Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

General Election 2019


Bjornebye
 Share

Who are you voting for?   

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?



Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Is that something the Lib Dems have refused to do? News to me.

Well, the recent vote on the Health and Social Care Act 2012 where 19 Lib Dems abstained is a decent indicator, don't you agree?  (I think that's probably a rhetorical question)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, viRdjil said:

However, there is already a successful template of which you could model your future relationship on.

Which the Leave campaign said is what we would have, you know when we'd be negotiating the "easiest deal in history" instead of leaving without any arrangement in place which is what we seem hell bent on now. 

 

But apparently people didn't vote for having what Norway and Switzerland have, despite the leave campaign repeatedly saying that's what we'd have. People knew they were voting for no deal, even though that's not what was campaigned for. Presumably as the people voting to leave are all psychic. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Well, that isn't a simple election message, no. But that isn't their election message.

 

Tories - Leave

Lib Dems - Stay

Labour - You decide

 

It's not overly complicated.

It is overly complicated and extremely difficult to sell. Maybe I should have said that the policy should be simple to understand. Yes, saying it is "you decide" is right but it provides no leadership, a party that cannot say its policy is to leave or stay will get hammered. It is ridiculous for Labour to say they wont tell anyone what they support until they've been in government for 3 - 6 months

 

We'll go round in circles about this i'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chevettehs said:

Which the Leave campaign said is what we would have, you know when we'd be negotiating the "easiest deal in history" instead of leaving without any arrangement in place which is what we seem hell bent on now. 

 

But apparently people didn't vote for having what Norway and Switzerland have, despite the leave campaign repeatedly saying that's what we'd have. People knew they were voting for no deal, even though that's not what was campaigned for. Presumably as the people voting to leave are all psychic. 

Channel 4 News were in Warrington last night as Warrington South is a Labour/Tory marginal and it's one of those "Workington man" (what unadulterated shite that is) rugby league towns the Tories are suppposed to be targeting. They interviewed one fella who said he had voted Leave in the referendum, but he hadn't voted to drive off a cliff. He said Brexit wasn't the only thing that matters and that he would be voting for Labour.

 

Hopefully there's plenty more Leave supporters who see things like this, although I've also seen plenty of complete mongs interviewed who will happily vote against their own interests, so my hopes are porbably misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, A Red said:

The main being they cant piss off Labour voting brexiteers so have come up with a daft policy to try to hoodwink them

I don't agree that it's daft, but I agree with the reasoning for needing to find a compromise. The other parties don't need to.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, A Red said:

The main being they cant piss off Labour voting brexiteers so have come up with a daft policy to try to hoodwink them

I wouldn't say it's 'hoodwinking' them. The policy is to negotiate a deal which would appeal to Labour leave voters, and then let the country decide if they want it in a referendum. Presumably, the Labour cabinet and MPs will be given free reign to campaign on what they want without being sanctioned, just like the Tories allowed ministers to campaign for Leave even though the official position was to Remain.

 

Given that the entire country is split almost down the middle on whether to leave or stay, it seems a much fairer policy than either of the other parties'.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vincent Vega said:

Channel 4 News were in Warrington last night as Warrington South is a Labour/Tory marginal and it's one of those "Workington man" (what unadulterated shite that is) rugby league towns the Tories are suppposed to be targeting. They interviewed one fella who said he had voted Leave in the referendum, but he hadn't voted to drive off a cliff. He said Brexit wasn't the only thing that matters and that he would be voting for Labour.

 

Hopefully there's plenty more Leave supporters who see things like this, although I've also seen plenty of complete mongs interviewed who will happily vote against their own interests, so my hopes are porbably misplaced.

BBC News interviewed a 'workington man' last night. Big gym owner from the North East. Voted Brexit and really likes Johnson. I turned him off after I heard that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mudface said:

I wouldn't say it's 'hoodwinking' them. The policy is to negotiate a deal which would appeal to Labour leave voters, and then let the country decide if they want it in a referendum. Presumably, the Labour cabinet and MPs will be given free reign to campaign on what they want without being sanctioned, just like the Tories allowed ministers to campaign for Leave even though the official position was to Remain.

 

Given that the entire country is split almost down the middle on whether to leave or stay, it seems a much fairer policy than either of the other parties'.

I'm sorry but I think hoodwinking them is exactly the point of the policy. Many at the last conference wanted to come out full remain (including Starmer) but Corbyn got his way so that it is delayed until after the GE. It is effectively waiting until after they get Labour brexit supporters votes before then deciding at a special conference to more than likely come out remain.

 

It is Labours policy to have brexit stance after a GE but not before. As I say, it is to try to appease (con, I think) Labour brexiteers, otherwise why not come out full remain?

 

You then get to the daft bit, trying to negotiate a deal they dont want and then deciding at special conference whether to recommend it in a referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

 

You then get to the daft bit, trying to negotiate a deal they dont want and then deciding at special conference whether to recommend it in a referendum.

So a bit like the tories negotiating a hatful of deals that they don't want in the hope that they can squeeze a no deal brexit through 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue Labour are not coming out Full Remain because they want to honour the result of the 2016 referendum. 

 

In 2016 no one knew what the deal was, but lots of promises were made. 

 

Now we know the deal basically the same question will be asked 

Leave knowing what the deal is

Remain knowing what the deal is

 

 

A lot of people dislike the EU and the direction it is heading but reluctantly voted Remain as they didn't trust the Tories to negotiate in their best interests. If a deal that defends workers rights and jobs is on offer they may well vote for it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, A Red said:

I'm sorry but I think hoodwinking them is exactly the point of the policy. Many at the last conference wanted to come out full remain (including Starmer) but Corbyn got his way so that it is delayed until after the GE. It is effectively waiting until after they get Labour brexit supporters votes before then deciding at a special conference to more than likely come out remain.

 

It is Labours policy to have brexit stance after a GE but not before. As I say, it is to try to appease (con, I think) Labour brexiteers, otherwise why not come out full remain?

 

You then get to the daft bit, trying to negotiate a deal they dont want and then deciding at special conference whether to recommend it in a referendum.

Labour will not come out full remain either before or after the election because more people voted to leave in 2016 than remain. Labour's policy is to respect the result of the referendum, negotiate a withdrawal agreement, that will be a softer Brexit than what Johnson is offering, and then have a confirmatory vote.

Do people really need to be told what way to vote on that? Or would it be sensible for Labour to say here's the deal we have got, this is what it means, the decision is yours. I don't really see what is difficult about understanding that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Red said:

The main being they cant piss off Labour voting brexiteers so have come up with a daft policy to try to hoodwink them

Hoodwink them?  I think it's insulting to people that you think Labour simply must have a black and white Brexit policy when it's obvious that the party, and the country, including their own family friends, are deeply divided on this issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jenson said:

Labour will not come out full remain either before or after the election because more people voted to leave in 2016 than remain. Labour's policy is to respect the result of the referendum, negotiate a withdrawal agreement, that will be a softer Brexit than what Johnson is offering, and then have a confirmatory vote.

Do people really need to be told what way to vote on that? Or would it be sensible for Labour to say here's the deal we have got, this is what it means, the decision is yours. I don't really see what is difficult about understanding that.

image.jpeg

 

image.jpeg

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moo said:

Hoodwink them?  I think it's insulting to people that you think Labour simply must have a black and white Brexit policy when it's obvious that the party, and the country, including their own family friends, are deeply divided on this issue. 

Not having a black and white policy on brexit will put labour in 3rd place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jenson said:

Labour will not come out full remain either before or after the election because more people voted to leave in 2016 than remain. Labour's policy is to respect the result of the referendum, negotiate a withdrawal agreement, that will be a softer Brexit than what Johnson is offering, and then have a confirmatory vote.

Do people really need to be told what way to vote on that? Or would it be sensible for Labour to say here's the deal we have got, this is what it means, the decision is yours. I don't really see what is difficult about understanding that.

It's really not difficult, only thick people, or ignorant people, or people with an agenda would say they don't understand it. I'm hoping that enough sections of the Labour electorate will not be thick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A Red said:

Not having a black and white policy on brexit will put labour in 3rd place

You might be right you might be wrong, but it's probably little to do with hoodwinking people as you insultingly suggest. 

Hoodwinking is saying shit like we'll leave on 31st October "do or die", or let's spend the savings "on the NHS" etc etc. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

If people want a second referendum, Labour are their only viable option. The Lib Dems won't get in. If anything, they're going to facilitate a harder Brexit as they seem more concerned with slagging off the only party that offers an obtainable path to a second vote than they do with stopping Brexit. 

I'd go so far as to say if people want any chance to Revoke Article 50 then Labour is the only viable option.  Aside from it being highly unlikely the Lib Dems will get in, simply Revoking Article 50 is not the answer.  Maybe it was at one point, for example I'd have supported it when it became obvious that the NI border question was a huge stumbling block one way or the other, if we'd have had a bit of honesty from politicians then we may have got away with Revoke.  But not now, the UK has since got even further divided to the point that they'll happily wave bye bye to their precious union if it means "getting Brexit done".  I think a second referendum is now the only "legitimate" way to Revoke Article 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...