Does anyone remember the Conservative Party slogan from the last election?
😂
41-45, M
😂
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
room101 · 51-55, M
Come on mate, this is just silly. Theresa May inherited a crap situation and has honoured a referendum result that she herself did not vote for. The EU are not going to make this easy for us, that's a given. So you can bet your bottom dollar that she has fought hard for the deal that she been able to get from them. Not only has she fought the EU, she has also had to fight (and is still fighting) elements within her own party and elements within every other party that we've got.
And then we've got Jeremy Corbyn. He manipulated the Labour Party leadership election process and has done nothing since. He hasn't even said anything meaningful about Brexit itself. His only mantra has been that he will protect British workers. Meanwhile, the reality is, pretty much all of our workers rights legislation has come from the EU and, Theresa May ratified all EU law into British law in January 2017. In other words, even the one thing that he keeps going on about, Theresa May already sorted. So what has he done that has been in the national interest? Answer, nothing. His only focus has been to take power from the Tories. Just like he took power away from what the Labour Party had become.
Finally, what makes you think that anybody in the EU will listen to him?
Ideologically, there is nobody within the EU that aligns with him. On security and the military, everybody in the EU disagrees with him. Economically, he is against business and the EU is built on trade. Bottom line, should he become PM, there is a very strong likelihood that the EU shutters will come down much harder on him than they ever did on Theresa May.
btw, below you said that you can see five possible outcomes from the Brexit process but only list four. Typo or did you forget to list your fifth?
And then we've got Jeremy Corbyn. He manipulated the Labour Party leadership election process and has done nothing since. He hasn't even said anything meaningful about Brexit itself. His only mantra has been that he will protect British workers. Meanwhile, the reality is, pretty much all of our workers rights legislation has come from the EU and, Theresa May ratified all EU law into British law in January 2017. In other words, even the one thing that he keeps going on about, Theresa May already sorted. So what has he done that has been in the national interest? Answer, nothing. His only focus has been to take power from the Tories. Just like he took power away from what the Labour Party had become.
Finally, what makes you think that anybody in the EU will listen to him?
Ideologically, there is nobody within the EU that aligns with him. On security and the military, everybody in the EU disagrees with him. Economically, he is against business and the EU is built on trade. Bottom line, should he become PM, there is a very strong likelihood that the EU shutters will come down much harder on him than they ever did on Theresa May.
btw, below you said that you can see five possible outcomes from the Brexit process but only list four. Typo or did you forget to list your fifth?
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
LOL The Government is in total meltdown and I'm not supposed to see the irony?
@room101 [quote]Come on mate, this is just silly. Theresa May inherited a crap situation and has honoured a referendum result that she herself did not vote for. The EU are not going to make this easy for us, that's a given. So you can bet your bottom dollar that she has fought hard for the deal that she been able to get from them. Not only has she fought the EU, she has also had to fight (and is still fighting) elements within her own party and elements within every other party that we've got.[/quote]
May fought an election on a hard-Brexit pledge that she knew she couldn't deliver. She said no-deal was better than a bad deal and comes back with a bad deal and at no times has attempted to inject any realism into the process. I will concede that Corbyn is also guilty on the latter point.
[quote]He manipulated the Labour Party leadership election process[/quote]
LOL. I know you hate Corbyn but he won fair and square and he won TWICE, under conditions set-up by the Labour right and in spite of them throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him. Labour Party members do not like neo-liberalism and were sick of a party which refused to fight against it. Som people refuse to see the reasons why he won and that it was not a freak aberration.
I've said before that I don't like the EU.
[quote]Ideologically, there is nobody within the EU that aligns with him. On security and the military, everybody in the EU disagrees with him.
[/quote]
The same can be said of the UK Conservatives, as this whole process starkly demonstrates. I've said before that I don't like the EU and my reasons are the same as Corbyn's. He believes in collaborative security and as anti-war. I would like the UK to be more of a dove within European nations, rather than a pro-American hawk. I doubt he could have done worse with this process though I wish he would now push for a second ref.
Yes, it was a typo. I was gonna put and gen election as another option but I don't think that is an answer to the Brexit mess.
@room101 [quote]Come on mate, this is just silly. Theresa May inherited a crap situation and has honoured a referendum result that she herself did not vote for. The EU are not going to make this easy for us, that's a given. So you can bet your bottom dollar that she has fought hard for the deal that she been able to get from them. Not only has she fought the EU, she has also had to fight (and is still fighting) elements within her own party and elements within every other party that we've got.[/quote]
May fought an election on a hard-Brexit pledge that she knew she couldn't deliver. She said no-deal was better than a bad deal and comes back with a bad deal and at no times has attempted to inject any realism into the process. I will concede that Corbyn is also guilty on the latter point.
[quote]He manipulated the Labour Party leadership election process[/quote]
LOL. I know you hate Corbyn but he won fair and square and he won TWICE, under conditions set-up by the Labour right and in spite of them throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him. Labour Party members do not like neo-liberalism and were sick of a party which refused to fight against it. Som people refuse to see the reasons why he won and that it was not a freak aberration.
I've said before that I don't like the EU.
[quote]Ideologically, there is nobody within the EU that aligns with him. On security and the military, everybody in the EU disagrees with him.
[/quote]
The same can be said of the UK Conservatives, as this whole process starkly demonstrates. I've said before that I don't like the EU and my reasons are the same as Corbyn's. He believes in collaborative security and as anti-war. I would like the UK to be more of a dove within European nations, rather than a pro-American hawk. I doubt he could have done worse with this process though I wish he would now push for a second ref.
Yes, it was a typo. I was gonna put and gen election as another option but I don't think that is an answer to the Brexit mess.
room101 · 51-55, M
@gol979 I'll take your last question first. I'm looking at Labour for two reasons. First, they are the only real alternative to the Conservatives. So, if Theresa May is ousted from office over this, and bearing in mind that the government has been found to be in contempt of Parliament, there is a very strong possibility that Corbyn will be the only winner in this current situation. Second, I know that Burnley is a Corbyn supporter so I'm directing my comment to him accordingly.
How has Theresa May fought for the deal? How has she not? Do you honestly think that she's been sitting in No.10 for the last two years twiddling her thumbs? It's all been played out in front of us. Every step of this painful negotiation process has been there for us to see.
How did Corbyn manipulate the leadership election process? In Feb 2014, the Labour Party adopted the proposals contained in the Collins Report re party leadership. Previously, the three component parts of the Labour electorate i.e. Parliamentary members, party members and, affiliated societies (unions etc) all carried equal weight in the selection process. Trying to get away from undue influence by the unions, they changed to a one member, one vote system. All that a leadership hopeful had to do was to gain more individual votes than his or her rivals.
Under Ed Milliband, the Labour Party had started the move back to its very left leaning ideals of the 70’s and 80’s. Corbyn was the only one of the leadership candidates that exemplified that ideology. All the others were basically left of center. Consequently, the political elite (I hate that phrase – why the hell am I using it!) ignored him as a “no hoper”. In fact, his nomination accounted for approx. 15% of the MP’s votes with 12% being undeclared ie he was absolute bottom of the list. I’ve read in some of the political press that he was only nominated to “make up the numbers”.
However, while everybody was ignoring the changes to the leadership election process and ignoring Corbyn, he was the only candidate who understood and used the changes in the Collins Report. He understood that, if he could get enough of his supporters to actually become members of the Labour Party, he could win. So, he had a link on his website to the joining process. Which meant that, even though he only got 15% of the Labour Parliamentarian vote, he won the public vote.
How is he anti-business? Yeah, that's not a serious question. So I'm going to ignore it.
How has Theresa May fought for the deal? How has she not? Do you honestly think that she's been sitting in No.10 for the last two years twiddling her thumbs? It's all been played out in front of us. Every step of this painful negotiation process has been there for us to see.
How did Corbyn manipulate the leadership election process? In Feb 2014, the Labour Party adopted the proposals contained in the Collins Report re party leadership. Previously, the three component parts of the Labour electorate i.e. Parliamentary members, party members and, affiliated societies (unions etc) all carried equal weight in the selection process. Trying to get away from undue influence by the unions, they changed to a one member, one vote system. All that a leadership hopeful had to do was to gain more individual votes than his or her rivals.
Under Ed Milliband, the Labour Party had started the move back to its very left leaning ideals of the 70’s and 80’s. Corbyn was the only one of the leadership candidates that exemplified that ideology. All the others were basically left of center. Consequently, the political elite (I hate that phrase – why the hell am I using it!) ignored him as a “no hoper”. In fact, his nomination accounted for approx. 15% of the MP’s votes with 12% being undeclared ie he was absolute bottom of the list. I’ve read in some of the political press that he was only nominated to “make up the numbers”.
However, while everybody was ignoring the changes to the leadership election process and ignoring Corbyn, he was the only candidate who understood and used the changes in the Collins Report. He understood that, if he could get enough of his supporters to actually become members of the Labour Party, he could win. So, he had a link on his website to the joining process. Which meant that, even though he only got 15% of the Labour Parliamentarian vote, he won the public vote.
How is he anti-business? Yeah, that's not a serious question. So I'm going to ignore it.
room101 · 51-55, M
@Burnley123 My feelings on Jeremy Corbyn have got nothing to do with anything that I've said in my comments. Sure, I think that he is naive and more than a little backward thinking (not to mention his tacit support of known terrorist groups - I mark that under naive........when I'm feeling generous) but, what I've outlined is the reality of how he became party leader. And the reality that he has said nothing tangible about Brexit.
You, and many others, say that Theresa May's deal is a bad deal. Bad in what way? Every time that I look at the Parliamentary debates, every time that I look at news coverage of the deal, all I see is people saying what [b]could[/b] happen. And this [b]"could happen"[/b] scenario is based on two premises. First, that we (that "we" includes the EU) will not sort out the details during the transition period. Second, that the EU will force us to stay in.
Why would any of that happen? Can you imagine what would happen to the Brussels grandees if they were seen to be actively preventing a democratically elected referendum result from being enacted? Can you imagine what that would do to the stability of the EU itself? They may not want to encourage others wanting to leave, but they sure as hell don't want to be portrayed (in such certain terms) as undemocratic bullies.
How can the same be said about UK Conservatives. In terms of political ideology they are out of step with the EU in one way and one way only. Sovereignty. In terms of security and military, they are only out of step on the topic of an EU military force. And that whole idea has garnered very little support from anybody in the EU. Although, what with Trump's anti-NATO sabre rattling and his BS foreign policies, that could change.
You, and many others, say that Theresa May's deal is a bad deal. Bad in what way? Every time that I look at the Parliamentary debates, every time that I look at news coverage of the deal, all I see is people saying what [b]could[/b] happen. And this [b]"could happen"[/b] scenario is based on two premises. First, that we (that "we" includes the EU) will not sort out the details during the transition period. Second, that the EU will force us to stay in.
Why would any of that happen? Can you imagine what would happen to the Brussels grandees if they were seen to be actively preventing a democratically elected referendum result from being enacted? Can you imagine what that would do to the stability of the EU itself? They may not want to encourage others wanting to leave, but they sure as hell don't want to be portrayed (in such certain terms) as undemocratic bullies.
How can the same be said about UK Conservatives. In terms of political ideology they are out of step with the EU in one way and one way only. Sovereignty. In terms of security and military, they are only out of step on the topic of an EU military force. And that whole idea has garnered very little support from anybody in the EU. Although, what with Trump's anti-NATO sabre rattling and his BS foreign policies, that could change.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@room101 There is a lot to get through but I'll try and be precise.
Firstly, I know the process of Corbyn's election because I was part of it myself and I read up on the history. You describe it pretty well tbf. What I don't get is how he manipulated the system? His success was a surprise to everyone, including himself but fair within the rules. He also won on existing members in both elections. He got 49% in the first round in 2015 but nobody seriously thinks he would not have got a majority in second and third preference votes in later rounds. It wasn't a narrow victory but a landslide.
I think you are a social democrat and a social liberal. I also noticed that your political compass is the same place as mine so I think its a case that we draw different conclusions from the same values. You don't like Corbyn on foreign policy, particularly the Israel Palestine conflict. This is something where we have talked before and know each other's positions.
Corbyn didn't become Labour party leader because of these positions, though his opposition to Iraq probably did no harm. Labour (even under Ed Miliband) had accepted an austerity-lite agenda that tacitly supported most of the Tory cuts and never made a consistent political case against them. This has been criticised by many non-radical economists; such as Paul Krugman and Simon Wre-lewis. The other Labour candidates began the leadership election by hinting that they needed to be closer to the Conservatives in terms of policy to win elections. They may have been 'left-leaning' in party affiliation and tradition but were not left-leaning in practice. At the time, I considered myself to be centre-left but was so disillusioned with the Labour mainstream that I joined and campaigned for Corbyn because he was saying in plain English things that I actually agreed with. Through the process of being involved, I've moved further to the left but still consider myself a pragmatist in terms of strategy.
I will criticised Corbyn's current stance on Brexit because I don't think he can get a better deal. If he ever could, he can't at this stage. I want a second referendum because of the real damage that Brexit could do to communities like the one I grew up in. Most of the people there voted for Brexit because of fears of immigration and also because (understandably) they feel they have been left behind economically and have drawn what I see as the wrong solutions. I am happy to debate this with people. I also don't think these people voted for either May's Deal or the reality of a no-deal Brexit? If the Brexit deal delivered greater prosperity and cut immigration, I would be against it but accept it because of the vote. What people voted for won't happen.
What is wrong with May's deal? A lot. It is not a hard break so will not satisfy Brexiteers. It takes Britain out of the Single Market but not Northern Ireland, which is a crazy imbalance. It keeps us all in the Customs Union but without the Single Market, that will still be bad for the economy. It guarantees state Aid (which might stop Labour nationalising railways) but doesn't protect workers rights or the environment. The one thing it does claim to do is control freedom of movement but it allows movement for 'key-skill' workers and will probably compensate for the lack f EU immigration with more people from former colonies. I am speculating here but that is what the CBI would want and Brexiteers won't like that. Also, the deal kicks down the road other issues such as the NI backstop or whether there will be a hard border in the Irish Sea. May thought her fudge could work politically but we will be in an even weaker position to negotiate stuff after we have left.
I think this deal could still get passed because May will spend the next months ostensibly negotiatng with the EU, get nowhere and then say to MPs that it's her deal or hard-brexit.
Firstly, I know the process of Corbyn's election because I was part of it myself and I read up on the history. You describe it pretty well tbf. What I don't get is how he manipulated the system? His success was a surprise to everyone, including himself but fair within the rules. He also won on existing members in both elections. He got 49% in the first round in 2015 but nobody seriously thinks he would not have got a majority in second and third preference votes in later rounds. It wasn't a narrow victory but a landslide.
I think you are a social democrat and a social liberal. I also noticed that your political compass is the same place as mine so I think its a case that we draw different conclusions from the same values. You don't like Corbyn on foreign policy, particularly the Israel Palestine conflict. This is something where we have talked before and know each other's positions.
Corbyn didn't become Labour party leader because of these positions, though his opposition to Iraq probably did no harm. Labour (even under Ed Miliband) had accepted an austerity-lite agenda that tacitly supported most of the Tory cuts and never made a consistent political case against them. This has been criticised by many non-radical economists; such as Paul Krugman and Simon Wre-lewis. The other Labour candidates began the leadership election by hinting that they needed to be closer to the Conservatives in terms of policy to win elections. They may have been 'left-leaning' in party affiliation and tradition but were not left-leaning in practice. At the time, I considered myself to be centre-left but was so disillusioned with the Labour mainstream that I joined and campaigned for Corbyn because he was saying in plain English things that I actually agreed with. Through the process of being involved, I've moved further to the left but still consider myself a pragmatist in terms of strategy.
I will criticised Corbyn's current stance on Brexit because I don't think he can get a better deal. If he ever could, he can't at this stage. I want a second referendum because of the real damage that Brexit could do to communities like the one I grew up in. Most of the people there voted for Brexit because of fears of immigration and also because (understandably) they feel they have been left behind economically and have drawn what I see as the wrong solutions. I am happy to debate this with people. I also don't think these people voted for either May's Deal or the reality of a no-deal Brexit? If the Brexit deal delivered greater prosperity and cut immigration, I would be against it but accept it because of the vote. What people voted for won't happen.
What is wrong with May's deal? A lot. It is not a hard break so will not satisfy Brexiteers. It takes Britain out of the Single Market but not Northern Ireland, which is a crazy imbalance. It keeps us all in the Customs Union but without the Single Market, that will still be bad for the economy. It guarantees state Aid (which might stop Labour nationalising railways) but doesn't protect workers rights or the environment. The one thing it does claim to do is control freedom of movement but it allows movement for 'key-skill' workers and will probably compensate for the lack f EU immigration with more people from former colonies. I am speculating here but that is what the CBI would want and Brexiteers won't like that. Also, the deal kicks down the road other issues such as the NI backstop or whether there will be a hard border in the Irish Sea. May thought her fudge could work politically but we will be in an even weaker position to negotiate stuff after we have left.
I think this deal could still get passed because May will spend the next months ostensibly negotiatng with the EU, get nowhere and then say to MPs that it's her deal or hard-brexit.
room101 · 51-55, M
@Burnley123 Perhaps my use of the word "manipulate" implies some kind of nefarious activity. That wasn't my intent. A good strategist recognises an opportunity and knows how to manipulate and exploit that opportunity to his or her benefit. The ethical element comes in on how that strategist does these things. I'm not commenting on Corbyn's ethics, I'm simply stating a behaviour. A behaviour which he has been repeating ever since the referendum results were known. As I have stated in previous conversations (and I think that you agree) that behaviour is not in the best interest of the country. In my not so humble opinion, it is in the best interest of Corbyn. I don't think that it's even the best interest of the Labour Party long term.
I agree that you and I have the same values and that we don't apply those same values in exactly the same way. We don't agree on the Israel/Palestine situation. We've briefly spoken about the nationalisation of our rail network and we didn't seem to agree on that. I dare say that, if we were to discuss other issues in detail, we would agree on the problems and may not agree on the solutions or on how those problems arise. But I'm cool with that. It's what makes, and keeps, constructive debate healthy.
I don't like to apply political labels to myself because those labels seem to be very inconsistent. I suppose the only label that I'm comfortable with is left leaning centrist. That's where my political economics lays. That's where my social economics and values lay. I think lol. Labels really bug me.
If we look at the referendum in the binary way in which it actually was, Brexit means out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, out of everything. I think that we both agree that that would be detrimental to the nation in many, many ways. However, where you may see potential solutions in some of the options being talked about, I see a distinct lack of reality. Just today, Tusk again re-iterated that there is no other deal to be had. Maybe it's a bluff. Maybe there is wriggle room to be found. But it won't be found by "ostensibly negotiating". I don't believe that May has ever done that and I don't believe that she will be doing that in the coming weeks either.
I do not agree that we will be in a weaker position to negotiate come March 2019, because I don't see it in terms of strength and weakness. I see it in terms of the reality that we and the EU will be in. We leave in March 2019. That's our reality. That's the reality of a 27 nation EU. Unless we cancel Brexit.
I do not see a second referendum as any kind of solution for two reasons. First, I think that it would cause possibly irreparable harm to our democratic process. In my view, the argument of; "do we hold a second vote everytime we don't like the first result", is a valid one. Second, I have no faith in the result that it would yield. What happens if we get another Brexit vote?
As I have already stated, May ratified all EU law into British law in January 2017. So your, and Corbyn's, criticism on workers rights doesn't apply. It also doesn't apply on environmental issues for the same reasons. Not to mention the environmental strategies that we are signed up to outside of our EU membership.
Immigration was an issue during the referendum lead up that particularly turned my guts. Successive governments have actively sought cheap labour from the former colonies and elsewhere. Bottom line, the immigration that everybody was up in arms about was that of dark skinned people and Muslims. EU membership, on such immigration, is tangential at best. The whole fiasco was unbridled racism fostered by the likes of Farage and all the others of that ilk.
I agree that you and I have the same values and that we don't apply those same values in exactly the same way. We don't agree on the Israel/Palestine situation. We've briefly spoken about the nationalisation of our rail network and we didn't seem to agree on that. I dare say that, if we were to discuss other issues in detail, we would agree on the problems and may not agree on the solutions or on how those problems arise. But I'm cool with that. It's what makes, and keeps, constructive debate healthy.
I don't like to apply political labels to myself because those labels seem to be very inconsistent. I suppose the only label that I'm comfortable with is left leaning centrist. That's where my political economics lays. That's where my social economics and values lay. I think lol. Labels really bug me.
If we look at the referendum in the binary way in which it actually was, Brexit means out of the Customs Union, out of the Single Market, out of everything. I think that we both agree that that would be detrimental to the nation in many, many ways. However, where you may see potential solutions in some of the options being talked about, I see a distinct lack of reality. Just today, Tusk again re-iterated that there is no other deal to be had. Maybe it's a bluff. Maybe there is wriggle room to be found. But it won't be found by "ostensibly negotiating". I don't believe that May has ever done that and I don't believe that she will be doing that in the coming weeks either.
I do not agree that we will be in a weaker position to negotiate come March 2019, because I don't see it in terms of strength and weakness. I see it in terms of the reality that we and the EU will be in. We leave in March 2019. That's our reality. That's the reality of a 27 nation EU. Unless we cancel Brexit.
I do not see a second referendum as any kind of solution for two reasons. First, I think that it would cause possibly irreparable harm to our democratic process. In my view, the argument of; "do we hold a second vote everytime we don't like the first result", is a valid one. Second, I have no faith in the result that it would yield. What happens if we get another Brexit vote?
As I have already stated, May ratified all EU law into British law in January 2017. So your, and Corbyn's, criticism on workers rights doesn't apply. It also doesn't apply on environmental issues for the same reasons. Not to mention the environmental strategies that we are signed up to outside of our EU membership.
Immigration was an issue during the referendum lead up that particularly turned my guts. Successive governments have actively sought cheap labour from the former colonies and elsewhere. Bottom line, the immigration that everybody was up in arms about was that of dark skinned people and Muslims. EU membership, on such immigration, is tangential at best. The whole fiasco was unbridled racism fostered by the likes of Farage and all the others of that ilk.