The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

There are three further paras at fhe end of that BBC piece you quoted, which make it clear that he is seeking to explain his meaning, not lie about the words he used.

The wpd "now" has been seized on as meaning "immediately", despite his clarification.  In fact the division of opinion is about whether article 50 should be invoked at all.   Immediately after the vote, some people started looking for ways of ignoring or disregarding the referendum result - Smith is still doing so.  Corbyn's view seems to be that we should accept the decision.

Yes, he said in a live interview that we should invoke article 50 now.  When asked to clarify whether he meant immediately, he explained he did not.  I suggest it's unreasonable to interpret this as a lie.

Here are the three paras from that same article:

 

The problem with that is, that his "clarification" which came  month after the original statement he made was as a result of people saying "you said such and such" "no I didn't"  "yes, you did, here's a recording" "oh. Well, um., when I said now, I meant um, something different". When you watch the actual video, the meaning of "now as "immediately" is clearer than the written word. And as the BBC article said, during the discussion when Dimbleby put it to him that other people were saying "wait" and you're saying now he didn't disagree with the interviewers words that he (corbyn) was calling for an immediate triggering of A50.

He weaselled out of it a month later, but at the time it was clear what he meant, and he knows it.

There's nothing unique about this - all politicians do it - it's just another example of him not being "different and fairer and nicer and more honest".

[peterms]

Well, I've just watched the video of the first interview, the morning after the vote.  Yes, I know I should get out more.

Dimbleby picks up the point about why invoke article 50 now - why an abrupt departure rather than waiting.  His reply is

Quote

Obviously there has to be a strategy, but the whole point of the referendum was that the public would be asked their opinion, they've given their opinion, and I think it's up to Parliament to now act on that opinion, but quite clearly, negotiations must take place, there must be the best deal possible in order to ensure strong industries in Britain remain strong...

The point he appears to be making is that Parliament must act on the decision rather than not do so - not that it must do so immediately, as in invoke article 50 straight away.

The context, if you recall, was that in the immediate aftermath of the vote, many people were beginning to argue that we should not invoke article 50 at all, ie disregard the outcome of the vote.  I believe it's that point he is seeking to tackle, rather than stress that it must happen immediately.

Dimbleby doesn't press him further on that.  If he thought Corbyn was arguing that we must invoke it immediately, then I would expect him to come back and ask for a reason why it must be immediate.  He doesn't do so, and I think the reason is that Corbyn is not stressing that it must happen now, but that it must happen, and must do so in the context of a strategy.

The full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_dstsWkEFc

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, peterms said:

Well, I've just watched the video of the first interview, the morning after the vote.  Yes, I know I should get out more.

Dimbleby picks up the point about why invoke article 50 now - why an abrupt departure rather than waiting.  His reply is

The point he appears to be making is that Parliament must act on the decision rather than not do so - not that it must do so immediately, as in invoke article 50 straight away.

The context, if you recall, was that in the immediate aftermath of the vote, many people were beginning to argue that we should not invoke article 50 at all, ie disregard the outcome of the vote.  I believe it's that point he is seeking to tackle, rather than stress that it must happen immediately.

Dimbleby doesn't press him further on that.  If he thought Corbyn was arguing that we must invoke it immediately, then I would expect him to come back and ask for a reason why it must be immediate.  He doesn't do so, and I think the reason is that Corbyn is not stressing that it must happen now, but that it must happen, and must do so in the context of a strategy.

The full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_dstsWkEFc

First 15 seconds - "article 50 has to be invoked now"

1:37 asked "why do you want an abrupt article 50..if you want to protect jobs [etc].?" His reply isn't "I don't" it's as you quote above -  "it's up to Parliament to now act" with the clear secondary context that negotiations are required to protect jobs [etc].

at 7:30 in the morning after the vote, not many people as I recall were saying we should ignore the vote - quite the opposite. All the talk was about timing (as per the interview) and what happens next.

I accept people can interpret things differently, but I find it hard to give the "defence" of his statement as meaning something different to what he said much if any credibility.

One month later he changed his story when caught out.

 

[Jon]

20 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Corbyn's lies just weren't good enough.

 

What lies?

[Jon]

17 hours ago, blandy said:

 

2. He has a fairly rabid and sizeable bunch of supporters who seem to love him. But the rest of the country, doesn't. They think he's a numpty.

You know this how? Pre chicken coup, Jez/Labour was polling very well, and in some instances ahead of the Tories. Sweeping generalisations FTL.

[Jon]

14 hours ago, peterms said:

 

I've gone Green, not rsgretted it yet.

 

Me too Mountie.

Good to see you back!!

I'm very interested in the whole Labour thing though at the moment. It's 'proper' politics, and it's really stoked things up a bit. Tories lurching further to the right, if that's possible, and Labour finally waking up (under Jez) to what it is, and who it is meant to represent.  

I'd like Jez to speak more about the possibility of a 'progressive alliance'. It's something King Clive is advocating.

[dAVe80]

2 minutes ago, Jon said:

You know this how? Pre chicken coup, Jez/Labour was polling very well, and in some instances ahead of the Tories. Sweeping generalisations FTL.

One could argue that the drop in the polls is directly linked to behavior of the PLP, and the campaign to get rid of Corbyn. Time will tell I suppose. Once the leadership election is out of the way, hopefully we'll see an end to the division (although I fear some will not accept the outcome either way) and the might actually be able to get the Labour Party back on track, and end this ridiculous circus. What that looks like, and if there's a split, I've no idea.

[peterms]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

at 7:30 in the morning after the vote, not many people as I recall were saying we should ignore the vote - quite the opposite. All the talk was about timing (as per the interview) and what happens next.

I accept people can interpret things differently, but I find it hard to give the "defence" of his statement as meaning something different to what he said much if any credibility.

One month later he changed his story when caught out.

 

The argument for not invoking article 50 at all was being made before the vote.  See the extract below from this for example, 17 June, a week before Corbyn's interview.  There was also discussion about whether it could be done by the PM, or would have to be by vote of Parliament.

Quote

The key decision by the government in the event of a “Leave” vote is whether to invoke the (seemingly) irreversible exit procedure in Article 50, and the government can make the relevant notification at a time of its choosing (subject perhaps to a parliamentary vote) or even not make such a notification at all.

The thing about whether he meant straight away is open to interpretation.  I would expect if he were arguing for an immediate notification then first he would argue that the PM should do it (Cameron had not resigned at that point, and Parliament was not sitting), or else give some sort of reason, like "negotiations can't start until article 50 is served, so in order to reduce a damaging period of uncertainty we must act quickly" or some such.

If I say "we now have to present a bill to Parliament", it is slightly different than saying "we have to present a bill to Parliament now".  The second places more emphasis on the time, the first on the task.

You read an urgency into his meaning which I don't.  I know it's been presented that way, including by his comments being reported as saying we must serve notice "immediately", which I think is simply false, but I really don't watch that interview and think the point he's trying to make is about it having to happen straight away.  He's certainly not arguing for a delay, but I think his central point is that it must happen, despite some people looking for ways to avoid it happening.

On another point, as a thought experiment, imagine if Corbyn was the one suggesting that people find procedural means of defeating the outcome of the referendum.  I imagine there would be wall to wall expressions of horror and outrage.  Same as if he'd suggested someone was a lunatic (remember the grief Livingston got for a similar comment?)

[peterms]

21 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

One could argue that the drop in the polls is directly linked to behavior of the PLP, and the campaign to get rid of Corbyn. Time will tell I suppose. Once the leadership election is out of the way, hopefully we'll see an end to the division (although I fear some will not accept the outcome either way) and the might actually be able to get the Labour Party back on track, and end this ridiculous circus. What that looks like, and if there's a split, I've no idea.

All parties know that divided parties lose support.  What is ironic is the opponents of Corbyn launching a campaign of destabilisation and division, and then blaming Corbyn for the loss of support.  And the media seem reluctant to call them out on it...

[darrenm]

I'd still love to see green and Corbyn's labour merge. The PLP can go and have their 200 MPs but no members, with their Tory policies but we're definitely different honestly look we have a red badge.

[Jon]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'd still love to see green and Corbyn's labour merge. The PLP can go and have their 200 MPs but no members, with their Tory policies but we're definitely different honestly look we have a red badge.

You'd have to add in the various national parties like Plaid and SNP, plus the Lib Dems, but yes, I see no reason why it couldn't work. We're all looking for social & economic justice etc, and protection of the environment, aren't we?

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'd still love to see green and Corbyn's labour merge. The PLP can go and have their 200 MPs but no members, with their Tory policies but we're definitely different honestly look we have a red badge.

I'm not sure either would be all that keen on a merger, but there is growing interest in at least some Labour people in a proper system of PR.  That would give the opportunity for a programme-based agreement without merger.  Maybe the progressive alliance idea would be a way to test the water.

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, Jon said:

You'd have to add in the various national parties like Plaid and SNP, plus the Lib Dems, but yes, I see no reason why it couldn't work. We're all looking for social & economic justice etc, and protection of the environment, aren't we?

Yep, all of the stuff that terrifies the super rich

[blandy]

44 minutes ago, Jon said:

You know this how?

For what they're worth, opinion polls. 

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, peterms said:

If I say "we now have to present a bill to Parliament", it is slightly different than saying "we have to present a bill to Parliament now".  The second places more emphasis on the time, the first on the task.

Precisely and as I pointed out, Jeremy Corbyn said "  "article 50 has to be invoked now"  - [first 15 secs of your youtube clip]. So the emphasis is of his opening statement is as you say, on the (immediate) timing.

When then questioned why do you want to invoke A50 abruptly, he doesn't say "I don't" he says the steps Cameron now has to do - the mechanism - Go to parliament, present the means by which A50 is to be invoked, to make it "legal". That's exactly my point, you've made for me, I think. 

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

I'm not sure either would be all that keen on a merger, but there is growing interest in at least some Labour people in a proper system of PR.  That would give the opportunity for a programme-based agreement without merger.  Maybe the progressive alliance idea would be a way to test the water.

This definitely. Our system is broken and not fit for purpose. Of the two main parties Tories are split, Labour is split and then the various others, they are (wit hthe exception of SNP, under represented with MPs compared to vote dshare, so parliament is not representative of what people want, and even the FPTP system has "given" us a barely functioning level of government.

[darrenm]

In every context above, now can just as easily mean 'as the next step' as it can mean 'tomorrow' or 'in 20 seconds time'

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

Precisely and as I pointed out, Jeremy Corbyn said "  "article 50 has to be invoked now"  - [first 15 secs of your youtube clip]. So the emphasis is of his opening statement is as you say, on the (immediate) timing.

When then questioned why do you want to invoke A50 abruptly, he doesn't say "I don't" he says the steps Cameron now has to do - the mechanism - Go to parliament, present the means by which A50 is to be invoked, to make it "legal". That's exactly my point, you've made for me, I think. 

He doesn't emphasise "now", although you keep putting it in bold as though he had.  If he had emphasised it, then your point would be correct, but I don't share that reading.

The other point to make is that the word "now" is used twice in the question put to him.  "How do you see the future now?  Are you an enthusiastic Brexiter now?"

Why does that matter?  Because the time implied in that use of "now" is more like "from here on" rather than "right now".

I don't think he's clear about timescales and processes - for example, when he says in his clarification

Quote

"The view I was putting was that Article 50 will be invoked at some point. I did not mean it should be invoked on Friday morning and we should rush over to Brussels and start negotiating things away because clearly the negotiations are going to be very long and very complicated."

it comes across as a bit muddled to me, because he seems to be suggesting he accepts the Johnson et al position that we can have negotiations before invoking article 50, and it had been made pretty clear by then that the EU have rejected that possibility.  The EU may change its mind on that, but if that's his thinking, it would be better to say so.

Is he saying we should invoke article 50?  Yes.  Does he say immediately?  No.  Does "now" in that context necessarily mean immediately?  No.  Could it be thought to imply immediately?  Yes, and you and others have taken that implication.  I and others haven't.  It's open to interpretation.  But to insist that he meant that, in the face of his later denial, and to say that he was therefore lying, seems both harsh and unreasonable, to me.

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

...seems both harsh and unreasonable, to me.

OK, Agree to disagree and all that.

[chrisp65]

We've been to the Moon, now we need to go to Mars.

'Now' does not mean before 4:00pm, it can simply mean, next.