Forum menu
Sod the party, there is a country to serve.
That would be the equally split country, right?
As a politician, you can’t ‘follow’ an equally split country, you have to propose the way forward.
but I’m saying people *would* be applauding if they’d done it.
No they wouldn't. They would have crucified him as an anti-democrat, soviet wanabee dictator, and you would have been leading the howls of outrage.
you have to propose the way forward.
He is. He's the only leader interested in doing the difficult task of bringing the two sides back together and finding common ground, rather than jumping on a vote-winning leave or remain bandwagon.
He can’t lead. That’s his major issue. Hence the constant radio silence. He doesn’t even understand the qualities required for leadership, let alone possess them.
In his head, he’s still a backbencher. In fact, to quote Malcolm Tucker “you’re so backbench, you’re out by the bins”
He’s the only leader interested in doing the difficult task of bringing the two sides back together and finding common ground
He’s not looking for a common ground, he’s been busy crushing all compromises possible put forward by his own MPs. He wants hard Brexit, and has pushed aside anyone else in his party attempting to either facilitate a soft Brexit, and, until very recently, anyone proposing that the public get a vote that might stop hard Brexit. What is the ‘common ground’ he has been finding? Set it out for us… what is he doing to facilitate the ‘difficult task’ of ‘bringing the two sides back together’…? Ignoring the problem, and can kicking ‘till it’s over and he/we/they can move one? Does that look to be working? He’s being dragged glacially into doing and saying anything of substance… word by painful word.
No they wouldn’t. They would have crucified him as an anti-democrat, soviet wanabee dictator, and
50pc of people would have. But their votes would have been split amongst all other parties. The other 50pc would have jumped at the chance to vote for a remain party and be been far less concerned about ignoring the referendum result which was purely advisory.
Anyway, people are already crucifying a second referendum as being anti-democratic so the net difference is zero..
you would have been leading the howls of outrage.
No I wouldn't. I was saying before the referendum that referendums are stupid and in a representative democracy we should be voting for people who carry out policy, not directly for policy for all the obvious reasons. Nothing I've seen since then has changed my mind and I'm strongly against a second referendum for all the same reasons plus some more!
rather than jumping on a vote-winning leave or remain bandwagon.
You accept it would be a vote winner. Good.
He can’t lead.
I think you have a different idea of what leadership should be than I do. Which is valid, there are at least two schools of thought.
Go to Guardian live page to see a great speech by Corbyn setting out Labours priorities
OOB - so yuo are against a second ref - that means a no deal brexit. The only way to stop a no deal long term is a second ref. There is no other route with legitimacy
He can’t lead. That’s his major issue. Hence the constant radio silence. He doesn’t even understand the qualities required for leadership, let alone possess them.
I agree, however my point is someone who could lead and have shown leadership may have put the Labour party in a better position.
If I was the leader I would be using the propaganda/buzzword approach that can be seen to work for the Tories. Don't need to worry about the substance as 95% of voters won't be looking that far.
I would have to ignore the wishes and democratic element of the party though and that just gets in teh way as tehy is no majority view on anything.
OOB – so yuo are against a second ref – that means a no deal brexit. The only way to stop a no deal long term is a second ref. There is no other route with legitimacy
A recently elected government is about as legitimate as you can get. In contrast referendums have no legitimacy and literally compel nobody to do anything. They're advisory, the people campaigning on each side have no responsibility for carrying out the result.
If the last three years of chaos haven't put you off referendums I don't know what would have.
The "constant radio silence is a result of a lack of reporting not a lack of saying stuff.
Big speech today - how long will it get on the TV news? I bet its less than a minute and I bet its mostly ignored in tomorrows papers apart from baseless attacks by some based around outright lies
OOB - its a binary choice - its either a second referendum or leave probably no deal. NO incoming government could unilaterally revoke - if you think a second ref would cause more trouble imagine how much revoking by a government elected on a minority of votes!
Corbyn says the first task of a Labour government would be to get Brexit sorted.
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
And he sums up the Brexit position confirmed at Labour’s conference.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
Ignoring the delivery, it’s a speech I’m fully behind. If it was delivered by someone else it might cut through and win over some voters. The “you will get to decide in a referendum” approach, followed by key pledges on education, transport etc, isn’t bad in and of itself. It’s not offering the country leadership though, is it? I like it, but then I’m a soft lefty who likes the idea of a PM deferring to members and voters… when it’s genuine. Do many other outsiders still think he’s genuine about such things? I’m 50:50 on that myself.
In short: an uninspiring delivery from someone who isn’t trusted by voters. And that’s coming from someone who wants a referendum, abolition of student fees, publicly owned transport… and just about everything he proposed in that speech.
NO incoming government could unilaterally revoke
They can. They can nuke Luxenbourg if they want, that's how representative democracy works.
There would be a *massive* HoC majority for it with SNP support plus dozens defying the whip on the opposition benches whoever that opposition is.
In short: an uninspiring delivery
if you want oration skills then maybe Brian Blessed or Ian McKellen would be better bets? personally I’m more interested in what they will do and the affect it has on all our lives than putting on a good show for the tv cameras.
You've said much the same before, but as it's been pointed out before, you can have the finest, most egalitarian policies going, but if you can't communicate those policies effectively you'll never achieve power.
A recently elected government is about as legitimate as you can get.
no it isn't - an election will be completely tainted by other issues like people always having voted for a particular party and not being able to vote for anyone else.
And other people won't want to vote on a single issue like this, as it will bring along a whole load of other policies they might not want - but the politicians will think that they have a mandate for.
the brexit issue needs to be dealt with by a seperate referendum before any GE.
Brian Blessed
he'd probably get a lot of votes...
the brexit issue needs to be dealt with by a seperate referendum before any GE.
There is only one political party backing a second referendum in any form.
There is only one political party backing a second referendum in any form.
Well, that’s just a lie.
Which parties are supporting a second ref? Not the lib dems or tories. Honestly I am not sure the green england position nor SNP. Green scotland do not stand for westminster.
Can I suggest we take the general discussion to the brxit thread? Leave this to discussion of Corbyn?
Which parties are supporting a second ref?
SNP, PC, Greens, LibDems, and now Labour. Who have I missed?
Lib dems do not support a second ref.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/15/lib-dems-pledge-to-revoke-brexit-without-referendum
Second para.
A question for the jezza fans, if you were forming a government what position would corbyn hold in your cabinet.
Chief Whip
Second para.
But how do they support it without supporting a Labour government?
Unless I've missed something.
Chief Whip
nah, Agriculture.
Sorry, I meant Horticulture.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
But how do they support it without supporting a Labour government?
Probably would if they had to. Sooner or later pragmatism will kick in. They've ruled out coalition with Labour iirc, and ( also iirc ) Labour have reciprocated, but let's face it, anything could be on the table if it came to it, and these are the things you say before a general election.
Supply and confidence perhaps?...
I do not watch the TV news anymore - but anyone who does how much airtime did Corbyn get for his speech?
Not picked upon it at all.
There you go.
Really? thats disgraceful.
There you go:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49998384
Most inspirational.
The speech was covered live (or played shortly after) on LBC yesterday. No doubt after such an important speech JC will be making himself available for interview to all the main broadcasters today.
Yeah, I heard it on the radio. It would probably be better for people to read it than experience it on TV or Radio, if you want to get them to consider the content. Anyone got a link the full text of the speech to post here?
So my point proven. Big set piece speech ignored by TV news
So my point proven. Big set piece speech ignored by TV news
It was broadcast live on BBC2 Newsroom (I think that's the mid-morning news thing on the beeb isn't it? I watched it. Utterly riveting.
Here's the copy. Not going to copy and paste as would just be a wall of text.
https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-of-jeremy-corbyns-speech-in-northampton/
EDIT: Edited to take account of Mr. Political Geek's last post. :o)
It's a media-wide conspiracy, his publicity team are incompetent/don't care, or he didn't have anything new to say considered worth reporting.
They do say it's usually the simplest answer, so conspiracy it must be.
Why not a mention on the main TV news?
It was on Channel 4 news.
There he was, in all his glory. Like a local councillor at a town hall meeting reading out the proposals for some new traffic calming measures on the B375
Stirring stuff.
Maybe it didn’t get full coverage as most TV channels don’t want their audience going all sleepy bo-bo’s and missing their latest drama that follows the news?
Why not a mention on the main TV news?
I don't know. It's was shown live on TV. I don't watch either ten o-clock news shows, so can only take others' word for it not getting a mention on there. Channel4 did a thing on that stand-up guy, Chris Williamson and Labour's reaction to Johnson being given the low-down by Leo but most of their show was devoted to Turkey's invasion of operations in Syria. But I can only assume it's a massive conspiracy against him by the MSM.
I wonder how many times he said "people" in this speech...