I read the post you quoted my post in and replied to it as if it was a response to my post.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I read the post you quoted my post in and replied to it as if it was a response to my post.
The Labour Party is opposed to Brexit. In a Parliamentary vote Labour will vote gain it or for a soft Brexit. Jeremy said so. Doesn't need to keep talking about it when no-one is listening does he? The Labour Party is opposed to Brexit. In a Parliamentary vote Labour will vote gain it or for a soft Brexit. Jeremy said so. Doesn't need to keep talking about it when no-one is listening does he? The Labour Party is opposed to Brexit. In a Parliamentary vote Labour will vote gain it or for a soft Brexit. Jeremy said so. Doesn't need to keep talking about it when no-one is listening does he?
I clicked my heels three times too. I don't know how much plainer it can be.
Edited.
Labour have already voted in favour of Brexit, it happened last year. Labour are also opposed to remaining the single market and retaining freedom of movement. To say they're opposed to it any longer is clearly untrue.
I think you'll find that neither The Labour Party or the Labour Parliamentary Party have had an opportunity to vote on Brexit. The voting population are the only ones to have had a vote during the Referendum.
Labour were opposed to ignoring the result up until June 2017. Since then The Labour Party has stated that it will oppose a Hard Brexit at least and believes in Free Movement and the Single Market. Jeremy said so.
The white text on your post doesn't seem to be showing.
Well at least tell me again that Labour voted in favour of Brexit again. I enjoyed it so much the first time.
Confused as to what you're getting at here. Guessing you're going to try and say that article 50 doesn't count as voting for Brexit...which is a view, I guess.
Your statement on the single market was a flat out untruth, but there we go.
@Ubik I wonder if you can guess where this is copied from?
and No, Article 50 was triggered by the Referendum result, announced by Theresa May, Labour didn't vote FOR Brexit.
You're a saint @oates
Literally from last month - https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/jeremy-corbyn-single-market-hold-uk-back/
There are plenty more of these from Corbyn, McDonnell and Starmer.
And no, article 50 was triggered by a parliamentary vote - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
Last first, Labour voted for Article 50, not Brexit, Soft Brexit or Hard Brexit.
Retaining the benefits of the single market and the Customs Union is a stated aim from the Labour Manifesto
I think you said that my statement on the single market was a flat out untruth, I guess you don't do apologies.
And you just stated in your previous post that it was triggered by the referendum result and not voted for by Labour, which was false. Without that being triggered, there is no Brexit. Labour voted for it (not abstained on, voted for).
"The benefits of" is not the single market, because it's the same kind of cherry picking approach the Conservatives use, where they can avoid the single market rules on state aid and freedom of movement (here's Corbyn saying flat out that FoM will end, if you're still interested - http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-15/...ght-freedom-of-movement-will-end-with-brexit/ ). It's also the kind of arrangement that the EU have ruled out multiple times already.
Honestly I don't believe that in voting to honour the UK vote by Referendum is voting for Brexit. It is honouring that vote but not actually voting for it. The Labour PP did not get to vote for or against Brexit, they voted for Article 50.
Again, how you get to retain the benefits of the single market and customs union without having a single market and customs union would mean that you don't get the said benefits doesn't it? Please Mr, can we just keep the benefits without having a single market? Nah.
The Manifesto is what the Labour Party wants, it instructs the members and MPs in the LPP what the aims are. The Labour Party votes for it.
Yeah, incorrect about Freedom of Movement but still EU citizens and UK citizens are to retain full rights in respective countries is probably what I should have remembered before finding the manifesto to display.
Edit. Corbyn says it would be wrong to stay in the single market and customs union if the agreement would prevent Labour from implementing its “radical plans” for Britain. Labour wants to ensure employees rights etc. He's not against the single market but instead not one without the other.
Last edited:
Nothing in that list links Corbyn even slightly explicitly with anti Semitism. His political career has been defined by the campaign for social justice, equality and peace - the antithesis of discrimination. He certainly holds a higher moral standing than some of the clowns (or war criminals like Blair) whom seem so morally outraged by this episode.
Theresa May welcomed Saudi Prince Salman into the country a couple of weeks. Does that mean she condones widespread human rights abuse?
I am not attempting to undermine the fight against anti Semitism - but to suggest that this is a problem concentrated within the Labour party is nonsensical, and I have no idea how this has escalated into the bandwagon it has. Unless I am missing something.
Local election results could be the key to whether this latest dissatisfaction with the leadership rumbles on or dissipates.
I'd be surprised. Seems most likely to me that Labour does quite well but the debate continues.
To be honest - if people really thought the anti-antisemitism charge was politically powerful we would've had far more effort to press it from the Tories and the Tory media before now than we have. I think the truth is that for most people it's not a hugely important topic - however much it is for us politics nerds and those it personally affects.
Depends what 'quite well' means, I guess. Not doing terribly and doing 'quite well' have become terribly conflated when it comes to the Labour party in recent times. My fear is that we've allowed expectations to be sufficiently lowered to the point where once we would have demanded complete annihilation of a chaotic government in mid-term but instead we're now braced for: 'if it isn't a disaster for us, it's a positive'
I anticipate moderate gains. What are your definitions?
Oh don't ask, they will remain vague and entirely fabricated whilst the fallout will be predicted as dire as all to feck.
Any opposition in a local elections vs this govt should not be satisfied with moderate gains. This is one of my biggest bones of contention with the where the party is right now. Local elections are an excuse to give the government a bloody nose. It's not always the best indicator of where the country is right now but if the opposition can't make huge headway on such occasions then they're in trouble. Even the Tories under some of the dross they had leading them in the late 90s/2000s made significant gains in local elections.
Huge headway. See.
Get away, you grumpy old man.
Give me a target for a successful Labour result, then?
Gains should be more than 'moderate'. As should be the case any opposition vs any government not least one with a record that this one has.
Pick a result from modern times that we should be aiming to emulate? You can surely understand my desire not to allow you to declare your frustration at gains that are only moderate without telling us what you think we should be aiming for.
If that is true .Then as i said good riddance.If it hurts anyone it will be the Blairites.
Okay, I'm in!
Last time these seats were up was 2014. Results on that night saw Labour gain 324 and the Tories lose 236, with an equivalent national vote of 31% to Labour and 29% to the Tories (Lib Dems 13%, UKIP 17%). Obviously times have changed muchly since then, but I think we can use that as a "par" score, or what you'd consider moderately successful (in terms of vote share, I'm talking lead over Tories rather than the % itself, which should rise a lot regardless). I think it's also useful as a comparison because it was a time when Labour had a persistent polling lead over the Tories of around 5 points, which correcting for the eventual polling error about matches the current state of it being about tied (or a small lead in either direction). A great night would be 500+ gains and a clear lead of around 5 points in the ENV. A meh night would be a Tory lead in ENV and slim gains to none.
Unknowns - UKIP are going to probably collapse their vote again, so that introduces big uncertainties with regards to where it's going to end up. There's usually a bit of a national vs local issues debate in terms of what drives people to the polls, but I think if Brexit is the dominating issue in the media then the Tories will probably benefit a bit (particularly with the Ukippers going spare), whereas if health and services are bigger stories at that point (as happened last year), Labour will get a boost. Similarly on turnout, particularly the yoof - the electorate in locals is usually disproportionately older, so if young voters turn out in greater numbers than usual it'll have a big effect.
That's a fairly shallow early guestimate anyway, the one I usually follow as a guideline on the night itself is Stephen Bush's, so maybe just ignore whatever I wrote and go with what he says eventually.
And obviously, in the end the whole thing will make bugger all difference anyway.
Religious discrimination is now good again. #EnoughIsEnough
Last edited:
You have to question a society that gives wums like Hopkins space to air her nonsense.
She has a column in a national newspaper is a talk show host on national radio.
She has a column in a national newspaper is a talk show host on national radio.
What's with these holocaust deniers in the Labour ranks?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...sm-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...sm-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says
Her Ramadan comment is surely hate speech?
A lot maybe has to do with the fact before Corbyn these people were largely unrepresented in the mainstream political culture and are perhaps uncultured and unversed in what had become the normal decorum of political debate. Corbyn has brought many people out from the wilderness. Those with 'fringe' views when they're on the fringe where we expect them to be are at a place few take notice. When a guy who they can identify with becomes leader of the Labour party they come with him too. They're not used to having to check what they say because pre-Corbyn winning the leadership contest no-one was interested in listening to them.
Think you can attribute a lot of some of the more outlandish and direct things said by his supporters to that. It's not too dissimilar to how whenever you hear a minor Ukipper and they come out with something that to the ear of someone who's been following the mainstream political discourse, sounds absolutely whack. Truth is it's what they've always been saying but we've only started listening.
Think you can attribute a lot of some of the more outlandish and direct things said by his supporters to that. It's not too dissimilar to how whenever you hear a minor Ukipper and they come out with something that to the ear of someone who's been following the mainstream political discourse, sounds absolutely whack. Truth is it's what they've always been saying but we've only started listening.
Oh come on, he's obviously got some nutcases backing him but for the most part the people supporting Corbyn are traditional Labour members who'd spent years compromising and realised things weren't working anymore, and disaffected, relatively normal voters who have been inspired to action by his campaign.
The Tories have been in power for years and yet have plenty of fringe nutters within their party who worship the likes of Rees-Mogg and hold positions so conservative they'd probably make Farage blush.
Similarly, the centre-ground of the Labour party has its share of muppets as well - as all political wings do - and the Blair/Brown governments were hardly scandal free or examples of exemplary political conduct when we consider the Ecclestone scandal, Mandelson's house thing, Iraq, Brown calling that old woman a bigot (even if she was a bigot) and a whole host of major cock-ups that you'd likely be crucifying Corbyn for to a greater degree.
I'm not saying everyone doesn't have nutters but those nutters are nutters nobody really gave a platform to pre-Corbyn. It turned fringe voices into mainstream ones.
Not everything about Corbyn that's said has to get everyone so fecking defensive. I even cited the UKIP nutters.
You're basically saying that all Corbyn's supporters are rank amateurs who have no idea how to conduct themselves the proper way, i.e. the way good Tories/centrist Labour types do. I'm not a Corbyn supporter/voter despite thinking he's alright (in spite of my reservations on him regarding Europe) but if I were a Corbyn supporter who'd put a ton of work into last year's election then I'd probably be a pissed off at the patronising tone of someone saying I don't really know how to conduct myself politically. And you can say you weren't talking about all Corbyn supporters, but if that's the case then the point isn't really relevant at all because as I've said your point basically applies to all wings of all major UK political parties.
No I'm saying that some people who've found themselves in hot water due to social media comments over recent weeks might have done so because they were previously voices on the fringe of politics who haven't ever really had anyone much listen to them before so they're perhaps part of a group not used to filtering their views/language to be palatable to the bourgeoisie.
Or as you might put it: "Basically you're saying ALL Corbyn supporters, and all Labour members and all people who aren't Tony Blair are wankers".
You're arguing that a significant portion of Corbyn supporters don't know how to conduct themselves the proper way. That's patronising as feck.
All political parties have had scandals/problems with what they say in the media. The literal last Labour PM managed to find himself scandal-ridden because he called an old woman a bigot. I imagine your assessment of that at the time would've been that it was an honest mistake but largely correct comment. If Corbyn were to do it you'd likely say he's a rank amateur who has no idea how to conduct himself, because you hold Corbyn and his mob to different standards than your own preferred wing of the party.
As I've said, I'm not even that big a fan of Corbyn. His handling of Europe has been somewhere between non-existent and poor, and his refusal to actually commit to any sort of Brexit because he knows it'll cost him voters contradicts his 'more honest politics' mantra. I generally still think Scottish Labour are a bit of a shambles in spite of their own shift to the left, and I find some of the comments from figures like McDonnell in the past to be extremely problematic. But I also don't really see Corbyn supporters as being anywhere near as amateurish or deluded as you're determined to portray them. If anything I'd argue the general media narrative of Momentum and the British left as being rabid and irrational fantasists ended up resulting in people ignoring what was a very shrewd and well-conducted electoral campaign.
Supporters are one thing, how in the name of cromulent feck are these people becoming council candidates?
Yes, I am.