Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a remainer. You're a remainer, what deal would make you want to leave?

Nor should there be.

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

I personally wouldn't be satisfied with any leave deal. I think it is ridiculous to even consider it. 

 

They don't. 

 

 

They?? I thought they was you?

[A Red]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I personally wouldn't be satisfied with any leave deal. I think it is ridiculous to even consider it. 

 

They don't. 

 

Would you be satisfied with No Deal? 

I'm talking about remainers particularly labour members, sorry, who do you mean? 

 

No I wouldnt be satisfied with no deal.

[Bjornebye]

They meaning Labour having to take one of the options you posted 

[A Red]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

They meaning Labour having to take one of the options you posted 

There are only 3 options. What likelihood is there, in your opinion, of labour supporting leave (bearing in mind no deal satisfies a remainer)? 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, A Red said:

There are only 3 options. What likelihood is there, in your opinion, of labour supporting leave (bearing in mind no deal satisfies a remainer)? 

They will not support leave with No Deal. That has never been any different 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

When you see shit like this you know that Johnson probably went too far tonight... 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

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.

 

As I understand it (and I could be wrong) the special conference will take place between agreeing the deal and holding the referendum. In other words, the decision of whether or not to campaign to leave on the terms of Labour’s deal won't be taken until the details of that deal are known.  Surely that's just sensible, isn’t it?

 

If they had taken the decision at this week's conference that they were going to campaign to remain, then there is no incentive for either Labour or EU negotiators to even try to reach a good deal. In fact, there would be an incentive to reach a shit deal, as it would be easier to campaign against. 

 

Conversely, if they had taken the decision to campaign to leave, then the EU negotiators would have them over a barrel: they could offer any old shit, knowing that Labour were committed to accepting it and campaigning for it.

 

If the negotiations with the EU are to be in good faith, they need to take place with both parties open to the possibility of the UK either leaving or remaining. In other words, Labour should go into the negotiations with a neutral stance.

 

(PS - What's wrong with trying to keep voters happy?)

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

But not stating what they might back in the referendum. As I said we know for sure what the lib dems and tories will fight for. Thats being up front with the voters, Labour are not

Labour have said they will trust the voters in a referendum to determine what happens on Brexit. 

 

Neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems will do that.

 

Tories and Lib Dem are "being upfront" by saying to the voters "we'll decide; we know best".

[TheHowieLama]

12 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

If the negotiations with the EU are to be in good faith, they need to take place with both parties open to the possibility of the UK either leaving or remaining. In other words, Labour should go into the negotiations with a neutral stance.

 

Were past negotiations on these terms not in good faith? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

38 minutes ago, A Red said:

Yes they will try to negotiate a deal. There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a remainer. You're a remainer, what deal would make you want to leave? Realistic remember.

 

Therefore (fucking boring I know) they have to take one of the other 2 options as i stated above

I'm a remainer.  I voted remain in 2016 and I will again in 2020.

 

I know that other people exist who disagree; many of them for valid reasons.  I don't want Labour to totally ignore those people.   I would prefer my party not to come down on one side or the other in the referendum on the deal Labour negotiates.

 

I don't consider myself a brilliantly original thinker. If I'm holding this opinion, there's a good chance that plenty of other people are too. Therefore, Labour do not have to take a Leave or Remain stance for the referendum. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

Were past negotiations on these terms not in good faith? 

May's negotiations did not allow for the possibility of the UK electorate having any say in the outcome of the process, they were framed by Tory aims and red lines and were held with the UK pressing the loaded gun of No Deal against its temple.

 

It's probably fair to say that they were in good faith, but they were a different thing altogether to Labour's proposed negotiations. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

I think Labour need a new leader. I like Corbyn and his policy's but the underserved baggage and how unpalatable he is to many at the moment it's giving Boris too much of a chance. I hate this is the way it is but it needs somebody with fight to really give that fucking burst sheep a beating without all the Marxist, anti semitic, commie stuff. We are at too an important time, a conservative brexit is a disaster and especially now Boris has turned full dictator and quite prepared to tear the country to pieces using divisive language thinking this is his churchilian moment. It sucks arse the propaganda machine has painted a truly distorted picture of a decent man. As well as he's done under the circumstances he's fought against, he's no chance. We need some chance.

 

The country is a fucking mess. It feels hate is winning.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

55 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I think Labour need a new leader. I like Corbyn and his policy's but the underserved baggage and how unpalatable he is to many at the moment it's giving Boris too much of a chance. I hate this is the way it is but it needs somebody with fight to really give that fucking burst sheep a beating without all the Marxist, anti semitic, commie stuff. We are at too an important time, a conservative brexit is a disaster and especially now Boris has turned full dictator and quite prepared to tear the country to pieces using divisive language thinking this is his churchilian moment. It sucks arse the propaganda machine has painted a truly distorted picture of a decent man. As well as he's done under the circumstances he's fought against, he's no chance. We need some chance.

 

The country is a fucking mess. It feels hate is winning.

 

If he's ever going to win an election or lead a coalition, now is his chance. If he doesn't win this upcoming election, he should obviously stand down. However, it would be almost ridiculous for Labour to start the process of electing a new leader now. First, there's so much going on that it's the wrong time; second, how can you expect the country to vote for somebody who has been in the job five minutes; finally, it'd be unfair and tactically unwise for the next leader to still be fighting this Brexit shit. At best, he/she wins an election and has to sort Brexit out. At worst, they lose an election and are throwing shit against the wall of a Tory/Brexit Party coalition. 

 

Like it or not - and I don't - but Corbyn 'has the wheel'. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

Two advantages Corbyn has are that (1) he has a thick enough skin to deal with the filth thrown at him without losing his cool; and (2) by MP standards, he's sqieaky clean - no expense-fiddling, no shagging around, no dodgy business deals, no obvious conflicts of interest - which is why his opponents have to resort to desperately making stuff up.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

I quite strongly disagree with that, mate. I think a large part of the reason he has been targeted in the way he has is because he's an easy target. A career-long backbencher with views that vary all the way out to the far left, has had dealings with questionable characters (certainly in ways that others who could lead the party do not), and has long been in that same left-wing school of thought that the likes of Galloway come from regarding Europe, Iran, Israel, etc.

 

Any Labour leader will be attacked, there's no doubt about that, but it's obvious that Corbyn is beyond an easy target. I think there are people in the Labour Party that will win both the easy votes, by not being awkward and being able to sell themselves and their vision in a significantly more coherent way, and the tougher votes that will come from other parts of the political spectrum (which, to some, is a dirty concession to make. To others, it's what wins a majority and a platform to actually do a single thing you want). If Corbyn is ever going to win an election, it will be this one and it'll be because he has perhaps the most hideous PM in history in the most bizarre circumstances in history. Not because he can take a hit and is squeaky clean. 

 

If he loses, he will surely stand aside. My fear is that Labour members will double down and select somebody who isn't particularly electable and has a more radical agenda. That's fine, that's their prerogative, I just don't think it's going to win an election. So we will likely end up, as I've said many times before, have 0% of their dream agenda, 100% of a Tory agenda, when we could have had 80% of an agenda people on the left are comfortable with. Still, it's the choice for the Labour Party members. I'm not one of those and unless they want to get serious about getting into power, and put pragmatism before idealism, I doubt I ever will be. 

[Stickman]

22 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

Two advantages Corbyn has are that (1) he has a thick enough skin to deal with the filth thrown at him without losing his cool; and (2) by MP standards, he's sqieaky clean - no expense-fiddling, no shagging around, no dodgy business deals, no obvious conflicts of interest - which is why his opponents have to resort to desperately making stuff up.

 

 

You'll only have to watch Question Time tonight and see how many times James Cleverley gets away with calling Corbyn an anti-Semite racist while Fiona Bruce nods in agreement...   

[Scooby Dudek]

11 hours ago, A Red said:

Yes they will try to negotiate a deal. There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a remainer. You're a remainer, what deal would make you want to leave? Realistic remember.

 

Therefore (fucking boring I know) they have to take one of the other 2 options as i stated above

No they will not try to negotiate a deal. There is no possible realistic deal that could satisfy a leaver. You're a leaver, what deal would make you want to back it? Realistic remember.

 

 

 

 

The above is not aimed at you, it is a dig (as I boringly keep repeating) on the Tory No deal agenda of the Tory membership and cabinet. 

 

It could be argued that at least (maybe not clever politically) Labour are being honest in their splits, whereas the Tories are not. 

Again as has been stated numerous times (which unfortunately I agree with), Labour are terrible at playing politics, whereas the Tories are very good at. 

 

Labour could politically state they will renegotiate a deal and then back the deal. However, after the negotiations have finished, blame the EU and say the deal is so bad (due to the nasty Europeans) they have to reluctantly back remain. 

 

Hence changing their policy post election but it not being their fault, just like the (honest) Tories are currently doing. 

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's been said often enough before, but it's true, so it bears repeating - literally nobody could lead a Labour Party with those policies and not get attacked to the same degree Corbyn has. 

 

Nobody. 

 

Two advantages Corbyn has are that (1) he has a thick enough skin to deal with the filth thrown at him without losing his cool; and (2) by MP standards, he's sqieaky clean - no expense-fiddling, no shagging around, no dodgy business deals, no obvious conflicts of interest - which is why his opponents have to resort to desperately making stuff up.

Couldn’t agree more with this.

[Scooby Dudek]

[Scooby Dudek]

[Brownie]

50 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I quite strongly disagree with that, mate. I think a large part of the reason he has been targeted in the way he has is because he's an easy target. A career-long backbencher with views that vary all the way out to the far left, has had dealings with questionable characters (certainly in ways that others who could lead the party do not), and has long been in that same left-wing school of thought that the likes of Galloway come from regarding Europe, Iran, Israel, etc.

 

Any Labour leader will be attacked, there's no doubt about that, but it's obvious that Corbyn is beyond an easy target. I think there are people in the Labour Party that will win both the easy votes, by not being awkward and being able to sell themselves and their vision in a significantly more coherent way, and the tougher votes that will come from other parts of the political spectrum (which, to some, is a dirty concession to make. To others, it's what wins a majority and a platform to actually do a single thing you want). If Corbyn is ever going to win an election, it will be this one and it'll be because he has perhaps the most hideous PM in history in the most bizarre circumstances in history. Not because he can take a hit and is squeaky clean. 

 

If he loses, he will surely stand aside. My fear is that Labour members will double down and select somebody who isn't particularly electable and has a more radical agenda. That's fine, that's their prerogative, I just don't think it's going to win an election. So we will likely end up, as I've said many times before, have 0% of their dream agenda, 100% of a Tory agenda, when we could have had 80% of an agenda people on the left are comfortable with. Still, it's the choice for the Labour Party members. I'm not one of those and unless they want to get serious about getting into power, and put pragmatism before idealism, I doubt I ever will be. 

You’re basically agreeing with what he said. His point is that any Labour leader that is 100% true to Labour principles, won’t be allowed to win.

 

You’re saying someone less radical could win, we all know that as history has proven it.

 

Recent history has also proven that any truly leader from the left of the party won’t be allowed to win.

 

The establishment stands to lose too much from the application of proper Labour policies. I admire the fact that people are willing to approach it balls out rather than not be true to themselves just to get into power.

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, Brownie said:

You’re basically agreeing with what he said. His point is that any Labour leader that is 100% true to Labour principles, won’t be allowed to win.

 

You’re saying someone less radical could win, we all know that as history has proven it.

 

Recent history has also proven that any truly leader from the left of the party won’t be allowed to win.

 

The establishment stands to lose too much from the application of proper Labour policies. I admire the fact that people are willing to approach it balls out rather than not be true to themselves just to get into power.

Nope, I’m definitely not agreeing. I’m saying somebody with the same manifesto would be more likely to win because he’s way less of a target and would be a better leader and better able to sell their vision. 

[Dr Nowt]

It’s worth considering whether the Tories would have felt such a nakedly unsuitable leader as Johnson and his current viper’s nest would be remotely tenable to lead them into an election if a different Labour leader was in charge. Is it just correlation, or more than that? 

 

The stakes are infinitely higher here than they were with even Cameron or May, so the no compromise imperative of Labour being absolutely true to their ideal selves at this precise moment needs to be considered with that in mind. For example, in my opinion the public schools being taken back by the state policy is genuine madness while on this sort of cliff edge, let alone unfathomably bad political judgement. Pick your fucking moment. I think the easy target of Corbyn in that regard has almost certainly emboldened the right to be progressively authoritarian.

 

I’ll be voting for Corbyn in the election, yet again. I like the man, his ethos and many of his policies. He’s obviously a thoroughly decent human and I won’t waste time talking about the forces gathered against him and the dirty tricks used. However, I sadly also think that when we look back on this rapidly metastasising political era, him being leader of the opposition at this exact point in history and how flawed he is as a politician for reasons in and out of his control, is almost certainly one of the many, many key elements making it such a Greek tragedy of a situation.

[Brownie]

24 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Nope, I’m definitely not agreeing. I’m saying somebody with the same manifesto would be more likely to win because he’s way less of a target and would be a better leader and better able to sell their vision. 

Well you mentioned 80% of an agenda which would suggest a manifesto that has to remove 20% of true left labour policies.

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

It’s worth considering whether the Tories would have felt such a nakedly unsuitable leader as Johnson and his current viper’s nest would be remotely tenable to lead them into an election if a different Labour leader was in charge. Is it just correlation, or more than that? 

 

The stakes are infinitely higher here than they were with even Cameron or May, so the no compromise imperative of Labour being absolutely true to their ideal selves at this precise moment needs to be considered with that in mind. For example, in my opinion the public schools being taken back by the state policy is genuine madness while on this sort of cliff edge, let alone unfathomably bad political judgement. Pick your fucking moment. I think the easy target of Corbyn in that regard has almost certainly emboldened the right to be progressively authoritarian.

 

I’ll be voting for Corbyn in the election, yet again. I like the man, his ethos and many of his policies. He’s obviously a thoroughly decent human and I won’t waste time talking about the forces gathered against him and the dirty tricks used. However, I sadly also think that when we look back on this rapidly metastasising political era, him being leader of the opposition at this exact point in history and how flawed he is as a politician for reasons in and out of his control, is almost certainly one of the many, many key elements making it such a Greek tragedy of a situation.

I agree especially the first para. Corbyn is not suited to this vicious shit show which we now have.  I know I will get shot down in flames but Blair would have wiped the floor with Johnson and his ilk.