Forum menu
Both of those quotes are heartening tj. I guess we'll see what unfolds...
But just to prove the point further, let’s go back further.
You are comparing the results of elections in different areas/seats. In the seats contested last week…
2011 37%
2015 29%
2019 28%
Both of those quotes are heartening tj. I guess we’ll see what unfolds…
The quote from Watson is just a repeating of where he stands on this… and the party supports him. But he's not the leader, unfortunately. He's pushing hard for sensible policy… but he is not setting the party's policy.
The quote from McDonnell allows for a deal not subject to a referendum to be whipped for by both main parties and narrowly passed, and for a separate vote on a referendum to go ahead with hardly any Tory backing, and lost. Nothing has changed.
No conference set party policy which they are all following
Go… on…
Does that support a deal cooked up between politicians and not put to the people in a vote? Of course it does… because it was worded to give the leadership "room" to do whatever the hell they like. It supports both pushing through a deal without a vote, and supports having a vote on a deal.
It is not a policy, it was a composite motion written to allow policy to be made up on the hoof (you could generously argue that was to give the leadership flexibility to respond to a fast changing situation).
What is Labour policy?
We know what the deputy leader and the members want it to be. We have a reasonable idea what the shadow Brexit spokesman wants. We keep arguing about what the leader wants it to be… despite it being made painfully clear by him again and again. We definitely know what Milne and others close to the leader want.
Just for giggles, what happens when we include 2007, which you dropped out of hte dataset for some reason?
2007 27%
2011 37%
2015 29%
2019 28%
Ah right, turns out 2011 was the outlier and that, like I already showed, 2015 and 2019 were average years. Of course, we already knew 2011 was an outlier- in fact, it was the second best result in the entire dataset- but it doesn't hurt to demonstrate it 2 different ways to avoid any doubt.
Claiming that the 3 average years were all bad and the one exceptionally good year is the one they all should be compared to is Goveish. All years should be above average!
Of course, we all know that it's not really as simple as "this election compares to that election"- the unitary vs multiyear council seats alone make that inevitable, even before you add in boundary changes and general elections on their own, different and irregular cycle- which is why we need to look over the longer term, to smooth individual year differences out.
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
Labour Party policy is to deliver Brexit. That policy is not backed by its members. Simple really. Corbyn is not leading for Labour members or Labour voters … some say this is because he is supporting the wishes of the "wider public", but others think that it is because he and his core team want Brexit. It sure looks increasingly like the later to me.
This is labour policy. In balack and white.
Below is the full text of the composite motion on Brexit passed by Labour conference 2018. The key pledge is that Labour vows to “support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote” should it not be able to secure a general election.
Conference welcomes Jeremy Corbyn’s determined efforts to hold the Tories to account for their disastrous negotiations. Conference accepts that the public voted to leave the EU, but when people voted to ‘take back control’ they were not voting for fewer rights, economic chaos or to risk jobs. Conference notes the warning made by Jaguar Land Rover on 11.9.18, that without the right deal in place, tens of thousands of jobs there would be put at risk.
Conference notes that workers in industries across the economy in ports, food, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, energy, chemicals, in our public services and beyond are worried about the impact of a hard Brexit on livelihoods and communities.
Conference believes we need a relationship with the EU that guarantees full participation in the Single Market. The Brexit deal being pursued by Theresa May is a threat to jobs, freedom of movement, peace in Northern Ireland and the NHS. Tory Brexit means a future of dodgy trade deals and American-style deregulation, undermining our rights, freedoms and prosperity. This binds the hands of future Labour governments, making it much harder for us to deliver on our promises. Conference notes Labour has set six robust tests for the final Brexit deal. Conference believes Labour MPs must vote against any Tory deal failing to meet these tests in full.
Conference also believes a no-deal Brexit should be rejected as a viable option and calls upon Labour MPs to vigorously oppose any attempt by this Government to deliver a no-deal outcome. Conference notes that when trade unions have a mandate to negotiate a deal for their members, the final deal is accepted or rejected by the membership. Conference does not believe that such important negotiations should be left to government ministers who are more concerned with self-preservation and ideology than household bills and wages.
Stagnant wages, crumbling services and the housing crisis are being exacerbated by the government and employers making the rich richer at working people’s expense, and not immigration. Conference declares solidarity and common cause with all progressive and socialist forces confronting the rising tide of neo-fascism, xenophobia, nationalism and right wing populism in Europe.
Conference resolves to reaffirm the Labour Party’s commitment to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 including no hard border in Ireland.
Conference believes that there is no satisfactory technological solution that is compliant with the Good Friday Agreement and resolves to oppose any Brexit deal that would see the restoration of a border on the island of Ireland in any form for goods, services or people.
Should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate General Election that can sweep the Tories from power.
If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.
This should be the first step in a Europe-wide struggle for levelling-up of living standards, rights and services and democratisation of European institutions Labour will form a radical government; taxing the rich to fund better public services, expanding common ownership, abolishing anti-union laws and engaging in massive public investment.
Labour Party policy is to deliver Brexit
No its not. That is a simple falsehood. Read the above.
Stop posting that fudge. You yourself say it is fudge. We can all see what the leadership are doing, and we can read their own words about what they are doing. If you agree with them, then go ahead and start showing your support by voting for them.
In the telegraph they describe what's going on as an anti Brexit alliance.
Yes we can see what the leadership are doing and its following that fudge. Why invent a position that is so patently untrue?> Use the truth to beat them with if you want. Why invent things?
that fudge is labour policy - like it or not that is the policy.
the idea that Corbyn and Milne are somehow going to faciliate a hard brexit is just sheer nonsense. And yes - I have read what they say in the leadership indeed posted a bunch of quotes further up
Why you feel it necessary to invent totally spurious things is beyond me.
Corbyn and Milne do not control policy. Starmer is leading the cross party talks. If Corbyn goes against policy then he will be out in five minutes.
Quotes from Corbyn during and since the referendum capaign
He added, "there is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union, just as there is also a powerful socialist case for reform and progressive change in Europe."
Over the years I have continued to be critical of many decisions taken by the EU and I remain critical of its shortcomings, from its lack of democratic accountability to the institutional pressure to deregulate or privatise public services.
So Europe needs to change.
But that change can only come from working with our allies in the EU. It's perfectly possible to be critical and still be convinced we need to remain a member.
Corbyn urged British voters to accept the EU "warts and all.
"
In June 2016, in the run-up to the EU referendum, Corbyn said that there was an "overwhelming case" for staying in the EU. In a speech in London, Corbyn said "We, the Labour Party, are overwhelmingly for staying in, because we believe the European Union has brought investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment".
And yet here we are, three years on and still talking about red unicorns...
If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.
What if they CAN get a GE? What will the Labour manifesto say then?
Well done TJ- some people on here sound like Mark Francois with there paranoid delusions of the Labour Party- Pinkos, commies, dictatorship etc.
Proof will be in the pudding, I cannot see anything being agreed that will get through parliament unless it has a vote attached but even then it will struggle.
In June 2016
And then the party voted for Art. 50. And those Labour MPs who didn't were refered to as rebels.
Judge by acts and deeds not hollow good words. The first rule of choosing who to vote for.
slowoldman- that is the question that is hard for Labour to answer right now. I hope they just say **** it remain and Tories say **** it hard Brexit then we can vote which way we want. Saying that maybe the Lib Demswill give us the full spectrum of choice.
Tories: Hard Brexit
Labour: Soft
Libs: Remain
(Labour would not do well)
Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change, but Labour will not scapegoat migrants nor blame them for economic failures.
From labours brexit policy page, on their website linked above. Without Freedom of movement we cannot be in the single market, the EU have always been clear about that. Pretending anything else is just a fantasy.
The sad thing is, while acknowledging that immigrants have been scapegoated, they still promise to enact a policy built on that very lie.
slowoldman- that is the question that is hard for Labour to answer right now. I hope they just say **** it remain
With Corbyn as party leader?
If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.
What if they CAN get a GE? What will the Labour manifesto say then?
The time for that is past more than likely but a manifesto would be produced by democratic means - special conference or similar IIRC. Certainly this weird mysterious cabal of hard outies will not be able to write it.
Matthew Pennycook MP
@mtpennycook
I would have thought that this was entirely self-evident. As I said from the despatch box on 9 April, given where we now are there is a clear requirement to seek “public approval for any agreement that might emerge at this late hour by means of a confirmatory referendum”.
Labour’s stance is caused by duplicity and trying to walk both sides of the street at the same time. What the Tories are doing quite well is bringing that into focus to try to draw them one way or the other before Brexit actually happens and turns into a total fiasco that sinks the Conservative party once and for all.
Labour are just as duplicitous and split as the Tories and they can’t come right out and emphasize that this shitshow is a mostly Tory problem, because a lot of their more, ahem, ‘nationalistic’ supporters will have a shit-fit.
Both main parties are in thrall to xenophobes and bigots that they cannot afford to ‘lose’. However the Tories will lose their bigots to Farage and the like, would Labour bigots vote Tory given the history in many of those constituencies? I had hoped that Labour would make the calculation that they wouldn’t, but it seems not.
"if we can't get a general election" well they haven't. So where is the support for all the options? 'All the options including a people's vote' should be a core of this negotiation they are in right now.
Newspapers are suggesting there are about 80 labour MPs who won't back the Tory/lab deal without a confirmatory referendum
Didn't Corbyn tried to get a GE with a vote of no confidence.
He failed so why not a second referendum?
Indeed. Which is why any deal ( not that there will be a cross party deal) will have to have a second referendum. As corbyn, Starmer, Watson have all said.
Even for those credulous enough to believe there was a real prospect of Labour “bailing” out the government, as the shadow trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, has described it, the apparent landing zone takes the political debate no further on from where it started.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/06/emerging-labour-tory-compromise-brexit-mirage
There is not going to be a cross party deal. There never was a chance given that May cannot move far eonough to labours position and carry any of her party and Labour cannot move towards the tory position and carry enough of its MPs.
The whole exercise is a pr one and one of the blame game. Note all the " deals nearly there" has come from Tories - and tories not involved in the negitations
There is not going to be a cross party deal.
Perhaps she can go back in time to 2017 to just after her catastrophic election and work something out with Labour back then?
That would have been the time to do it. Or immediately after the referendum. Set up a cross party commission to come up with the nearest they can to a workable deal. Now? Too much water under the bridge, too many entrenched positions, parliamentary discipline has gone.
Of course if any deal is offered subject to a second referendum it matters not a jot what the deal is because a second ref will be for remain.
Both May and Corbyn are equally as opposed to a second referendum as each other, as they both want Brexit ‘over the line’ They’re both Brexiteers after all. One reluctant (though quite a convert), the other a life-long enthusiast
I doubt they’ve the numbers to do that. But it won’t stop them both trying this week. Corbyn will try and three line whip Mays Deal through with not a chance of a confirmatory referendum. It just remains to be seen how many of his own MPs tell him to **** right off.
Our (non- PFJ) labour MP, who’s obviously got wind of what’s afoot (I suspect he’s better informed than us), has just tweeted that he absolutely will not support any deal not involving a second public vote.
He’s clearly expecting a stitch up too. He’s hardly alone in that.
Looks like this is shaping up to the week Magic Grandad finally tears the Labour Party in half. All to support the ultimate right wing project.
He clearly doesn’t do irony
Yes. Basically that ^^^
Binners - really? Its a load of piffle. corbyn is not even leading the negotiation!
There will not be a deal. corbyns position and Mays are too far apart.
Tell you what Binners - I'll do a forfeit if there is even a deal presented. Pic of me with a troll on my head?>
You really think they are going to risk the EU elections? The Tories are going to lose big time to the Kippers and Labour will lose big time to LibDems or Greens. If one thing has been clear from the last (god help us) nearly three years of nonsense is that the two main parties will always act in self interest when their backs are to the wall.