This is the amendment that labour proposed instead of EEA fwiw, which seems fair enough - and had fewer pro-government votes than the EEA amendment had
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.
This is the amendment that labour proposed instead of EEA fwiw, which seems fair enough - and had fewer pro-government votes than the EEA amendment had
How is that different from the cherry picked nonsense that the Tories are after?
Everyone agrees that they want 'access' to the single market. No one agrees that that access should come at a price actually acceptable to the EU, which is why we're here.
Lets not forget that it was exactly that amendment that EU sources dismissed as cakeism last week.
We shouldn’t underestimate the influence the main political parties and leading politicians have on public opinion. When the policy of the government is ‘Brexit must happen regardless’ and the policy of the opposition is ‘Brexit must happen regardless’ and the opinion of the majority of the influential media is ‘Brexit must happen regardless’, it’s hardly a surprise that Brexit still enjoys a relatively high level of support. Most people aren’t fully engaged on these issues and will be led by those who they trust and if they’re hearing no real alternative from any of the mainstream political stakeholders then the outcome isn’t a surprise.
When you look at the polling and drill down what people think about Brexit once it’s presented to them what it could mean even among the 52% there’s a very soft underbelly that i refuse to believe wouldn’t have been extremely easy for any opposition to exploit and use to their advantage. Even an opposition that did unashamedly back Brexit could have exploited this for no other reason than to make the govt of the day sweat. What’s been disappointing is that Corbyn’s Labour don’t seem even interested in doing that.
When you look at the polling and drill down what people think about Brexit once it’s presented to them what it could mean even among the 52% there’s a very soft underbelly that i refuse to believe wouldn’t have been extremely easy for any opposition to exploit and use to their advantage. Even an opposition that did unashamedly back Brexit could have exploited this for no other reason than to make the govt of the day sweat. What’s been disappointing is that Corbyn’s Labour don’t seem even interested in doing that.
Because it actually puts it in legislative writing rather than speeches or opinion pieces. If those points are met, it will come with all the things remains also want - namely freedom of movement, goods and labour.
If I was a UK voter I could accept the inevitability of Brexit, as well as the need for Labour to accept the inevitability of Brexit.
Surely I shouldn't have to accept Labour indulging in delusions in regards to things like the single market and FOM though?
Is it really too much to ask that if they're going to hold a position on an issue that approximately half the population don't support, they at least do it with enough principle, coherence and competence to avoid the exact same bullshit cherry-picking that the current government is roundly criticised for.
Yet I see people who presumably hold the same distaste as I do for these fictions wholeheartedly supporting a party who indulge in them freely.
Last edited:
And yet is still rejected by the EU source I copied in as unworkable. All it's doing in reality is arguing over the arrangement of the deckchairs on the titanic.
The more important sources, the stage 1 and 2 agreements signed by both sides suggest otherwise.
Where in either of those agreements does it state that the UK can have its cake and eat it?
Page 12, line 8.
It obviously doesn't say that. But both sides have agreed to no border in Ireland and no difference between NI and the rest UK. And the only way to do that is a hella soft Brexit which is why Labours major soundbites have been about no deal being the worst possible option, because everyone who's read agreements knows those are the only 2 options. If you're criticising the Freedom of movement lie everyone keeps telling, alright, fair enough. But I'm not sure what other cake people are trying to dive into.
It's worth noting this was also agreed in parliament.Amendment 25 said:
I don't think it is sadly although you could use on of those youtube site that turns the video into a mp3 download.
Which is exactly what I'm doing.
Besides, if you take this interpretation (which I still think is another example of Theresa May trying to fudge her way through it and agreeing to things she doesn't actually mean hoping it will all be right in the end which will come crashing down in the next few months – see the recent 'deal' offered to Tory rebels) then actually it makes Labour's amendment even more pointless because the supposed 'opposition' you're saying they're providing is to advocate for some bizarro cherrypicked access whilst the government they're supposed to be opposing has already conceded on FoM for full membership.
The simplest explanation is that no one wants to be the first person to announce it. It's already implicit in the papers, why not let David Davies take the hit personally?
I think the simplest explanation is that Brexit is impossible, and the Conservatives are incompetent really.
I sure hope you're right mind, but I don't have any faith in this story ending well.
It's 80/20 IMO, the announcement of the so called Brexit dividend for the NHS suggests they're about to make some of the more serious concessions. They wouldn't do that if they weren't expecting a bad news day.
Rules set to change which mean next leader doesn't need support of barely any MPs to win the contest. Because having a parliamentary party led by someone who doesn't have the support of the parliamentary party is a brilliant idea, but so down the rabbit whole is this tea party ran by the kids that even that logic doesn't mean anything any more.
Looks like the Tories are secure for another few elections whilst Labour loses itself in a cycle of pretending grown up politics doesn't matter as long as there's a festival and people get to use their 'Bliar' signs occasionally. Who needs a parliamentary party leader who has the confidence and support of the parliamentary party? Pfft, politics is for losers anyway, we've got a music festival to go to!
Once Scotland goes independent we'll pretty much be a one-party state, which will be okay because "Oh Jeremy Corbyn!", or something.
Looks like the Tories are secure for another few elections whilst Labour loses itself in a cycle of pretending grown up politics doesn't matter as long as there's a festival and people get to use their 'Bliar' signs occasionally. Who needs a parliamentary party leader who has the confidence and support of the parliamentary party? Pfft, politics is for losers anyway, we've got a music festival to go to!
Once Scotland goes independent we'll pretty much be a one-party state, which will be okay because "Oh Jeremy Corbyn!", or something.
oh man you totally got us we're all just wee toddlers who don't know anything about the real world, treating the labour party like a barbie set
Aye we’re all daft. We have to be pragmatic and swing to the centre politically to conform to Oscie’s Labour but we’re not allowed to be pragmatic when it comes to Brexit and have to conform to Oscie’s Brexit.
Much as I have become increasingly annoyed with some of Corbyn's approaches as of late, that right there is peak Oscie.
Changing the rules so that you need an even smaller number than you currently do of nominations form the parliamentary party to get on the ballot increases greatly the chances of someone being elected who doesn't have the support of the parliamentary party.
Labour are a political party in a parliamentary. This makes it important that the leader of the party has the support and confidence of the parliamentary party. The realisation that this self-evident fact on par with 'the world isn't flat' is a genuine bone of contention now is probably one of the more depressing things about the Labour party in 2018.
Labour are a political party in a parliamentary. This makes it important that the leader of the party has the support and confidence of the parliamentary party. The realisation that this self-evident fact on par with 'the world isn't flat' is a genuine bone of contention now is probably one of the more depressing things about the Labour party in 2018.
Much as I have become increasingly annoyed with some of Corbyn's approaches as of late, that right there is peak Oscie.
Really because all I see you do is wait for me or anyone else who is even nominally critical to respond to this thread and then you jump in defend Corbyn whilst pretending that isn't what you do all the time anyway.
I love this thread. No real interest in Labour at all. No real care about how the party is aiding Tories over Brexit. No real toss given about the impact of all of that. Even fewer fecks given about the fact Corbyn polls lower than 'don't know', effectively 3rd in a 2-horse race with the most incompetent PMs in living memory and the most divided government anyone under the age of 60 can realistically remember.
Nah this thread comes to life with "LOL! Someone's criticising that!! LOL!!"
Maybe we should be talking about important things like the big crowds Corbyn gets when he makes speeches or that photo of him being arrested about 30 years ago whilst protesting. Or maybe we can sing "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" and hope the next leader has a five-syllable name so we can safeguard the most important thing about British politics. Parliamentary parties led by someone who has the confidence and support of MPs to enable to to initiate, enact or legislation? Stuff that.
- Look at his big crowds
- That photo of him being arrested
- "Oh Jeremy Corbyn"
We should just go through a cycle of deselecting MP's every 5 years until we get a party full of people who'll prioritise the above.
Last edited:
Could be that your repetitive rants put people off even when they agree with you in part.
There's been times I've thought you had a point about something but I sure as hell wasn't about to encourage you when the rest of your post was the same unrelated moan, about 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn!' singing cultists, that you all but copy and paste in to every contribution you make.
Jeremy ''Lenin'' Corbyn
Cabinet split over brexit with a make or break meeting at checkers upcoming... Resignations probably and utter turmoil ahead for may... Add in leave EU seeming having broken 4 rules on spending etc in the referendum...
So he asks 6 questions about buses... 6... In the words of Danny dyer... Twat
So he asks 6 questions about buses... 6... In the words of Danny dyer... Twat
Yep. A complete dereliction of duty is what it is. Let's call a spade a spade here. Worst time possible for the country to have, for all intents and purposes, no opposition.
Appealing to the base.
He asked questions about Brexit last week, has it been cancelled yet?
Buses are used 3 times as often as trains and they're a fecking joke. The Tories and Westminster journalist wankers don't care because, shock horror, London's buses weren't deregulated when it was good enough for the rest of the country. It's good to see that, after calling the EU referendum and last election massively wrong, people have realised the importance of things outside of Westminster.
so why didnt he ask questions on buses last week or the week before or the week before - or next week - its rubbish leadership and to pretend otherwise is blinkered
Again, he brought up Brexit last week. Has it been cancelled yet? It was the NHS the week before, so presumably that is in better shape than ever 2 weeks later?
Mods... is it school holidays or something - cant we have a kiddies corner for debate of this level?
Again, he brought up Brexit last week. Has it been cancelled yet? It was the NHS the week before, so presumably that is in better shape than ever 2 weeks later?
Appealing to the base.
Interesting article, especially the direct comparison to housing at the end which this made me think of.
For all Thatcherism's brutal ills, the promise of it was that for those who succeeded in the rat-race and did well for themselves, there would be genuine benefits and rewards - i.e. the accumulation of capital, which is an economic system based around capitalism represented social success.
If you end up in a predicament where the number of people succeeding is less and less, and where people aren't achieving that, they naturally begin to question the viability of that system, which is still essentially lingering from the Thatcher era. If even those who do well within the system aren't really succeeding, discontent grows.
Mods... Is it the retirement home library trip or something - can't we have a new forum for people who think PMQs matters?
This is a debate? You've gone from crying about Corbyn bringing up buses because it's a non-issue to suggesting he should have brought it up another time.
You clearly hold PMQs as a means to getting Brexit changed/reversed and or politicians to stand down. So again, Corbyn spent weeks on Brexit at PMQs and a couple on the NHS. Who has resigned in that time? What policy changes have been made?
He's completely ill-suited to the role. If he was a backbench politician with his pet causes and favourite issues then it'd be fine. But he's leader of the opposition and he's opposing the single most incompetent government within living memory and he constantly lets them off the hook. As I heard a commentator say about him recently, the man couldn't land a punch on a wet lettuce. It's through that perspective, especially considering the irrevocable damage this government is doing to the long-term future of this country, that the criticism of him is valid.
Just because you like someone it doesn't mean you should be blind to their unsuitability for the role that they perform. Corbyn is, and in truth always has been, ill-suited for the job of leader of the opposition. The only way to argue against that is to somehow pretend this is government is a strong, coherent, united and popular Juggernaut against whom losing general elections and under performing in local elections is to be expected. But we all know that's shite.
The fact May STILL polls more favourably than him is laughable. She should be trailing anything down to a random inanimate object. But still polls constantly find that for choice of PM people prefer her to Corbyn. His supporters who want to pretend that isn't important are aiding the continuation of the government she leads.
Just because you like someone it doesn't mean you should be blind to their unsuitability for the role that they perform. Corbyn is, and in truth always has been, ill-suited for the job of leader of the opposition. The only way to argue against that is to somehow pretend this is government is a strong, coherent, united and popular Juggernaut against whom losing general elections and under performing in local elections is to be expected. But we all know that's shite.
The fact May STILL polls more favourably than him is laughable. She should be trailing anything down to a random inanimate object. But still polls constantly find that for choice of PM people prefer her to Corbyn. His supporters who want to pretend that isn't important are aiding the continuation of the government she leads.
PMQs
Brexit
I'm just making a list of things about the leader of the opposition that we're apparently not allowed to mention. We've got the biggest single political issue of the day that apparently it's unfair to expect him to oppose, and the one time a week he appears in the Commons to question the government that apparently 'doesn't matter'
Is he Leader of the Opposition in respect only of issues pertaining to the Elgin Marbles, Palestine and Jam?
Was in Holland to meet our labour leader Lodewijk Asscher who stated his dissappointment in Corbyn’s inaction. He got very defensive when asked about it by a reporter. Not the strongest first impression I’ve seen.
It's the ridiculous way you go about mentioning them that takes the piss and makes it impossible to take you and @sun_tzu seriously. He questions her about Brexit at PMQs? Nothing*. He doesn't? OH MY GOD WHY IS HE SO SHIT
*and neither does anyone else because who actually gives a shit? PMQs is parliamentary pantomime that does little to sway anyone on anything.
Last edited:
Let's have a leader that prioritises serious things in parliament
Last edited: