Politics

[ewerk 30266]

Well it makes it much harder but I'm not sure if the Scots will forget how they've been treated by the British government over the last few years. They'd always gotten on so well before.

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Well it makes it much harder but I'm not sure if the Scots will forget how they've been treated by the British government over the last few years. They'd always gotten on so well before.

 

Assuming we get out of this, if I was Scottish, I would want a cast iron legal guarantee from the British government that if there is every any manner of attempt to leave the EU in future, it automatically triggers an independence referendum - I would want this at the very least.

 

Frankly, it would probably be better to just get out once and for all just to be free of the Tories.

[Gemmill 44398]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yeah I keep seeing that statement doing the rounds and I find it mystifying. Labour will give us a second vote, which will very probably result in Remain. If it doesn't, I'm not sure any of us have any leg to stand on. Even I accept it at that point, but the second vote, IMO, is basically Remain.

 

The fact that you keep seeing it is Labour's fundamental failure on Brexit though. Most people don't pay enough attention to politics for a nuanced message to cut through. And quite frankly Labour's position is as much confused as it is nuanced given they can't even commit to whether they would campaign for or against this deal they say they would negotiate. I mean you must have watched Labour MPs get asked this question and they refuse to answer it. You or I understand why they're refusing but most people aren't prepared to entertain the mental gymnastics that explain their reticence. They just think "this cunt doesn't know what they want on the biggest issue facing the country. I'm not voting for them."

 

That is a fucking shambolic position to try to take to an electorate that already has a problem with the leader of the party. The fact is, perception is reality, and if you don't SAY you're a Remain party, then you're not a Remain party.

 

How an organisation that operates in the world of politics where perception is ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING hasn't grasped this is beyond me. 

[Gemmill 44398]

Honestly the more you think about it, the more mental it is. Every voter in this country has a position on Leave or Remain and yet they watch Labour MPs get asked "Leave or Remain?" and the answer is "Errrrrr...". 

 

Fuck off man. 

[Rayvin 5183]

So what do you think they should do, fight over votes with the Lib Dems? It's a strategically worthless position. I'm sorry but it just is. There is nothing to be gained from taking the same position as the LDs, all it will do it reinforce this idea that Labour has indeed abandoned Leavers. And since they haven't actually done this, I don't know why they would want to.

 

Moreover, by remaining neutral in any eventual referendum, they are allowing the possibility for the country to move past viciously hating each other.

 

Look, perception may be everything but you're assuming a great deal about how people outside of our specific echo chamber are perceiving this. The proof will be in the pudding I expect, but Labour are the ones who have to retain these working class leave constituencies, not the Lib Dems.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Rayvin

[Meenzer 15407]

We all know any Remain majority in any second referendum would be narrow as fuck anyway. You're talking 55-45 at the very best, and most likely closer to - of course - 52-48.

 

Obviously that's still preferable because it means our economy doesn't get hurled off a cliff, thus destroying the social fabric even more, but we're still going to hate each other. Heck, even those on the same side of the argument hate each other plenty.  

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, Meenzer said:

We all know any Remain majority in any second referendum would be narrow as fuck anyway. You're talking 55-45 at the very best, and most likely closer to - of course - 52-48.

 

Obviously that's still preferable because it means our economy doesn't get hurled off a cliff, thus destroying the social fabric even more, but we're still going to hate each other. Heck, even those on the same side of the argument hate each other plenty.  

 

Sure but I think it would indeed put it to bed for a lot of people.

[Rayvin 5183]

Also, that comment about Labour's "nuanced" position - it's not that fucking nuanced. Go to the EU, get a non-suicidal deal, put it to the public. It's three clauses of less than 6 words each. Just how fucking stupid are the public if they can't internalise that?

 

The concern I have with this is that Labour being painted as a non-Remain party is coming from the LDs. And specifically, their attack along those lines means that they're not just going after Labour on the basis of anti-Corbynism as a smokescreen to try and win over soft Tories. They're also going after Labour remainers - the only people who such a message actually is designed to influence. They don't need these people to vote LD to stop Brexit, they just need them to vote for whoever is most likely to win.

 

In attacking Labour on this front, the LDs are making clear that winning seats is their primary focus, and stopping Brexit is secondary. And that is a serious fucking problem. It's not Labour's fault, it's Swinson's. And we shouldn't be too scared to just call it for what it is. If Labour's "nuanced" Brexit strategy is "too much" for your ordinary person, it's sure as shit not too much for Swinson. So why is she misrepresenting it?

[Alex 34846]

Because she only cares about power 

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Chuka Umunna was on the radio earlier, that cunt changes party's like Jordan changes cup size.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Anorthernsoul

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Because she only cares about power 

 

Indeed - and based on this, seems to be prepared to accept Brexit as a price for even a few more seats. Maybe she's envisioning that Labour will take the blame for this in the long run and she will hoover up the centre in full. But again, Brexit then becomes acceptable collateral damage.

 

Labour could be argued to be playing the same game of course, except that they have stuck to what is actually a sensible fucking position on the whole thing despite the damage it's doing to them. The LDs decided that they were the party of pure Remain, would back outright revoking A50 - something they knew they would never have to do - and appear to be prepared to sell all of that down the river because none of it is as important as winning a few seats.

 

If Labour were being as cynical, it would have been easy enough for them to go full Remain.

[Rayvin 5183]

And yet even still, even fucking still, I would vote LD if I were in a seat in which it mattered. And I would wake up on election morning hoping that Swinson wasn't about to do a deal with the devil. Because that's where we are now, insanely.

 

But let's not pretend that Labour are the only ones making this difficult.

[Gemmill 44398]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

So what do you think they should do, fight over votes with the Lib Dems? It's a strategically worthless position. I'm sorry but it just is. There is nothing to be gained from taking the same position as the LDs, all it will do it reinforce this idea that Labour has indeed abandoned Leavers. And since they haven't actually done this, I don't know why they would want to.

 

Moreover, by remaining neutral in any eventual referendum, they are allowing the possibility for the country to move past viciously hating each other.

 

Look, perception may be everything but you're assuming a great deal about how people outside of our specific echo chamber are perceiving this. The proof will be in the pudding I expect, but Labour are the ones who have to retain these working class leave constituencies, not the Lib Dems.

 

I want them to take a firm position that they can take to the electorate. If they can't confidently compete for votes with the Lib Dems then it's over for them anyway, so you can't worry about that. He's also made it easy for the Lib Dems to point at him and say "he's not Remain, we are". If he'd unequivocally come out for Remain, he would be able to more adequately compete with them for votes. Instead he's trying to walk a tightrope and letting the Lib Dems say "he's not Remain" and the Tories say "he's not Leave", and he's offering nothing in response. 

 

Take a position and argue for it like you mean it in a campaign. That is what wins people over. Corbyn has proven he can do that with social issues, the NHS etc. But in failing to do it on Brexit, he's lost the battle. 

[Gemmill 44398]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Indeed - and based on this, seems to be prepared to accept Brexit as a price for even a few more seats. Maybe she's envisioning that Labour will take the blame for this in the long run and she will hoover up the centre in full. But again, Brexit then becomes acceptable collateral damage.

 

Labour could be argued to be playing the same game of course, except that they have stuck to what is actually a sensible fucking position on the whole thing despite the damage it's doing to them. The LDs decided that they were the party of pure Remain, would back outright revoking A50 - something they knew they would never have to do - and appear to be prepared to sell all of that down the river because none of it is as important as winning a few seats.

 

If Labour were being as cynical, it would have been easy enough for them to go full Remain.

 

It's not fucking sensible if it doesn't land with the electorate because they are the people you need to win over. It's wishy washy bollocks. 

 

They are neither Leave nor Remain. They will negotiate a great new deal but they can't say whether they would prefer it to Remain. 

 

That is a fucking mental argument to take to an electorate. 

[Rayvin 5183]

Just now, Gemmill said:

 

I want them to take a firm position that they can take to the electorate. If they can't confidently compete for votes with the Lib Dems then it's over for them anyway, so you can't worry about that. He's also made it easy for the Lib Dems to point at him and say "he's not Remain, we are". If he'd unequivocally come out for Remain, he would be able to more adequately compete with them for votes. Instead he's trying to walk a tightrope and letting the Lib Dems say "he's not Remain" and the Tories say "he's not Leave", and he's offering nothing in response. 

 

Take a position and argue for it like you mean it in a campaign. That is what wins people over. Corbyn has proven he can do that with social issues, the NHS etc. But in failing to do it on Brexit, he's lost the battle. 

 

But this is just the thing though, there's a finite number of Remain purists out there, right? Presumably precisely none of them are going to vote for the Tories or Brexit Party. So why do we want Corbyn competing for their vote? They're not the ones we need to sell this to.

 

Well they shouldn't be anyway - except that Labour is taking friendly fire from the LDs. I mean can you not see that the pool of potential voters lowers significantly if Labour step away from the middle ground on this issue? Are you thinking he should just be able to bring them with him to a remain position? I would suggest that with views as deeply entrenched on Brexit as they are, this is unlikely.

[Gemmill 44398]

Ask a Tory where they stand on Brexit.

 

"Leave."

 

Ask a Lib Dem. 

 

"Remain."

 

Ask Labour.

 

"Have you got 5 minutes?"

[Gemmill 44398]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

But this is just the thing though, there's a finite number of Remain purists out there, right? Presumably precisely none of them are going to vote for the Tories or Brexit Party. So why do we want Corbyn competing for their vote? They're not the ones we need to sell this to.

 

Well they shouldn't be anyway - except that Labour is taking friendly fire from the LDs. I mean can you not see that the pool of potential voters lowers significantly if Labour step away from the middle ground on this issue? Are you thinking he should just be able to bring them with him to a remain position? I would suggest that with views as deeply entrenched on Brexit as they are, this is unlikely.

 

Labour has lost the hardcore Leave vote already. He doesn't need to worry about that anymore. 

 

Ah fuck this, I do not know how you can look at Corbyn's stance on this and, hand on heart, say you're OK with it. 

[Rayvin 5183]

Just now, Gemmill said:

 

Labour has lost the hardcore Leave vote already. He doesn't need to worry about that anymore. 

 

Ah fuck this, I do not know how you can look at Corbyn's stance on this and, hand on heart, say you're OK with it. 

 

Who said anything about the hardcore leave vote?

 

The marginal leavers are the ones he should be taking aim at. I mean look, can you explain to me the strategic worth from a purely quantitative standpoint, of Labour and LDs fighting over the exact same set of voters in an issue that has a near 50:50 national split?

[ewerk 30266]

Corbyn's stance isn't that overly complicated. It's just that the public only understands Leave or Remain. What's worse is that the PLP, membership and voters are all largely remain. Corbyn and those at the top have simply refused to go remain because of their own personal views and/or stubborness.

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Corbyn's stance isn't that overly complicated. It's just that the public only understands Leave or Remain. What's worse is that the PLP, membership and voters are all largely remain. Corbyn and those at the top have simply refused to go remain because of their own personal views and/or stubborness.

 

So are we saying that Labour putting soft Brexit up against Remain, and remaining impartial, is the sole issue we have with Corbyn's policy at this point? Or do we want him to revoke the whole thing straight off?

 

Because if it's the former, it's such a tiny issue (one that would become totally irrelevant as the vast majority of Labour MPs would immediately make up for the leadership's neutrality on the issue) that I genuinely think it's laughable.

[Gemmill 44398]

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn's position can't be understood if you're prepared to give it a couple of minutes thought. But it's also a position that can very easily be framed negatively by both of their main opposition parties. It's as easy for them to get their "Labour are confused" message to stick as it is for Labour to get their "well it goes like this...." message to stick. 

 

And that is a big problem.

[ewerk 30266]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

So are we saying that Labour putting soft Brexit up against Remain, and remaining impartial, is the sole issue we have with Corbyn's policy at this point? Or do we want him to revoke the whole thing straight off?

 

Because if it's the former, it's such a tiny issue (one that would become totally irrelevant as the vast majority of Labour MPs would immediately make up for the leadership's neutrality on the issue) that I genuinely think it's laughable.

Labour wouldn't be impartial in the subsequent referendum. Part of the problem is, as Gemmill said, the Tories and Lib Dems have very simple clear positions. Labour's position has not been in any way clear ever since the referendum and is continuing to be unclear into this election. There was program on BBC last week with some hairdresser from Wales moaning that she's pro-Brexit and would never vote Labour again. McDonnell was then asked about it and he had to toe the party line and waffle, offering absolutely nothing. If he was allowed to come out and say, 'I'm sorry she won't vote Labour but Remain is the best thing for our country' then they'd win votes that way. As it is they're trying to be all things to all men but coming across as nothing to nobody.

Revoke is a nonsense, the Lib Dems can claim that position because they're essentially a single issue party with no chance of a majority but democratically it would be the wrong promise for Labour to make.

Edited November 14, 2019 by ewerk

[Rayvin 5183]

Just now, Gemmill said:

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn's position can't be understood if you're prepared to give it a couple of minutes thought. But it's also a position that can very easily be framed negatively by both of their main opposition parties. It's as easy for them to get their "Labour are confused" message to stick as it is for Labour to get their "well it goes like this...." message to stick. 

 

And that is a big problem.

 

But that could be avoided at least on the remain side if the LDs weren't attacking them. The question is, if this is all meant to be about stopping Brexit, why are the LDs undermining Labour's position on that front? It will win them no Tory voters.

[Alex 34846]

Who do you reckon looked most awkward in the boxing ring btw? Swinson or Farage? 

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Can someone layout Corbyn's stance on the main issues in some easy bullet points please as I'm lost with him. Tar.