Question Time

[pandarilla]

In the world of bus signs, Trump and Ruthless, there is not much room for nuance these days.
In the context of a digital choice, there is none.
The ridiculous aspect is of this few weeks is the revisionist take on Corbyn.
He's more culpable than most for this nonsense of a situation.

I fully disagree.

We need far, far, more nuance in our politics these days.

Corbyn is playing a waiting game right now because that is what is required. I don't think he's some sort of great leader. He has massive flaws in that respect - but I sympathise hugely regarding brexit.

[DrewDon]

We would likely have voted Leave regardless of who was Labour leader. Corbyn's campaigning during the referendum was lacklustre, but it was oddly genuine - he has never been anything other than a Eurosceptic, and he didn't even fully commit to campaigning for Remain during the 2015 leadership election. Having said that, Corbyn is wrong to prioritise ending FoM over membership over the SM, but he is only sticking by what was stated in Labour's manifesto. He will, however, be on the wrong side of history here, IMO. 

We should stop this madness, but it is difficult to see a route to doing so without upsetting a lot of people and arguably setting a difficult precedent. 

[vikingTON]

We would likely have voted Leave regardless of who was Labour leader.

Complete and utter nonsense, given the fact that it was a 48-52 decision and one that would quite possibly be reversed right now according to polls. That's a margin of victory that is regularly overturned in UK general elections.

To claim that a different campaign from the official opposition party leader could not have resulted in a swing of 2% either way is laughable.

[Pearbuyerbell]

34 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

We would likely have voted Leave regardless of who was Labour leader. Corbyn's campaigning during the referendum was lacklustre, but it was oddly genuine - he has never been anything other than a Eurosceptic, and he didn't even fully commit to campaigning for Remain during the 2015 leadership election. Having said that, Corbyn is wrong to prioritise ending FoM over membership over the SM, but he is only sticking by what was stated in Labour's manifesto. He will, however, be on the wrong side of history here, IMO. 

We should stop this madness, but it is difficult to see a route to doing so without upsetting a lot of people and arguably setting a difficult precedent. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

Complete and utter nonsense, given the fact that it was a 48-52 decision and one that would quite possibly be reversed right now according to polls. That's a margin of victory that is regularly overturned in UK general elections.

To claim that a different campaign from the official opposition party leader could not have resulted in a swing of 2% either way is laughable.

 

1

The only thing laughable is your lack of ability to read what DrewDon *actually* typed.   

You utter bellend.  

[DrewDon]

22 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

Complete and utter nonsense, given the fact that it was a 48-52 decision and one that would quite possibly be reversed right now according to polls. That's a margin of victory that is regularly overturned in UK general elections.

To claim that a different campaign from the official opposition party leader could not have resulted in a swing of 2% either way is laughable.

 

A clear majority of Labour voters backed Remain; the biggest problem was Tory voters splitting to Leave - a different campaign from a Labour leader other than Corbyn is unlikely to have prevented that. Any Labour leader would have faced the same problem as him in having to balance campaigning for a 'Remain' vote with not isolating working-class Labour-Leave voters in the North and the Midlands. It's not impossible that a different campaign and Labour leader could have prevented Brexit, but I think the likelihood has been over-exaggerated in some quarters and that it is significantly more complex than sometimes portrayed. 

[git-intae-thum]

19 hours ago, Glenconner said:

Corbyn comes from a time passed when the UK left was anti EEC. That became meaningless once the EU moved on to protection for workers rights. Once the Little Englanders have finished with the EU then the Tory/Ukip/DUP alliance will move on any benefits workers in the UK have. There wasn't and there isn't any left wing Brexit, it's a contradiction in terms. Corbyn is useless in the context of Brexit. It's like asking the Tories to defend the public sector workers. It ain't happening.

This.

Tories are despicable right wing nationalist b*****ds.You know what u get.

Labour are .................

Spoiler

despicable right wing nationalist b*****ds

 

[vikingTON]

A clear majority of Labour voters backed Remain; the biggest problem was Tory voters splitting to Leave - a different campaign from a Labour leader other than Corbyn is unlikely to have prevented that. Any Labour leader would have faced the same problem as him in having to balance campaigning for a 'Remain' vote with not isolating working-class Labour-Leave voters in the North and the Midlands. It's not impossible that a different campaign and Labour leader could have prevented Brexit, but I think the likelihood has been over-exaggerated in some quarters and that it is significantly more complex than sometimes portrayed. 

If Remain had gained an additional few points across Labour party strongholds like Sunderland and other bin northern English towns then the outcome would have been different, even while still comfortably losing the local vote in a lot of those areas. Corbyn and his campaign team either weren't able or weren't willing to set out an influential case for Remain in those areas; certainly not compared to their performance last month, which was solid enough in the northeast of England for example.

I'm not claiming that the Tory vote wasn't a factor, but it was still well within Labour's own power to determine the outcome. Only a piss-poor campaign from both major party leaders managed to bring about a narrow referendum defeat for their supposed cause.

[DrewDon]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

 

If Remain had gained an additional few points across Labour party strongholds like Sunderland and other bin northern English towns then the outcome would have been different, even while still comfortably losing the local vote in a lot of those areas. Corbyn and his campaign team either weren't able or weren't willing to set out an influential case for Remain in those areas; certainly not compared to their performance last month, which was solid enough in the northeast of England for example.

I'm not claiming that the Tory vote wasn't a factor, but it was still well within Labour's own power to determine the outcome. Only a piss-poor campaign from both major party leaders managed to bring about a narrow referendum defeat for their supposed cause.

 

I would place slightly more emphasis on longer term factors, especially the failures of successive Westminster governments of all hues to make the positive case for the EU. As a result, it was an uphill task to make a compelling argument over a relatively short campaigning period to (white, English, working-class) voters who thought that the EU - and immigration in particular - was a root cause of their problems and grievances, without exposure to a convincing alternative narrative over a longer period. 

I wholly agree that Corbyn’s campaign was lacklustre (and that Cameron made too many strategic errors along the way), but I suppose that's one of the problems with having to defend something that you don't really support in the first place.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

I disagree.

 

He refused to go all in with the remain campaign because he knew that the eu had some serious flaws. He's a left wing brexiteer and the eu is an incredibly neoliberal organisation.

 

I saw him on a sky question time thing and he handled all the questions in a balanced and entirely reasonable way. But you're right, he couldn't go big with the shouty rhetoric as he simply didn't agree with it.

 

Sorry but he was fucking duplicitous b*****d when it came to the EU referendum.

 

Completely dishonest about his anti-EU credentials.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

Complete and utter nonsense, given the fact that it was a 48-52 decision and one that would quite possibly be reversed right now according to polls. That's a margin of victory that is regularly overturned in UK general elections.

 

To claim that a different campaign from the official opposition party leader could not have resulted in a swing of 2% either way is laughable.

 

Absolutely.

 

Corbyn's EU campaign was a bumbling shambles.

 

He only got lucky in the General Election because May was even worse.

 

Labour could have shored up support if they had gone harder on the fact that it isn't the EU to blame for long term unemployment but the capitalist wankers that the Tories suck up to

 

[pandarilla]

Sorry but he was fucking duplicitous b*****d when it came to the EU referendum.
 
Completely dishonest about his anti-EU credentials.
 

I don't think he was.

Dishonest would be if he'd given it big licks about the eu.

He never denied that there were major aspects of the eu which he disagreed with. But on balance, staying in was better than the alternative.

[John Lambies Doos]

Corbyn is full of hot air. More fool anyone who has been suckered into his shite. Showed his true colours when he litterly backed brexit by doing a disappearing act during the campaign. Shipworker in Glasgow and Hamburg and all that jazz......

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, pandarilla said:

 

I don't think he was.

Dishonest would be if he'd given it big licks about the eu.

He never denied that there were major aspects of the eu which he disagreed with. But on balance, staying in was better than the alternative.
 

 

I think you're being kind to him on this subject.  If Corbyn could have gone through the whole EU referendum without uttering a single word that held him to a position he would have done so.  He had a Tory counterpart who had the same approach; she's now Prime Minister.

 

[pandarilla]

I think you're being kind to him on this subject.  If Corbyn could have gone through the whole EU referendum without uttering a single word that held him to a position he would have done so.  He had a Tory counterpart who had the same approach; she's now Prime Minister.
 

I agree with your last two sentences.

He saw it as a shitty and unnecessary referendum. There's far, far, too much that has still to be seen before any strong line should be taken.

May played a blinder during the referendum, just sitting back whilst fools lost their heads.

[mjw]

Not sure if it is just twitter talk but the attempt to copy the 'ooh Jeremy Corbyn' nonsense from Glastonbury at the trnsmt show tonight has been a bit of a flop.

[zidane's child]

59 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

I agree with your last two sentences.

He saw it as a shitty and unnecessary referendum. There's far, far, too much that has still to be seen before any strong line should be taken.

May played a blinder during the referendum, just sitting back whilst fools lost their heads.
 

 

You say "Just sitting back", I say cowardly.

[Granny Danger]

12 hours ago, zidane's child said:

You say "Just sitting back", I say cowardly.

Both pandarilla and yourself are correct.  She was cowardly but that's hardly a surprise, it was an astute political manoeuvre and it worked in her favour.

I'm increasingly surprised that May got the position unchallenged;  It is clear that she is not suited to the role.  Her obvious weaknesses and inability to engage are traits that have only being exposed to the electorate since she has been promoted centre stage, but her more senior colleagues must have known her character prior to making her PM.

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Both pandarilla and yourself are correct.  She was cowardly but that's hardly a surprise, it was an astute political manoeuvre and it worked in her favour.

I'm increasingly surprised that May got the position unchallenged;  It is clear that she is not suited to the role.  Her obvious weaknesses and inability to engage are traits that have only being exposed to the electorate since she has been promoted centre stage, but her more senior colleagues must have known her character prior to making her PM.

There are times when people with skeletons in the cupboard are pushed forward as they can be easily manipulated, perhaps this is such a time.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You say "Just sitting back", I say cowardly.

Both of them were.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Both pandarilla and yourself are correct.  She was cowardly but that's hardly a surprise, it was an astute political manoeuvre and it worked in her favour.
I'm increasingly surprised that May got the position unchallenged;  It is clear that she is not suited to the role.  Her obvious weaknesses and inability to engage are traits that have only being exposed to the electorate since she has been promoted centre stage, but her more senior colleagues must have known her character prior to making her PM.

The reality is that most of the possible candidates wanted someone else to clear up (or take the blame for) the mess from Brexit.