politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The threat of Corbyn becoming PM is irrelevant unless LAB backs a second referendum
Lots of discussion ahead of tomorrow’s meeting of Labours National Executive Committee which will decide on the party’s policy on Brexit for the May 23rd euro elections. The big question is whether a referendum will be offered and under what terms.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
North East, and maybe Wales are the only regions where that is so.
Any region with 5 or more is likely to see at least one other party get a seat, unless both Labour and Brexit Party poll both poll above 30% nationally.
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.
However, I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);
Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;
Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;
That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.
The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.
In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.
Agreed. Labour will continue to block any possible Brexit deal, whilst officially sitting on the fence on the issue.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Sadly, Madam, that is not an option open to us all.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.
However, I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);
Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;
Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;
That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.
The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Sadly, Madam, that is not an option open to us all.
You ought to follow the Donald Trump approach these issues.
There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.
Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -
"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"
Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.
In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.
How do you know? I have voted labour at the last two general elections as a tactical vote in a very tight marginal which flips between elections. Labour will not get my vote next time as long as it is led by Corbyn.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.
However, I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);
Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;
Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;
That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.
The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.
My position in a nutshell. Even down to Hague.
Why do you think I'm continually drumming the point that people in some parts of the country need to hold their nose and vote for Labour.
In London the numpties will probably win 3 seats between them. Were they organised and working as a group they would probably be winning 5 or 6 of them...
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.
However, I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);
Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;
Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;
That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.
The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.
Look at the polls just before the Euro Elections and cast your vote for the one most likely to benefit from it out of Libdem, Green and CUK - you'll have to do some maths since that may not be the leading one.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
You've GOT to vote!
People died ...
Also it's sort of proportionalish so all votes count.
There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.
Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -
"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"
Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.
But Corbyn thinks the EU is a capitalist club, not a socialist one.
The first ever national election where voting either Tory or Labour would be wasting your vote. No one will know what it means, and odds on it will be interpreted in a way you do not like.
In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.
How do you know? I have voted labour at the last two general elections as a tactical vote in a very tight marginal which flips between elections. Labour will not get my vote next time as long as it is led by Corbyn.
Thanks Mike, but isn't this a case of the bald leading the bald?
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
Agree. I once voted Green, holding my nose, as the most likely small party to take a seat that that was under threat from the BNP in Euro elections some years ago (NW Region). But I wouldn't vote Labour now in such a way, as their leadership and supporters base is as totalitarian in instinct as can be imagined in what was a mainstream party.
I wish him well but the fact the same article has been produced again today is not good.
If there's anything symptomatic of bipolarity, it's repeated cycles of damaging behaviour. Contra Nietzsche's aphorism about what does not kill you, each cycle leaves you weaker, with fewer friends, poorer, more physically damaged, farther from a normal life. The contrast between that article and today's one is a pretty good illustration of that.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.
Since you were a member of a party lead by Farage, that's hardly a revelation.
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Can’t you vote for Lord Buckethead, or scribble a cathartic ‘f... the lot of you’ across your ballot paper?
There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.
Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -
"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"
Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.
Making pointless gestures is Corbyn's forte. He would undoubtedly support one if he thought it was in his interests to do so.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.
Since you were a member of a party lead by Farage, that's hardly a revelation.
No it isn't. For me, it's a toss up between Brexit or Conservative, depending on the polls. So long as the Conservatives stay above 10%, I'll vote Conservative; if they fall below it, I'll vote Brexit, as a Conservative vote will likely be wasted.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Labour can only make that offer if it: - Actively supports Revoke & Remain, which seriously pisses off some of its current support and more of its former support; or - Actively supports such Brexit deal as it can negotiate, which would broadly be the existing one but with more rule-taking, which will seriously piss off a lot of its current support; or - Takes no official position in the referendum, leaving it at the mercy of events, splitting the party and risking some kind of Leave vote winning again.
None of these is a palatable option. By far the best outcome for Labour is for the Tories to deliver a crappy Brexit before Labour comes to power (although that will still prompt demands for Rejoin among passionate Remainers).
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.
That doesn't actual answer my question does it?
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.
Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.
Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?
When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?
After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.
In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.
By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Labour can only make that offer if it: - Actively supports Revoke & Remain, which seriously pisses off some of its current support and more of its former support; or - Actively supports such Brexit deal as it can negotiate, which would broadly be the existing one but with more rule-taking, which will seriously piss off a lot of its current support; or - Takes no official position in the referendum, leaving it at the mercy of events, splitting the party and risking some kind of Leave vote winning again.
None of these is a palatable option. By far the best outcome for Labour is for the Tories to deliver a crappy Brexit before Labour comes to power (although that will still prompt demands for Rejoin among passionate Remainers).
Yes I agree that would be the best scenario for Labour but since there is no parliamentary majority for a deal, cooperating with the Tories is anathema to Corbyn and he does not, in any case, have the power to force his MPs to allow a crappy Tory deal through it is very unlikely that he will be able to bring about this desirable (from his point of view) outcome.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.
Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?
Given that Eire will remain in the EU surely it doesn't change..
I assume that the centre's calculated in a way that's almost literally weighted (i.e. on what point would you need to balance a map of the EU for it to be stable), rather than the mid-point between the N/S-E/W extremes.
Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.
Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?
Given that Eire will remain in the EU surely it doesn't change..
I assume that the centre's calculated in a way that's almost literally weighted (i.e. on what point would you need to balance a map of the EU for it to be stable), rather than the mid-point between the N/S-E/W extremes.
The median wouldn't change but the second moment of area would.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.
Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.
Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?
When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?
After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.
In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.
By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.
It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.
Making pointless gestures is Corbyn's forte. He would undoubtedly support one if he thought it was in his interests to do so.
My view is that the pivot to Ref2 will come if we get a pre Brexit general election, and only then if Labour calculate that it increases their chance of winning - in which case it will be the very opposite of a pointless gesture in that it will not be pointless (it might well work) and will not be a gesture (it will be in the manifesto).
Sense you have the Trump thing in mind but this is serious business. I don't think they will mess about. They want to GTTO.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.
Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.
Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?
When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?
After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.
In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.
By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.
It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.
How - given that the only thing people will care about is the percentage of votes received.
In the locals it's impossible for the 3 main parties to collectively do that badly as in a lot of the country they represent all the candidates so between them will get 99.99% of the vote (and it's only that low as some papers will be intentionally spoilt).
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Oddly, I recall saying perhaps 2 years ago that only Johnson had the absolute chutzpah to carry out a Brexit reversal. He could still do although he hasn't helped himself in the interim.
It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
Can’t you vote for Lord Buckethead, or scribble a cathartic ‘f... the lot of you’ across your ballot paper?
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.
Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.
Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?
When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?
After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.
In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.
By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.
It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.
How - given that the only thing people will care about is the percentage of votes received.
In the locals it's impossible for the 3 main parties to collectively do that badly as in a lot of the country they represent all the candidates so between them will get 99.99% of the vote (and it's only that low as some papers will be intentionally spoilt).
Labour winning an NEV of about 30%, Conservative 29%, Lib Dem 14%, Others 27%.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.
Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.
Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?
When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?
After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.
In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.
By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.
It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.
I think the NEV figures will be higher than that but only because the shares have to go somewhere and the minor parties aren't sufficiently well organised or represented. The Westminster VI gives 30% or so to minor parties but that's with 20% or so for Change UK and the Brexit Party between them, who'll get zero for these locals.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Oddly, I recall saying perhaps 2 years ago that only Johnson had the absolute chutzpah to carry out a Brexit reversal. He could still do although he hasn't helped himself in the interim.
Do I want Johnson as PM? No. Do I want to be a member of a party lead by Johnson? Probably not. If he became leader it would be further proof that the Cons had lost any semblance of being a serious political party.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Making pointless gestures is Corbyn's forte. He would undoubtedly support one if he thought it was in his interests to do so.
My view is that the pivot to Ref2 will come if we get a pre Brexit general election, and only then if Labour calculate that it increases their chance of winning - in which case it will be the very opposite of a pointless gesture in that it will not be pointless (it might well work) and will not be a gesture (it will be in the manifesto).
Sense you have the Trump thing in mind but this is serious business. I don't think they will mess about. They want to GTTO.
That misses my point: why, when Corbyn is so keen on pointless gestures, is Labour not making a pointless gesture *now*, when its failure to do so is costing it support? The only answer surely is that the leadership doesn't want to be trapped into having to deliver on it if it turns out - as you rightly note - to be a genuine commitment rather than a gesture.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
Can I test that almost bit with
Diana Abbott, John McDonnell. Owen Smith?
Right now I would weep salty tears of gratitude to be able to vote for an Owen Smith-led Labour party. As compared with the Conservative alternatives currently parading around the paddock, he is at least not actively malign or unhinged.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You've been picked up on the 'almost' part of that post, but the second sentence is perhaps more interesting. I would think that there are quite a lot of wavering Labour voters who would be swayed by a referendum promise - after all, a lot of people signed up to the petition on the subject. Or perhaps it's too late: maybe Corbyn has lost so much credibility with that group that it wouldn't be enough to sway them now.
Of course a lot would depend on the circumstances of any election.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Wait, what do you stand for exactly?
The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.
If Labour were to get rid of McDonnell, Corbyn, Williamson and the coterie around them (Milne, Murray, Chakrabati) etc) they’d be more appealing than a party that thinks the likes of Rees-Mogg, Johnson, IDS, Francois and Baker are worth listening to.
There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.
Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -
"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"
Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.
But Corbyn thinks the EU is a capitalist club, not a socialist one.
I prefer to describe it as a hegemony rather than a club.
In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.
How do you know? I have voted labour at the last two general elections as a tactical vote in a very tight marginal which flips between elections. Labour will not get my vote next time as long as it is led by Corbyn.
That sounds like a data point agreeing with what Brom says, rather than disagreeing.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.
I could go on - but I suspect we could get through another 30-40 of utter loons, bigots and cranks before you wavered.
That leaves more than 200, the great majority.
They are more appealing than the bigots and loons, whether in their own party or the Tories. But they have one big failing. Cowardice. They couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding. Not a great advertisement for leadership.
How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!
I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.
It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.
Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.
Yes, of course. Labour's 'own preferred deal' is a Unicorn, so it doesn't matter whether it comes with or without a public vote, because it ain't gonna happen no matter what.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Wait, what do you stand for exactly?
The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Wait, what do you stand for exactly?
The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.
You're asking for fact and evidence-based policy making. I'm afraid that we're in an era of message sending and emotion based policies where the only common themes are a victim-mentality and a someone else will pay thought process.
I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.
If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
Wait, what do you stand for exactly?
The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.
You're asking for fact and evidence-based policy making. I'm afraid that we're in an era of message sending and emotion based policies where the only common themes are a victim-mentality and a someone else will pay thought process.
Comments
Like all good investigators.....
Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.
Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.
Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.
I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.
So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.
Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.
I will be washing my hair instead.
The Guardian...
Upsetting tale...
2003
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17
Any region with 5 or more is likely to see at least one other party get a seat, unless both Labour and Brexit Party poll both poll above 30% nationally.
However,
I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);
Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;
Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;
That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.
The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.
Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -
"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"
Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.
So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).
Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.
In London the numpties will probably win 3 seats between them. Were they organised and working as a group they would probably be winning 5 or 6 of them...
People died ...
Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1122314100363579398?s=21
Edit. I just noticed it is a completely different article although with the same basic message
And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?
https://twitter.com/mike84625280/status/1122844548152086529
https://twitter.com/edward_smiles/status/1122852327520636928
For every election the outcome is the same whether you vote or not. Therefore no single vote counts.
But if no vote counts it follows that every vote counts the same and therefore - since the outcome is decided by votes - all votes count.
I'll be voting anyway. Looking forward to it.
Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?
When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?
Jezza more concerned with being PM and the latest Kraftwerk gig
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=@ideanpod
The route to a socialist government is via offering to remain a member of a club that prohibits socialism.
Geeks can argue about the distant French overseas territories, which have been excluded from the calculation.
- Actively supports Revoke & Remain, which seriously pisses off some of its current support and more of its former support; or
- Actively supports such Brexit deal as it can negotiate, which would broadly be the existing one but with more rule-taking, which will seriously piss off a lot of its current support; or
- Takes no official position in the referendum, leaving it at the mercy of events, splitting the party and risking some kind of Leave vote winning again.
None of these is a palatable option. By far the best outcome for Labour is for the Tories to deliver a crappy Brexit before Labour comes to power (although that will still prompt demands for Rejoin among passionate Remainers).
In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.
By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.
Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.
Sense you have the Trump thing in mind but this is serious business. I don't think they will mess about. They want to GTTO.
So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?
With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/almost
In the locals it's impossible for the 3 main parties to collectively do that badly as in a lot of the country they represent all the candidates so between them will get 99.99% of the vote (and it's only that low as some papers will be intentionally spoilt).
“Fuck knows. I’m past caring. It’s like the living dead in here.”
Diana Abbott,
John McDonnell.
Owen Smith?
Of course a lot would depend on the circumstances of any election.
But the chances of that happening are slight.
The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.
So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.
And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.
Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.
The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.