Support NeoGAF

[Meadows]

Corbyn is so awful at PMQs

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It looks to me like you're cherry picking some fairly irrelevant data. Page 1 has all you need and shows remain and leave to be about even, as ever.

Page 1 says: "I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU"

and

"I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave"

have 68% support.

"I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum" - that is, people who want to fight this election on Brexit not happening at all, or Hard Remainers - is on 24%.

which is what I'm saying.

The number of people who will vote for a policy of not leaving the EU after all - which the Liberal Democrats aren't even campaigning on, incidentally - is a fraction of the electorate. It's actually a smaller portion of Remainers than those who now accept that leaving is something that has to happen.

 

[Charles Brandon]

With respect, I can guarantee you I can find you a socialist paper arguing the exact opposite, which is my point - the EU doesn't fit neatly into socialist dogma, which is an enormous problem for a very dogmatic man. As a random example:

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk...actually-means-free-exploitation#.WPdIXFKZOi5

Alright, can we agree, at best, that Corbyn cannot be said to have a conviction on any aspect of EU membership?

If we can agree on that, is it not better that we support the party that does have a conviction that we share (if 'we' = broadly, people not in favour of leaving the EU)? Farron and gay issues notwithstanding.

I mean. All the evidence points to this not being the case, but best of luck - entirely sincerely.

If I was in those negotiations, I'd find a way to make it stick.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

A quarter of people are willing to ignore a mandate - it's a lot more than that who would rather we didn't leave the EU.

 

[Hazzuh]

Some interesting candidates throwing their hat in to the ring... Julian Assange thinking of standing as an MP?

Should I run in the UK general election? The government has detained me without charge for seven years:

 

[King_Moc]

Page 1 says: "I support Britain leaving the EU, and the British government should ensure that Britain does leave the EU"

and

"I did not support Britain leaving the EU, but now the British people have voted to leave the government has a duty to carry out their wishes and leave"

have 68% support.

"I do not support Britain leaving the EU and the government should ignore the result of the referendum or seek to overturn it in a second referendum" - that is, people who want to fight this election on Brexit not happening at all, or Hard Remainers - is on 24%.

which is what I'm saying.

The number of people who will vote for a policy of not leaving the EU after all - which the Liberal Democrats aren't even campaigning on, incidentally - is a fraction of the electorate. It's actually a smaller portion of Remainers than those who now accept that leaving is something that has to happen.

You're counting the people that don't want to leave, but are respecting the referendum result though?

You should be adding those people to the ones that say they don't want to leave and the result should be ignored.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Labours strategic thinking is embarrassing.

As soon as Brexit happened they're all like "will of the people" bullshit.

Instead of being a lightning rod for the opposition and sucking up all these brexit remain votes...
Instead they shit the bed.

So its Tory. Diet Tory(Labour) or the LDs that can't win everything but will gain some traction.

It's just I'm sure Corbyn is a great guy, but come on he looks like an old racist granapa.

 

[Hazzuh]

Also, the Standard somehow able to get this hot scoop, George Osborne standing down as an MP!

George Osborne today announced he is quitting as an MP but will carry on "fighting for that Britain I love" as editor of the Evening Standard.

In a letter revealing his decision to Conservatives in his Tatton constituency, he said he was thrilled to be taking charge of "a great newspaper".

The former Chancellor, 45, made plain that he intends to stay active in political debates on issues he is passionate about. And he hinted he could make a political comeback in future, saying he was leaving Westminster "for now".

 

[Charles Brandon]

Some interesting candidates throwing their hat in to the ring... Julian Assange thinking of standing as an MP?

Detained without charge! LOL. Sit down and shut up.(not you Hazzuh)

 

[nekkid]

Also, the Standard somehow able to get this hot scoop, George Osborne standing down as an MP!

BUT HOW?!

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Not a surprising line from May - the playbook for her is that Corbyn is incompetent and Farron want's to ally with him. The latter's fake news, but it won't stop her.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You're counting the people that don't want to leave, but are respecting the referendum result though?

You should be adding those people to the ones that say they don't want to leave and the result should be ignored.

Yes, I am, because if you think that the result ought to be respected and put that above your individual opinions, you are not then going to go and vote for the party that promises to do their best not to respect the vote. Why do you think the Liberal Democrats are basically unchanged in the polls?

I'm struggling to explain this any better. There is no great desire in the electorate to stay in the EU given the referendum. There is no great desire to have soft-Brexit as a real thing, and not an imaginary world where you can have SM without FOM. There is a relatively clear majority (not plurality, actual majority) of the electorate that wants us to leave and wants us to have no FOM, which naturally implies Hard Brexit. This is because about half of Remainers think: well, if Brexit has to happen, I'd rather we went full hog and got rid of FoM. Any party that seriously want to govern - any party that wants to be part of a coalition that seriously wants to govern - is not going to offer anything better than Canada-style; because anything else is a non-starter.

You're still stuck trying to fight the referendum over and over again. That's now how this works! And I voted to Remain, quite easily.

I don't think this forum quite understands that some people's preferences were Remain > Hard > Soft, not just Remain > Soft > Hard.

 

[Baleoce]

"Saboteurs"

just wow

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I'm struggling to explain this any better. There is no great desire in the electorate to stay in the EU given the referendum.

The referendum is a moot point as soon as this election happens, as I've said above. This will be up to the public to decide on again.

"Saboteurs"

just wow

She also used the opportunity of PMQs to stand behind that line as an example of the free press!

 

[King_Moc]

Yes, I am, because if you think that the result ought to be respected and put that above your individual opinions, you are not then going to go and vote for the party that promises to do their best not to respect the vote. Why do you think the Liberal Democrats are basically unchanged in the polls?

I'm struggling to explain this any better. There is no great desire in the electorate to stay in the EU given the referendum. There is no great desire to have soft-Brexit as a real thing, and not an imaginary world where you can have SM without FOM. There is a relatively clear majority (not plurality, actual majority) of the electorate that wants us to leave and wants us to have no FOM, which naturally implies Hard Brexit. This is because about half of Remainers think: well, if Brexit has to happen, I'd rather we went full hog and got rid of FoM. Any party that seriously want to govern - any party that wants to be part of a coalition that seriously wants to govern - is not going to offer anything better than Canada-style; because anything else is a non-starter.

You're still stuck trying to fight the referendum over and over again. That's now how this works! And I voted to Remain, quite easily.

I don't think this forum quite understands that some people's preferences were Remain > Hard > Soft, not just Remain > Soft > Hard.

Well, you're original post made it sound like 80% was just well up for hard Brexit from the get go. Obviously, that changes once you add the qualifier of accepting the referendum result.

 

[TimmmV]

I'm struggling to explain this any better. There is no great desire in the electorate to stay in the EU given the referendum. There is no great desire to have soft-Brexit as a real thing, and not an imaginary world where you can have SM without FOM. There is a relatively clear majority (not plurality, actual majority) of the electorate that wants us to leave and wants us to have no FOM, which naturally implies Hard Brexit. This is because about half of Remainers think: well, if Brexit has to happen, I'd rather we went full hog and got rid of FoM. Any party that seriously want to govern - any party that wants to be part of a coalition that seriously wants to govern - is not going to offer anything better than Canada-style; because anything else is a non-starter.

Do you not think the majority people who don't want freedom of movement could be satisfied with the UK government just exercising the controls on migration that the EU had already given them? As I understand it, it didn't need to be completely open borders to EU migration in the first place, the UK government just chose that as their migration policy

Edit: Isn't it more of a "recognises we have to" rather than "wants to" on leaving/FOM too?

 

[Baleoce]

The referendum is a moot point as soon as this election happens, as I've said above. This will be up to the public to decide on again.



She also used the opportunity of PMQs to stand behind that line as an example of the free press!

Are there no implications from having already triggered Article 50?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The referendum is a moot point as soon as this election happens, as I've said above. This will be up to the public to decide on again.

but people aren't interested in refighting this

this is the whole point

 

[Pandy]

Gonna be a good seven weeks.



Or more accurately a bonkers seven weeks.

Haha! Took me a moment to spot the mistake.

Thought this article on Wings Over Scotland was interesting. They're a pro-Scottish Independence website but this is just about the Labour response to all this, no Scottish angle to bore those of you South of the border:https://wingsoverscotland.com/rushing-to-the-gallows/

One of the most famous tales of the celebrated British hangman Albert Pierrepoint is that concerning James Inglis, a murderer who in 1951 sprinted the short distance from the condemned cell to the noose, enabling the entire execution to be concluded just seven seconds after Pierrepoint had first laid hands on him.
...
We can't help thinking of it today.

An opposition voting against an election seems instinctively foolish, of course. At the most basic ideological level the opposition should always want a chance to unseat the government. But it should also not wish to make its own position worse and give that government an extra two years in power unnecessarily.

Corbyn currently has three years to turn public opinion round – three years in which the Tories are likely to find themselves in a godawful swamp of Brexit negotiations and all manner of other difficulties. If he loses an election now, Labour would then be a minimum of FIVE years away from power. It would not be difficult, therefore, to sell resistance to the election as both a pragmatic and a principled stance.

(General pundit opinion appears to be that refusing to dissolve Parliament would meet with great mockery from the right-wing press. Exactly how would that be different from every other day?)

There is no national emergency requiring the Tories to take this action. No major policy has been blocked. They have a perfectly serviceable working majority. Public opinion is not clamouring for another election.

Oppositions – whose sworn duty to the sovereign and the nation is to make life as difficult for the government as possible – are rarely presented with such an open goal as this. If Labour can't even take the chance to exert pressure on a government that's clearly uncomfortable in its current position, they really are literally useless.

If they meekly go along with the Tories's cynical ploy – the sole purpose of which is to destroy them – they will fully deserve to be propelled through the trapdoor to eternity.

And a similar article I've just noticed on the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/general-election-labour-annihilation-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Was ever there a more crassly inept politician than Jeremy Corbyn, whose every impulse is to make the wrong call on everything? It's not excitingly flamboyant red radicalism that has done for Labour, but his sluggish incompetence at the absolute basics of leadership.

How rarely he has had the chance to wield any power, but on Wednesday he had the very real authority to stop certain calamity for his party and call out Theresa May's game-playing chicanery. The mother of all bombs is about to drop on Labour, but what does he do? He says: "I welcome the prime minister's decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first." What?

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was designed to stop prime ministers dashing opportunistically to the polls when momentarily at the peak of their popularity. May can only gain two-thirds majority in the Commons if Labour agrees to its own annihilation – which he welcomes. Will this be the last disastrous disservice he does to his party?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you not think the majority people who don't want freedom of movement could be satisfied with the UK government just exercising the controls on migration that the EU had already given them? As I understand it, it didn't need to be completely open borders to EU migration in the first place, the UK government just chose that as their migration policy

No, not really. The main controls are that you could restrict the numbers of migrant workers from new EU countries for a certain time-frame, only we're past that time-frame, and you could restrict certain benefits and public services to migrant workers under certain conditions, which would have much less impact on immigration than people think because migrant workers are actually employed at a higher rate than the general population - you don't migrate on a whim, you typically do it only if you are highly confident you have employment awaiting you.

If you wanted to change something, you'd have to travel back in time to 2004 and have a quiet word with Blair (although if I was going to travel back in time to have a quiet word with Blair, I think I'd go back another year or two...)

 

[Uzzy]

Also, the Standard somehow able to get this hot scoop, George Osborne standing down as an MP!

It's slightly depressing that someone like George Osborne standing down is currently a bad thing, as it'll make May's job slightly easier.

 

[jimbobsmells]

She does know that you can 'support a free press' without agreeing to everything they print, right?
I mean, if calling our judges 'traitors' and political opposition 'saboteurs' is ok... what's next? Calling for lynch mobs? Riots?

 

[Charles Brandon]

It's slightly depressing that someone like George Osborne standing down is currently a bad thing, as it'll make May's job slightly easier.

He'll do more damage from the sidelines I reckon.

 

[tomtom94]

It's slightly depressing that someone like George Osborne standing down is currently a bad thing, as it'll make May's job slightly easier.

In America they worry about politicians going into lobbying and vice-versa. Here we worry about the links to the press, and I'm honestly not sure which is scarier.

 

[Hazzuh]

How do people think the general election is going to impact the local election results? I could imagine that it will increase turn out which I suppose is good for Labour.

 

[Black Republican]

lib dems comeback

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How do people think the general election is going to impact the local election results? I could imagine that it will increase turn out which I suppose is good for Labour.

On the other hand, it'll be even more focused on national politics than normal, so bad for Labour.

 

[Baleoce]

lib dems comeback

Remember back during the TV debates before the coalition? "I'm with Nick" and all that stuff. The general public opinion of him was high and the assumption was that they'd do better than normal. And when the votes came in they really didn't. Not really relevant to what you're saying, but it just reminded me how pointless the TV debates are.

But in response, I just don't see the lib dems doing anything this time around either.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Corbyn currently has three years to turn public opinion round – three years in which the Tories are likely to find themselves in a godawful swamp of Brexit negotiations and all manner of other difficulties. If he loses an election now, Labour would then be a minimum of FIVE years away from power. It would not be difficult, therefore, to sell resistance to the election as both a pragmatic and a principled stance.

I don't agree with that at all! I think it would be an extremely hard sell.

Edit:

Oppositions – whose sworn duty to the sovereign and the nation is to make life as difficult for the government as possible – are rarely presented with such an open goal as this. If Labour can't even take the chance to exert pressure on a government that's clearly uncomfortable in its current position, they really are literally useless.

I'm pretty sure that's not the "duty" of the opposition either

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't agree with that at all! I think it would be an extremely hard sell.

I mean, anyone with any common sense thinks this. Wings Over Scotland is just desperate to try and do Labour even worse than they already are, because the death of Labour and the success of the Conservatives in England is only a good thing for the SNP.

 

[Vivalaraza]

The referendum is a moot point as soon as this election happens, as I've said above. This will be up to the public to decide on again.



She also used the opportunity of PMQs to stand behind that line as an example of the free press!

Ummm, I disagree.

While for some people it might be a case of voting based on remain/leave for many it will be a case of how do we move forward from here (leave).

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

The attitude of the wider public outside this international forum is just saddening. We're losing so many opportunities within our closest neighbours, and for what? I'd say this referendum will have the most severe impact on my life thus far given that I want to live in Amsterdam or other similarly awesome places in Europe. Every other election can be shrugged off easily. But this? I both want this limbo to end and for the UK to just GTFO and simultaneously want this to take as long as possible.

I feel a bit like a secular Turkish resident who feels like their country has become unrecognizable. Erdogan is much worse than Brexit because at least David Davis doesn't want a fascist theocracy but that's like choosing between two kinds of shit. I just honestly don't see a future here anymore, and if forced to stay due to unfavorable circumstances like lack of opportunity I don't particularly know how I will deal with it. Not well, I think.

 

[TimmmV]

No, not really. The main controls are that you could restrict the numbers of migrant workers from new EU countries for a certain time-frame, only we're past that time-frame, and you could restrict certain benefits and public services to migrant workers under certain conditions, which would have much less impact on immigration than people think because migrant workers are actually employed at a higher rate than the general population - you don't migrate on a whim, you typically do it only if you are highly confident you have employment awaiting you.

If you wanted to change something, you'd have to travel back in time to 2004 and have a quiet word with Blair (although if I was going to travel back in time to have a quiet word with Blair, I think I'd go back another year or two...)

Ah, fair enough. I stand corrected then!

 

[nOoblet16]

Lol this Tory woman just slipped and made a mistake while speaking in the commons and said something like Brexit is good for European Union.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Ummm, I disagree.

While for some people it might be a case of voting based on remain/leave for many it will be a case of how do we move forward from here (leave).

Nope - this election's entire context is Brexit and Brexit is the topic that will be fought over most. Not re-doing the referendum, but certainly drilling down and talking about membership of the single market and some other topics.

The simple fact is that people will have the ability to choose to reject the referendum result, as that's their democratic right. But this also means, properly, that the parliament which returns to Westminister will have a real, unquestioned and cast-iron mandate to leave on whatever terms it chooses if the Tories get a landslide.

 

[Pandy]

I don't agree with that at all! I think it would be an extremely hard sell.

You really think that three years from now, after the Brexit negotiations and whatever else has happened by then, people are going to feel strongly about 2 days in April 2017 when the Tories called for an election one day and Labour said no on the next. It would have been old news by the end of the month.

I'm pretty sure that's not the "duty" of the opposition either

The aside is hyperbolic, but you could substitute with "hold the government to account for their actions" or just cut it out. The rest of the sentence is a valid point without it.

I mean, anyone with any common sense thinks this. Wings Over Scotland is just desperate to try and do Labour even worse than they already are, because the death of Labour and the success of the Conservatives in England is only a good thing for the SNP.

What you're saying is mutually contradictory. Unless you are arguing that WoS position is that Labour should resist an election now because it would be even worse for them in three years time?
No one in this thread has had more than a half-hearted attempt to put forward a case that the Conservatives will be anything other than the big winners out of this. If you are a Labour supporter and believe this, why would you want an election now rather than at a later time not of the Tories choosing?

 

[Charles Brandon]

You really think that three years from now, after the Brexit negotiations and whatever else has happened by then, people are going to feel strongly about 2 days in April 2017 when the Tories called for an election one day and Labour said no on the next. It would have been old news by the end of the month..

Well maybe but the point is that the election is happening on June 8, whatever happens in this vote because if Labour vote down the bill, the Tories will push it through on a vote of no confidence in themselves. So Corbyn will look spineless and it will still happen and it will matter now, not in three years.

 

[War Peaceman]

Well maybe but the point is that the election is happening on June 8, whatever happens in this vote because if Labour vote down the bill, the Tories will push it through on a vote of no confidence in themselves. So Corbyn will look spineless and it will still happen and it will matter now, not in three years.

Which is exactly why FTPA was so dumb!

Though the people complaining about the tactics of calling the election are way off base. All elections are timed strategically. Why would you not do it that way?

The only valid complain is that they did it mid-way through Brexit negotiations which is incredibly stupid and reckless.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You really think that three years from now, after the Brexit negotiations and whatever else has happened by then, people are going to feel strongly about 2 days in April 2017 when the Tories called for an election one day and Labour said no on the next. It would have been old news by the end of the month.

I absolutely do. And like hell it would have been "old news" by the end of the month. The election would have gone ahead anyway! The govt can force one without Labour votes, it would just have taken a bit longer.

The aside is hyperbolic, but you could substitute with "hold the government to account for their actions" or just cut it out. The rest of the sentence is a valid point without it.

Sure, you could replace that bit with their actual job if you wanted.

 

[PJV3]

I absolutely do. And like hell it would have been "old news" by the end of the month. The election would have gone ahead anyway! The govt can force one without Labour votes, it would just have taken a bit longer.

What's the quickest they could force it through and change the election law?

 

[Charles Brandon]

What's s the quickest they could force it through and change the election law?

They don't need to change the law, they just need to hold a vote of no confidence in themselves and that requires a simple majority (not 2/3 like an election vote). So they can do it as soon as they can table the bill.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What you're saying is mutually contradictory. Unless you are arguing that WoS position is that Labour should resist an election now because it would be even worse for them in three years time?

No. I'm saying that Labour having an election now is bad, but Labour having an election a month later when this gets forced through anyway except now Labour are seen as 'defying democracy' is even worse.

If May can't get an election through a two-thirds majority, she can just resign, refuse to form a government, refuse to lend confidence to any other governments, and after two weeks an election automatically has to be called. Labour can't really stop this election. So the choice is now 'election now or election later' it's 'election now where you were seen to embrace it, or election now when you were seen as being against it and made the popular Prime Minister have to embrace a technical loophole to carry out The Will of the People".

WoS knows this, but they're pumping out this shite anyway.

 

[PJV3]

They don't need to change the law, they just need to hold a vote of no confidence in themselves and that requires a simple majority (not 2/3 like an election vote). So they can do it as soon as they can table the bill.

Ah I forgot about that option, 2 weeks and out. Seems weird for a PM to do that and still want the job.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

What's the quickest they could force it through and change the election law?

They don't need to change the law. The FTPA says you get a GE if there's a vote of no confidence, which only needs a simple majority, which the Tories have. So, like two weeks or something? I dunno. The point is it wouldn't be a major obstacle, so Labour would come off looking like jellyfish for no gain at all.

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Wow, I haven't heard 'nanny state' in what feels like forever.

When did they stop using it? After 9/11 right?

Probably about then but it was also used to refer to being told not to use slurs so I can only think much of that would have been post-9/11.

Nanny State, like many things, is often only a selectively used term...

Yeah, I guess hypocrisy isn't exactly a huge hurdle for a lot of the electorate.

 

[Pandy]

Well maybe but the point is that the election is happening on June 8, whatever happens in this vote because if Labour vote down the bill, the Tories will push it through on a vote of no confidence in themselves. So Corbyn will look spineless and it will still happen and it will matter now, not in three years.

I absolutely do. And like hell it would have been "old news" by the end of the month. The election would have gone ahead anyway! The govt can force one without Labour votes, it would just have taken a bit longer.

The government can force a vote of no confidence in themselves, but can anyone tell me how that would play out with the country and the media? Because I sure as hell don't know, I don't think there's any relevant precedent for it here.

Theresa May would have to vote that she, her cabinet, and her party with a majority in parliament are unfit to govern, and then campaign that she and her party are the best people to lead the country through the Brexit process.
You honestly think that would play worse for Labour than what is actually happening?

 

[Burli]

Any tips from fellow lefties/progressives in this thread on how to cope with the state of the world at the moment?

I have a young family and I can feel the anxiety and depression caused by knowing Trump is in power in the USA, right-wing nationalism is rising in Europe and that we're facing another 5 years of possibly the largest Tory majority in my lifetime beginning to overwhelm me. Feels helpless and also like we're still at the beginning of this horrible journey.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The government can force a vote of no confidence in themselves, but can anyone tell me how that would play out with the country and the media? Because I sure as hell don't know, I don't think there's any relevant precedent for it here.

Theresa May would have to vote that she, her cabinet, and her party with a majority in parliament are unfit to govern, and then campaign that she and her party are the best people to lead the country through the Brexit process.
You honestly think that would play worse for Labour than what is actually happening?

Yes. A lot worse.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Any tips from fellow lefties/progressives in this thread on how to cope with the state of the world at the moment?

I have a young family and I can feel the anxiety and depression caused by knowing Trump is in power in the USA, right-wing nationalism is rising in Europe and that we're facing another 5 years of possibly the largest Tory majority in my lifetime beginning to overwhelm me. Feels helpless and also like we're still at the beginning of this horrible journey.

Volunteer and help with your nearest progressive (likely Liberal Democrat) campaign.

 

[Uzzy]

Looks like ITV are planning a debate.