The Labour policy is so patently stupid that this bit has sort of slipped through without notice, but yeah, you're right.
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.
It is hard work because you are incapable of understanding simple points, as your posited scenario once again makes clear because it is irrelevant to what I said. You are arguing against a position I have never adopted, namely that all Remain votes are wasted unless they are for Labour. I said Brexit cannot be reversed without the Labour party in office. They are two very different statements. Your hypothesis of Labour winning 230 seats and the Lib Dems winning 100 confirms the point I am making, it does not contradict it: Brexit will not be reversed without the Labour party in office. Unless, you are now making the argument that in that scenario Labour would happily step aside and put Jo Swinson in No. 10? If you are, you're an idiot. If you are not, then congratulations, we're on the same wavelength and you can stop pulling erroneous insinuations out of your arse
It is hard work because you are incapable of understanding simple points, as your posited scenario once again makes clear because it is irrelevant to what I said. You are arguing against a position I have never adopted, namely that all Remain votes are wasted unless they are for Labour. I said Brexit cannot be reversed without the Labour party in office. They are two very different statements. Your hypothesis of Labour winning 230 seats and the Lib Dems winning 100 confirms the point I am making, it does not contradict it: Brexit will not be reversed without the Labour party in office. Unless, you are now making the argument that in that scenario Labour would happily step aside and put Jo Swinson in No. 10? If you are, you're an idiot. If you are not, then congratulations, we're on the same wavelength and you can stop pulling erroneous insinuations out of your arse
Fair enough... I misunderstood the point as it was in reply to a poster stating there's "no point as a remainer voting Labour", which your statement doesn't really challenge. As a remainer you're still better off dragging Corbyn further towards remain by ensuring maximum representation for more remain parties (LD, SNP).
In Scotland for example as a remainer it would be crazy to vote for Labour over the SNP (or LD in a few constituencies), as the latter absolutely increases the chances of remaining. The same applies in London where the LD are polling favourable.
Plus with the current polling, combined with the ridiculousness of the latest policy announcements (one last week had LD at 23% and Labour at 21%, prior to the agreement to seize private assets as policy) by Labour and also the Lib Dems apparent willingness to have an election pact with other remain parties (who're polling at around 6% total)... I wouldn't be completely shocked if Labour and the Lib Dems got a similar number of seats!
Thanks, glad that was cleared up. Apologies for my attitude.
I'd still dispute the idea that it is necessarily illogical for a Remainer to vote for Labour. Firstly, it involves the assumption that the only and overriding concern of all people who prefer Remain is stopping Brexit. I want to Remain but I'd rather have a soft Brexit and the Tories out of power than no Brexit but Johnson gets to remain in office for some time. But even if we disregard those voters like myself, it is still clear that Labour are offering the same route to Remain as any other party is. We can disregard the LD policy of revoking Article 50 as it's purely a soundbite policy as they have as much chance of winning the most seats as Watford do of winning the Premier League. So a second referendum it is, as is the policy of SNP, LD, Greens and Plaid Cymru.
Then the other difference is Labour would negotiate their own deal and put that on the second referendum. So, in fact, Labour in a second referendum would be offering a softer Brexit vs Remain than the Lib Dems would if they were implementing a second referendum as they have stated they would put May's deal vs Remain. There was so much clamour for Labour to endorse a second referendum from the "ultra-Remainers". And now Labour have adopted that, and still it is apparently illogical to support them? The goalposts are continually shifting and I imagine even if Corbyn became openly in favour of Remain the narrative would slowly start to turn towards 'well what does a second referendum solve? The risk of Brexit remains too great. We must revoke Article 50!'.
Now, yes, I do agree that depending on the constituency (or, disregarding that, on principle alone) it makes sense to vote LD or SNP over Labour if your predominant concern is Remain/stopping Brexit. Equally, would you not concur that in a seat where it is a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservatives, that a vote for Labour would be wiser than a vote for anyone else if you want to reverse Brexit? The honest answer can only be yes, and in that case you must agree that there can be a logic to a Remainer voting for Labour.
On a completely different note, I've been very impressed by Laura Pidcock's media appearances recently. Should the time come for Corbyn to stand down, she'd definitely be near the top of my list of preferred candidates.
Likewise!
I was of the understanding that no deal would be on the Labour second referendum ballot paper, whereas only TM's deal and remain would be on the Lib Dems? I might be wrong though?
Agree in terms of Tory/Labour constituencies that a remainer would be better off voting the latter... The quantity of these must have reduced hugely over the last few years though.
In an ideal world the Labour party would come out with a definitive position. But. We are not in that world. Why. Because they know that a significant number of Labour voters voted to leave.
It is easy for the Liberals to take a position because they know that they will not become the majority party.
We need to give Labour credit for working with other parties to legislate against a no deal exit. Same for legislating to request an extension beyond the end of October.
This now gives one last opportunity for the UK to attempt to get a withdrawal agreement approved.
If that happens then great.
If that does not happen then they will push for a second referendum.
If at that point the UK is stupid enough to vote leave again then they deserve all the problems that will come our way.
No, it would be a binary one just as the Lib Dem's propose between a negotiated exit and Remain.
Any other comrades watching the comrade conference?
Shots fired to Donny.
Trump Deal Brexit is so cringe.
Ah ok... My concern with that would be a very low turnout. I can imagine millions refusing to vote in those circumstances. For example if there were less than 50% voter turnout would it be legitimate?
The Labour party would get more credit if they had a clear position and if they were preparing to negotiate a realistic agreement that hadn't already been rejected three times and which apart from to the most loyal ardent Corbyn supporters is obviously never going to be accepted by the EU.
The only point of a second referendum, in reality, is to change the result to Remain which will set the Brexiters off and if Leave win we're only back to where we are now.
The genie's out of the bottle and no-one can put it back in.
It would be down to the government legislating for it to impose any conditions on thresholds that needed to be met such as voter turnout or the percentage needed for either side. I can't see why it would be in their interest to do so. Brexiteers might boycott it because they'd see Labour's deal as not representing Brexit at all but they'd likely be similarly inclined for May's deal anyway. Labour's deal would differ more in language rather than substance to May's deal (e.g. would remain part of CU, whereas May's deal I believe basically functions as a CU but without the political baggage of explicitly remaining part of it which she knew was anathema to a lot of the Leavers in her party).
I think a threshold would be needed, but don't know what would happen in the event of it not being met.
I could see 10 million people who voted leave boycotting a referendum that didn't have no deal on the ballot paper.
But if you impose a threshold then it is in the best interest of anybody who wants Brexit to not turn up to vote and thus the referendum would almost certainly be rendered impotent from the start.
I can't see a situation where no deal isn't on the ballot and the vote is merely accepted without civil unrest. The turnout irrspective would be far lower than the initial vote. I believe Farage has already said he'd campaign for leavers to stay at home.
It would never happen but the most equitable second referendum would be "leave Vs remain" with a second question "if leave were to win what's your preference: TM WA or no deal".
Thought that was really quite a poor speech.
So what would you say would be a realistic agreement. I am not asking to challenge your point. I am asking because I respect your views.
Doesn't the term generic mean the patent has run out so anyone can manufacture them? Without a licence?
The question is whether a state-owned drug manufacturer can produce at lower cost than private industry. Even allowing for one being non-profit it's a questionable concept.
Notable that Tom Watson wasn't on stage at then end with the rest of the shadow cabinet
I'm all for the idea in principle, but wouldn't those manufacturers just walk away?
Also, wouldn't that open up endless legal suits about patents and all that?
I mean if it's workable, obviously the idea of cheaper drugs and more availability is a no-brainer. I'm just wondering how it will ever work in practice.
Also, wouldn't that open up endless legal suits about patents and all that?
I mean if it's workable, obviously the idea of cheaper drugs and more availability is a no-brainer. I'm just wondering how it will ever work in practice.
Very good speech. Certainly helped that everyone in the hall was pretty excited after Johnson's nonsense was ruled unlawful.
I had better sell my National Grid stock.
Actually imo the only realistic agreement is the one that's on the table now, unless the red lines are changed which would mean the UK staying in the Single Market and the Customs Union (which is not what Corbyn is proposing) but really makes leaving pointless as the UK wouldn't have seats in the EU parliament and subjected to EU regulations as they are now without being able to do anything about it. The added bonus of this scenario is Farage won't be an MEP.
Certainly neither of us.
It's for drugs where the patent has already run out and anyone can make them. Corbyn reckons he can make them cheaper than anyone else in the world can.
Ah right, cheers. I think I was thrown by the tweet using the term breakthrough.
That of course raises another set of questions though, chiefly as you say, how are they going to make them cheaper themselves? I don't work in the industry directly, but I have worked at a number of massive plants for the likes of Glaxo over the years, and even smaller companies/factories, and the infrastructure they have is ridiculous.
To be fair Peston does say 'breakthrough' pharmaceuticals but I think he's got it wrong. You couldn't break the patents of non-UK companies, that's international law, and if you changed British patent law it would effectively close down the country's entire research and development industries. But maybe the cheering delegates at conference have got it all worked out, what do I know.
It wasn't as bad as Trump's speech to the UN in any case.
Thank you. That is my view as well. I have always seen the WA is a means to an end. The end being the future trading agreement with the EU.
I see the slimey git Farrage is trying to distance himself from Mr Bumble.
These are dangerous times for the UK and I am delighted that the Supreme Court has brought democracy back from the brink.
Now is the time for clear thinking and cool heads and I am hopeful that the eventsof the last few days may have pressed the reset button.
Thanks, yes but the future trading agreement which will take x number of years to negotiate, finalise and ratify will not solve my biggest concerns about the UK leaving which is that the UK needs a smooth and uninterrupted relationship without delays and endless red-tape with its geographical neighbours. Furthermore at some point the UK will leave the transition period long before the trade agreement would be in place.
I say the current WA is the most realistic agreement but just slightly dampens the pain.
I fear the same antics will continue despite this event - mainly because party politics are still more important to the politicians than the good of the country.
Yeah its never being about stopping Brexit for them but trying to turn back the clock to around 2012.
Anyone. Anyone could do it. Obviously can't name anyone who could do it but anyone could, I assure you.
Here we go again.................who ?
Here we go again.................who ?
Anyone would do better than Corbyn because the public simply do not trust him.
He will never be elected and when he inevitably loses the next election he should stand down (unless he claims it as a win like he did the last one).
Your last point is the most sobering. We have a significant number of people totally frustrated with and dissatisfied with the MP'S.
Now. That is pretty normal but the scale of ill feeling is palpable and understandable.
We ought not to discount the role of the media. In particular the newspaper (contradiction in terms). They are so one sided as to have a distorting affect.
This I believe emboldened Boris Johnson to think that he could get away with whatever he chose to do.
I have to be hopeful that politicians will now realise that they have to serve the people and not themselves.
You will know that I am an eternal optimist. But I sense that something good might come out of this shambles.