Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We all know any Remain majority in any second referendum would be narrow as fuck anyway. You're talking 55-45 at the very best, and most likely closer to - of course - 52-48.

 

Obviously that's still preferable because it means our economy doesn't get hurled off a cliff, thus destroying the social fabric even more, but we're still going to hate each other. Heck, even those on the same side of the argument hate each other plenty. :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Meenzer said:

We all know any Remain majority in any second referendum would be narrow as fuck anyway. You're talking 55-45 at the very best, and most likely closer to - of course - 52-48.

 

Obviously that's still preferable because it means our economy doesn't get hurled off a cliff, thus destroying the social fabric even more, but we're still going to hate each other. Heck, even those on the same side of the argument hate each other plenty. :lol: 

 

Sure but I think it would indeed put it to bed for a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, that comment about Labour's "nuanced" position - it's not that fucking nuanced. Go to the EU, get a non-suicidal deal, put it to the public. It's three clauses of less than 6 words each. Just how fucking stupid are the public if they can't internalise that?

 

The concern I have with this is that Labour being painted as a non-Remain party is coming from the LDs. And specifically, their attack along those lines means that they're not just going after Labour on the basis of anti-Corbynism as a smokescreen to try and win over soft Tories. They're also going after Labour remainers - the only people who such a message actually is designed to influence. They don't need these people to vote LD to stop Brexit, they just need them to vote for whoever is most likely to win.

 

In attacking Labour on this front, the LDs are making clear that winning seats is their primary focus, and stopping Brexit is secondary. And that is a serious fucking problem. It's not Labour's fault, it's Swinson's. And we shouldn't be too scared to just call it for what it is. If Labour's "nuanced" Brexit strategy is "too much" for your ordinary person, it's sure as shit not too much for Swinson. So why is she misrepresenting it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Because she only cares about power 

 

Indeed - and based on this, seems to be prepared to accept Brexit as a price for even a few more seats. Maybe she's envisioning that Labour will take the blame for this in the long run and she will hoover up the centre in full. But again, Brexit then becomes acceptable collateral damage.

 

Labour could be argued to be playing the same game of course, except that they have stuck to what is actually a sensible fucking position on the whole thing despite the damage it's doing to them. The LDs decided that they were the party of pure Remain, would back outright revoking A50 - something they knew they would never have to do - and appear to be prepared to sell all of that down the river because none of it is as important as winning a few seats.

 

If Labour were being as cynical, it would have been easy enough for them to go full Remain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet even still, even fucking still, I would vote LD if I were in a seat in which it mattered. And I would wake up on election morning hoping that Swinson wasn't about to do a deal with the devil. Because that's where we are now, insanely.

 

But let's not pretend that Labour are the only ones making this difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

So what do you think they should do, fight over votes with the Lib Dems? It's a strategically worthless position. I'm sorry but it just is. There is nothing to be gained from taking the same position as the LDs, all it will do it reinforce this idea that Labour has indeed abandoned Leavers. And since they haven't actually done this, I don't know why they would want to.

 

Moreover, by remaining neutral in any eventual referendum, they are allowing the possibility for the country to move past viciously hating each other.

 

Look, perception may be everything but you're assuming a great deal about how people outside of our specific echo chamber are perceiving this. The proof will be in the pudding I expect, but Labour are the ones who have to retain these working class leave constituencies, not the Lib Dems.

 

I want them to take a firm position that they can take to the electorate. If they can't confidently compete for votes with the Lib Dems then it's over for them anyway, so you can't worry about that. He's also made it easy for the Lib Dems to point at him and say "he's not Remain, we are". If he'd unequivocally come out for Remain, he would be able to more adequately compete with them for votes. Instead he's trying to walk a tightrope and letting the Lib Dems say "he's not Remain" and the Tories say "he's not Leave", and he's offering nothing in response. 

 

Take a position and argue for it like you mean it in a campaign. That is what wins people over. Corbyn has proven he can do that with social issues, the NHS etc. But in failing to do it on Brexit, he's lost the battle. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Indeed - and based on this, seems to be prepared to accept Brexit as a price for even a few more seats. Maybe she's envisioning that Labour will take the blame for this in the long run and she will hoover up the centre in full. But again, Brexit then becomes acceptable collateral damage.

 

Labour could be argued to be playing the same game of course, except that they have stuck to what is actually a sensible fucking position on the whole thing despite the damage it's doing to them. The LDs decided that they were the party of pure Remain, would back outright revoking A50 - something they knew they would never have to do - and appear to be prepared to sell all of that down the river because none of it is as important as winning a few seats.

 

If Labour were being as cynical, it would have been easy enough for them to go full Remain.

 

It's not fucking sensible if it doesn't land with the electorate because they are the people you need to win over. It's wishy washy bollocks. 

 

They are neither Leave nor Remain. They will negotiate a great new deal but they can't say whether they would prefer it to Remain. 

 

That is a fucking mental argument to take to an electorate. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gemmill said:

 

I want them to take a firm position that they can take to the electorate. If they can't confidently compete for votes with the Lib Dems then it's over for them anyway, so you can't worry about that. He's also made it easy for the Lib Dems to point at him and say "he's not Remain, we are". If he'd unequivocally come out for Remain, he would be able to more adequately compete with them for votes. Instead he's trying to walk a tightrope and letting the Lib Dems say "he's not Remain" and the Tories say "he's not Leave", and he's offering nothing in response. 

 

Take a position and argue for it like you mean it in a campaign. That is what wins people over. Corbyn has proven he can do that with social issues, the NHS etc. But in failing to do it on Brexit, he's lost the battle. 

 

But this is just the thing though, there's a finite number of Remain purists out there, right? Presumably precisely none of them are going to vote for the Tories or Brexit Party. So why do we want Corbyn competing for their vote? They're not the ones we need to sell this to.

 

Well they shouldn't be anyway - except that Labour is taking friendly fire from the LDs. I mean can you not see that the pool of potential voters lowers significantly if Labour step away from the middle ground on this issue? Are you thinking he should just be able to bring them with him to a remain position? I would suggest that with views as deeply entrenched on Brexit as they are, this is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask a Tory where they stand on Brexit.

 

"Leave."

 

Ask a Lib Dem. 

 

"Remain."

 

Ask Labour.

 

"Have you got 5 minutes?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

But this is just the thing though, there's a finite number of Remain purists out there, right? Presumably precisely none of them are going to vote for the Tories or Brexit Party. So why do we want Corbyn competing for their vote? They're not the ones we need to sell this to.

 

Well they shouldn't be anyway - except that Labour is taking friendly fire from the LDs. I mean can you not see that the pool of potential voters lowers significantly if Labour step away from the middle ground on this issue? Are you thinking he should just be able to bring them with him to a remain position? I would suggest that with views as deeply entrenched on Brexit as they are, this is unlikely.

 

Labour has lost the hardcore Leave vote already. He doesn't need to worry about that anymore. 

 

Ah fuck this, I do not know how you can look at Corbyn's stance on this and, hand on heart, say you're OK with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gemmill said:

 

Labour has lost the hardcore Leave vote already. He doesn't need to worry about that anymore. 

 

Ah fuck this, I do not know how you can look at Corbyn's stance on this and, hand on heart, say you're OK with it. 

 

Who said anything about the hardcore leave vote?

 

The marginal leavers are the ones he should be taking aim at. I mean look, can you explain to me the strategic worth from a purely quantitative standpoint, of Labour and LDs fighting over the exact same set of voters in an issue that has a near 50:50 national split?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn's stance isn't that overly complicated. It's just that the public only understands Leave or Remain. What's worse is that the PLP, membership and voters are all largely remain. Corbyn and those at the top have simply refused to go remain because of their own personal views and/or stubborness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Corbyn's stance isn't that overly complicated. It's just that the public only understands Leave or Remain. What's worse is that the PLP, membership and voters are all largely remain. Corbyn and those at the top have simply refused to go remain because of their own personal views and/or stubborness.

 

So are we saying that Labour putting soft Brexit up against Remain, and remaining impartial, is the sole issue we have with Corbyn's policy at this point? Or do we want him to revoke the whole thing straight off?

 

Because if it's the former, it's such a tiny issue (one that would become totally irrelevant as the vast majority of Labour MPs would immediately make up for the leadership's neutrality on the issue) that I genuinely think it's laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn's position can't be understood if you're prepared to give it a couple of minutes thought. But it's also a position that can very easily be framed negatively by both of their main opposition parties. It's as easy for them to get their "Labour are confused" message to stick as it is for Labour to get their "well it goes like this...." message to stick. 

 

And that is a big problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

So are we saying that Labour putting soft Brexit up against Remain, and remaining impartial, is the sole issue we have with Corbyn's policy at this point? Or do we want him to revoke the whole thing straight off?

 

Because if it's the former, it's such a tiny issue (one that would become totally irrelevant as the vast majority of Labour MPs would immediately make up for the leadership's neutrality on the issue) that I genuinely think it's laughable.

Labour wouldn't be impartial in the subsequent referendum. Part of the problem is, as Gemmill said, the Tories and Lib Dems have very simple clear positions. Labour's position has not been in any way clear ever since the referendum and is continuing to be unclear into this election. There was program on BBC last week with some hairdresser from Wales moaning that she's pro-Brexit and would never vote Labour again. McDonnell was then asked about it and he had to toe the party line and waffle, offering absolutely nothing. If he was allowed to come out and say, 'I'm sorry she won't vote Labour but Remain is the best thing for our country' then they'd win votes that way. As it is they're trying to be all things to all men but coming across as nothing to nobody.

Revoke is a nonsense, the Lib Dems can claim that position because they're essentially a single issue party with no chance of a majority but democratically it would be the wrong promise for Labour to make.

Edited by ewerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gemmill said:

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn's position can't be understood if you're prepared to give it a couple of minutes thought. But it's also a position that can very easily be framed negatively by both of their main opposition parties. It's as easy for them to get their "Labour are confused" message to stick as it is for Labour to get their "well it goes like this...." message to stick. 

 

And that is a big problem.

 

But that could be avoided at least on the remain side if the LDs weren't attacking them. The question is, if this is all meant to be about stopping Brexit, why are the LDs undermining Labour's position on that front? It will win them no Tory voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

But that could be avoided at least on the remain side if the LDs weren't attacking them. The question is, if this is all meant to be about stopping Brexit, why are the LDs undermining Labour's position on that front? It will win them no Tory voters.

 

Listen, I think Swinson has proven to be an arsehole in this campaign, but you can't expect her to do Labour a favour. They've left open goals and she is quite rightly booting the ball into the net for her own party's gain. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alex said:

Who do you reckon looked most awkward in the boxing ring btw? Swinson or Farage? 

 

Johnson with the mop has been the best so far. Clearly never picked one up in his life. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn's position can't be understood if you're prepared to give it a couple of minutes thought. But it's also a position that can very easily be framed negatively by both of their main opposition parties. It's as easy for them to get their "Labour are confused" message to stick as it is for Labour to get their "well it goes like this...." message to stick. 

 

And that is a big problem.

I've said before - and I think its true even if its true that Corbyn personally is a staunch leaver - that there's nothing wrong with trying to appeal to both sides - there should be plenty of middle ground between "they're traitors" and "they're thick racists".

 

However I'm not sure there's any evidence that that appeal is working so as Ewerk said maybe it is time for a "we respect your view but you're wrong".

 

Swinson was asked the other day how she could encompass leavers if she could actually revoke and she gave no answer whatsoever - just like May and the rest of the tories maintaining that actually getting out would "heal the rift" and other such bollocks.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Listen, I think Swinson has proven to be an arsehole in this campaign, but you can't expect her to do Labour a favour. They've left open goals and she is quite rightly booting the ball into the net for her own party's gain. 

 

Yeah, fair enough if that's the lay of the land. But then the LDs are no more serious about stopping Brexit than Labour are.

 

EDIT - in fact, Labour's stubborn sticking to the principle of letting the people putting this to bed would suggest they are in fact more serious than anyone else about reconciling the issue in a way that actually allows us to move forward.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Anorthernsoul said:

Can someone layout Corbyn's stance on the main issues in some easy bullet points please as I'm lost with him. Tar.

 

What are the main issues in your view? They haven't released their manifesto yet so it's difficult for anyone to be totally clear on it. At my best attempt, here are the ones that sound fairly firm:

 

On Brexit he wants the people to put it to bed by going to Europe and securing a Brexit deal that won't harm the country, and then putting it back to the people in recognition of the fact that Parliament has failed sort this out.

 

On taxes it sounds like he intends to raise taxes on those earning more than £85k. Everyone else will be untouched, at least on income tax. Those earning over this figure will be paying 5% more than they are now which corresponds to a few hundred quid a year. But their take home pay is about £4k/month, so it's not a massive deal.

 

On the NHS, Labour will of course put more money in which will reduce waiting times and improve care. The country can afford this and indeed would benefit from a good round of spending, as evidenced by the fact that even the Tories are claiming that they need to spend money now. It's good economics.

 

That's all I know for certain really off the top of my head. Many other points have been raised like 4 day working weeks and so on (which I think would be better phrased as 32 hour weeks, since the data is actually that companies are just as productive with employees working 6 hours per day as they are when they work 8), but we don't know the specifics for the manifesto yet.

 

Obviously he plans to renationalise rail and some utilities as well to stop them being owned by foreign governments and ideally to lower costs (although ewerk put up a decent criticism of this move a few pages back).

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×