-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
anonymous_abc
Member
I doubt it, polls after a referendum seem rather pointless to me.
Coriolanus
Banned
You are familiar with the backfire effect, yes?
CyclopsRock
Member
The Tories, the force for feminism in the 21st century.
The Beeb had a bizarre article on how Jr Doctors were obviously going to accept the new contract the day before they rejected it because everyone was focused on Brexit and the Gov didn't have time to deal with them.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The Lib Dems would be mad to, seven of eight are in pro-Remain constituencies and the eighth is Nick Clegg.
That's what I mean - it makes absolutely *zero* political sense, at all, in any way shape or form for the Libs to vote for any form of Brexit. They have always been a very pro-EU party, they've already staked out ground as the party that won't take us out of Europe, its a natural winning position for them with young, urban types who could be part of their base - and somehow the beeb thinks they will go back on all that and commit complete suicide by voting for Brexit?
It's a truly bizarre article that has zero credibility politically. No idea who is writing this stuff but we could do better!
Photo snapshot of (what is assumed to be) Leadsom campaign plan, as waved around by a careless bloke on the Tube:
https://twitter.com/ben_hart/status/751117842079215616
https://twitter.com/ben_hart/status/751117842079215616
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Why would he vote to Leave?!
the will of the people
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
oh yeah he's a lib dem, or as we all know it, spineless moron.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
brb, off to join the Conservative Party to vote for May.
Doesn't work - have to be a member for 3 months to vote in a leadership election. They arent as dumb as Labour were.
But Christ, I'm honestly scared if Leadstom wins. I've always marvelled at how fast we have come socially - I never though we could reverse that progress.
If Leadstom wins, it just confirms to me how far right we've moved as a country - this isn't some temporary working class revolt, the country is just simply right wing. It would definitely cause me to follow in some colleagues footsteps and start making serious plans to move on.
Can't believe we live in a world where May is the more moderate option.
I mean it's the Tory members that are voting for this, so it doesn't really give us too much of an idea of the country at large. Just Tory diehards.
Wage a war on political correctness though, there's so many bad things you could attach to that statement.
'positive discrimination'
D:
It's not so subtle coding for all the social progress we've had in the last two decades. Donald Trump uses it as well. Like I said, I'm legitimately scared if this woman wins.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
May is authoritarian but she has her bright spots. She has conviction, which can be useful when pointed in the right direction (it often isn't), and has pushed hard against racist stop and searches. Leadsom has no qualities.
Will put this in here as well:
May in 2012:
You look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you dont have, she says.
Mrs May, 56, has been married for 32 years. She is the most senior woman in British politics but has rarely spoken about her private life.
Asked about having children, she said: It just didnt happen. I mean, this isnt something I generally go into, but things just turned out as they did.
She admitted to a sense of loss at not being a mother. I think if you talk to anybody who would like to have had children I mean, you look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you dont have, she said
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ss-at-not-having-children-by-Theresa-May.html
May in 2012:
You look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you dont have, she says.
Mrs May, 56, has been married for 32 years. She is the most senior woman in British politics but has rarely spoken about her private life.
Asked about having children, she said: It just didnt happen. I mean, this isnt something I generally go into, but things just turned out as they did.
She admitted to a sense of loss at not being a mother. I think if you talk to anybody who would like to have had children I mean, you look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you dont have, she said
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ss-at-not-having-children-by-Theresa-May.html
7 little Tories, EU bashing for kicks
One lost a referendum, and then there were six
6 little Tories, all wielding a knife
One got too confident, and then there were five
5 little Tories, went to run for more
One had a little Werritty, and then there were four
4 little Tories, making Britain free
One thought he could cure the gays, and then there were three
3 little Tories, hating the EU
One had karma pay its due, and then there were two
2 little Tories, at the starting gun
One made front page of the Times, and then there was one
1 little Tory, their term had just begun
Along came Jeremy Corbyn, and then there was none.
One lost a referendum, and then there were six
6 little Tories, all wielding a knife
One got too confident, and then there were five
5 little Tories, went to run for more
One had a little Werritty, and then there were four
4 little Tories, making Britain free
One thought he could cure the gays, and then there were three
3 little Tories, hating the EU
One had karma pay its due, and then there were two
2 little Tories, at the starting gun
One made front page of the Times, and then there was one
1 little Tory, their term had just begun
Along came Jeremy Corbyn, and then there was none.
CyclopsRock
Member
Crabb didn't actually say anything about curing gays though right?
No, he went the other way. Said that if he became PM he wanted to see gay marriage in Northern Ireland. He at least had sense.
Smart. Labour couldn't get itself together on that one if it weren't already in absolute disarray.
Just checking - am I the only one who finds this incredibly alarming? Like the result of an incredibly stupid person with obvious prejudices brainstorming for five minutes?
Photo snapshot of (what is assumed to be) Leadsom campaign plan, as waved around by a careless bloke on the Tube:
https://twitter.com/ben_hart/status/751117842079215616
Just checking - am I the only one who finds this incredibly alarming? Like the result of an incredibly stupid person with obvious prejudices brainstorming for five minutes?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The sad thing is she won't even come close to winning.
dapperbandit
Banned
Just checking, if I'm reading that sneak peek correctly, then both May and Leadsom would seek to replace the ECHR?
Interesting.
Interesting.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Terrifying.
So who's the super electable MP that will win power for Labour? I don't think Corbyn will win a GE but I personally can't see anyone else from the PLP that would be able to do that.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's zero anyway, regardless of the union leaders. The rules may be a bit vague but they are not that vague - when there is not a vacancy, then potential challengers need 20% of PLP backing. That's challengers, not candidates. You'd need to be reading the rules with blinkers on to think otherwise.
I mean there's arguably a flaw in how it's written, but yeah that's certainly the intent of the rules.
JonathanEx
Member
Even if it doesn't look they'll win: that would at least be the goal for another candidate. It increasingly looks like Corbyn/McDonnell are more interested in Labour as a force to "change politics" or be a pressure group than actually trying to win. McDonnell seems content with the idea of the party splitting, which if you genuinely wanted to win elections, you know would be a disaster. And Corbyn said on Marr this morning that changing how politics is done is the most important thing for him to do, rather than win elections.
I'd argue that you should probably make being elected the highest priority, as that gives you more scope to change things. And not just how politics is done but people's lives, but hey
Roberto Larcos
Member
Yes, this for sure will be the first time ever that a politician won't blame their predecessor for their own failings.
2015 - the PLP abstains on a vote against welfare cuts, allowing the sitting tory government to pass the bill
2016 - the PLP fights tooth and nail to remove a leader with broadly sensible policies on the grounds that he's too left-wing for them to stomach
don't mind me just chronicling the death of the left wing in the the uk political sphere. cause of death: spontaneous evaporation of spine. any more dates to add to the timeline so far?
2016 - the PLP fights tooth and nail to remove a leader with broadly sensible policies on the grounds that he's too left-wing for them to stomach
don't mind me just chronicling the death of the left wing in the the uk political sphere. cause of death: spontaneous evaporation of spine. any more dates to add to the timeline so far?
What do you think of Corbyn and McDonnell being in favour of ending free movement of labour? On the central issue now facing the UK Corbyn agrees with the Tories more than he does with the Labour party membership. Maybe they are trying to oust him for being too right wing instead...
To quote a friend, much better informed than I am, who's been putting the case against Corbyn quite eloquently:
"This bill was hugely symbolic and I understand that, but I hate to see it being used in this way to trash so many hard-working and principled Labour MPs.
The Labour Party had a list of amendments for that bill which would have blocked it. 193 Labour MPs voted to support these amendment but they were defeated because of the Tory majority in the Commons.
But that bill coicidentally committed the government to creating three million apprenticeships, to reduce rental costs in social housing, and to provide support for early intervention programmes. Therefore there were parts of the bill Labour wanted to remain but much of it they wanted to alter! During the 2nd reading of the bill, Harman asked the Party to abstain the idea was that abstaining on the bill (but putting forward amendments), would give Labour a far better chance of pursuading the Tories to take on board some of those amendments during the committee stage (as it past through the legislature).
Abstaining on bill would have also given the impression that Labour was tough on welfare. Labour, who had just been hurt during the 2015 election for being seen as weak on welfare etc. But more importantly this was also a pragmatic step to try and get amendments of the bill to happen, that would have had a tangible real life impact on protecting those who would have been hit hardest by an unamended bill.
If every single Labour MP voted against that bill it would have still passed. If every. single. opposition MP had voted against that bill, it would have changed absolutely nothing. It would have been gesture politics. Nice to stick it to them, but actually it wouldnt have changed anything. This is why we need a Labour government.
Sometimes politics is grubby, sometimes it means working with the enemy and making compromises. Yes maybe Harriet Harmann was wrong to call for an abstention, it certainly caused a lot of ill feeling and a split in the PLP. But things like this I cannot stand."
Coriolanus
Banned
did it work?
They are strongly in favour of free movement of Labour.
What McDonnell said is that the reality of the Brexit vote will most likely result in the restriction of free movement of Labour, which is different to saying you believe it should be restricted. I may be wrong here tho.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked