blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 41 minutes ago, markavfc40 said: What it was under Smith/Blair/Brown, centre right, wasn't true to its own identity. This mob and others are a legacy of those years but the party has shifted back to being a left wing party and these seven and many others now have no place being in it. Interestingly (or not) before Smith Blair Brown it was a long time out of power, then under them a decent spell in power, and now after them, out again. Perhaps, therefore, the electorate finds Labour electable when it isn't as far left as Catweazle, Michael Foot etc took it? If you're not in power, you can't change jack. Personally as others have said, they'd be in power now if they had a different leader - Yvette Cooper, Starmer - or any of the others who have been grown up about Brexit and demonstrated far greater dilligence, judgement, planning, questioning of and oppositin to the tories. Same/similar policies, different leader and they're in. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: He isn't co-operating with the move towards a No Deal Brexit, which is what your post implied, 'because ideally the nastier Brexit is, the more "people will hate the tories and let me have a go"'. I think he is. He's whipped his own party to support the tories ludicrous triggering of Article 50, and the same, twice to support them on their Brexit bill. He's as cynical as Boris Johnson. Quote Jeremy Corbyn has issued a second three-line whip, ordering his MPs to vote for the Government’s Brexit bill at its final stage in the Commons. He's (as with May) failed to reach across to other parties (in fact he rejected invites from the SNP/PC/Greens to co-operate on oppositn the gov't on Brexit). He's personally undermined Labour's (softer) policy on Brexit and the effect is to support the hard brexit thrust. He's tried to superficially appeal to leave and remain, and promote Unicorns rather than pick an actual horse (too many neddies in that analogy, sorry). The consequence of the feeble efforts is that the throbbers have been enabled and the pragmatists weakened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, blandy said: I think he is. He's whipped his own party to support the tories ludicrous triggering of Article 50, and the same, twice to support them on their Brexit bill. He's as cynical as Boris Johnson. He's (as with May) failed to reach across to other parties (in fact he rejected invites from the SNP/PC/Greens to co-operate on oppositn the gov't on Brexit). He's personally undermined Labour's (softer) policy on Brexit and the effect is to support the hard brexit thrust. He's tried to superficially appeal to leave and remain, and promote Unicorns rather than pick an actual horse (too many neddies in that analogy, sorry). The consequence of the feeble efforts is that the throbbers have been enabled and the pragmatists weakened. And what do we think would have happened to Labour, in the 2017 General Election, if Corbyn *hadn't* whipped his members to vote for triggering Article 50? I don't think it's a very controversial counterfactual to suggest that both the Tories and the media would have claimed that Labour were 'denying the will of the people', 'betraying Brexit' and so forth. They would have actually experienced the wipeout that everybody predicted. And then we wouldn't even be discussing this, would we, because May would have passed her WA even with some backbench defectors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Chindie said: A lot of talk of them not setting up a party as well. They've established a company. Which makes them exempt from party donation rules. Hmm. That's not a good look. I hope they're very forthcoming with an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: And what do we think would have happened to Labour, in the 2017 General Election, if Corbyn *hadn't* whipped his members to vote for triggering Article 50? I don't think it's a very controversial counterfactual to suggest that both the Tories and the media would have claimed that Labour were 'denying the will of the people', 'betraying Brexit' and so forth. They would have actually experienced the wipeout that everybody predicted. And then we wouldn't even be discussing this, would we, because May would have passed her WA even with some backbench defectors. Depends on how he'd explained it I guess. If he's voted against it because there was no plan in place and a plan was required before triggering, he'd be looking quite sage like right now but no, his Anti-EU blood lust got the better of him 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 45 minutes ago, blandy said: Perhaps, therefore, the electorate finds Labour electable when it isn't as far left as Catweazle, Michael Foot etc took it? Labour election result: Jeremy Corbyn won larger share of vote than Tony Blair in 2005 Quote Jeremy Corbyn has won a larger share of the vote in last night's election than Tony Blair achieved when he took power in 2005. With 648 of the 650 seats declared, Labour currently sits on just over 40 per cent of the vote, significantly higher than the 35.2 per cent the party managed in 2005. In his last general election, Mr Blair won a majority with 355 seats, and although Mr Corbyn is currently a long way behind on 261, his share of the popular vote is significantly higher. From the high water mark of the first election, Blair lost a lot of votes. Corbyn has regained some of that lost ground, as well as significantly increasing membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: And what do we think would have happened to Labour, in the 2017 General Election, if Corbyn *hadn't* whipped his members to vote for triggering Article 50? I don't think it's a very controversial counterfactual to suggest that both the Tories and the media would have claimed that Labour were 'denying the will of the people', 'betraying Brexit' and so forth. They would have actually experienced the wipeout that everybody predicted. And then we wouldn't even be discussing this, would we, because May would have passed her WA even with some backbench defectors. I genuinely have no idea what would have happened if he had opposed the tories, instead of supported them. I suspect that some of what you suggest might have happened, but also that the 48% might have rather applauded a more intelligent approach and it might have boosted the Labour vote if Labour had some sort of credible psition. I do know that triggering it without a **** clue as to what "we" wanted was absolute lunacy. And that's not just hindsight. ANd him actually whipping his party to support the tories was mental 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 9 minutes ago, peterms said: Labour election result: Jeremy Corbyn won larger share of vote than Tony Blair in 2005 From the high water mark of the first election, Blair lost a lot of votes. Corbyn has regained some of that lost ground, as well as significantly increasing membership. which is now shrinking again but see my earlier post , since Blair we kinda went from the Libs traditionally taking around 18% of the vote to taking around 8% so the difficulty is in determining if Corbyn was the reason for those votes ... and would it have been higher (or lower ) with someone else at the helm .. and how much was down to tactical voting i.e where Remain vote was strong there was evidence of tactical voting against the Conservatives May also won a bigger share of the votes than any Tory Leader since about 1992 to put Corbyn's performance into perspective 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 22 minutes ago, peterms said: Labour election result: Jeremy Corbyn won larger share of vote than Tony Blair in 2005 From the high water mark of the first election, Blair lost a lot of votes. Corbyn has regained some of that lost ground, as well as significantly increasing membership. Yes, that's true. Blair doing all war n'that based on lies didn't go down well. Stuff based on lies rarely does, time finds them out. Frowned upon by voters ...etc. Trouble is what has also happened is that the tories increased their vote. the UKIPs and the Liberals collapsed, the SNP faded a bit. And now Labour is shedding members, losing MPs, can't get ahead of the worst clusterposrk of a governement ever, in the polls and is performing like a chocolate teapot. Well done Jezza, you were popular with Glasto kids for a bit, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 been in work all day, have I missed anything? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 It would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic. My sense is that they have gone down in a blaze of glory, hoping that they can either convince others to join them, or change the Labour party somehow. It won't work, and I'll be glad to see Chris Leslie's political career go down the pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 1 minute ago, PompeyVillan said: they have gone down in a blaze of glory Less a comet blazing to earth, more a wet fart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 14 minutes ago, peterms said: Less a comet blazing to earth, more a wet fart... It's a shame, because their little party trick has done the country no favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said: It's a shame, because their little party trick has done the country no favours. Puts them on a level playing field with the Tories and Labour then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 3 hours ago, markavfc40 said: There should be by elections as the majority of people vote on party lines not for the individual. Normally I'd agree, I think, Mark. At the moment, right now, because of Brexit vote timing, if they resigned, would they still be able to vote in parliament? I think they wouldn't (might be wrong, but if they resigned as MPs, then presumably they couldn't vote for what they clearly strongly believe as elected MPs, and what large majority parts of their constituencies want?). So on particular timing, not for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 33 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said: It won't work, and I'll be glad to see Chris Leslie's political career go down the pan. Every cloud :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 36 minutes ago, peterms said: How much of what that twitter says is verifiable? it seems a nit odd to claim they've hidden donor identity...and then say the donor is a far right-ist? Registering a website in Panama (if true) means what? It doesn't look good, but I'm sceptical that tweet is verifiably true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, blandy said: Interestingly (or not) before Smith Blair Brown it was a long time out of power, then under them a decent spell in power, and now after them, out again. Perhaps, therefore, the electorate finds Labour electable when it isn't as far left as Catweazle, Michael Foot etc took it? You are right the party did become electable by shifting to the right. No one could argue otherwise. From its inception though up until it morphed into New Labour in the 90's it was a left wing party so as simply realigned recently back to what it was and what it has spent most of its existence being. Possibly what it has again become has made it unelectable but I think many of their policies now resonate with people and under a different leader with pretty much the same policies they could win a general election. Edited February 18, 2019 by markavfc40 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 18, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, blandy said: How much of what that twitter says is verifiable? it seems a nit odd to claim they've hidden donor identity...and then say the donor is a far right-ist? Registering a website in Panama (if true) means what? It doesn't look good, but I'm sceptical that tweet is verifiably true. Since when was J K Rowling far-right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts