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

[desensitized43]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, this is just not true. 

Which part?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, this is just not true. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, this is just not true. 

But it is. All of it.

Or alternatively you could demonstrate with actual evidence of actions which show he's not anti Brexit. Or that he's following his own party's policy, now that a GE is off before Brexit day, or that say his own MPs aren't leaving their party because of exactly this. Or that he didn't whip his own party to support calling A50, or that...

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Which part?

All of it really, but he certainly isn't 'seeking power through helping the Tories', which is why there was a VONC in Parliament.

There was also an offer of co-operation on a WA that softened some of May's red lines, like two weeks ago, which would have specifically led to a much softer Brexit, which is also incompatible with the 'he wants the worst possible nightmare!' stuff. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

But it is. All of it.

Or alternatively you could demonstrate with actual evidence of actions which show he's not anti Brexit. Or that he's following his own party's policy, now that a GE is off before Brexit day, or that say his own MPs aren't leaving their party because of exactly this. Or that he didn't whip his own party to support calling A50, or that...

He isn't 'anti-Brexit', and I haven't suggested otherwise. Labour's party policy was to implement Brexit. 

It is true that the leadership doesn't support a second referendum, but as usual remainers stubbornly ignore that there's no majority for one in Parliament, and that the government wouldn't timetable the legislation required. 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It is true that the leadership doesn't support a second referendum

Thanks. It's also party policy, which he is actively sabotaging, now. Most recently he "accidentally forgot" and then "accidentally" deleted the 2nd ref part of their policy from the agreed text in his letter to T.May.

[Chindie]

Should also be said that Labour's official policy is to seek customs union and single market access, so they don't seek a hard Brexit. Indeed it's only a fortnight ago the EU itself was fluttering it's eyelashes at the Labour policy.

There's some bad faith stuff when it comes to Corbyn. He's certainly not a Remainer, historically being Eurosceptic, or a particularly good leader, but listening to a lot of stuff out there you'd think he was Stalin in disguise seeking to round up the Jews and set Brussels on fire.

[Wainy316]

I know it's cool to hate Corbyn right now but how is he and his policies anywhere near as abominable as the Tories?

You don't have to love him as a person.  Do people just want someone more statesmanlike but with 95% of the exact same policies?

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

All of it really, but he certainly isn't 'seeking power through helping the Tories', which is why there was a VONC in Parliament.

There was also an offer of co-operation on a WA that softened some of May's red lines, like two weeks ago, which would have specifically led to a much softer Brexit, which is also incompatible with the 'he wants the worst possible nightmare!' stuff. 

The offer of co-operation was (like with the tories dicking about) more to do with internal party stuff. Though obviously co-operating with the tories is you know, what I've been saying. It's softened no red lines. May hasn't changed a thing. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Should also be said that Labour's official policy is to seek customs union and single market access, so they don't seek a hard Brexit. Indeed it's only a fortnight ago the EU itself was fluttering it's eyelashes at the Labour policy.

Party Policy and what Corbyn wants are not the same thing, sadly. Also "A" but not "the" Customs union is as deluded as anything the Brexiteer tories or May have come up with.

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Party Policy and what Corbyn wants are not the same thing, sadly. Also "A" but not "the" Customs union is as deluded as anything the Brexiteer tories or May have come up with.

No doubt, but I believe he's actually introduced motions in Parliament (and supported them) to that end.

The A not The customs union is just weaseling away from difficult questions they they know will dissuade Leave votes. It's shitty but I can understand it.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

I know it's cool to hate Corbyn right now but how is he and his policies anywhere near as abominable as the Tories?

You don't have to love him as a person.  Do people just want someone more statesmanlike but with 95% of the exact same policies?

For me personally, my detestation of Corbyn and his ilk is nothing about "now" or "cool".  I like about half of Labour's policies, am OK with another bunch and thing about 25% or so are utterly ridiculous. Which is actually not that bad a hit rate. The Tories are far worse as a party (for me) as I agree with almost nothing and hate pretty much the rest of their policies.

With Corbyn it's about competence (he lacks it). It's about judgement (terrible), it's about underlying terrorist and anti-semitic sympathies, it's about the nature and behaviour of his close associates, it's about double standards, hypocrisy, intelligence (limited). Or to put it more simply "wrong 'un".

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

weaseling away from difficult questions they they know will dissuade Leave votes. It's shitty

Cowardly. So many politicians are too scared, too timid, too lacking in "a pair". 

[Chindie]

Just now, blandy said:

Cowardly. So many politicians are too scared, too timid, too lacking in "a pair". 

That I wouldn't disagree with.

Brexit has shown in stark relief that most of Westminster is more concerned for its own hide than the country.

[peterms]

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

Apart from the very clear and obvious sense that a CLP with "No confidence" in their MP is not going to reselect them, unless they've lost their tiny minds.

It really depends on what the MP does, as well as on the shifting balance within the party.  Someone who is seen to address concerns, build bridges and make alliances is going to have a far better chance of regaining support than someone whose attitude is rejection of the local party and contempt for the members.

In the case of those putting themselves in the spotlight today, it seems they had no intention of trying to build bridges with those who disagreed with them.  So we get all the stuff about "It's not me that's changed, I've been true and constant in this relationship, it's you.  I'm the victim here".

I think some of them actually come to believe that they've been elected because of their own admirable personal qualities, rather than on a party ticket.  The sense of entitlement is tangible.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

That I wouldn't disagree with.

Brexit has shown in stark relief that most of Westminster is more concerned for its own hide than the country.

Indeed. The vast majority of Parliament essentially believes in remain as the best outcome, but accepts that in reality a soft Leave is what needs to happen. That's where the majority lies. But because of tribalism and utterly inept leadership by both May and Corbyn, here we are a month before Brexit day and we've still got nowher near to what the majority of Parliament thinks should happen. They're letting May carry on with her same crap deal that they all hate and all know is horribly damaging. Bottlers. 

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

The offer of co-operation was (like with the tories dicking about) more to do with internal party stuff. Though obviously co-operating with the tories is you know, what I've been saying. It's softened no red lines. May hasn't changed a thing. 

You can obviously see the problem with saying 'May hasn't changed a thing' as if that's Labour's fault I'm sure. 

It turns out, Labour aren't actually the government. 

[Wainy316]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

For me personally, my detestation of Corbyn and his ilk is nothing about "now" or "cool".  I like about half of Labour's policies, am OK with another bunch and thing about 25% or so are utterly ridiculous. Which is actually not that bad a hit rate. The Tories are far worse as a party (for me) as I agree with almost nothing and hate pretty much the rest of their policies.

With Corbyn it's about competence (he lacks it). It's about judgement (terrible), it's about underlying terrorist and anti-semitic sympathies, it's about the nature and behaviour of his close associates, it's about double standards, hypocrisy, intelligence (limited). Or to put it more simply "wrong 'un".

See that's enough for me to vote for whoever is my local Labour candidate.  50% good versus 100% bad and we can worry about the other 50% after.  It's still overwhelmingly better (in my view) for the majority of the populace.

Any of your concerns in the bottom paragraph are more than matched by the entire Tory front bench.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

It really depends on what the MP does, as well as on the shifting balance within the party.  Someone who is seen to address concerns, build bridges and make alliances is going to have a far better chance of regaining support than someone whose attitude is rejection of the local party and contempt for the members.

In the case of those putting themselves in the spotlight today, it seems they had no intention of trying to build bridges with those who disagreed with them.  So we get all the stuff about "It's not me that's changed, I've been true and constant in this relationship, it's you.  I'm the victim here".

I think some of them actually come to believe that they've been elected because of their own admirable personal qualities, rather than on a party ticket.  The sense of entitlement is tangible.

On the part in italics - I take it you believe in the tooth fairy

On the part not in italics, yeah, to a fair degree. I think Berger's case is different. She is the victim. The others not so much. It's just them and Catweazle are miles apart. Best they leave rather than pretend otherwise.

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Indeed. The vast majority of Parliament essentially believes in remain as the best outcome, but accepts that in reality a soft Leave is what needs to happen. That's where the majority lies. But because of tribalism and utterly inept leadership by both May and Corbyn, here we are a month before Brexit day and we've still got nowher near to what the majority of Parliament thinks should happen. They're letting May carry on with her same crap deal that they all hate and all know is horribly damaging. Bottlers. 

Woah. So hang on, are you saying that you, personally, agree that 'a soft Leave is what needs to happen'? Since 'that's where the majority lies' (which appears to be true, I agree)? 

If so, what exactly can Labour have done differently, since the party conference last year, to achieve that target? Because that is the target, hyperbole aside.