Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)
Comments
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »And his actions immediately after the Referendum: calling for the immediate triggering of Article 50 (insane) and committing the Party to Brexit in the 2017 manifesto (stupid).
Maybe these were mistakes but i do think they deserve a bit of context. If i recall that line about A50 was just a single line in an interview, it wasnt exactly corbyn rubbing his hands in glee that we have to invoke A50 right now, this minute, or anything like that. I'm sure their thinking, rightly or wrongly, was that if they prevaricated in any way, theresa may would have accused them of defying the will of the people and immediately gone to the polls with a stronger hand.
Also, i dont see what was so terrible about the 2017 position of respecting the result of the referendum. People can blame corbyn for the referendum result if they choose, though that rather airbrushes out a raft of historical causes imho, and criticise them for not pivoting towards remain sooner, but i do think some nuance is useful. I dont think becoming a remain party was all that simple a thing, division was going to ensue whatever way they went. Even the middle ground has caused a whole world of pain.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Maybe it's not necessarily a bad situation for Labour if the Tories win this election and preside over Brexit and the break-up of the UK in the half-decade to come. As a party, what exactly does Labour have to gain from winning this election? They'll spend all of the first year bogged down in the pre-Brexit quagmire just like the Tories, before moving on to either a revocation of the project and taking the heat for that, or leaving the EU and setting up the Kingdom for an NI Border Poll and a Scottish IndyRef2. Five years later, the Tories will be able to point the finger at Labour and say (without any hint of irony :rolleyes: ) "see - we told you Labour would destroy the country"
The alternative is to half-heartedly fight the good fight, graciously concede defeat on the 13th December, wait five years and then point a finger at the Tories, saying "look what they've done to the country!" Westminster without NI and Scottish MPs would offer Labour a greater chance of recovering their lost majority - as long as the Welsh don't go getting all nationalistic and wanting to do something crazy like declare independence and join the EU! :pac:
I'm not sure many Labour activists or MPs in the party leadership that think like that (though there will be many cynical backbenchers that do)
They'll be thinking about the toll 5 more years of Tory rule will have on people, how many more thousands will end up homeless, or grow up in destitution, or die prematurely from lack of health and social care, or get locked out of education and opportunities for social mobility. That's certainly more important to people like Corbyn and McDonnell than political manoeuvring.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,103 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23668
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Won't be their problem anymore - they can use whatever system they want in Edinburgh.
No reason why the bill that says Scotland is leaving also includes how Westminster is re-arranged though. In fact is should be in that same bill as the moment they leave the maths in Westminster changes so to have it as a separate bill dealt with only after they have left is too late.
If you had a Labour/ SNP coalition putting through the Scotland leaving bill, then who is in government the next day? Like the EU has already figured out the reallocation of their seats in the event of the UK leaving and even has MEP's who are currently elected but without a seat standing around waiting, Westminster should have all that kind of thing figured out in advance of Scotland leaving the UK.0 -
Agree with that.
The initial response from Labour (and people like Ken Clarke - as an aside it's interesting how he gets held up so often as praiseworthy by remainers who attack Corbyn, when the two of them have had almost identical positions) was that a 52-48 result was a mandate for a soft brexit (their 6 tests basically required it to come close to being met) and there was a chance for that in the early days.
However May disregarded that to pursue her red lines and positions have hardened since then with right wing media rhetoric trying to imply that Theresa May's hardline stance is actually a soft Brexit and only a no-deal result that breaks the GFA and decimates the economy is a true Brexit, leading Labour to move to a second referendum position. This may cost them the election if too many Leave constituencies flip, but it's hard to see where else they could have gone.
Promising a second referendum is by far the most remain-leaning policy possible for a party hoping to command a government in the UK - it's everything any remotely reasonable remainer could have asked for - so I always find it bizarre when people complain that they're not remain enough.
The problem is from a person looking in on the UK is that Corbyns six tests are a pile of nonsense and don't make sense. They are another version of a Tory policy that's failed. Corbyn and Labour in general haven't held the Conservatives to account. Leaving the EU involves trade offs. None of which have seen serious discussion. This something May ignored to her cost. It is something that both Johnson and Corbyn continue to ignore. Corbyn in opposition has had ample opportunity to call the Tories out on this. However he hasn't ultimately to the UKs detriment. Johnsons current Brexit policy is a repeat of May's mistakes.
If you want to get a deal from the EU that's acceptable to the UK public. The trade offs have to be acknowledged. Corbyn has had lot's of opportunities to highlight these issues in opposition. Even if he was to get into power it won't change the UKs bargaining power. So even if he gets a modified deal and puts it to referendum then what? He's in the exact same scenario as May and Johnson are where he can satisfy no one because the ground work for the necessary compromises haven't been laid. The reality is the softer the Brexit the more EU rules the UK will have to follow without any direct say. This is nettle that will have to grasped.
To summarise aside from a referendum when you strip away all the fluff what is the difference between the Labour and Tory position on Brexit? Both have refused to be open with the public about the trade offs involved. So does the election really make of a difference in relation to Brexit?0 -
To summarise aside from a referendum when you strip away all the fluff what is the difference between the Labour and Tory position on Brexit? Both have refused to be open with the public about the trade offs involved. So does the election really make of a difference in relation to Brexit?
and that is what is damaging Labour. Their position is full of fluff with no real position. People are tired of Brexit, they want it done and out of the way so the country can move on, the Labour position just delays it further.
yeah ok, it could mean the break up of the UK, but if you are living below the poverty line in England and you see all this money going to support Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with billions also being paid to keep the UK in the EU, do you really care?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The problem is from a person looking in on the UK is that Corbyns six tests are a pile of nonsense and don't make sense. They are another version of a Tory policy that's failed. Corbyn and Labour in general haven't held the Conservatives to account. Leaving the EU involves trade offs. None of which have seen serious discussion. This something May ignored to her cost. It is something that both Johnson and Corbyn continue to ignore. Corbyn in opposition has had ample opportunity to call the Tories out on this. However he hasn't ultimately to the UKs detriment. Johnsons current Brexit policy is a repeat of May's mistakes.
If you want to get a deal from the EU that's acceptable to the UK public. The trade offs have to be acknowledged. Corbyn has had lot's of opportunities to highlight these issues in opposition. Even if he was to get into power it won't change the UKs bargaining power. So even if he gets a modified deal and puts it to referendum then what? He's in the exact same scenario as May and Johnson are where he can satisfy no one because the ground work for the necessary compromises haven't been laid. The reality is the softer the Brexit the more EU rules the UK will have to follow without any direct say. This is nettle that will have to grasped.
To summarise aside from a referendum when you strip away all the fluff what is the difference between the Labour and Tory position on Brexit? Both have refused to be open with the public about the trade offs involved. So does the election really make of a difference in relation to Brexit?
But there is nothing in their six tests that says they won't follow any EU rules. Staying in the EU would actually meet their tests, as would an EFTA style arrangement. Labour's stance essentially boils down to minimising the impact of Brexit, without sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the referendum didn't happen (like a lot of people here seem to want)
It's completely incomparable to the red lines the Tories have and their desire to have their cake and eat it.0 -
But there is nothing in their six tests that says they won't follow any EU rules. Staying in the EU would actually meet their tests, as would an EFTA style arrangement. Labour's stance essentially boils down to minimising the impact of Brexit, without sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the referendum didn't happen (like a lot of people here seem to want)
It's completely incomparable to the red lines the Tories have and their desire to have their cake and eat it.
Imagine negotiating an international treaty, putting that treaty to the people and then refusing to campaign for that very treaty you have just negotiated. Classic Corbyn.0 -
We are where we are. The point I am making is, like the humorous Kerry directions: "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here". People are now entrenched in their positions, not least because the feeling of having won something, anything, they want it delivered. But Corbyn and Labour are to blame for not leading clearly on the issue from the beginning. Now they're at the mercy of the Pandora's box that they held open for the Tories. Immediately rowing in behind brexit after the result without providing any opposition to what is and was a Tory initiative.Agree with that.
I think a lot of people here don't realise what the view of Brexit is like in England - I do having lived there through the whole campaign and a couple of years after. You can't just completely ignore the majority of people who voted for Brexit and then expect them to elect you.
Water under the bridge now and that's why they are struggling in the polls. Not brexity enough for the brexiters and not remainy enough for the remainers.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,225 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37051
and that is what is damaging Labour. Their position is full of fluff with no real position. People are tired of Brexit, they want it done and out of the way so the country can move on, the Labour position just delays it further.
yeah ok, it could mean the break up of the UK, but if you are living below the poverty line in England and you see all this money going to support Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with billions also being paid to keep the UK in the EU, do you really care?
I do not think that the Labour position is problematic at all. I think that the problem is that it has taken Corbyn literally years to get to it during which time both remainers and leavers have become deeply suspicious of both Corbyn and Labour. Remainers see him as a Brexiter, not unreasonably in fairness while leavers just don't trust him when there are options like Farage and Johnson on the ballot. Instead of prevaricating, he should have realised this absolutely no later in 2017 and formed a coherent position when it became apparent that his dithering would only result in defeat. He couldn't defeat someone as devoid of charisma as Theresa May and her "Dementia tax" so what hope has he against Johnson and his "Get Brexit Done" mantra?
People might be tired but voting Conservative only promises to drag this out even further. The Lib Dems are the ones proposing to end this charade quickly. Labour have a more appealing stance while signing the deal as Johnson proposes cedes that last vestige of the UK's control over Brexit to the EU and we'll have to keep asking for extensions while a deal acceptable to Westminster and the requisite European legislatures is formulated, agreed upon and ratified. "Get Brexit Done" is just another lie but what's one more, eh?The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Advertisement
-
prawnsambo wrote: »We are where we are. The point I am making is, like the humorous Kerry directions: "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here". People are now entrenched in their positions, not least because the feeling of having won something, anything, they want it delivered. But Corbyn and Labour are to blame for not leading clearly on the issue from the beginning. Now they're at the mercy of the Pandora's box that they held open for the Tories. Immediately rowing in behind brexit after the result without providing any opposition to what is and was a Tory initiative.
Water under the bridge now and that's why they are struggling in the polls. Not brexity enough for the brexiters and not remainy enough for the remainers.
Since the referendum they've turned a Tory majority into a Tory minority, they've seen off Theresa May and inflicted historically unprecedented large and numerous defeats on the government party in parliament, who have as yet failed to get their Brexit policy through, hence calling another election which may ultimately result in a Labour government that is promising a second referendum. If that's not opposition I'm not sure what is.0 -
Since the referendum they've turned a Tory majority into a Tory minority, they've seen off Theresa May and inflicted historically unprecedented large and numerous defeats on the government party in parliament, who have as yet failed to get their Brexit policy through, hence calling another election which may ultimately result in a Labour government that is promising a second referendum. If that's not opposition I'm not sure what is.
Imagine what they could have done without Corbyn.0 -
But there is nothing in their six tests that says they won't follow any EU rules. Staying in the EU would actually meet their tests, as would an EFTA style arrangement. Labour's stance essentially boils down to minimising the impact of Brexit, without sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the referendum didn't happen (like a lot of people here seem to want)
It's completely incomparable to the red lines the Tories have and their desire to have their cake and eat it.
Labour argue that "we respect the result of the referendum, but people didn't know what type of Brexit they would be voting for".
If he genuinely believes in "what type of Brexit", then the second referendum should be "Labour's Deal versus No Deal" -- a clear choice that allows people to determine "what type of Brexit they would be voting for".
But that's not on the table. Instead, we have the dissembling referendum, where it's Remain versus Remain-light; a clear contrast to the legitimate referendum I've proposed above. That's why so many traditional Labour voters are infuriated with their election stance.
Here is Barry Gardiner the other day being approached by an otherwise traditional Labour voter:
0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Imagine what they could have done without Corbyn.
A defeat of the magnitude of their previous two leaders? We'll never know.0 -
I'd agree there isnt much point looking back. But just to say i think its valid criticism to suggest corbyn took too long to swing towards that second referendum position, it was obvious a good while before that it needed to be done. But doing so immediately after the 2016 vote would likely have been counterproductive in my opinion, would have risked giving the conservatives an easy majority, a gift of a campaign on labour not respecting the will of the people etc. That seems obvious to me anyway. There were never any easy choices or hope of pleasing everybody.0
-
-
Joe_ Public wrote: »I'd agree there isnt much point looking back. But just to say i think its valid criticism to suggest corbyn took too long to swing towards that second referendum position, it was obvious a good while before that it needed to be done. But doing so immediately after the 2016 vote would likely have been counterproductive in my opinion, would have risked giving the conservatives an easy majority, a gift of a campaign on labour not respecting the will of the people etc. That seems obvious to me anyway. There were never any easy choices or hope of pleasing everybody.
It was obvious in Ireland that it needed to be done. Along with Scotland and some specific parts of England. But that policy would have decimated Labour in 2017 - look what happened to the Lib Dems - because of the simple fact that England in particular was strongly pro-Brexit, and those who weren't largely believed the referendum should be respected. This view on Brexit is something that has come from years of anti-European propaganda in their right wing rags that Corbyn couldn't single handedly turn around overnight as much as people here seem to expect him too.
Their continued and sustained success in defeating the Tories in parliament and the ever diminishing claims of benefits of Brexit and continued paralysis on domestic issues has led them to a point where they can finally start credibly arguing for a second referendum. Even now it is risky and could cost them crucial seats, but they've been taking the most pragmatic possible approach to Brexit every step of the way.0 -
Britain Elects poll tracker showing a solid Conservative lead. With only 9 days left, I expected a "Corbyn-surge" by now - which has been predicted for almost 4-weeks now, but has yet to materialise.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/12014903838107688960 -
I'm not sure many Labour activists or MPs in the party leadership that think like that (though there will be many cynical backbenchers that do)
They'll be thinking about the toll 5 more years of Tory rule will have on people, how many more thousands will end up homeless, or grow up in destitution, or die prematurely from lack of health and social care, or get locked out of education and opportunities for social mobility.
That's as may be - but if Labour achieved a majority at the end of next week, how much policy change could they effect while being obliged to divert all their energies into fighting the ongoing Brexit battle. Not just the renegotiation with Brussels, but also dealing with the cross-party sour grapes, and internal party squabbles for not respecting the will of the people, or being too (or not enough) Brexity, and enacting emergency budget measures to halt the economic decline due to Brexit uncertainty or Brexit reality. And all of this against a backdrop of a world economy that is getting a bit shaky, a succession of catastrophic weather events, and the ongoing meddling in Britain's internal affairs by forces of a soviet disposition.
Cameron made a serious mistake holding a Brexit referendum without having a strong Remain message on which to campaign;
May made a serious mistake in triggering Art.50 without having a clear consensus on what basis the UK would Leave;
Johnson, IMO, has made a serious mistake in calling this election without having already "got Brexit done" because the doing of Brexit will be far from easy and far from cheap.0 -
He didn't need to do it after the ref, but as soon as TM came back with that deal, then they should have shifted. The TM deal, and of course the latest deal, bear no resemblance to the Brexit discussed during the campaign. As others have pointed out, simply demanding that the Tory provide a list of the benefits that were going to accrue from their version of Brexit would have been enough to show people how crazy it all was.
Instead he tried to say nothing at all, even letting his party vote for something at congress before weazeling out of it.
In saying all that, there are plenty of people that claim that Corbyn is a secret remainer, that Johnson really believes in Brexit. Peoples positions are so entrenched that I doubt Corbyn moving one way or another would have actually made any material difference.
There is no way that anyone could have foreseen just how crazy the Tories would become, to the point where they are not only willing, but rabidly calling for, the UK to leave without a deal.0 -
Advertisement
-
CelticRambler wrote: »Johnson, IMO, has made a serious mistake in calling this election without having already "got Brexit done" because the doing of Brexit will be far from easy and far from cheap.
At 42 points in the polls, it seems it was a well calculated move.
Having a majority makes things much, much easier. The stalemate in parliament could simply not continue.0 -
He didn't need to do it after the ref, but as soon as TM came back with that deal, then they should have shifted. The TM deal, and of course the latest deal, bear no resemblance to the Brexit discussed during the campaign. As others have pointed out, simply demanding that the Tory provide a list of the benefits that were going to accrue from their version of Brexit would have been enough to show people how crazy it all was.
Instead he tried to say nothing at all, even letting his party vote for something at congress before weazeling out of it.
In saying all that, there are plenty of people that claim that Corbyn is a secret remainer, that Johnson really believes in Brexit. Peoples positions are so entrenched that I doubt Corbyn moving one way or another would have actually made any material difference.
There is no way that anyone could have foreseen just how crazy the Tories would become, to the point where they are not only willing, but rabidly calling for, the UK to leave without a deal.
Thats a very balanced position and a fair one i think. That last par hits the nail on the head. None of this lunacy seemed in any way possible in 2017 so no party could set out policy anticipating it.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »At 42 points in the polls, it seems it was a well calculated move.
Not if the next 1-5 years see him, his party and his country crucified on account of trying and failing to get Brexit done.0 -
But there is nothing in their six tests that says they won't follow any EU rules. Staying in the EU would actually meet their tests, as would an EFTA style arrangement. Labour's stance essentially boils down to minimising the impact of Brexit, without sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the referendum didn't happen (like a lot of people here seem to want)
It's completely incomparable to the red lines the Tories have and their desire to have their cake and eat it.
But minimising Brexit means signing up to EU rules, regulations etc but having no say on how they are created. So if that's the Labour strategy why not come out and say it. Say that under any deal a Labour government would sign up to x y and z. As mentioned previously the EU aren't too fussy about who's in charge. The key negotiation is the UK government with it's electorate.
Given Labour won't do that, they are following the same Tory strategy of trying to please everyone by being as bland as possible. This is something May tried and failed to do. Johnson is trying the same. It's been a disaster on a range of levels.
The Brexit vote happened however aside from leaving the EU no clear mandate was given. You won't be able to please everyone. This is something May tried to do with their contradictory red lines. It's something Corbyn and Labour are trying to do.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,103 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23668
Joe_ Public wrote: »Thats a very balanced position and a fair one i think. That last par hits the nail on the head. None of this lunacy seemed in any way possible in 2017 so no party could set out policy anticipating it.
The "no deal is better than a bad deal" phrase was around before the 2017 election, and was a pretty good indicator of where their thinking was heading and what corners they were going to box themselves into.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Not if the next 1-5 years see him, his party and his country crucified on account of trying and failing to get Brexit done.
I would have thought that's a net positive for Labour.
If correct, it would lead to a Labour majority government in a short period of time.0 -
The "no deal is better than a bad deal" phrase was around before the 2017 election, and was a pretty good indicator of where their thinking was heading and what corners they were going to box themselves into.
True, but nobody really believed that would carry it out. It was a negotiating position.
Remember for ages they wouldn't discuss any outcome of Brexit, because it handed the cards to the EU? So Corbyn was stuck as he couldn't really rail against something that hadn't happened, TM would have simply lied and claimed Corbyn was on Project Fear.
But once the deal came back, that was the time to take a position. But Corbyn refused even then. It would appear, that Corbyn is for Brexit, the only difference is that he wants to be the man signing the deal rather than the Tories. And therein lies the issue.
Despite knowing the issues, Corbyn is more focused on getting to PM then actually telling the people the truth. He can't tell the truth because he want Brexit to happen as well.0 -
The "no deal is better than a bad deal" phrase was around before the 2017 election, and was a pretty good indicator of where their thinking was heading and what corners they were going to box themselves into.
True enough and there were people opposed to the whole thing and warning about triggering A50 so quickly, but did many really believe they'd be heading for cliff edges 2 years later with the overriding threat of civil unrest? A tiny minority at most. And this, remember, after talk of economic decline immediately following a yes vote didnt come to pass. I'm not sure the likes of george osborne did themselves much credit on that front.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I would have thought that's a net positive for Labour.
If correct, it would lead to a Labour majority government in a short period of time.
Precisely the point I was making in my earlier post about Labour being the likely "winners" of this election - provided they lose!0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,103 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 23668
True, but nobody really believed that would carry it out. It was a negotiating position.
Remember for ages they wouldn't discuss any outcome of Brexit, because it handed the cards to the EU? So Corbyn was stuck as he couldn't really rail against something that hadn't happened, TM would have simply lied and claimed Corbyn was on Project Fear.
But once the deal came back, that was the time to take a position. But Corbyn refused even then. It would appear, that Corbyn is for Brexit, the only difference is that he wants to be the man signing the deal rather than the Tories. And therein lies the issue.
Despite knowing the issues, Corbyn is more focused on getting to PM then actually telling the people the truth. He can't tell the truth because he want Brexit to happen as well.
Nobody believed they were that stupid to think it was true, but not sure about the not believing they would actually try and do it. Every instance of that phrase being mentioned should have been ridiculed by the opposition.
To think that threatening damage to yourself so that the other party doesn't get damaged is a negotiating position is up there with the daftest ideas that anyone has ever had. The opposition parties shouldn't have let the claim of no deal being better than a deal slide, and they shouldn't have let the claim that it was a valid way of negotiating something pass either. The media massively failed in all parts of this as well as the opposition for not opposing properly.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement