Tony Blair is on TV once a month and he gets TM to go nuts.
He gets a lot of people to go nuts, mainly because he is a ****ing self serving idiot.
He's the only major public figure strongly calling for another referendum, so **** or not he's playing this one right.
TJ, your posts certainly come across as an apologist for Corbyns inaction and apparent lack of opposition of the tory inspired Brexit due to the right wing media criticism. However, Jeremy has no problem to rightfully criticise Israel over the treatment of Palestinians, regardless of the right wing press attacks on him.
There's an awful lot of whataboutery here about Corbyn. The only thing we need to know which informs his view is that politicians who want to be PM can’t ignore the results of elections. It’s ridiculous to expect him to do that. He’s on record many times as saying he wants the softest of soft brexits. That may be unrealistic but at least he’s declared his position, unlike many others. Funny really cos I don’t know of any other hard Brexiteers wanting stay in the customs union and single market.
Are we aware what specifically Corbyn objects to about May's deal? Given no Uk prime minister could have got the unicorns and fairies, cake and eat it deal what specifically has May given way on that he would not have that he would have had a chance of the EU agreeing too?
Separate question - does a no deal mean the the Good Friday Deal for Northern Ireland is scrapped? I.e. if the boarder bit goes does everything go?
I just did a quick check as I thought i rememebred the JC fan from previous posts piha https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/labour-party-problems/page/16/
Your certainly in the top 3 or 4 JC fans there 😉
Honestly there were more votes in parliament he could have enthusiastically lost, he could have taken his party down the fracture and split route the tories are in now. He could have..... and the result would be the same. May is treating parliament with contempt but her back benchers won't risk losing power as they see it is a grand demotion to be a nobody on the other benches rather than a nobody on the government ones.
Despite the arguments above, no-one really knows what Corbyn thinks. Theres no real evidence on either side to show his genuine views on the most important political changes and challenges of this century.
Thats why hes a skin tag on the arse of politics, and a brake on any real opposition to the government.
Despite the arguments above, no-one really knows what
CorbynMay thinks.
Just another perspective, If you think any of this is being defined by the personal beliefs of May or Corbyn your giving them too much credit.
Both May and Corbyn have unequivocally said that an end to FoM is a red line. Everything else flows from that. Everyone is getting thrown under that bus.
People waiting for Corbyn's long game on Brexit had better be proven right (they won't be).
The "game", if there is one, stinks.
The only thing we need to know which informs his view is that politicians who want to be PM can’t ignore the results of elections.
So, should he adopt Tory policies because of the last general election result? If you want to be PM, you need to show leadership.
Funny really cos I don’t know of any other hard Brexiteers wanting stay in the customs union and single market.
Is this a Corbyn reference? He whipped Labour MPs against staying in the customs union. He whipped Labour MPs against staying in the single market.
People waiting for Corbyn’s long game on Brexit had better be proven right (they won’t be).
The long game is the only game he can realistically play. You would have played a different game which could have been more or less successful, who knows. Easy on the sidelines though isn't it.
Tick. Tock. (come on, you really are letting yourself down now)
I feel that reminding people how little time is left is now pretty redundant. The Withdrawl Agreement is finished, and it sacrifices too much, the red lines that May and Corbyn have put in place ensured that. Only option now is to stop our exit, no better exit is possible next March (it may be later, who knows). Who will push for us to delay/revoke A50? Who will push for the public to have a say in what we do? Who will just sit on the "sidelines"?
If Jeremy thinks he has to play the long game, then that's what he will do. However, how long will we have to wait before we find out what & when he is going to effectively challenge this tory led Brexit? After the event perhaps? Or was his NCV omnishambles the highlight of his challenge?
Everything else flows from that. Everyone is getting thrown under that bus.
No everything flows from the fact that 1.7m more people voted to leave than to remain. Both Corbyn and May recognise the fact that the main driver of that was immigration. The end result is that anyone wanting to be PM has to declare themselves as against freedom of movement. If you think Corbyn should declare himself pro-free movement and pro-remain, then fine. But don't then in the next sentence moan about him not wanting to be PM or not showing the necessary ambition to win.
If you want to be PM, you need to show leadership.
And in a democracy the primary duty of a leader above all else is to respect the results of elections and referenda. Or do you want us to go back to a more autocratic setup?
Or do you want us to go back to a more autocratic setup?
MORE autocratic? When our government is quietly shelving many of its other manifesto promises so it can deliver one thing that's obsessed its leader, and when said leader decides not to allow votes she's going to lose. At least with a proper dictatorship you can stop pretending to listen to anyone else's opinion.
dazh - are you saying that if anyone that wants to be PM, they should follow the populist demands of the electorate? Or do we deserve a potential PM that makes decisions for the good of the country?
The end result is that anyone wanting to be PM has to declare themselves as against freedom of movement.
There was not a referendum on FoM. There was not a referendum on being in the Single Market. There was not a referendum on being in the customs union. These are all red lines that May & Corbyn chose. Plenty of people voted to leave the EU that were more than happy to stay in the Single Market, and to retain reciprocal accesss to education and work. Most people I know who voted Leave fit into this group.
And in a democracy the primary duty of a leader above all else is to respect the results of elections and referenda.
Why have politicans that put forward different policies to those that have recently been voted for then? Opposition and putting forward alternative polices is what democracy requires to be meaningful.
are you saying that if anyone that wants to be PM, they should follow the populist demands of the electorate?
FFS, Of course not. I'm saying that politicians, especially those in leadership positions, should respect the results of official elections and referenda.
Or do we deserve a potential PM that makes decisions for the good of the country?
We don't deserve anything. Or rather, we deserve exactly what we vote for. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the nature of our democracy. Obviously we can debate whether other systems of govt are preferable but I don't see anyone on here advocating revolution as a solution to brexit.
There was not a referendum on FoM.
Not technically. But it would take a brave/stupid politician to ignore this if they want to gain power.
And in a democracy the primary duty of a leader above all else is to respect the results of elections and referenda. Or do you want us to go back to a more autocratic setup?
The referendum in question was advisory and with what is basically a 50:50 split alienation of 50% by going the most extreme route rather than at least trying to negotiate from within the community. Or perhaps just enforce the laws and rules we already had recourse to
Our leaders are supposed to be smart enough to recognise when an action could do significant harm to the economy and society and act in the overall best interests of the people for the long term. This may or may not get them ever elected again..
should respect the results of official elections and referenda.
There has not been a referendum on FoM.
Labour lost the last general election, does that mean that it must adopt and support all Tory policies?
Why have politicans that put forward different policies to those that have recently been voted for then?Opposition and putting forward alternative polices is what democracy is.
Do I really have to explain this? My 10 year old understands this stuff. Yes, democracy is about differing policies and approaches to the many problems and issues faced by our society. But once the people have voted on them and made their decision, that decision must be respected until a new election is held.
The referendum in question was advisory
You seriously think this bit of technocratic semantics would wash? Every political leader (apart from F**age) was clear that the decision would be respected for obvious reasons (see above) .
Where do May & Corbyn's red lines come from? There are many ways to Leave, and most have been whipped against by our party leaders.
Anyway, we have what we have. You now either support no deal, or May's deal, or stopping all this (at least for now). What does Corbyn want? Many on here have made it clear that he can't force a general election… so now what? Sit on the sidelines and let the shit hit the fan, hoping that in a few years voters will only blame May and her party?
I read a comment recently that our politicians weren't showing much "statesmanship" at present.
It seems to me that is what we need right now. The time for (party) politics is over and the time for someone to lead the country out of this mess is here. All the current faffing on from all political parties is achieving nothing.
That may mean making some decisions that are unpopular to some, rather than trying (and failing) to keep everybody happy. That may mean telling the truth and being plain and honest to the people about our current situation, rather than continuing to pitch unlikely dreams. That may mean making some commitments to a way forward and pushing it through and being transparent rather than scheming behind the scenes. That may mean trying to educate and inform the electorate rather than just bending to their every whim. That may mean politicians putting themselves about a bit rather than only attending meetings with folk who agree with them.
Thing is that if someone, anyone did that and pulled it off, there is a reasonable chance that they would win the next election anyway. Fiddling while Rome burns could just as easily destroy any of the current political parties in the future.
If we drift into a No deal Brexit because nobody has the balls to take a stand, then these nob end politicians (of all parties) deserve to be strung up.
Trouble is none of them seem very keen to risk their current staus quo, they'd rather risk the whole of the UK.
All easier said than done but I can't see a way forward unless someone creates one......
Our leaders are supposed to be smart enough to recognise when an action could do significant harm to the economy and society and act in the overall best interests of the people for the long term. This may or may not get them ever elected again..
So what if taking an action (i.e publicly stating that Brexit should be cancelled) means that the tory party stay in power for another 20 years. That is not in the best interests of the people for the long term so the priority should be to take action which means you have a chance of beating them in an election. In the short term it may not look like the best action but in the long term it is.
Not technically. But it would take a brave/stupid politician to ignore this if they want to gain power.
An intelligent politician would have examined the issues and tried to find a solution other than the most extreme and potentially disastrous one.
There's an opinion piece in Graun today bemoaning the lack of important 'other business' getting anywhere in the commons at the moment - what with Brexit dominating everything.
Even this is a daft thing to moan about, though. How can any policy decisions actually be made when we are drifting towards a situation where there will be no money for anything any more? How can you agree to increase funding for 'X' when we are looking like we are going to lop at least 10% off of our already over-stretched national 'worth' for no good reason whatsoever?
This is why the commons should remain sitting over Xmas and beyond if necessary, until they see sense and revoke A50. Anything other than this means that all plans are off.
So what if taking an action (i.e publicly stating that Brexit should be cancelled) means that the tory party stay in power for another 20 years.
If Brexit ever happens I don't think it will take 20 years for people to work out it was a monumental error and blame the Tories for going through with it, that won't do their election chances much good and will do the opposition's chances a power of good. I don't think that opposition will be Labour though because they will feel betrayed by a leadership that was as much a part of Brexit as the Tories.
So what if taking an action (i.e publicly stating that Brexit should be cancelled) means that the tory party stay in power for another 20 years. That is not in the best interests of the people for the long term so the priority should be to take action which means you have a chance of beating them in an election. In the short term it may not look like the best action but in the long term it is.
Works fine until you realise that Brexit (and especially a No Deal) will cripple the country so badly that there really is no point in trying to make plans beyond the short-term. The thing about stuff that is at the bottom of a cliff having been thrown over is that it tends to be very difficult to put back together again.
Trouble is that all along folk have forgotten that nearly half of the people who voted in the referendum didn't want Brexit anyway. So focusing on keeping a percentage of those leave voters with very strong anti immigration opinions happy, rather than everyone else (including those who didn't vote and those who were too young to vote) is shirley going to decrease the size of your support base in the long term and lead to a nice long period in the political wilderness.
I know this is a simplistic view but can't these jokers do maths?
Many on here have made it clear that he can’t force a general election… so now what? Sit on the sidelines and let the shit hit the fan, hoping that in a few years voters will only blame May and her party?
If your first sentence is correct (it is), then by definition he has no power and has no option to do what you suggest in your second sentence. I struggle to get my head round why people can't understand this. As TJ says, what is he supposed to do?
Here's an idea, instead of jumping through ever more intricate logical hoops in order to blame Corbyn for brexit, how about actually highlighting the real culprits for this cluster****, and getting behind the only alternative option in the hope that the leadership and statesmandship you seek might actually come to pass? Seems to me that the 'drift' towards no deal is due in no small part to those who see brexit as yet another opportunity to depose Corbyn.
For the Corbynites here who think he's playing 12 dimensional chess. Heres a tweet with some info on how much effect various outcomes would have on Labours chances.
For those who don't want to click through,
Net change in likelihood to vote labour
Labour replace Corbyn as leader +14%
Labour move closer to the 'centre' or 'centre ground of politics in the UK 0%
Labour back a referendum on the final brexit deal -2%
Labout back a hard brexit -10%
Labout back a soft Brexit -13%
Labour move further to the 'left' of politics in the UK than they currently are -22%
There you go Corbynites. If you want electoral success. You know what to do.
Sadly the referendum failed to define a "politically significant difference", just a difference of 50:50 plus 1. For a very large sample size, and Brexit was a big sample, then any difference above 12,000 votes would have been statistically significant (a P value of 0.05 or a one in 20 chance of seeing such a difference by chance) - something many of the much smaller polls beforehand failed to do because the split was so close to 50/50.
When I design clinical trials, we look for a clinically significant difference, and evaluate the probability of seeing such a difference by chance. Suppose current treatment gives a survival of three months and the new treatment extends life by one extra day. To all intents, there is no difference, the drugs are the same, but if I did a big enough trial (and it would be huuuuge), I could detect that difference. This was the referendum.
The probability of seeing the 52/48% split by chance in 32 million people is about 10^-22 btw, so highly statistically significant. Differences that big are vanishingly unlikely to be due to chance. But is 52/48% split politically significant? No as events have shown, it's like those two drugs, no effective difference and no real preference either way.
The first entry referendum made no such mistake, 60% threshold was politically significant, and if it had gone the same way this time, I'd be happy to accept it as "the will of the people" and all that. But the 52/48% is really within political noise based on changing events over relatively short timeframes, and may well be different now.
It's a tragic failing of the understanding of polling, statistics and the meaning of significance. I'm opposed to referendums on principle, but can't see a way out of this mess other than a third.
So focusing on keeping a percentage of those leave voters with very strong anti immigration opinions happy, rather than everyone else (including those who didn’t vote and those who were too young to vote) is shirley going to decrease the size of your support base in the long term and lead to a nice long period in the political wilderness.
Both main parties want Brexit. One group are happily ploughing ahead and the rest are enabling them.
Overall voting won’t change. Tory voters who are disenfranchised won’t vote labour and vice Versa. There is no credible third option so people will stick to tradition and vote to block other people.
When all the shit settles they will retire a chunk of parliament then wipe the slate clean. All they need is a pretty boy or girl at the front and a good PR department
If Brexit ever happens I don’t think it will take 20 years for people to work out it was a monumental error and blame the Tories for going through with it
Ed you overestimate people's rationality. People will.blame the EU for no5mgivingnud what we wanted. Same as now they blame them for anything they don't like.
I struggle to get my head round why people can’t understand this.
Let me help.
- No Tories will vote with the opposition to kick out the Tories. Zero. None. Zilch.
- Many Tories will vote for a referendum and/or delay/cancelling of A50. They would also have voted for other ways of Leaving the EU, but the time for that has now passed.
Both main parties want Brexit.
See, i don't think they really do. Both can see the harm it will do, both can see that the 52:48:[those that didn't exercise their right to vote* or didn't have the franchise yet will be most deeply affected] is really too tight to call, but both are now more scared of the impact it has on their electability in future / the loonies in their midst / the damage to 'democracy' than they are of the big picture.
You don't let kids run into the road to prove your point that cars are dangerous even if they have expressed a clear desire to do just that. We need these mythical grown ups to grab our hands and save us from ourselves, rather than stand back and say 'well it's what they wanted'
* I know, if you can't be arsed to vote you lose the right to a say, but i also think that in a matter like this where you are voting to make a massive change then a vote not cast should weigh on the side of the status quo - and that's without those that didn't vote because there was no way that Leave could ever win
we have a representative democracy. One Party in the system shirked its responsibility in an attempt to shore up it's support and instead turned to a plebiscite, a system of voting that doesn't sit well with how our parliamentary govt works.
The result is where we are now, throw in that it's minority govt that can't push through it's agenda, and has to listen to and pay attention to it's extremes and outsiders and you have the bit of a mess we now have.
Needs a reset (election) not another referendum and a govt with a working majority, but the Tories will cling to power, as that's what both our parties are set up to do.
Seems to me that the ‘drift’ towards no deal is due in no small part to those who see brexit as yet another opportunity to depose Corbyn.
Many people support Corbyn (or in my case supported him) but can see that he is enabling Brexit, and do not approve. Pretty simple really. Pretending that his position and actions as regards Brexit doesn't matter is disingenuous. How are those that want Corbyn to shift on Brexit before it is too late (he won't) fuelling a drift towards a no deal exit?
Where are Momentum on this? Are they the people want to depose Corbyn? ...
At this point the absolute futility of trying to superimpose Brexit positions on top of parties or their leaders is obvious.
There is no solution to this that will leave a party intact or can be delivered by one party.
They will not be able to whip a vote on this due to the massive implications on the country as a whole. I fully expect there to either be a lot of dissent on anything that is not a confidence bill or a removal of the whip for the votes and permission to speak freely being granted.
the most unforgivable position is still being owned by May in refusing to allow debate or discussion and arbitrarily adding and removing options without any consultation.
Anyone else notice the difference in the language coming from the EU and Westminster on No Deal Plans?
The EU are implementing their plan.
The UK is discussing ramping up their planning.
It is there in a nutshell. The EU has their plan done and ready to implement. The UK (which is causing the problem) doesn't know what to do. Brilliant.
The EU are also (rightly) saying that the UK has no say in their No Deal Plan measures - which very easily and neatly takes a board rubber to the notion of a 'Managed No Deal'. There is no such thing - unless you count it being managed entirely by the EU. Iain Duncan Smith can bluster all he likes about 'the EU always caving in in the end'. It won't.
The EU is now effectively facing the UK down across the dusty street and saying 'draw'. Knowing full well that the best the UK will do is grab their revolver and blow their own foot off to make a point.
Shambles. Fiasco. Farce.
There is no solution to this that will leave a party intact or can be delivered by one party.
Someone gets it.
And there goes the last PMQs of the year.
A few utterly predictable and cringeworthy panto jokes and the usual bellowing and bawling - out of which comes........ nothing tangible or meaningful.
And then......it's off for a completely undeserved and inappropriate holiday with the biggest issue in the last fifty years still unresolved and hanging over us.
No wonder the EU are bewildered by us and are just getting on with their own stuff now.
Their entire history has been one of State Corporatism.
Wait until after Brexit when they will have the power to remove layers of regulation and protection and usher in a New Dawn of unbridled Capitalism.
Was corbyn right tho
Anyhoo... How come no mention of the LD/SNP/Green Vote of no Confidence proposal on the Beeb?
