Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Yeah of course. Because the LDs haven't got history for it and the least said about the leaders history for siding with the Tories the better.

 

"Siding with the Tories", or partaking in the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government, as it's more accurately known.

 

Rather ignores the fact that the Tories under Cameron and the Tories under Johnson are as different as... well, Labour under Blair and Labour under Corbyn.

 

The Lib Dems will not work with anyone to deliver Brexit. That is another one of those facts. I understand Labour feels threatened by the Lib Dems, with good reason, but this nonsense is getting increasingly desperate.

[Mudface]

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

"Siding with the Tories", or partaking in the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government, as it's more accurately known.

 

Rather ignores the fact that the Tories under Cameron and the Tories under Johnson are as different as... well, Labour under Blair and Labour under Corbyn.

True. The current Tories seem to want to move away from austerity. 

[Rico1304]

I like this thread. It’s funny what you can say in here, but not in the JC thread.  

[sir roger]

3 hours ago, A Red said:

You quite clearly didnt understand the Corbyn plan despite thinking it was quite simple and easy to sell. Your posts on the subject talked about having a neutral position throughout the GE and referendum, nothing about a special conference. The decision to remain at the special conference is speculation on my part but a very easy assumption to make. Starmer, who has said it is highly likely to come out remain, isnt just like any other delegate to that conference, he is shadow Brexit Secretary.

 

Given the voting confusion at the last conference and the fact that 90% of labour is remain I would suggest coming out remain at the special conference is by far and away the most likely outcome. Not a secret plan but a logical conclusion. Far from flapdoodle from my flue I would suggest.

You keep mentioning 90% , but I am fairly sure the split of Labour referendum voters was about 66/34.

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

Say what you want about Alastair Campbell and I’ve said lots! 

 

But he’d make mincemeat of these fuckers. 

Indeed. There’s a real lack of bite to Labour. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I like this thread. It’s funny what you can say in here, but not in the JC thread.  

Definitely not a troll. Just posting things like this, randomly and detached from the conversation, with the honest, humble intent of a good, polite debate. Not a cunt. Nope.

[Dr Nowt]

15 minutes ago, sir roger said:

You keep mentioning 90%

It appears along with opinions, you’re also allowed your own stats.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

It appears along with opinions, you’re also allowed your own stats.

And 144% of us agree to disagree on that. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

3 hours ago, A Red said:

You are allowed to come out and blatantly say that Corbyns plan is a little bit wrong

 

Unfortunately there isn't a right plan or a wrong one. Brexit has split the country and many who wouldn't normally be arsed voting in a GE will do so the next time, the only reason being Brexit. It's a tightrope walk for any party to get it right. Politics in the UK is, and has been pretty fucking crap over the last decade or so. All about the media and TV trying to guide people in the direction they choose, or should I say have been ordered to. 

[moof]

46 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Indeed. There’s a real lack of bite to Labour. 

I wish we could sign Lula, at least on loan until the end of the season 

 

he would destroy the corporate alliance in six weeks

[magicrat]

23 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

Unfortunately there isn't a right plan or a wrong one. Brexit has split the country and many who wouldn't normally be arsed voting in a GE will do so the next time, the only reason being Brexit. It's a tightrope walk for any party to get it right. Politics in the UK is, and has been pretty fucking crap over the last decade or so. All about the media and TV trying to guide people in the direction they choose, or should I say have been ordered to. 

Brexit should be separated from a GE. All the parties a guilty to various degrees of putting party before country and not settling Brexit by a second referendum. GE's should be about a spectrum of policies not an appeal on a single issue which has pandered to some of worst elements in society. 

[Red74]

Never knew you were in a union Rico

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

4 minutes ago, magicrat said:

Brexit should be separated from a GE. All the parties a guilty to various degrees of putting party before country and not settling Brexit by a second referendum. GE's should be about a spectrum of policies not an appeal on a single issue which has pandered to some of worst elements in society. 

 

I agree, but we all know that won't happen. Firstly from a party prospective and secondly by those who will be voting. 

[A Red]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

You keep mentioning 90% , but I am fairly sure the split of Labour referendum voters was about 66/34.

I was meaning the labour party members rather than voters. To be fair I made 90% up I have read it is 80% but it is the vast majority

[moof]

Just now, A Red said:

I was meaning the labour party members rather than voters. To be fair I made 90% up I have read it is 80% but it is the vast majority

Well if that was the case why did they overwhelmingly vote to back corbyn’s plan at conference. Seems like the membership is largely coalesced behind him

[A Red]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Why do you assume "it can only be to change the stance"? That makes no sense.

 

I think I explained why I thought there was to be a special conference to discuss which way labour should go - remain/leave/neutral, quite thoroughly.

 

Why do you think the policy for both the GE and the Referendum wasnt agreed at the last conference but for the special conference to determine the policy for the Referendum?

[A Red]

3 minutes ago, moof said:

Well if that was the case why did they overwhelmingly vote to back corbyn’s plan at conference. Seems like the membership is largely coalesced behind him

Overwhelmingly? Did you watch it or read about it afterwards?

 

You think they will vote to stay neutral in a referendum?

 

[sir roger]

I’m not sure politicians of any party will have much sway if a second referendum came along , I would say practically everybody of voting age knows how they are going to vote. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

This is absolutely unreal. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

44 minutes ago, A Red said:

I think I explained why I thought there was to be a special conference to discuss which way labour should go - remain/leave/neutral, quite thoroughly.

 

Why do you think the policy for both the GE and the Referendum wasnt agreed at the last conference but for the special conference to determine the policy for the Referendum?

This is the first time you've acknowledged that a neutral position is an option at the special conference.  That's all I've been arguing: that the option of refusing to be defined as "a Leave party" or "a Remain party" is, at least, an option  - and that it hasn't already been decided, because it doesn't need to be decided yet.

 

I genuinely don’t understand that question about what you think I think the Conference thinks.

 

What I really think was agreed at Conference is the motion which was agreed at  Conference, which I posted a link to last night. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

33 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I’m not sure politicians of any party will have much sway if a second referendum came along , I would say practically everybody of voting age knows how they are going to vote. 

It will be interesting to see how the hardcore Brexiteers will react if Labour negotiate a "soft Brexit" which looks much the same as remaining, except with less influence for the UK. 

[A Red]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

This is the first time you've acknowledged that a neutral position is an option at the special conference.  That's all I've been arguing: that the option of refusing to be defined as "a Leave party" or "a Remain party" is, at least, an option  - and that it hasn't already been decided, because it doesn't need to be decided yet.

 

I genuinely don’t understand that question about what you think I think the Conference thinks.

 

What I really think was agreed at Conference is the motion which was agreed at  Conference, which I posted a link to last night. 

Ok, fair enough, i'll try to re-word my question.

 

Labours policy on brexit for the GE was decided at the last conference. Labours policy at a referendum will be decided at a special conference later on. I understand that. What I dont understand is why. Why wasnt it all agreed at the last conference, why could there be any difference between what Labour believes in a GE or a referendum? I'm not asking you to tell me what you think conference thinks I'm asking you can you justify it as a good policy?

 

You said, because it doesnt need to be decided yet. That makes no sense to me, and it cant make any sense to you as you were under the belief that conference had already decided to be neutral for both. 

 

At the risk of being a boring twat i will recap why i reckon labour has taken this route. It is trying to keep the labour leave voters happy so that their GE votes arent lost and the remain referendum voters/members happy that the party will officially back remain in the referendum. The leave voters in Labour seats, primarily in the north, will have then served their purpose.

 

 

[A Red]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

This is absolutely unreal. 

What is?

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, A Red said:

 

At the risk of being a boring twat i will recap why i reckon labour has taken this route. It is trying to keep the labour leave voters happy so that their GE votes arent lost and the remain referendum voters/members happy that the party will officially back remain in the referendum. The leave voters in Labour seats, primarily in the north, will have then served their purpose.

 

 

Or the stance is just an honest vote for the people so they know what they are voting for... 

[A Red]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Or the stance is just an honest vote for the people so they know what they are voting for... 

But they dont know what they are voting for in a GE, only that Labour are neutral about brexit but could change to remain or leave in a referendum. Its not as honest as the Lib Dems or tories