is how the country is able to move on. We could have a German style CDU/CSU group for the Tories and a Lab/Co-op/Green group for the left.
And have permanent coalition between the centre right group and the centre left group regardless of who the people actually vote for? Genius.
Yes - that would satisfy most people. It would only be the extreme left and right wingers who would complain.
I'm not so sure about that.
Just because 30% support party A and 30% support party B, it does not follow that 60% support the combination of parties A+B.
In the UK, we usually have a government that is supported by a minority of voters. Think about it. That can't be right.
With coalitions, it is highly likely that over 50% will be satisfied.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
Several reasons I think.
1.) Tuition fees/coalition. It's oft repeated but they won't make any headway until they've had a fresh start and rebranded under a new 'cleanskin' leader capable of generating headlines and movement building. It's notable that the much-maligned Labour moderates have been far more effective advocates for the insurgent pro-EU campaign.
2.) As the Lib Dems found in the 2000s it's much easier for third parties to draw in protesty type voters . Whatever Corbyn Labour's other faults they've got this group pretty well locked up - even if there are pangs of doubt among the most strident remainers. To solve this they'd need to enact 1.). In contrast, the centrist voters that are alienated from the big two are only likely to jump ship when their vote doesn't look a wasted one. Which brings us to...
3.) Their lack of a parliamentary base. With even 20 more MPs they'd have a strong argument to request votes as kingmakers who could force either Labour or the Tories into either a People's Vote or a soft Brexit. This could, but hasn't been solved by...
4.) A lack of high profile defections - Labour moderates haven't jumped ship in any significant way. Sadly for the Lib Dems, thanks to their collapse there aren't many target seats with MPs disgusted with the Labour leadership they could convince to jump. Alex Sobel, Neil Coyle Daniel Zeichner would appear the only ones within range - and the latter two have 12,000 majorities and none are exactly big names.
5.) They have their own history, quirks and traditions which are off-putting to some would be defectors. Labour members/voters fed up of battling Corbynistas over CLP motion and wrangles can likely look over and see they'd have their own Lib Dem frustrations.
6.) We're still lacking an inflection point on Brexit. Corbyn's policy on it may be dire for the country, but he's quite successfully boiled his party's remainer frogs. That may change but the Lib Dems will struggle to take advantage without sorting some of the other five.
Many people clearly did vote Labour as an anti-Brexit tactical vote. It would be a mistake to ascribe this to enthusiasm for Corbyn.
With any other leader Labour would be 10-20% ahead against this government. The only thing keeping Jeremy in the game is that he's the only anti Brexit (or so we thought) leader on offer
So why didn't all the people voting Labour in 2017 do so for anti Brexit reasons?
Is there some conspiracy by voters to lie and pretend they are voting for Labour for different reasons?
Also the 20 ahead thing is a fantasy number that someone once mentioned and people like to bring up...
I would be fascinated to see the original workings or some polling evidence, I mean I assume people didn't just like the sound of something and start repeating it without any idea if it is true or not.
Anyone...?
Are you sure they didn't? All I heard from Mrs May was BREXIT MEANS BREXIT. From Corbyn I heard nothing memorable at all. I voted for him because I assumed for Labour Brexit didn't mean Brexit and if it did they wouldn't be on a mission.
I'd be curious to see the polling but if Mrs May's siren call BREXIT MEANS BREXIT didn't put off sufficient voters to rob the Tories of their majority I'd be amazed.
Anti Tory is constantly there I'd imagine and probably a decent chunk like in 2017, Anti leader (May in this case) I'd imagine similarish to what they were in the previous election but maybe a little higher. Brexit doesn't get its own category as reason for vote.
Could it be that the people you know who did this are not particularly representative of Labour voters?
I've seen plenty of stuff showing a correlation between Labour and remain but everything I've seen which directly asks voters (Labour voters) see's Brexit far far behind other reasons. If anyone has anything contradicting that I would be interested to see it.
Which isn't to suggest Brexit policy might not be a factor next time.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
If he continues his support for leave as manifested in the referendum campaign where he declared for remain and promptly disappeared, he will be finished. The Labour leave supporters largely hate him - not a popular figure on working class doorsteps. He was always the trophy of middle class supposed intelligensia and they won't put up with this.
That is my perception too. Even if Corbyn came out more clearly in favour of Brexit, his problem is that he personally carries far too much wider baggage to have any chance of regaining support from working class Leave supporters that could compensate for the loss of support from the transitory ABC1 Remainer vote that Labour has become far too dependent upon.
That said, it goes well beyond Corbyn. In the longer term I consider that Labour as a party has courted disaster by jumping so firmly to one side of the fence on Brexit (Corbyn notwithstanding), given that the opinion of the electorate whose interests the Labour Party traditionally seeks to promote sits firmly on the other side. By contrast, the continuing largely balanced split of opinion within the Conservative Party serves it better, as while that balance of opinion continues the party can court electoral support from both camps.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
As I've said I'm no fan of Corbyn but I can't see anything in that post that is anything other than an unpleasant smear. Blair and Major talked to Sinn Fein. In fact if they'd done it earlier instead of climbing on high horses things might have ended more quickly.
Rational consideration of the facts, though, holds no sway in Momentum. And so Corbyn did the two things he always does when trouble is brewing. First — instinctively — he lies. Now that’s not wholly unusual for a politician, but it is the ineffectual nature of Corbyn’s lies, their utter failure to convey conviction, that boggle the mind.
You may remember his wonderful series of defences when he was accused of laying a wreath at the grave of Palestinian terrorists, the gist of which was: I wasn’t there at all. It was a different grave. I didn’t know it was a terrorist. All three, one after the other. The man has raised imbecilic prevarication to new heights: we may never see his like again.
The second thing he does, when he’s in a spot of bother, is to blame the imperialist fascist running dog media. On this occasion, for being obsessed with his mild rudeness to Theresa May and “ignoring” the failure of universal credit and the scandal of homelessness. The moron complained about this in a week when his biggest adversary in Fleet Street, The Sun, had run a campaigning series about the iniquities of universal credit and on the day when every national newspaper covered homelessness in a prominent position. Unless you were purblind, you could see he was talking self-serving, deceitful rot.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
I don't agree with what you said. I'm expanding the conversation to include the limitations of FPTP and the fractious coalitions it creates.
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
Many people clearly did vote Labour as an anti-Brexit tactical vote. It would be a mistake to ascribe this to enthusiasm for Corbyn.
With .
I would be fascinated to see the original workings or some polling evidence, I mean I assume people didn't just like the sound of something and start repeating it without any idea if it is true or not.
Anti Tory is constantly there I'd imagine and probably a decent chunk like in 2017, Anti leader (May in this case) I'd imagine similarish to what they were in the previous election but maybe a little higher. Brexit doesn't get its own category as reason for vote.
Could it be that the people you know who did this are not particularly representative of Labour voters?
I've seen plenty of stuff showing a correlation between Labour and remain but everything I've seen which directly asks voters (Labour voters) see's Brexit far far behind other reasons. If anyone has anything contradicting that I would be interested to see it.
Which isn't to suggest Brexit policy might not be a factor next time.
Your point corresponds to my experience. My personal journey was hearing Barbara Castle make a really good speech during the first referendum campaign that convinced me that the Common Market was a bad thing. I would have voted against it but I was a few months too young. Since then I hardly gave it a second thought. If anyone had asked me I'd have probably said I was against it. But it didn't really bother me much. When UKIP started pulling in big votes I finally considered it again and came out mildly in favour. It wasn't until the second referendum campaign that I came round to supporting the EU. But it is very much a second order issue. The UK will be fine outside the EU if that is what the majority want. The Labour/Conservative split still seems to me to be the one that matters in determining which direction the country goes in. I might switch purely on the Brexit issue if it comes up that way, but it would annoy me to have to do so. I have run into people for whom the relationship with Europe is fundamental, but most don't. Or more likely have never thought about it, as I didn't for many years. I have a feeling in 10 years we'll rejoin without much fuss being made about it at all.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
I don't agree with what you said. I'm expanding the conversation to include the limitations of FPTP and the fractious coalitions it creates.
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
Isn't it similar for PR systems though, except coalition building is done after elections between parties, and not inside parties over a long period?
"Corbyn name hasn’t been found in the Bible/Torah/Quran Famous People Named Corbyn Our research results for the name of Corbyn (Corbyn name meaning, Origin of Corbyn, Pronounced etc. ) is fit name.You can give to your baby with complacency."
Right from the start the Telegraph report of their arrest seemed to cast doubt on whether these people were involved. Going to be tough for them to have a nice Christmas now I suspect.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
I don't agree with what you said. I'm expanding the conversation to include the limitations of FPTP and the fractious coalitions it creates.
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
Isn't it similar for PR systems though, except coalition building is done after elections between parties, and not inside parties over a long period?
I don't think so.
With FPTP, the coalitions are unhappy families whose members often hate one another, who fundamentally disagree on policies, but are bound to stay together or they will be flattened by the FPTP system. These are not satisfying arrangements.
With PR, it is like speed dating where the parties are looking for common interests that they can work together on. If they fall out, they can break up and hook up with some more interesting party that better furthers their interests. These are much more satisfying arrangements.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
I don't agree with what you said. I'm expanding the conversation to include the limitations of FPTP and the fractious coalitions it creates.
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
Isn't it similar for PR systems though, except coalition building is done after elections between parties, and not inside parties over a long period?
Yep. I really don't see the difference. In the end it is all about compromises between parties which inevitably lead to them ignoring what they were elected on.
Rational consideration of the facts, though, holds no sway in Momentum. And so Corbyn did the two things he always does when trouble is brewing. First — instinctively — he lies. Now that’s not wholly unusual for a politician, but it is the ineffectual nature of Corbyn’s lies, their utter failure to convey conviction, that boggle the mind.
You may remember his wonderful series of defences when he was accused of laying a wreath at the grave of Palestinian terrorists, the gist of which was: I wasn’t there at all. It was a different grave. I didn’t know it was a terrorist. All three, one after the other. The man has raised imbecilic prevarication to new heights: we may never see his like again.
The second thing he does, when he’s in a spot of bother, is to blame the imperialist fascist running dog media. On this occasion, for being obsessed with his mild rudeness to Theresa May and “ignoring” the failure of universal credit and the scandal of homelessness. The moron complained about this in a week when his biggest adversary in Fleet Street, The Sun, had run a campaigning series about the iniquities of universal credit and on the day when every national newspaper covered homelessness in a prominent position. Unless you were purblind, you could see he was talking self-serving, deceitful rot.
A balanced take as always from a Murdoch paper, Fox news, British edition.
The right wing media take pride in putting smearing the Labour leader above other stories, they do of course cover other stuff as well, if Corbyn meant that they do not ever mention any of the problems facing Britain he was of course wrong. I suspect a Times journalist is smart enough to figure that out that it wasn't even if not honest enough to say it.
The times of course know all about ineffectual lies given their attempt to smear Corbyn by claiming David Duke was a fan, not realising that the British public actually have access to his statements through a magical invention only a few decades old called the internet.
I'm glad his papers are dying and I am so happy that I finally get to vote for a party that doesn't slavishly follow the xenophobic tone of his newspapers. Never again will Murdoch influence the Labour party.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
Corbyn's Brexit position is entirely sensible from a political perspective. Labour inclined Remainers have nowhere else to go. They aren't going to reward the tories for their ArmEUgeddon and the LibDems are deader than their erstwhile bootie leader.
Yes cannier than he looks. It's a risk, but as you say they're not going anywhere.
Just because something has worked doesn't mean it will carry on working.
I don't think Corbyn has said anything different now to what he has been saying since the referendum. But revolutions are like that. What was radical in France in 1789 could get your head cut off as reactionary by 1793.
Hence it being a risk. I just happen to think the risk is lower than others might.
Your point corresponds to my experience. My personal journey was hearing Barbara Castle make a really good speech during the first referendum campaign that convinced me that the Common Market was a bad thing. I would have voted against it but I was a few months too young. Since then I hardly gave it a second thought. If anyone had asked me I'd have probably said I was against it. But it didn't really bother me much. When UKIP started pulling in big votes I finally considered it again and came out mildly in favour. It wasn't until the second referendum campaign that I came round to supporting the EU. But it is very much a second order issue. The UK will be fine outside the EU if that is what the majority want. The Labour/Conservative split still seems to me to be the one that matters in determining which direction the country goes in. I might switch purely on the Brexit issue if it comes up that way, but it would annoy me to have to do so. I have run into people for whom the relationship with Europe is fundamental, but most don't. Or more likely have never thought about it, as I didn't for many years. I have a feeling in 10 years we'll rejoin without much fuss being made about it at all.
It has almost certainly become a bigger issue for more remainers than it was previously but I feel it is an over represented group in the media, certainly the Labour voting section. There are plenty who would like to remain given the choice (me!) but have bigger priorities.
I was always pro EU, aside from the details I am just a fan of the idea of greater cooperation and working more closely together. The fact it comes with benefits is a bonus. Was always happy to refer to myself as European as well as British or English/Welsh....
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
I don't agree with what you said. I'm expanding the conversation to include the limitations of FPTP and the fractious coalitions it creates.
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
Isn't it similar for PR systems though, except coalition building is done after elections between parties, and not inside parties over a long period?
I don't think so.
With FPTP, the coalitions are unhappy families whose members often hate one another, who fundamentally disagree on policies, but are bound to stay together or they will be flattened by the FPTP system. These are not satisfying arrangements.
With PR, it is like speed dating where the parties are looking for common interests that they can work together on. If they fall out, they can break up and hook up with some more interesting party that better furthers their interests. These are much more satisfying arrangements.
I wouldn't say hate (except maybe over europe). It's a big tent, but there are overarching themes that bind them together.
As for PR, speed dating sound terrible. You have no idea what combination you are going to end up with.
If he continues his support for leave as manifested in the referendum campaign where he declared for remain and promptly disappeared, he will be finished. The Labour leave supporters largely hate him - not a popular figure on working class doorsteps. He was always the trophy of middle class supposed intelligensia and they won't put up with this.
That is my perception too. Even if Corbyn came out more clearly in favour of Brexit, his problem is that he personally carries far too much wider baggage to have any chance of regaining support from working class Leave supporters that could compensate for the loss of support from the transitory ABC1 Remainer vote that Labour has become far too dependent upon.
That said, it goes well beyond Corbyn. In the longer term I consider that Labour as a party has courted disaster by jumping so firmly to one side of the fence on Brexit (Corbyn notwithstanding), given that the opinion of the electorate whose interests the Labour Party traditionally seeks to promote sits firmly on the other side. By contrast, the continuing largely balanced split of opinion within the Conservative Party serves it better, as while that balance of opinion continues the party can court electoral support from both camps.
God what are you smoking , a balanced split of opinion in the Conservative party. Where have you been these past few years.
Whoever the drone operators are they are very smart at concealing themselves. They are not going to have incriminating evidence lying round at home to be discovered by police.
They have done the country a favour by showing how exposed we are to drones operated by terrorists ot other enemies and how we need to invent a solution pronto.
Just catching up the thread and the civil war breaking out in the labour party
Given Corbyn's stated desire to brexit with no referendum can we assume Starmer will resign in the morning. After all both Davis and Boris did when they disagreed with TM brexit policy
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
Not everyone in the South supports the economic neo-liberalism that lies behind the austerity agenda and "private good, public bad". There is a ground swell of public opinion turning against that, including in the South. The LibDems need to emphasise their pragmatic approach - neither "private good, public bad" nor "private bad, public good" but "what works".
Social liberalism is popular, even with Kippers and right-wing Tories, who detest the nanny state and political correctness.
The LibDems also offer a green agenda which is popular with many.
So we'll see. I'm also betting on the LibDems being the the next leader to leave.
Difficult not to feel schadenfreude for both Corbyn and Labour after all the clueless posturing they have indulged in over Brexit. I don’t suppose the Tories will find the cohesion to exploit Labour’s difficulties but still - a temporary respite from their own troubles is not to be sniffed at.
Doesn’t show Remainers in a good light either and rather highlights why they lost in the first place. That tolerant, urbane, outward looking image they like to project shattered for the myth it is on the fact that they actually lost and can’t live with that democratic verdict of the electorate.
Leavers have not attempted to include Remain supporters in their post-referendum vision of Brexit. Admittedly it was always a huge challenge after having campaigned by pandering to xenophobia but if Leavers want to know why the decision to leave the EU has not been embedded in consensus they need to look in a mirror.
So the arrogant hypocrisy continues. If Remainers had accepted the results of the referendum rather than launch into a desperate campaign to try and overturn it, at the behest of their European overlords who also told Ireland and France to think again after Lisbon, they might have been able jto build a consensus themselves. After all, most of the current Cabinet voted Remain. Instead, they resorted to the bitter and twisted empty rhetoric that cost them the referendum and tried to ignore the votes of 17.4 m of their fellow citizens. The “we wuz robbed” mentality of self pity that you wallow in doesn’t work because too many people outside London don’t benefit from EU membership or the prosperity of London and the SE.
Democracy is a bitch when it doesn’t go your way.
One only has to compare Alastair’s language with yours, to prove his point.
Just catching up the thread and the civil war breaking out in the labour party
Given Corbyn's stated desire to brexit with no referendum can we assume Starmer will resign in the morning. After all both Davis and Boris did when they disagreed with TM brexit policy
And look how well that has worked out for Davis and Boris!
I suspect Starmer will have more chance of changing Labour's position from within rather than without the shadow cabinet.
As an aside, my own books (sold rather less, alas) are on sale now. Search Amazon for Hero of Hornska to find them. 'tis a festive sale, for those who enjoy Blackadder/Red Dwarf style comedy.
That's rubbish. If you actually spent any time talking to people around Europe you would know that with coalitions generally the vast majority are sullenly unsatisfied. Coalitions give politicians a free pass to ignore what the voters want in the name of 'stable Government'. In the end no one is happy. Except of course the politicians who get power without the ned to actually fulfil their promises.
That's pure rubbish.
Great riposte
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
You might be right. The Tory Party is a good example of a coalition that satisfies no-one but is bound together by the FPTP system. So is the Labour Party. Both are broken.
So in that case why was what I said 'pure rubbish' if you now agree with it?
I don't agree with what you said. I'm expanding the conversation to include the limitations of FPTP and the fractious coalitions it creates.
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
Isn't it similar for PR systems though, except coalition building is done after elections between parties, and not inside parties over a long period?
I don't think so.
With FPTP, the coalitions are unhappy families whose members often hate one another, who fundamentally disagree on policies, but are bound to stay together or they will be flattened by the FPTP system. These are not satisfying arrangements.
With PR, it is like speed dating where the parties are looking for common interests that they can work together on. If they fall out, they can break up and hook up with some more interesting party that better furthers their interests. These are much more satisfying arrangements.
I wouldn't say hate (except maybe over europe). It's a big tent, but there are overarching themes that bind them together.
As for PR, speed dating sound terrible. You have no idea what combination you are going to end up with.
Ditto with FPTP. Who imagined we'd end up with Tories plus DUP? A fractious threesome!
With PR, you stand a better chance of your party getting some power to enact some of your policies rather than suffer an unfettered majority party elected with a minority of the votes. It really is indefensible.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
Not everyone in the South supports the economic neo-liberalism that lies behind the austerity agenda and "private good, public bad". There is a ground swell of public opinion turning against that, including in the South. The LibDems need to emphasise their pragmatic approach - neither "private good, public bad" nor "private bad, public good" but "what works".
Social liberalism is popular, even with Kippers and right-wing Tories, who detest the nanny state and political correctness.
The LibDems also offer a green agenda which is popular with many.
So we'll see. I'm also betting on the LibDems being the the next leader to leave.
The difficulty with a Liberal Democrat party being neither liberal (on economics) or democratic (ignoring referendum results) speaks for itself. No one knows what the Lib Dems stand for.
Just catching up the thread and the civil war breaking out in the labour party
Given Corbyn's stated desire to brexit with no referendum can we assume Starmer will resign in the morning. After all both Davis and Boris did when they disagreed with TM brexit policy
And look how well that has worked out for Davis and Boris!
I suspect Starmet will have more chance of changing Labour's position from within rather than without the shadow cabinet.
It is clear this morning that Corbyn will not countenance being in the EU and therefore Starmer is in a lame duck position. Futhermore there are a good many labour mps who will vote against a referendum
Labour are as divided as the conservatives and the early new year will highlight these ever deepening divides
I don't usually enjoy her politics tweets and whilst I disagree with almost everything she says in it, it is very funny.
Although I largely disagree with JK Rowling, and I largely don't like her books, I think she does deserve a lot of credit for her politics tweets.
She does usually present reasoned and intelligent arguments and she does increase the quality of public debate.
And of course she doesn't have to do any of this. It does involve her in some unpleasantness as she has become a hate figure for some.
She could just sit and count her millions, but she doesn't.
Perhaps, although being semi serious if you exclude the reasoned and intelligent parts, you could say of Trump that he didn't have to get involved in political debate and could just sit and count his millions, but he didn't. Should he get credit for that?
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Not quite, down south that may be true but head north where people vote to exit and their mp is Labour and few MPs will willingly vote remain. Ours is categoric that she will vote leave against her better judgement as that is what her constituents want.
When I asked her if she will vote for the only legitimate solution (May’s deal) the lack of an answer is rather foretelling
I don't usually enjoy her politics tweets and whilst I disagree with almost everything she says in it, it is very funny.
Although I largely disagree with JK Rowling, and I largely don't like her books, I think she does deserve a lot of credit for her politics tweets.
She does usually present reasoned and intelligent arguments and she does increase the quality of public debate.
And of course she doesn't have to do any of this. It does involve her in some unpleasantness as she has become a hate figure for some.
She could just sit and count her millions, but she doesn't.
Perhaps, although being semi serious if you exclude the reasoned and intelligent parts, you could say of Trump that he didn't have to get involved in political debate and could just sit and count his millions, but he didn't. Should he get credit for that?
I was going to mention that, any celebrity who gets involved might deserve some credit for doing so depending on their intentions but people often don't think so when they don't agree.
Can't quite remember who it was but some old singer came out as a UKIP fan I think... he didn't get much credit for a brave move which just earned him abuse and anger.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Any GE in the next three months will be dominated by Brexit and is likely to be a shorter campaign of about one month
Corbyn fan boys who go on about how Corbyn is just following policy set at conference just don’t have a clue. There just isn’t time to wait for GE to sort out Brexit. Corbyn knows this. It’s just a convenient way to kick the can down the road and finally it is being seen as such.
At least 5 of my (working class but university educated) friends here in the NE have cancelled their Labour party membership in the last few days over it. Brexit is important in the Northern Labour heartlands too.
I don't usually enjoy her politics tweets and whilst I disagree with almost everything she says in it, it is very funny.
Although I largely disagree with JK Rowling, and I largely don't like her books, I think she does deserve a lot of credit for her politics tweets.
She does usually present reasoned and intelligent arguments and she does increase the quality of public debate.
And of course she doesn't have to do any of this. It does involve her in some unpleasantness as she has become a hate figure for some.
She could just sit and count her millions, but she doesn't.
Perhaps, although being semi serious if you exclude the reasoned and intelligent parts, you could say of Trump that he didn't have to get involved in political debate and could just sit and count his millions, but he didn't. Should he get credit for that?
Trump is the finest comedian of his generation and has caused merriment and laughter to so many.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Not if those 6 weeks are pre Brexit...
Isn't that going to cause some problems for the Conservative party?
Would you be going into the election backing May's deal as a party?
It wasn't Brexit that caused Labour's vote to rise. People on the left are delighted to have an option again.
People didn't elect Corbyn as leader of Labour to fight Brexit, there weren't two surges in membership, to elect him and then re elect him to fight Brexit. People elected him because they want a left wing Labour leader. Brexit isn't going to take away from any of those people's desire.
There are people whose vote it will affect and Labour's Brexit policy could heavily influence the next election but the affection felt for him and the reason he has such strong support is not because of Brexit.
Many people clearly did vote Labour as an anti-Brexit tactical vote. It would be a mistake to ascribe this to enthusiasm for Corbyn.
With any other leader Labour would be 10-20% ahead against this government. The only thing keeping Jeremy in the game is that he's the only anti Brexit (or so we thought) leader on offer
So why didn't all the people voting Labour in 2017 do so for anti Brexit reasons?
Is there some conspiracy by voters to lie and pretend they are voting for Labour for different reasons?
Also the 20 ahead thing is a fantasy number that someone once mentioned and people like to bring up...
I would be fascinated to see the original workings or some polling evidence, I mean I assume people didn't just like the sound of something and start repeating it without any idea if it is true or not.
Anyone...?
Corbyn was talking about a snap election, which would be almost entirely about Brexit, since he shares May’s refusal to contemplate a second referendum. Setting aside the fact that his ‘I would do a better job of negotiating’ claim is at a minimum tendentious..... having both major parties going into an election, which is supposed to settle the Brexit impasse, advocating effectively the same policy, is very likely to throw up interesting results.
You might as well ask a scorpion to stop stinging.
Edit - in many ways, Clive Lewis encapsulates the electoral problem for Labour. When he won Norwich South (amazingly, just three and a half years ago) he took it off the back of a Liberal Democrat collapse, where even allowing for churn around 50% of their vote seems to have migrated to Labour. In 2010 it was a genuine three-way marginal. In 2015 I'm guessing tuition fees were just a bit of an issue.
Now let's say 40% of his vote last year was solidly Remain (probably an underestimate) and this migrates back to the yellows. Suddenly, even though he has a huge majority, he seat looks vulnerable again to either of his challengers.
So I'm not surprised he's a bit nervous.
Well more than 40% of them were remain I'd imagine but as their top reason for voting?
Corbyn fan boys who go on about how Corbyn is just following policy set at conference just don’t have a clue. There just isn’t time to wait for GE to sort out Brexit. Corbyn knows this. It’s just a convenient way to kick the can down the road and finally it is being seen as such.
I'm not a Corbyn fan boy and I've said the same thing. You're right that it is a way to kick the can down the road, and it is not unjustified that there is anger he has not switched positions yet. Indeed, I am surprised he has not yet done so and still think he will. But neither is him sticking to agreed policy a betrayal as people have been pretending. A major part of his appeal to the members was here is a man who has his principles and sticks with them no matter what.
It wasn't Brexit that caused Labour's vote to rise. People on the left are delighted to have an option again.
People didn't elect Corbyn as leader of Labour to fight Brexit, there weren't two surges in membership, to elect him and then re elect him to fight Brexit. People elected him because they want a left wing Labour leader. Brexit isn't going to take away from any of those people's desire.
There are people whose vote it will affect and Labour's Brexit policy could heavily influence the next election but the affection felt for him and the reason he has such strong support is not because of Brexit.
Many people clearly did vote Labour as an anti-Brexit tactical vote. It would be a mistake to ascribe this to enthusiasm for Corbyn.
With any other leader Labour would be 10-20% ahead against this government. The only thing keeping Jeremy in the game is that he's the only anti Brexit (or so we thought) leader on offer
So why didn't all the people voting Labour in 2017 do so for anti Brexit reasons?
Is there some conspiracy by voters to lie and pretend they are voting for Labour for different reasons?
Also the 20 ahead thing is a fantasy number that someone once mentioned and people like to bring up...
I would be fascinated to see the original workings or some polling evidence, I mean I assume people didn't just like the sound of something and start repeating it without any idea if it is true or not.
Anyone...?
Corbyn was talking about a snap election, which would be almost entirely about Brexit, since he shares May’s refusal to contemplate a second referendum. Setting aside the fact that his ‘I would do a better job of negotiating’ claim is at a minimum tendentious..... having both major parties going into an election, which is supposed to settle the Brexit impasse, advocating effectively the same policy, is very likely to throw up interesting results.
I imagine if that happened the election could easily end up getting sidetracked onto other domestic issues, at least that is what happened last time. I think we would have to wait to see the parties position on Brexit for a snap election, it would depend on what happens exactly to lead up to that election.
Just catching up the thread and the civil war breaking out in the labour party
Given Corbyn's stated desire to brexit with no referendum can we assume Starmer will resign in the morning. After all both Davis and Boris did when they disagreed with TM brexit policy
And look how well that has worked out for Davis and Boris!
I suspect Starmet will have more chance of changing Labour's position from within rather than without the shadow cabinet.
It is clear this morning that Corbyn will not countenance being in the EU and therefore Starmer is in a lame duck position. Futhermore there are a good many labour mps who will vote against a referendum
Labour are as divided as the conservatives and the early new year will highlight these ever deepening divides
True , both Labour and The Conservatives are similar in that respect. Be interesting to see if May sticks to her position of her deal or no deal.
I believe she will not as her past announcements have indicated.
I always thought once we lost the FBPE crowd we were done for...
The one Clive Lewis retweeted means a lot more, the FBPE crowd have always been very anti Corbyn.
Yep, it's also significant that Lewis retweeted it in the first place. He is nothing if not a loyalist. I did a thread on this whole issue and why the leadership's stance poses such a risk for Labour. The one thing you just cannot get around is that the large majority of Labour voters are Remain ... https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1076474121549217794
The majority of Labour voters supported Remain - but how 'salient' an issue is Brexit for many of them? Other issues will easily override in the context of a 6 week election campaign.
Not if those 6 weeks are pre Brexit...
Isn't that going to cause some problems for the Conservative party?
Would you be going into the election backing May's deal as a party?
It would cause untold problems for both major parties
Corbyn fan boys who go on about how Corbyn is just following policy set at conference just don’t have a clue. There just isn’t time to wait for GE to sort out Brexit. Corbyn knows this. It’s just a convenient way to kick the can down the road and finally it is being seen as such.
I'm not a Corbyn fan boy and I've said the same thing. You're right that it is a way to kick the can down the road, and it is not unjustified that there is anger he has not switched positions yet. Indeed, I am surprised he has not yet done so and still think he will. But neither is him sticking to agreed policy a betrayal as people have been pretending. A major part of his appeal to the members was here is a man who has his principles and sticks with them no matter what.
It wouldn't be so bad if he hadn't given the strong opinion that he was pro-remain. Almost gives the impression that he'd 'been misinforming' us when he said he'd voted Remain.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
There are millions of readers out there that disagree with you. Still, what would they know, eh?
George Bernard Shaw had the best riposte. At the premiere of one of his plays, he came on the stage to huge applause. Just as it finished somebody started booing and hissing. Shaw immediately pointed at him and said:
'My friend, I agree with you, 'tis a rotten play. But who are you and I among so many?'
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
Not everyone in the South supports the economic neo-liberalism that lies behind the austerity agenda and "private good, public bad". There is a ground swell of public opinion turning against that, including in the South. The LibDems need to emphasise their pragmatic approach - neither "private good, public bad" nor "private bad, public good" but "what works".
Social liberalism is popular, even with Kippers and right-wing Tories, who detest the nanny state and political correctness.
The LibDems also offer a green agenda which is popular with many.
So we'll see. I'm also betting on the LibDems being the the next leader to leave.
The difficulty with a Liberal Democrat party being neither liberal (on economics) or democratic (ignoring referendum results) speaks for itself. No one knows what the Lib Dems stand for.
But everyone has a pretty good idea what they won’t stand for.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
That does rather limit their ability to make a comeback, they can only spare so many resources.
Jeremy Corbyn like is ideological mentor Tony Benn was always against the EU, he should have campaigned openly for leave in 2016, he might have lost some new Labour urbanites but he would have kept more of the traditional working class Labour supporters.
He'd have been closer in the polls and the 2017 General Election might not have happened, giving him a much better chance in 2020 than he will have in 2022.
Tony Benn was pro-EEC whilst a member of the 1964 - 1970 Labour Government.
Every new political figure goes through a brief honeymoon where many supporters are willing to hope that the figure in question secretly agrees with them. It's something of a mystery that this has lasted so long with Jeremy, but not a mystery that it happened at all.
What is more of a mystery is why the Lib Dems aren't benefitting. There seems to be a big constituency whose worldview is far, far closer to that of the Lib Dems than to either of the other two big parties, but seem almost unaware of the existence of the party. To be honest, I have to stop and think for a bit nowadays if for some reason I want to remember who the leader of the Lib Dems is.
The Lib Dems are below the relevance threshold.
What is their USP to raise them back above it?
Their long term USP is social and economic liberalism. Their short term USP is pro-Remain.
Their problem is that the brand is badly damaged, It's not cool. People scoff. It needs a relaunch with a new leader and campaigns that support its long term USP.
Social liberalism: Decriminalisation of drugs "Dignity in Dying" etc
Economic liberalism: Big problem here! It's why I'm a red LibDem.
Lib Dems second places are mainly in the South and second to the Conservatives.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
They have other tricks up their sleeves. Look at Eastbourne. They can still win with a lot of local engagement.
Is it going to be Feb '74 all over again, but with a lot more LD seats this time? Suspect Out isn't going to be that popular in Scotland either.
Just catching up the thread and the civil war breaking out in the labour party
Given Corbyn's stated desire to brexit with no referendum can we assume Starmer will resign in the morning. After all both Davis and Boris did when they disagreed with TM brexit policy
And look how well that has worked out for Davis and Boris!
I suspect Starmet will have more chance of changing Labour's position from within rather than without the shadow cabinet.
It is clear this morning that Corbyn will not countenance being in the EU and therefore Starmer is in a lame duck position. Futhermore there are a good many labour mps who will vote against a referendum
Labour are as divided as the conservatives and the early new year will highlight these ever deepening divides
True , both Labour and The Conservatives are similar in that respect. Be interesting to see if May sticks to her position of her deal or no deal.
I believe she will not as her past announcements have indicated.
I expect her to take a pragmatic approach to the meaningful vote and it's outcome.
It is going to be a very interesting and historic vote when it happens and the consequences unforeseen
Comments
Speaking for myself I won't be voting for Corbyn despite having been a regular Labour voter. It'll be Lib dem or Green for me
With coalitions, it is highly likely that over 50% will be satisfied. The composition or policies of the coalition would change over time to reflect changes in the priorities of a majority of voters. It would be strong and stable.
We just need to be careful that a PR system (like Israel's) doesn't give leverage to a small minority. This happens also under FPTP (DUP). A system such as Germany's where a party needs at least x% of the vote before it gets any seats addresses that problem.
Losing those incremental voters (or, more likely, they just don't vote) is the problem that I suspect Labour now faces in relation to the above.
You (or the hard left) might not want these "moderate" voters but I suspect you need them.
So why expect them to when they lost it?
1.) Tuition fees/coalition. It's oft repeated but they won't make any headway until they've had a fresh start and rebranded under a new 'cleanskin' leader capable of generating headlines and movement building. It's notable that the much-maligned Labour moderates have been far more effective advocates for the insurgent pro-EU campaign.
2.) As the Lib Dems found in the 2000s it's much easier for third parties to draw in protesty type voters . Whatever Corbyn Labour's other faults they've got this group pretty well locked up - even if there are pangs of doubt among the most strident remainers. To solve this they'd need to enact 1.). In contrast, the centrist voters that are alienated from the big two are only likely to jump ship when their vote doesn't look a wasted one. Which brings us to...
3.) Their lack of a parliamentary base. With even 20 more MPs they'd have a strong argument to request votes as kingmakers who could force either Labour or the Tories into either a People's Vote or a soft Brexit. This could, but hasn't been solved by...
4.) A lack of high profile defections - Labour moderates haven't jumped ship in any significant way. Sadly for the Lib Dems, thanks to their collapse there aren't many target seats with MPs disgusted with the Labour leadership they could convince to jump. Alex Sobel, Neil Coyle Daniel Zeichner would appear the only ones within range - and the latter two have 12,000 majorities and none are exactly big names.
5.) They have their own history, quirks and traditions which are off-putting to some would be defectors. Labour members/voters fed up of battling Corbynistas over CLP motion and wrangles can likely look over and see they'd have their own Lib Dem frustrations.
6.) We're still lacking an inflection point on Brexit. Corbyn's policy on it may be dire for the country, but he's quite successfully boiled his party's remainer frogs. That may change but the Lib Dems will struggle to take advantage without sorting some of the other five.
I'd be curious to see the polling but if Mrs May's siren call BREXIT MEANS BREXIT didn't put off sufficient voters to rob the Tories of their majority I'd be amazed.
They have a yearning for a fictional Britain that doesn't exist, and probably never did.
They have shown willing to trash any British Institution to achieve their wish. That is not an act of love.
Seriously though, is there any polling on the matter? Coalitions can only involve abandoning principles and back-room deals. Hard to see how satisfaction can go up in that scenario.
I don't think Corbyn has said anything different now to what he has been saying since the referendum. But revolutions are like that. What was radical in France in 1789 could get your head cut off as reactionary by 1793.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/07/11/why-people-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener
Anti Tory is constantly there I'd imagine and probably a decent chunk like in 2017, Anti leader (May in this case) I'd imagine similarish to what they were in the previous election but maybe a little higher. Brexit doesn't get its own category as reason for vote.
@tottenhamWC
Could it be that the people you know who did this are not particularly representative of Labour voters?
I've seen plenty of stuff showing a correlation between Labour and remain but everything I've seen which directly asks voters (Labour voters) see's Brexit far far behind other reasons. If anyone has anything contradicting that I would be interested to see it.
Which isn't to suggest Brexit policy might not be a factor next time.
That said, it goes well beyond Corbyn. In the longer term I consider that Labour as a party has courted disaster by jumping so firmly to one side of the fence on Brexit (Corbyn notwithstanding), given that the opinion of the electorate whose interests the Labour Party traditionally seeks to promote sits firmly on the other side. By contrast, the continuing largely balanced split of opinion within the Conservative Party serves it better, as while that balance of opinion continues the party can court electoral support from both camps.
You may remember his wonderful series of defences when he was accused of laying a wreath at the grave of Palestinian terrorists, the gist of which was: I wasn’t there at all. It was a different grave. I didn’t know it was a terrorist. All three, one after the other. The man has raised imbecilic prevarication to new heights: we may never see his like again.
The second thing he does, when he’s in a spot of bother, is to blame the imperialist fascist running dog media. On this occasion, for being obsessed with his mild rudeness to Theresa May and “ignoring” the failure of universal credit and the scandal of homelessness. The moron complained about this in a week when his biggest adversary in Fleet Street, The Sun, had run a campaigning series about the iniquities of universal credit and on the day when every national newspaper covered homelessness in a prominent position. Unless you were purblind, you could see he was talking self-serving, deceitful rot.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/he-lies-and-lies-and-accuses-the-media-of-fake-news-no-not-trump-but-corbyn-rqgcwdbhx
Anyway Richard - Enjoy a peaceful and relaxing Christmas (if you able to).
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1076800767636529157
"Corbyn name hasn’t been found in the Bible/Torah/Quran Famous People Named Corbyn Our research results for the name of Corbyn (Corbyn name meaning, Origin of Corbyn, Pronounced etc. ) is fit name.You can give to your baby with complacency."
Source: https://www.meaningofnamen.com/corbyn
Hmmm.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/22/gatwick-drone-identities-arrested-couple-revealed/
With FPTP, the coalitions are unhappy families whose members often hate one another, who fundamentally disagree on policies, but are bound to stay together or they will be flattened by the FPTP system. These are not satisfying arrangements.
With PR, it is like speed dating where the parties are looking for common interests that they can work together on. If they fall out, they can break up and hook up with some more interesting party that better furthers their interests. These are much more satisfying arrangements.
The right wing media take pride in putting smearing the Labour leader above other stories, they do of course cover other stuff as well, if Corbyn meant that they do not ever mention any of the problems facing Britain he was of course wrong. I suspect a Times journalist is smart enough to figure that out that it wasn't even if not honest enough to say it.
The times of course know all about ineffectual lies given their attempt to smear Corbyn by claiming David Duke was a fan, not realising that the British public actually have access to his statements through a magical invention only a few decades old called the internet.
I'm glad his papers are dying and I am so happy that I finally get to vote for a party that doesn't slavishly follow the xenophobic tone of his newspapers. Never again will Murdoch influence the Labour party.
So the Lib Dems swing away from economic liberalism and towards social liberalism since 2015 is not going to win them more seats in parliament.
I was always pro EU, aside from the details I am just a fan of the idea of greater cooperation and working more closely together. The fact it comes with benefits is a bonus. Was always happy to refer to myself as European as well as British or English/Welsh....
I'd bloody hope so.
As for PR, speed dating sound terrible. You have no idea what combination you are going to end up with.
Where have you been these past few years.
They have done the country a favour by showing how exposed we are to drones operated by terrorists ot other enemies and how we need to invent a solution pronto.
Given Corbyn's stated desire to brexit with no referendum can we assume Starmer will resign in the morning. After all both Davis and Boris did when they disagreed with TM brexit policy
Social liberalism is popular, even with Kippers and right-wing Tories, who detest the nanny state and political correctness.
The LibDems also offer a green agenda which is popular with many.
So we'll see. I'm also betting on the LibDems being the the next leader to leave.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132776540
Will you be needing a plane or not?
I don't understand what she is getting at. Is it satire?
I suspect Starmer will have more chance of changing Labour's position from within rather than without the shadow cabinet.
She's a fucking awful writer. Those 27 publishers that rejected her at least have their self respect.
She does usually present reasoned and intelligent arguments and she does increase the quality of public debate.
And of course she doesn't have to do any of this. It does involve her in some unpleasantness as she has become a hate figure for some.
She could just sit and count her millions, but she doesn't.
As an aside, my own books (sold rather less, alas) are on sale now. Search Amazon for Hero of Hornska to find them. 'tis a festive sale, for those who enjoy Blackadder/Red Dwarf style comedy.
With PR, you stand a better chance of your party getting some power to enact some of your policies rather than suffer an unfettered majority party elected with a minority of the votes. It really is indefensible.
The difficulty with a Liberal Democrat party being neither liberal (on economics) or democratic (ignoring referendum results) speaks for itself. No one knows what the Lib Dems stand for.
Labour are as divided as the conservatives and the early new year will highlight these ever deepening divides
When I asked her if she will vote for the only legitimate solution (May’s deal) the lack of an answer is rather foretelling
Can't quite remember who it was but some old singer came out as a UKIP fan I think... he didn't get much credit for a brave move which just earned him abuse and anger.
At least 5 of my (working class but university educated) friends here in the NE have cancelled their Labour party membership in the last few days over it. Brexit is important in the Northern Labour heartlands too.
He should certainly get the credit for that.
Would you be going into the election backing May's deal as a party?
Setting aside the fact that his ‘I would do a better job of negotiating’ claim is at a minimum tendentious..... having both major parties going into an election, which is supposed to settle the Brexit impasse, advocating effectively the same policy, is very likely to throw up interesting results.
Be interesting to see if May sticks to her position of her deal or no deal.
I believe she will not as her past announcements have indicated.
Or shouldn't I suggest such a thing!
'My friend, I agree with you, 'tis a rotten play. But who are you and I among so many?'
It is going to be a very interesting and historic vote when it happens and the consequences unforeseen