Author Topic: The Labour Party (*)  (Read 113608 times)

Offline zero zero

  • The persecutor in a pseudo-scientific triangle. Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,691
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4880 on: March 17, 2017, 09:07:03 PM »
Corbyn was so eager to hold Cameron to account, that he whipped his Labour MPs to support May.

It reminds me of when Cameron asked Corbyn why the latter was hanging on when the former was prepared to resign his position.
Even Hodgson resigned after the Euro 2016 debacle.


Offline Crumble

  • It's rhyming slang
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4881 on: March 17, 2017, 09:13:37 PM »
So now you are twisting my words and misrepresenting the Labour leader too. We are back where I came in a short while ago: there's no hope for this thread and no hope for a Labour government for the foreseeable future. I'm back to watch from the sidelines for a bit. Maybe I'll buy Jonno a beer while I'm there.

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,373
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4882 on: March 17, 2017, 09:26:34 PM »
Am I missing something here? Cameron (Tory Prime MInister) said something so Corbyn (Leader of the Opposition) felt he had to keep Cameron's promise?
:)
Corbyn was doing the noble thing here. it must have been heartbreaking for him to support the right wingers on this issue.
He then said we all have to feel positive about the challengers brexit will bring.
another heartbreaking statement of support for the right wingers.
He then ordered Labour MPs to vote to trigger art 50. this must have tore him apart as well. the poor man had had enough as he then told us the fight starts now.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Offline Anfield Ed

  • Wants it hard, wants it fast
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Internet Warrior #224
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4883 on: March 17, 2017, 10:34:56 PM »
We had our GC tonight and my MP Daniel Zeichner spoke he said:-

"There is a high chance of a General Election being held on May 4th, this year"

Offline Laughter is the best medicine...

  • unless you're actually ill.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,076
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4884 on: March 17, 2017, 10:37:23 PM »
We had our GC tonight and my MP Daniel Zeichner spoke he said:-

"There is a high chance of a General Election being held on May 4th, this year"
thats 6 weeks or so isn't it?

Offline SP

  • Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,750
  • .
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4885 on: March 17, 2017, 10:44:09 PM »
We had our GC tonight and my MP Daniel Zeichner spoke he said:-

"There is a high chance of a General Election being held on May 4th, this year"

May is a control freak who won't tell her own backbenchers anything. The quality of information a Labour MP gets would have to have a huge question mark over it.

Betfair has the odds at 3.7 for this year, so nothing significant has leaked. 

Offline Anfield Ed

  • Wants it hard, wants it fast
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Internet Warrior #224
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4886 on: March 17, 2017, 10:46:39 PM »
thats 6 weeks or so isn't it?

Yes but he told me that they can get it through in 2 weeks and Labour won't stand in their way if they want to call it.

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,373
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4887 on: March 17, 2017, 10:48:24 PM »
Has she got the right to call a GE. a GE victory is not a mandate for a hard Brexit.only another referendum would give her a mandate.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Offline Anfield Ed

  • Wants it hard, wants it fast
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Internet Warrior #224
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4888 on: March 17, 2017, 10:49:03 PM »
May is a control freak who won't tell her own backbenchers anything. The quality of information a Labour MP gets would have to have a huge question mark over it.

Betfair has the odds at 3.7 for this year, so nothing significant has leaked. 

Well he said 2 weeks ago the chances of a GE this year was very slim but 2 weeks hence it is now high. So I don't know the exact information he knows, but he has to prepare for one, even if it doesn't happen - so he was putting us on notice.

Offline Anfield Ed

  • Wants it hard, wants it fast
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Internet Warrior #224
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4889 on: March 17, 2017, 10:49:45 PM »
Has she got the right to call a GE. a GE victory is not a mandate for a hard Brexit.only another referendum would give her a mandate.

Well Labour won't stand in her way if she wants to call one. Which I question as we'll be slaughtered but alas....

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,373
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4890 on: March 17, 2017, 10:57:21 PM »
Well Labour won't stand in her way if she wants to call one. Which I question as we'll be slaughtered but alas....
I thought the law has changed on this.you cant just call a GE
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Online elmo_swatloski

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4891 on: March 17, 2017, 11:00:17 PM »
I thought the law has changed on this.you cant just call a GE

Indeed they would need to repeal the fixed term parliament act to call an early election (or they would have to have a majority vote of no confidence in the government...). That is not happening in 2 weeks.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 11:02:37 PM by elmo_swatloski »

Offline Anfield Ed

  • Wants it hard, wants it fast
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,037
  • Internet Warrior #224
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4892 on: March 17, 2017, 11:05:14 PM »
Just relaying what my MP said.

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,373
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4893 on: March 17, 2017, 11:06:50 PM »
Indeed they would need to repeal the fixed term parliament act to call an early election (or they would have to have a majority vote of no confidence in the government...). That is not happening in 2 weeks.
Yeah, I was wondering if she could claim she needs a mandate to continue with her hard Brexit.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Online elmo_swatloski

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4894 on: March 17, 2017, 11:09:21 PM »
Just relaying what my MP said.

Not doubting you. Another sad indictment of the state of the party where they don't know the legal mechanisms required to call an election.

Offline killer_heels

  • Hates everyone and everything. Including YOU! Negativity not just for Christmas
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,815
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4895 on: March 17, 2017, 11:10:14 PM »
No way May sets the wheels in motion for another election now. The only time it would have been possible is if she couldnt get a clean bill on Brexit through the two houses. That went through cleanly.

The only other time she may call an early election is if the house rejects the deal the government negotiate at the end of the Brexit negotiations.

Online elmo_swatloski

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4896 on: March 17, 2017, 11:14:45 PM »
No way May sets the wheels in motion for another election now. The only time it would have been possible is if she couldnt get a clean bill on Brexit through the two houses. That went through cleanly.

The only other time she may call an early election is if the house rejects the deal the government negotiate at the end of the Brexit negotiations.

Yeah she doesn't have a gooid reason to call one now. She had to do it when she became leader, or if for example the article 50 bill was defeated.

Calling one now without a solid reason will just look like a blatant attempt to crush the Labour party while it's down.

They would still win though.....  :'(

Online oldfordie

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,373
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4897 on: March 17, 2017, 11:21:50 PM »
Just relaying what my MP said.
Dont mind a bit of gossip from MPs, he must have heard something on the grapevine,
she only has to announce the fact she wants a GE to give her a mandate for Brexit and her MPs will change the law.
 I never thought the Torys would call a GE last yr. the situations changed now. it's a hard Brexit,there will be no good news, it's a nightmare, the country may split. she knows Brexit could be a disaster. Corbyn isnt a problem. can see the logic of making this a GE issue.
I certainly dont agree with it and it's bad news. a GE victory is no mandate for a hard Brexit.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've have been fooled" Mark Twain on Brexit.

Offline The 92A

  • Peneus. Phantom Thread Locker. Mr Bus. But there'll be another one along soon enough. Almost as bad as Jim...
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,015
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4898 on: March 17, 2017, 11:22:29 PM »
I don't think Corbyn is infallible by any means but before blaming every woe on Corbyn  some people conveniently ignore that it wasn't under Corbyn that Labour was totally decimated in Scotland and didn't just lose a by-election but lost practically a whole country or that years of Blair led to real disillusionment and apathy in Labour amongst core supporters. The decline in the Labour vote didn't start when Corbyn was elected leader and rather than any serious comradely discussion this thread seems full of vitriol and would be one of the last places I'd want to discuss anything serious in. like many of us I talk to people of all political persuasions in work about politics and if I answered workmates like people talk to each other in here there'd be punches flying.

I wonder how some of you convince anyone of your politics in a work environment, where you come across all different views from people you have to work with and have work relationships with, because unless you're their boss and they're frightened of you, starting with your point of difference and shouting doesn't work, take it from someone who's had over a quarter of a century as a shop steward and wouldn't have lasted two minutes without respecting where people are and arguing with a bit of respect for each other. But hey it's the internet so carry on being right.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 12:28:02 AM by The 92A »

Offline Mag Hull

  • Lanca Shire
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Celebrating National Shite Day since Trump got in
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4899 on: March 18, 2017, 01:00:05 AM »
The only thing depressing is the greedy country/world we live in, socialism is long dead while we have the media we have...and i believe in socialism greatly.

Bear in mind that circa 1890 there was no organised Labour Party and historically the Country had progressed from Feudal to Piece work to Industrial Economies, which up into this point had no collective representation and was 100% exploitative.
Socialism is not dead - witness Bernie in the States - the challenge is to understand what the message and the policies should be in a post-manufacturing age.
Brothers, Sisters we don't need this Fascist Groove Thang

Offline shelts

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,105
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • My Twitter Account
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4900 on: March 18, 2017, 01:12:30 AM »
This is the wrong lesson to draw from it.

The lesson is that Labour requires a charismatic leader who is capable enough to overcome the tilted media landscape. Short of suicidal policies that repel voters, the presentation and professionalism has been far more critical than the actual policies themselves. 
i agree to a certain extent about having a charismatic leader but the problem is that when a party appoints a leader from the left of the party, the same when the Tories appointed Howard, Hague and IDS is that the electors that decide elections are from the centre and swing equally between Labour and the Tories. By not appealing to these people, you lose elections.

I have no idea what Corbyn would do if he were to win an election because he cannot get his message across and i am a paid up party member so goodness knows how he goes down in matginal seats in the South and the Midlands. Not that it matters as there will be latge parts of the country with no Labour representation in 2020

I predicted when Corbyn was first appointed on a Labour Party facebook page that Labour w9uld get less than 200 seats at the next election. I think i was being too generous, I suspect around 150 will be the number and that is on current boundaries. When they change then it could be even worse.

The party is slowly becoming the Liberal Party of the 20th century. The last two leaders have both been disasters and the man who should have been leader is sitting in an office in New York whilst his brother makes a mess of eating a bacon sandwich.

Yes it is about the leader but thats not the only problem
Im in the nude in the garden rubbing marmite on myself,and i fucking hate marmite.
http://www.twitter.com/shelts_lfc

Offline Mag Hull

  • Lanca Shire
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Celebrating National Shite Day since Trump got in
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4901 on: March 18, 2017, 01:37:10 AM »
i agree to a certain extent about having a charismatic leader but the problem is that when a party appoints a leader from the left of the party, the same when the Tories appointed Howard, Hague and IDS is that the electors that decide elections are from the centre and swing equally between Labour and the Tories. By not appealing to these people, you lose elections.

I have no idea what Corbyn would do if he were to win an election because he cannot get his message across and i am a paid up party member so goodness knows how he goes down in matginal seats in the South and the Midlands. Not that it matters as there will be latge parts of the country with no Labour representation in 2020

I predicted when Corbyn was first appointed on a Labour Party facebook page that Labour w9uld get less than 200 seats at the next election. I think i was being too generous, I suspect around 150 will be the number and that is on current boundaries. When they change then it could be even worse.

The party is slowly becoming the Liberal Party of the 20th century. The last two leaders have both been disasters and the man who should have been leader is sitting in an office in New York whilst his brother makes a mess of eating a bacon sandwich.

Yes it is about the leader but thats not the only problem

I often wonder what would have happened if Brown had the balls to call an election just after he got in - should have called it September 2007. I genuinely believe that when the writ gets written, he'll be found to be one of the most honourable servants the Labour Party has ever had.
Brothers, Sisters we don't need this Fascist Groove Thang

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,417
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4902 on: March 18, 2017, 05:46:28 AM »
So now you are twisting my words and misrepresenting the Labour leader too. We are back where I came in a short while ago: there's no hope for this thread and no hope for a Labour government for the foreseeable future. I'm back to watch from the sidelines for a bit. Maybe I'll buy Jonno a beer while I'm there.

Who's twisting your words? You said Cameron made a promise and Corbyn kept it.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,417
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4903 on: March 18, 2017, 05:47:46 AM »
Bear in mind that circa 1890 there was no organised Labour Party and historically the Country had progressed from Feudal to Piece work to Industrial Economies, which up into this point had no collective representation and was 100% exploitative.
Socialism is not dead - witness Bernie in the States - the challenge is to understand what the message and the policies should be in a post-manufacturing age.

Exactly.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,417
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4904 on: March 18, 2017, 07:03:33 AM »
I don't think Corbyn is infallible by any means but before blaming every woe on Corbyn  some people conveniently ignore that it wasn't under Corbyn that Labour was totally decimated in Scotland and didn't just lose a by-election but lost practically a whole country or that years of Blair led to real disillusionment and apathy in Labour amongst core supporters. The decline in the Labour vote didn't start when Corbyn was elected leader and rather than any serious comradely discussion this thread seems full of vitriol and would be one of the last places I'd want to discuss anything serious in. like many of us I talk to people of all political persuasions in work about politics and if I answered workmates like people talk to each other in here there'd be punches flying.

I wonder how some of you convince anyone of your politics in a work environment, where you come across all different views from people you have to work with and have work relationships with, because unless you're their boss and they're frightened of you, starting with your point of difference and shouting doesn't work, take it from someone who's had over a quarter of a century as a shop steward and wouldn't have lasted two minutes without respecting where people are and arguing with a bit of respect for each other. But hey it's the internet so carry on being right.

That's fair comment Albie except that for me and a lot of people the Corbyn discussion is not about politics, it's a question of competence and electability. And the reason Corbyn is so divisive is that you either see it or you don't. And then of course there's the whole Brexit issue.

All of those issues you raise need to be discussed if the party is ever to unite and get near to power again. Corbyn is simply too divisive and while he's there the Party will continue to self destruct.

My position is simple. The 'enemy' to be fought is the Tory Party and that's not because of 'politics' but because of what it means to people.  The solution is not principled opposition - it's being in Government.

I disagree with Jon that what we need is a charismatic leader because that devalues why the party should be about. The party needs to work out how to make The Party the thing. It needs to remind itself that it doesn't exist as a political talking shop but to look after the people who need it most and those who would benefit in general. They may include the members and the activists but my understanding of socialism is that you don't do what's best for you as an individual, but what's best for the collective.

A lot of people on here that I like and respect probably think I'm a red Tory c*nt because of my position on Corbyn. That's sad and I have no doubt that their position is honestly and sincerely held but the all the evidence is that Corbyn is electorally toxic. His only chance of winning an election is Tory incompetence on a grand scale. Corbyn has shown that he can't make an impact despite the level of incompetence they have already shown over Brexit and austerity. In fact, on Brexit he has managed to tie the Labour Party firmly to the mast of HMS Leave despite the majority of Labour supporters being in favour of staying in the EU.

This is longer than I intended but I honestly don't know how the party gets itself out of this. I do know that trying to make Corbyn look electable is a non-starter for all the reasons I outlined when he was first up for election.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Online AaronSingh25

  • Never Going to Grow Old
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4905 on: March 18, 2017, 08:23:37 AM »
Are Labour doomed to have him all the way up to the election?

Offline youll never walk alone it

  • Can no longer walk alone as he has whiplash... or that's what his insurer thinks
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4906 on: March 18, 2017, 08:43:13 AM »
Bear in mind that circa 1890 there was no organised Labour Party and historically the Country had progressed from Feudal to Piece work to Industrial Economies, which up into this point had no collective representation and was 100% exploitative.
Socialism is not dead - witness Bernie in the States - the challenge is to understand what the message and the policies should be in a post-manufacturing age.
its dead in this country mate, (maks me sad to say it)
Im drunk  but i havent had  a drink!  bob paisley after rome 77                The times i had here wernt all great, we only  finished 2nd one  season....the great  bob paisley

when shanks was asked  how he relaxed,  he said  he looks at the league table and checks where everton are...

Offline JohnnoWhite

  • Deliverer of the -Q- de grace.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,888
  • Thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken.
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4907 on: March 18, 2017, 08:59:44 AM »
its dead in this country mate, (maks me sad to say it)

No it isn't brother not by a long shot. Never will it be either as long as our people can re-discover their collective strength, bottle and will to fight the robbing Tory bastards for OUR fair share of the spoils we all of us generate for the seventh richest nation ON THE PLANET. Austerity an economic necessity?? My fucking arse!
There is nothing wrong with striving to win, so long as you don't set the prize above the game. There can be no dishonour in defeat nor any conceit in victory. What matters above all is that the team plays in the right spirit, with skill, courage, fair play,no favour and the result accepted without bitterness. Sir Matt Busby CBE KCSG 1909-1994

Online BoRed

  • BoRing
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,332
  • BoRac
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4908 on: March 18, 2017, 09:05:20 AM »
Who's twisting your words? You said Cameron made a promise and Corbyn kept it.

Not sure if you're being serious here.

"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought he should keep his promise to the people, however much he didn't like it.

Surely it's obvious that the "he" refers to Cameron and not to Corbyn?

Offline JohnnoWhite

  • Deliverer of the -Q- de grace.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,888
  • Thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken.
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4909 on: March 18, 2017, 09:09:03 AM »
Exactly BoRed.
There is nothing wrong with striving to win, so long as you don't set the prize above the game. There can be no dishonour in defeat nor any conceit in victory. What matters above all is that the team plays in the right spirit, with skill, courage, fair play,no favour and the result accepted without bitterness. Sir Matt Busby CBE KCSG 1909-1994

Offline Bakez0151

  • Grumpy Optimist
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,050
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4910 on: March 18, 2017, 09:34:07 AM »
That's a brilliant bit of leadership from Gordon Brown there. It seems to me anyway, hope Scots agree. Important to get out that argument there already anyway. Clearly distinguish Labour's position from both Tories and SNP (which by many accounts they fully failed to do in last indyref with the platform sharing). Gives people a reason to support Labour!

Offline zero zero

  • The persecutor in a pseudo-scientific triangle. Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,691
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4911 on: March 18, 2017, 09:34:49 AM »
Surely it's obvious that the "he" refers to Cameron and not to Corbyn?
No, it's not obvious. There are two "he's" and a "him". The first quote we heard Corbyn say on the morning of the result, yet it seems the position is being attributed to Cameron. Rather than clarifying things he decides to flounce off.

Exactly BoRed.
Back again.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,417
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4912 on: March 18, 2017, 09:45:34 AM »
Not sure if you're being serious here.

Surely it's obvious that the "he" refers to Cameron and not to Corbyn?

Sorry but I still can't make sense of the sentence. There are two 'he's in the sentence. Do you mean:Corbyn thought Cameron should keep his promise however much Cameron didn't like it? Or thought Cameron should keep his promise however much Corbyn didn't like it? Or thought Corbin should keep Cameron's promise?...

In any case I don't understand why a Tory promise needs to be supported by the leader of the Labour Party. He was a member of the Remain campaign, staying in the EU is Labour Party policy, he's the leader of the opposition and the majority of Labour supporters voted Remain. I certainly don't understand why he felt the need to insist on the immediate adoption of Article 50 the morning after the vote.

His supporters say that he had to accept the result of the referendum. The Tories won the last election (which has more legal weight than an advisory referendum) - does that mean Corbyn should accept all Tory policies? 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 09:47:07 AM by Alan_X »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline JohnnoWhite

  • Deliverer of the -Q- de grace.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,888
  • Thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken.
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4913 on: March 18, 2017, 09:50:58 AM »

Back again.

A very fleeting visit fella - only to lend some comradely moral support to one who's now become sadly marooned on his Jack Jones.  It's clearly become hostile territory as far as I'm concerned so I'm going to "do one".

But as Arnie oft times has said . . . .maybe now and again, if I read that other poor souls are still vilified for attempting to fight the good fight, I'll be back  but just for a "visit".
There is nothing wrong with striving to win, so long as you don't set the prize above the game. There can be no dishonour in defeat nor any conceit in victory. What matters above all is that the team plays in the right spirit, with skill, courage, fair play,no favour and the result accepted without bitterness. Sir Matt Busby CBE KCSG 1909-1994

Offline Crumble

  • It's rhyming slang
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4914 on: March 18, 2017, 10:01:18 AM »
OK, temporary un-flounce for clarification:

"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought he should keep his promise to the people, however much he didn't like it.

Let me try again. How about:

"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought that Cameron would, and should, keep his promise to the people. Even though Corbyn himself was against leaving and deplored the result of the referendum, this U-turn by Cameron was a surprise to everyone.

I'll leave it there. Probably.

Offline Laughter is the best medicine...

  • unless you're actually ill.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,076
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4915 on: March 18, 2017, 10:45:42 AM »
Socialism is not dead - witness Bernie in the States - the challenge is to understand what the message and the policies should be in a post-manufacturing age.
bernie Sanders also lost quite badly to the worst presidential candidate in history, although he's streets ahead of Corbyn as he's got the basic competence that Corbyn lacks and more importantly will try to engage those who aren't fully paid up supporters and will go against ideological opponents of his like the Ted Cruz town hall the other well where Corbyn and his crew tend to go to swp rallies and the like

Offline SP

  • Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,750
  • .
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4916 on: March 18, 2017, 10:51:03 AM »
When I talk about charisma, I was talking in relative terms. It does not need to be the full Blair, but there is a base level required. Neither Corbyn nor Miliband have it. The battle for the next election will be won on TV. At a minimum Labour needs someone comfortable on TV who comes across as sincere. They do not have to be slick, just believable.

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • Campaigns
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,474
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4917 on: March 18, 2017, 10:53:18 AM »
...."Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result. Corbyn thought that Cameron would, and should, keep his promise to the people. Even though Corbyn himself was against leaving and deplored the result of the referendum, this U-turn by Cameron was a surprise to everyone.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending Cameron here, but have you got a source for that as I can't find it stated as unequivocally, and that it was Camerons position pre-Brexit vote. (Opinion is fine but I do believe that it should not become a quoted fact as otherwise we are in danger of entering Trumpland)

The only reference to his position pre-referendum that I can find is in Hansard, 22nd Feb 2016 in Column 24 here ...

....Then there is the legality. I want to spell out this point carefully, because it is important. If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.


It doesn't exactly read as an enthusiastic indication for himself ever wanting to "Invoke article 50 immediately" post a Brexit vote but more an explanation of the the legal implications and process.

On the other hand we do have Corbyn 24th June 2016 on record and being pretty unequivocal about his own position in his interview on College Green the morning after the result and as reported in Labourlist here.

Jeremy Corbyn has said Article 50 must be invoked immediately and that a Leave vote prevailed because of anger against marginalisation and austerity.

He said the result of the poll means the exit clause – Article 50, which would give a two year period for Britain to leave – must be observed as soon as possible in an interview with the BBC.

“The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from European Union."


I believe had Cameron not resigned, he would likely have ignored the result (it was only an advisory) but his position was untenable and it would undoubtedly have led to all out war amongst the Tories. Rather than that, he fell on his sword instead and left the anti-EU mob to sort out the mess that they caused.

However, Corbyns enthusiastically volunteered position on the morning of the result will always remain highly contentious and also a source of much disappointment and unforgiveness.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  - Sagan
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Law of Logical Argument   Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Believer in the Light Demons of Chunder-Upon-Tits - Corkboy
Very sad man with too much time on your hands - ghost1359

Offline zero zero

  • The persecutor in a pseudo-scientific triangle. Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,691
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4918 on: March 18, 2017, 11:01:37 AM »
"Article 50 will be invoked immediately." That was Cameron's position before the result.
Could you provide a link? I don't recall Cameron stating a position in the event of a Leave vote.

Quote
Corbyn thought that Cameron would, and should, keep his promise to the people. Even though Corbyn himself was against leaving and deplored the result of the referendum, this U-turn by Cameron was a surprise to everyone.
Not sure I agree with your interpretation of Corbyn's motives looking at subsequent events. Also, as I recall Corbyn was the first leader of a political party to speak, so there was no time for Cameron to make a U-turn (if indeed he did).

Online ShakaHislop

  • Main Stander
  • **
  • Posts: 186
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #4919 on: March 18, 2017, 11:30:23 AM »
If the rumours of an early general election are true, then it's another piece of hypocrisy from May. She talks about how the UK's focus should be on Brexit, without the distraction of a Scottish independence referendum yet just after triggering Article 50, she plans to hold an unnecessary General Election that, like she says about a 2nd independence referendum, can wait until after the conclusion of Article 50 negotiations.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 11:34:25 AM by ShakaHislop »