Forum menu
2007 looks not to be the exact same seats, that's why I didn't include it. I was trying to avoid comparing apples and oranges.
Still, if Labour doing nearly as well as they did in 2015 is good enough for you, then great. I wish Miliband had hung on now… it seems losing multiple Elections badly is fine for leaders now, if you just believe strongly enough in them.
Not exactly the same- as I mentioned. But mostly, yes it was. The exact same metropolitan councils, 25 of 30 whole-councils and 19 of 20 third-council unitaries, and so on
We definitely know what Milne and others close to the leader want.
Which is? Something that is not policy or in the composite motion? do you include McDonnell in that?
Actually its quite clear and bears zero resemblance to your weird delusions!
Does that support a deal cooked up between politicians and not put to the people in a vote? Of course it does
No it doesn't quite clearly.
Labour policy is pretty clear: there should be a people's vote on any deal, as long as its a Tory deal and not a Labour deal. Can't get any simpler or fairer than that.
Which is?
Milne has written more about Europe over the years than most… go and get reading if you require clarity on where he and the other "Straight Left" men around Corbyn stand.
Something that is not policy or in the composite motion?
The composite policy is smoke and mirrors. Anything the Labour leadership choose to do can be shown to be supported by it.
Sorry… I keep mentioning Milne&Murray&Co, and "Straight Left", without explanation…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Left
Really - so Corbyn ( who is not leading the cross party negotiations) and Milne ( who IIRC has little standing in the party and is not a part of the negotiations) can somehow make a secret deal to double cross the rest of the labour party? That deal in clear breach of policy set at conference?
Weird.
I take it you are no longer including McDonnell in this anymore as his public statements show a very different face.
So what is Milnes position in the party that gives him such power that he can dictate a secret policy that is 100% in opposition to official party policy?
So what is Milnes position in the party that gives him such power that he can dictate a secret policy that is 100% in opposition to official party policy
This is all getting so bleatingly close to Mail type stories.
Dissing Milne has got as trendy as the often mis-represented "disaster capitalism" - a Naomi Klein wordplay - who has strong links with Corbyn too. But yet the center love using it out of context to support the anti-brexit argument. *
My favourite slurs are Alastair Campbell's constant barage against Milne. Pot. Kettle. Black.
*Although brexit is about competing versions of capitalism, so I could see why you'd argue the toss.
who IIRC has little standing in the party
And you self-proclaim your political geekery frequently. Jesus wept.
I take it you are no longer including McDonnell in this anymore as his public statements show a very different face.
McDonnell has given some brilliant interviews over the last year (I have often said so in this thread) where he is still sounding genuine about Labour standing for, and listening to, its members.
So what is Milnes position in the party that gives him such power that he can dictate a secret policy that is 100% in opposition to official party policy?
If by "official party policy" you mean leaving the EU, leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs union, ending Freedom of Movement … and being able to do so without another referendum … I don't think any of that contradicts anything Milne wants, do you? If he isn't an important figure in what the Labour leadership is doing, then great, fine, he's irrelevant, move on… but that's a big if.
Now, what about Murray…?
so what is Milnes position in the party that he can dictate policy that is against that decided at conference?
No thats not what I mean as labour policy - because that is not labour policy!
Jeepers - look I think the policy is daft, I have lost respect for Corbyn. I don't vote labour this last decade but I know that this weird idea that Corbyn and some shadowy cabal can take the labour party in a direction that is the opposite of what was decided at confernce is absurd. Utterly ridiculous.
A good article in today’s Observer about the reality of Corbyn’s ‘leadership’ and the cabal that surround him and dictate policy...
Remember Orwell’s chilling warning to boot-licking propagandaists
Pretty much on the money. It staggers me that people are naive and gullible enough to still fall for Corbyn’s threadbare ‘democracy’ lark when everything he does demonstrates a mindset closer to a dictator.
Are people really that stupid?
Apparently so.
That’s personality cults for you, I suppose...
so what is Milnes position in the party that he can dictate policy that is against that decided at conference?
Leaving the EU, and the Single Market, and the Custom's Union, and ending Freedom of Movement, all without having a referendum, is not against the composite motion "decided" at conference. Nothing was decided, beyond not ruling out any of the options that any of the key players in the party would like to happen. It was just a fudge to allow policy to be decided later…
…later is now upon us. If you are happy to believe that the "Straight Left" pro Russia, anti Europe element, including Milne, are in no position to steer what happens, then I'm happy… no… ****ing envious of you! I'd love to be in your happy place.
I do love your fantasies. Its really weird. Milne - director of communications and strategy can decide policy on his own or in cahoots with some mysterious cabal and turn conference made policy on its head.
You clearly are so blinded the truth is lost to you.
How you can say that your weird fantasy of what you think Corbyn is doing is not against policy decided at conference when it so clearly is is absurd.
Jeepers - its just laughable how much right wing propaganda you swallow and the logical contortions you go thru to try to make a case.
I am happy for (and jealous of) you.
Not being blind to the truth?
How do you think Corbyn would get away with it anyway? He would be out in 5 mins if he did what you say he is trying to and of course it would not get past a HOC vote.
More from the Grauniad
Jeremy Corbyn will not be able to get enough of his MPs to back a Brexit deal without the promise of a second referendum, even if Theresa May makes a big offer on a customs union and workers’ rights this week, senior Labour figures believe.
Senior party sources said they believe two-thirds of Labour MPs, including several shadow cabinet ministers and many more frontbenchers, would refuse to back a deal without a people’s vote attached.
But a number of MPs close to the People’s Vote campaign believe there are actually more like 150 to 180 Labour MPs out of 229 who will refuse to back a deal struck with May unless there is a confirmatory vote.
One shadow cabinet minister said: “Jeremy cannot be sure he has the numbers – even if he whipped it – so he cannot do a deal without a confirmatory vote.”
However, the idea of a binding customs union incensed Conservative Brexiters, who are ramping up their efforts to oust May in the wake of the dire local election results for the party.
Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, warned May in the Telegraph that she must not cave on the issue of the customs union.
“The temptation for the government now to do whatever is necessary to secure some kind of Brexit agreement is obvious but it must be resisted,” he said.
“To reach an agreement with Labour that locked the United Kingdom into the customs union might pull in enough Labour votes to allow an agreement to limp over the line but the price could be a catastrophic split in the Conservative party and at a time when the opposition is led by dangerous extremists, the consequences for our country would be unthinkable.”
Still think Corbyn is going to somehow go against party policy and make a deal that does not meet the standards set out in the composite motion? Any moves May makes towards a deal labour would find sort of acceptable will have no support in her party. any deal Corbyn makes that does not meet labour policy will have no support in labour
Its just not going to happen.
So, what now?
when everything he does demonstrates a mindset closer to a dictator.
Go on. Give specific examples.
I would be more impressed by Nick Cohen if acknowledged that Blair showed certain attributes of a dictator when a)centralising power and b)specifically regarding the gulf war. However that would require Nick to acknowledge his own failings. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Frankly I would consider newsthump a more sensible source than him. He is the archetype centrist frothing at anyone who dares go against his own unacknowledged ideology.
So, what now?
More indicative votes. No resolution.
Quite possibly an absolute disaster but plenty of cash going to the brexiteer elites who will be saved from the mob by the hard right press blaming the left and useful idiots going along with it.
He would be out in 5 mins if he did what you say he is trying to
Yes, that's exactly what I said. It looks like he is about to betray the young new members that elected and re-elected him, and as a result could soon be gone.
and of course it would not get past a HOC vote.
Others have discussed the maths of that, I have no idea how it would pan out.
kelvin
Subscriber
Still, if Labour doing nearly as well as they did in 2015 is good enough for you, then great. I wish Miliband had hung on now… it seems losing multiple Elections badly is fine for leaders now, if you just believe strongly enough in them.
Oh jesus... Is there any chance at all that you could just admit you were wrong? No?
Making a demonstrably false claim, getting taken through why you're wrong and then just carrying on pretending like you were making a valid point is weak. And flat out disrespectful too.
This year also as I’ve shown is a pretty good year.
Wow.
If doing worse than in 2015 is "pretty good" for Labour, then, well… no need to change direction on Brexit policy or think about changing the leader… government awaits.
AH OK, I made some edits for brevity which will make that comment look odd. But there's no "wow" about it- this is an exactly average year for Labour in local elections as I've explained at (painful) length. You're still trying to imply that 2015 was a bad year too, which I've also shown you is wrong.
Sorry but the maths doesn't allow it, you can't make an average year into a bad one just by ignoring the numbers and saying "wow", and you can't just pretend you didn't claim earlier that 2015 was "awful"- Kelvin's own word- when it was actually above average.
I know you don't like the numbers but you can't blame them for not matching to your preconception. And you can't just keep on trying to make the same argument after it turns out to be horseflops. And suggesting that it's me that's somehow saying something daft... Wow.
If you go back far enough, then "on average", Labour are in opposition. If they want to be in government, doing WORSE than in 2015 is not going in the right direction. 2015 was a bad year for Labour… even if it was "average".
kelvin
Subscriber
If you go back far enough, the “on average”, Labour are in opposition.
Inconveniently for you, I made sure that the period went back far enough to include the last time they were in government. But that's another fact that won't support your argument so by all means just act like it never happened, again.
Stop trying to change your argument. You said, flat out, that 2015's local elections were awful for Labour. I think you probably did think it was true, but now you know otherwise. You're welcome.
But we've just hit the limit to the number of times I'm going to bother. You've gone from just being wrong, to being openly and obviously dishonest. Anyone that wants to see your false statement, my correction, the working, the failed attempt to undermine it, and your embarrasing inability to admit you were wrong can look back a page.
This is what I said…
These seats were last contested in 2015, where Labour performed awfully, and then the leader left.
If you consider both the 2105 and last week's result as good for Labour, that's fine. I think they were awful, and change is now required if Labour want to do better.
I think they were awful
28% in elections which were overwhelmingly held in the rural English shires is actually a pretty good result for Labour.
It is exactly the same as the Tories, the party most associated with rural English shires, got.
In contrast the Tories getting 28% and losing over 1,300 seats in natural Conservative territory was an absolute disaster for them.
But of course you won't be hearing the headline writers saying that, just that they both did equally badly.
hello Ernie! long time no see.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. It looks like he is about to betray the young new members that elected and re-elected him, and as a result could soon be gone.
what would be the point when doing what you suggest would have him slung out on his ear without getting any form of brexit past the HOC?
Its absurd.
It's also absurd bickering over two leave parties and what sort of Briexit they'll give you if you don't want Brexit. But that's how it's going and this forum is a reflection of that. Will Britian ever see beyond its class war as expressed by Lab/Con bickering. Polarised, blinkered bollocks from both sides.
The Lab/Con bickering is STW at its worst and Britain in general at its worst.
Meanwhile the young people On Eurostar interviewed on Europe 1 this morning were rightly expressing frustration with the whole process and would really be a lot happier if their voices were heard. But no, a load of retired Labour-voting miners (even the one who symbollically joined up the tunnel) and retired Conservative-voting little Englanders are going to screw it all up for everyone who doesn't have hedge fund, a multinational ccorporation, investments in the Cayman islands, a second passport, a pub chain, a safe leave seat in parliament... .
Still, it hasn't happened yet.
Meanwhile the young people On Eurostar interviewed on Europe 1 this morning were rightly expressing frustration with the whole process and would really be a lot happier if their voices were heard.
Their voices are heard, they vote. If their votes are not enough then that is just an indication that what the young want is not the same as what the old want (or not as many). That is how it works. I don't like not any more than them but my voice is never heard either as I am outnumbered where I live but again that is because more people want the opposite of what I want.
Presumably it was the young who were voting for Lib Dems and Green? Need to see the numbers on that.
Two leave parties? tories and brexit / ukip? Labour are not a leave party. they are a divided party.
Well for "not a leave party" they spend a lot of time talking about what kind of Brexit they'd deliver if given a chance. And they have a leave leader who called for immediate Art. 50. From that point on Labour was and still is a leave party. Labour MPs voted to start the process, with a few notable exceptions (who were called reables) but the fact is Labour voted to start the Brexit process and continues to work towards Brexit.
Another weird interpretation of what is happening.
Wel do you have a better one or have you gone back to grutuitously winding people up when you've backed yourself into an untenable position, TJ?
It's just plain simple observation and typing what has happened. Are you really denying that Labour did not vote for Art. 50. at teh behest of Jeremy Crobyn. It isn't interpretiaion is simple ****ing fact.
Labour are not a leave party.
Yes they are, it is still on their own website. As has been pointed out to you in the past, but you still continue to ignore.
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/#first
The point is the party is split badly on this. To characteristic the party as " a leave party" when its clear that actually its split top to bottom and side to side on it is simple nonsense. Like much of the pronouncements on this thread.
What most of you are doing is taking a position and twisting the facts to suit it. I prefer the truth.
It is utterly absurd the ridiculous position some of you are taking on this.
apparently according to some of you :
The entire labour movement want a hard brexit
Corbyn and Milne control the party via some secret cabal that means they are intending to take the hardest of hard brexit routes and the rest of the party somehow will just acquiesce to this without protest
That this hard brexit deal will be stitched up behind the scenes and will get thru the HOC
That labour is a monolthic entity with everyone with the same view
Its just simple nonsense as anyone who is not blinded by ideology can see
I'll say it again. I don't have a lot of time for current labour. I haven't vote labour for a decade. I think labour policy on this is a mess. Trying to be all things to all people pleases no one.
What I do think important in such an important issue is that falsehoods are challenged and that truth stated
Is the current openness to a second vote a reaction to the local elections and an attempt to woo votes for the euros?
I'm sure post elections , Corbyn in the selflessness spirit of comprise will put the country before the need for a second vote.
I take heart from what I'm hearing but I just don't trust them anymore.
apparently according to some of you :
The entire labour movement want a hard brexit
We have been saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE... that the majority of Labour activists, supporters, party members, members of affliated groups, councillors, MEPs, MPs, voters, and ex-voters are all being ignored by a lifelong eurosceptic leader and his immediate team when it comes to Brexit.
I voted Labour in 2017 & 2018 because Corbyn was all about empowering and listening to the Labour Party members, so naively believed that the members would set policy when it came to the crunch. For most of my life I have agreed with Labour members far more than the leaders of their party… I thought that they were being put in control, so backed the party with my vote. A mistake.
Really - so labour are not a brexit party then?
If you look at the parliamentary labour party it breaks down as
A few want brexit because they are racist
A few want brexit because they are deluded and think it will bring about a socialist heaven
A large part say " we must respect the referendum" because they are scared of racists in their constituencies and that a second referendum would betray them
a large part say " we must have second referendum"
So labour policy is a fudge intended to keep these 4 difffernt tribes united.
I do love this idea that ~Corbyn and Milne control policy and will take the country in a direction that is not labour policy. Its nonsense