IF you voted Conservative last time

Who are you most ashamed of?

  • Boris and the Tory party as a whole

    Votes: 17 68.0%
  • Yourself

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • The media for exposing the continual malfeasance

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

Andy_W

Well-known member
Rishi Sunak will not be the Knight in shining armour some Tories will hope he is.

For a start he alienated 3+ million people and their families in excluding them from furlough.

Then the cost of living/energy crisis and NI increases are happening on his watch. I also doubt the Tory backbenchers rate him plus if he makes a powerplay for PM, the 2019 Johnson loyal intake of MP's will see that he is to blame for stabbing Johnson in the back.
Hopefully not, to the degree where they still lose, but if they win I hope he does well/ the right thing/ better otherwise we're screwed, as some other clown will be far, far worse.

He excluded me from furlough as director, but I can understand it. The small business support wasn't great, and not specific to any business, so a 10m company which has been kicked in the nuts might get 10k, but a 50k company which hasn't been effected got 10k too, that was bonkers but the admin on it would have been a nightmare I suppose.

At least they did the furlough, which I was surprised about, but Labour would have done more.

Energy crisis is caused by a succession of governments dwindling away our gas storage, and brexit has kicked us in the nuts, but I don't think Sunak's to blame for that as much as some, and certainly can't 100% prop that market up as it's too large. Come April when the price cap goes it's going to kick off big time, which is another big nail heading the Tories way, and this will be another nail next winter when gas use goes up.
 

zzzzz

Well-known member
Right, in the interests of fairness I've read every post you've made on this thread. I'm going to write down, what I presume are the facts, figures and numbers to back up your reasoned assessment of Corbyn's woeful performance.

In your original post about Foot, you said "He also was mostly responsible for a large Tory majority". Now, he may well have played a part, but don't you think the Falklands War and the desertion of the Gang of Four to form the SDP, played at least an equal part. Don't forget that in 1982, prior to the Falklands War, Thatcher was recorded as being the most unpopular Prime Minister ever and I believe Labour were ahead in the polls. LaPenna Bianca probably put it best in his response to your post

You go on to state in a later post, "When he got elected he had the opportunity to unite the party behind one of the greatest rises in membership ever. Instead he presided over a party rife with bullying, antisemitism, factionalism and bitterness, driven by Momentum and ended up with many leaving the party". You're right there was one of the greatest rises in membership ever. After Corbyn was elected as leader that is. Why do you think that is the case? Why do you think thousands of students joined? My opinion is that it was because they liked the message that was being given at the time 'For the many not the few'. You're also right that it ended with many actually leaving the party and I wish they hadn't, but, the big drop in membership has been since Corbyn resigned. You also say, "Instead he presided over a party rife with bullying, anti semitism, factionalism and bitterness, driven by Momentum. Well, I think Blind boy grunt has answered the anti semitism part in a post he made earlier. If you think the bullying, factionalism and bitterness was all from one side, well why was there an orchestrated mass of resignations from Corbyn's front bench team? Why was there a leadership challenge made only a year after Corbyn's election? Why was he screamed at by Margaret Hodge and assaulted, isn't that bullying?

You go on to say," he destroyed the Labour party". Really, last time I looked they were still there.

Nowhere in any of your post can I find the figures and numbers you refer to in making your reasoned assessment. There are a couple of facts, the rise in membership and subsequent fall, but as far as I can see that's it.

I have supported every Labour leader since I was first old enough to vote, Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown, Mlliband, Corbyn and yes Starmer and I will support every one until I shuffle off my mortal coil.

I am sure there is one thing we can both agree on, apart from the fact that we both have differing opinions on certain things and that is TORIES OUT.

In ending, I would like to apologise for name calling because in doing that I was being a hypocrite.
Thanks gregor, much appreciated.
And I never posted 'you lot' with any intention to upset anyone. Clearly it did so I too apologise.

The numbers are the election results and the facts are two Corbyn election defeats, losing seats and votes.
I could go into other numbers like the massive increase in poverty reflected in people needing food banks to survive, numbers like the debiltating effect of austerity, reduction in NHS spending, reduction in educatiob spending, increase in crime (up to Covid) and go on and on but I've already said too much.

Thanks for you detailed well reasoned reply.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
Sunak isn't tory enough to win a leadership contest, I don't think
I think that's why I would prefer him to the rest, if it had to be that way. I think he would have suited Cameron's better, but think Sunak is even milder than that lot. I can't see them going with him like, they're too far right now, and too discriminatory.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
This of course isn’t the full and up to date story of Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the party.

When the long anticipated Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into the Labour Party was released, It did not contain what many thought (or hoped) that it would. It concluded that the Labour Party under Corbyn was not institutionally anti-Semitic and that Corbyn himself was not anti-Semitic. What it did report was that there were two agents of the Party who were guilty of unlawful harassment. One a NEC member and one a Labour councillor. They did report that there had been political interference from Corbyn in the party’s efforts to deal with the problem of anti-Semitism in the party but that these incidences were in order to speed up the process.The commission therefore recommended that in future there should be no political interference in disciplinary matters.

On the strength of the findings Corbyn made a response saying; “Anyone claiming there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is wrong… One anti-Semite is one too many but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.”
Corbyn pointed to evidence that according to public perception one third of Labour members were anti-Semitic whilst the real figure was 0.3%

However, on the day of the report’s release, and against the EHRC recommendation that there should be no political interference in disciplinary cases, Starmer took it upon himself to suspend Jeremy from the party. At this point the head of the Unite union Len McCluskey warned that if Corbyn’s suspension was not reversed it would cause internal war within the party. Len then entered into negotiations with Starmer’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, and Angela Raynor find a solution and it was agreed that if Corbyn were to make a clarifying statement, the wording of which would be agreed upon by all sides, then the way would be clear for Corbyn to re-enter the party. McSweeney reassuring McCluskey that he had the power to speak for Starmer.

A statement was then prepared and agreed upon and Jeremy delivered it. What then followed was that a five person NEC panel consisting of only two Corbyn supporters voted unanimously to reinstate Jeremy. At no point in the discussions had there been any mention of the Labour whip being removed from Corbyn, the whole idea being to reach an agreement that would bring matters back to normal. Starmer then reneged on the deal, withdrawing the whip and leaving Corbyn in the ridiculous position of being an MP and a Labour Party member but not a Labour MP and that is the situation we have today.

Oh, FFS! :mad:

It's so embarrassing that you are still defending Corbyn and LOTO on this. Your post is no better than deflective spin reliant on selected technicalities. It seems you've learnt from Mr Blair's dodgy Iraq dossier spin.. This sort of stuff keeps coming up on here as a defence and it is probably by you each time. Please pack it in, it is embarrassing.

I don't normally respond in detail when you put this up, but one thing I've learnt from Brexit is that when repeated misrepresentations are never countered, they sow seeds in the public consciousness that bear their poisonous fruit further down the line. Many on here won't have gone into this subject and may start to think the antisemitism issue was overblown and just mudslinging after all.

So, here are some excerpts from the EHRC report. I've highlight some bits because you either don't know about them or do not understand how significant this absolutely damning report was.

From the FOREWORD

‘This report is being published during a time like no other in recent memory. Politicians have been asked to show leadership to steer the country out of an unprecedented crisis, and we are being asked to put our trust in them to do so.

Trust should be at the heart of a political party’s relationship with its members, and with the wider general public; yet what this investigation has shown is a clear breakdown of trust between the Labour Party, many of its members and the Jewish community.

The investigation was prompted by growing public concern about antisemitism in the Labour Party and followed official complaints received by us. Despite this concern and an internal inquiry led by Baroness Chakrabarti in 2016, our investigation found significant failings in the way the Labour Party has handled antisemitism complaints over the last four years.

We found specific examples of harassment, discrimination and political interference in our evidence, but equally of concern was a lack of leadership within the Labour Party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.

The Labour Party must live up to this commitment and acknowledge the impact that multiple investigations and years of failing to tackle antisemitism has had on Jewish people. Rebuilding trust and confidence with its members, the Jewish community and the wider public will be crucial for the future. A transparent and independent antisemitism complaints process, which ensures that all cases of alleged discrimination, harassment or victimisation are investigated promptly, rigorously and without political interference, must sit at the heart of this.

However, tackling antisemitism isn’t just about procedures. It is also about making sure that the Labour Party has a culture that clearly reflects its zero tolerance of antisemitism and indeed of all forms of discrimination.

But, more than that, politicians on all sides have a responsibility to set standards for our public life and to lead the way in challenging racism in all its forms. What politicians say and do matters. Their words and actions send a message about what is acceptable and what is not.

From the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY on ANTISEMITISM IN THE LABOUR PARTY

Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints across the Labour Party, and we have identified multiple failures in the systems it uses to resolve them. We have concluded that there were unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible.

While there have been some recent improvements in how the Labour Party deals with antisemitism complaints, our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.

The issue of antisemitism within the Labour Party has been the subject of much scrutiny, most formally with three investigations in 2016, conducted by Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Royall and the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). Since then, the Party has failed to implement the recommendations made in these reports fully, or to take effective measures to stop antisemitic conduct from taking place. It is regrettable that many of the concerns we raise here were first raised in these reports over four years ago.

This reflects a culture that is at odds with the Labour Party’s commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism.1 The Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment complaints. Although some improvements have been made to the process for dealing with antisemitism complaints, it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.

We found evidence of a significant number of complaints relating to antisemitism that were not investigated at all; this is especially true for complaints about social media activity where the Labour Party previously adopted a policy of not investigating mere ‘likes’ or reposts. Where matters were investigated, the guidance on appropriate sanctions was unclear and inconsistent. We found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation. We have concluded that this practice of political interference was unlawful. The evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. Sometimes these decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any clear formal criteria. We set out our main findings and recommendations for change below.

The Labour Party must now produce an action plan to address our findings and recommendations. The new leadership under Sir Keir Starmer has already publicly committed to implementing our recommendations in full. It must now put this into practice. The recommendations are clear, fair and achievable. They will help the Labour Party to make positive change in its policies, processes and culture, to benefit all of its members, and to rebuild trust among the Jewish community and the wider public. This must be done in a proactive and timely way. It must not be the case that these recommendations have to be made again in yet another report in the future.

From the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY on UNLAWFUL ACTS

‘Our investigation found that the Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by committing unlawful harassment through the acts of its agents in two of the complaints we investigated. These included using antisemitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of antisemitism were fake or smears.

As these people were acting as agents of the Labour Party, the Labour Party was legally responsible for their conduct.

This is by no means the full extent of the issues we identified within the files in our sample; it represents the tip of the iceberg. We also saw:

• A further 18 ‘borderline’ cases. In these cases, there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual. These were people such as local councillors, local election candidates and Constituency Labour Party office holders.
• In many more files, evidence of antisemitic conduct by an ‘ordinary’ member of the Labour Party. These members did not hold any office or role, therefore the Labour Party could not be held directly responsible for their conduct under the Equality Act 2010.

In light of our position as a regulator, we only made findings of unlawful conduct in cases that were sufficiently clear-cut, in Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 terms.

If the Labour Party really is committed to building a culture of zero tolerance towards antisemitism, then it must make it clear that antisemitic conduct by members will not be tolerated. It should also deal with such conduct by its members effectively whenever it does occur, regardless of whether it is legally responsible for it. As we explain below, we also found that the Labour Party breached the Equality Act 2010 by acts of indirect discrimination relating to political interference and a lack of adequate training.

From the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY on POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

‘Throughout the period we investigated, there was political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints – as part of a wider practice of LOTO involvement in disciplinary cases that were deemed ‘politically sensitive’, as well as a distinct practice in March–April 2018, when all antisemitism cases were referred to LOTO. Within the sample of 70 complaint files, we found 23 instances of political interference by LOTO staff and others. These included clear examples of interference at various stages throughout the complaint handling process, including in decisions on whether to investigate and whether to suspend.

We found that this political interference was not part of the Labour Party’s formal complaints process, so it was not a legitimate approach to determining complaints. We concluded that this was indirectly discriminatory and unlawful, and that the Labour Party was legally responsible for it. This practice has created a lack of transparency and consistency in the complaints process and a serious risk of actual or perceived discriminatory treatment in particular complaints. It has also fundamentally undermined public confidence in the complaints process.’



Given this report, it's talk of past fostering or allowing a culture of antisemitism to form through the inaction and messages sent from the top, the condemnation of the turning of a blind eye to social media likes and retweets and the reports legal instruction from the Labour Party to correct this, it is absolutely no surprise and in fact totally correct that Starmer sent out a message that the report was heeded and the culture had changed. That's why Starmer jumped on the Rebecca Long-Bailey retweet of the Maxine Peake article. That's why he came down hard on Corbyn.

Corbyn's response was tone tone deaf. It was 'yeah, but...'. It was a non apology apology and it's timing was ridiculous. It was in fact reminiscent of his and Milne's politically incompetent response to the Salisbury poisoning.

Full EHRC report here
 
Last edited:

gregorgregorovich

Well-known member
Thanks gregor, much appreciated.
And I never posted 'you lot' with any intention to upset anyone. Clearly it did so I too apologise.

The numbers are the election results and the facts are two Corbyn election defeats, losing seats and votes.
I could go into other numbers like the massive increase in poverty reflected in people needing food banks to survive, numbers like the debiltating effect of austerity, reduction in NHS spending, reduction in educatiob spending, increase in crime (up to Covid) and go on and on but I've already said too much.

Thanks for you detailed well reasoned reply.
Cheers mate, we are both on the same side. TORIES OUT and Up the Boro.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
I think some of the 2017 vote was remain voters hoping Labour would actually get off the fence and try do something about it (this is why I voted Labour in 2017, not for JC), as it was clear the Tories were on a path for destruction. By 2019 they realised this was not going to happen, and loads of the middle had enough of Corbyn and quite a few just wanted the brexit mess over with one way or another (but voted for the worst way of getting it over).

This.

I was well plugged in to the remain/people's vote campaigns and a huge number lent their vote simply because it was the only hope of stopping the Conservatives hard or very hard Brexits and some small hope that a confirmatory vote might happen.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
This.

I was well plugged in to the remain/people's vote campaigns and a huge number lent their vote simply because it was the only hope of stopping the Conservatives hard or very hard Brexits and some small hope that a confirmatory vote might happen.

:unsure: and yet Labour's policy in the 2017 election was to go ahead with a renegotiated brexit, and in 2019 they'd switched to second referendum.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
:unsure: and yet Labour's policy in the 2017 election was to go ahead with a renegotiated brexit, and in 2019 they'd switched to second referendum.

Yes. I am well aware the general public had a lot more information available to them by 2019 on Brexit truths and Brexit consequences. I'm well aware many were sick of Brexit and I am well aware that Corbyn and his office had done everything they could to not reach a position that was in the best interests of the country, deliberately put out mixed messages to confuse the public about the Labour position, p1ss off Remain voters and not form what could have been a winning alliance with other parties for a 2nd referendum following polls that consistently for 18 months showed a majority thought Brexit was a mistake.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
This of course isn’t the full and up to date story of Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension from the party.

When the long anticipated Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into the Labour Party was released, It did not contain what many thought (or hoped) that it would. It concluded that the Labour Party under Corbyn was not institutionally anti-Semitic and that Corbyn himself was not anti-Semitic. What it did report was that there were two agents of the Party who were guilty of unlawful harassment. One a NEC member and one a Labour councillor. They did report that there had been political interference from Corbyn in the party’s efforts to deal with the problem of anti-Semitism in the party but that these incidences were in order to speed up the process.The commission therefore recommended that in future there should be no political interference in disciplinary matters.

On the strength of the findings Corbyn made a response saying; “Anyone claiming there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is wrong… One anti-Semite is one too many but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.”
Corbyn pointed to evidence that according to public perception one third of Labour members were anti-Semitic whilst the real figure was 0.3%

However, on the day of the report’s release, and against the EHRC recommendation that there should be no political interference in disciplinary cases, Starmer took it upon himself to suspend Jeremy from the party. At this point the head of the Unite union Len McCluskey warned that if Corbyn’s suspension was not reversed it would cause internal war within the party. Len then entered into negotiations with Starmer’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, and Angela Raynor find a solution and it was agreed that if Corbyn were to make a clarifying statement, the wording of which would be agreed upon by all sides, then the way would be clear for Corbyn to re-enter the party. McSweeney reassuring McCluskey that he had the power to speak for Starmer.

A statement was then prepared and agreed upon and Jeremy delivered it. What then followed was that a five person NEC panel consisting of only two Corbyn supporters voted unanimously to reinstate Jeremy. At no point in the discussions had there been any mention of the Labour whip being removed from Corbyn, the whole idea being to reach an agreement that would bring matters back to normal. Starmer then reneged on the deal, withdrawing the whip and leaving Corbyn in the ridiculous position of being an MP and a Labour Party member but not a Labour MP and that is the situation we have today.
Move on, he's not coming back as an influential MP, and was a bad leader, who opened himself an Labour up for the centre and Tories to go after him. Beating this drum, just makes it more likely that you end up with the Tories again.

I have zero idea whether he is Anti-Semitic or not, but to suspend someone whilst they are investigated is common practice, in most respectable lines of work. Whether he should have been reinstated is another matter, but I imagine some of the reason he never had the whip restored is because he's bad for the party if they want to win an election. With him out of the way Labour have been doing well, and been good at letting the tories beat themselves up.

But, the Anti-Semitism is about 0.3% of why JC was not good enough to be leader. If he was Anti-Semitic, ok, get him out, if he wasn't, ok, he's nowhere near good enough (or appealed to enough people) to win an election, so get him out. He will cause a problem just being there, and trying to undermine the Labour that could win an election, it's counter productive. Most of the Tories probably don't mind the Anti-Semitism, they're a bunch of discriminatory people, but they (and their media) will happily use that stick to beat JC and Labour with, if the stick even may be there.

JC just gives the Tories and their media too much ammo, and they both struggle to pin anything on Starmer, likely through Starmer's character, leadership and his lack of skeletons etc. Anything they had on Starmer (which is little), has been used up, there's little to go after him for now.

Once Labour get in, we can look to get some changes made, but not being able to win an election, makes this worse, and harder every time. We need to be realistic and understand where most of the voters sit, and it's not the left of Labour and the Greens etc, and never has been (it may get there one day, but it's decades away), most are the other way. There's likely going to be little between Corbyn's or Starmers policies, but Labour need to win first, it's a waste of time having loads of policies for those worst off, if you can't get in power to enact any of them.

There has to be an order to what Labour do, any other way will not work.

1. Win
2. Enact policies gradually, so as to not **** off too many of the centre/ right
3. Re structure the voting boundaries
4. Win again
5. Stay out of trouble, no in fighting
6. Enact more policies and by then people might realise the positive impact this has now had on their lives, not enough voters notice change in one term. 7. Win again
8. Eventually we get somewhere near to the most we can get, for the people we have, and we're 17 years down the line when a lot of the old Tory boomers will be greatly outnumbered.

Maybe look at proportional representation too, somewhere in that, if the numbers support it in Labours favour, but I wouldn't be against this even if they don't.
 
Last edited:

Andy_W

Well-known member
:unsure: and yet Labour's policy in the 2017 election was to go ahead with a renegotiated brexit, and in 2019 they'd switched to second referendum.
It was too late in 2019 regardless, the centre and right had given up on JC, and there was no getting back of any SNP seats so the Tory majority was going to be massive anyway. Labour did too little too late, and keeping JC in place after we voted out was political suicide. The country was clearly going right, Labour had zero chance with JC.

They should have got someone else (no idea who mind), a lot of the hit to Labour in 2015 was losing seats to the SNP, but that was always going to happen as the Tories had annoyed the Scottish so much, that they wanted nothing to do with English parties, and I don't blame them for that.
 

gregorgregorovich

Well-known member
Move on, he's not coming back as an influential MP, and was a bad leader, who opened himself an Labour up for the centre and Tories to go after him. Beating this drum, just makes it more likely that you end up with the Tories again.

I have zero idea whether he is Anti-Semitic or not, but to suspend someone whilst they are investigated is common practice, in most respectable lines of work. Whether he should have been reinstated is another matter, but I imagine some of the reason he never had the whip restored is because he's bad for the party if they want to win an election. With him out of the way Labour have been doing well, and been good at letting the tories beat themselves up.

But, the Anti-Semitism is about 0.3% of why JC was not good enough to be leader. If he was Anti-Semitic, ok, get him out, if he wasn't, ok, he's nowhere near good enough (or appealed to enough people) to win an election, so get him out. He will cause a problem just being there, and trying to undermine the Labour that could win an election, it's counter productive. Most of the Tories probably don't mind the Anti-Semitism, they're a bunch of discriminatory people, but they (and their media) will happily use that stick to beat JC and Labour with, if the stick even may be there.

JC just gives the Tories and their media too much ammo, and they both struggle to pin anything on Starmer, likely through Starmer's character, leadership and his lack of skeletons etc. Anything they had on Starmer (which is little), has been used up, there's little to go after him for now.

Once Labour get in, we can look to get some changes made, but not being able to win an election, makes this worse, and harder every time. We need to be realistic and understand where most of the voters sit, and it's not the left of Labour and the Greens etc, and never has been (it may get there one day, but it's decades away), most are the other way. There's likely going to be little between Corbyn's or Starmers policies, but Labour need to win first, it's a waste of time having loads of policies for those worst off, if you can't get in power to enact any of them.

There has to be an order to what Labour do, any other way will not work.

1. Win
2. Enact policies gradually, so as to not **** off too many of the centre/ right
3. Re structure the voting boundaries
4. Win again
5. Stay out of trouble, no in fighting
6. Enact more policies and by then people might realise the positive impact this has now had on their lives, not enough voters notice change in one term. 7. Win again
8. Eventually we get somewhere near to the most we can get, for the people we have, and we're 17 years down the line when a lot of the old Tory boomers will be greatly outnumbered.

Maybe look at proportional representation too, somewhere in that, if the numbers support it in Labours favour, but I wouldn't be against this even if they don't.
If you think the Tory press won't start attacking Starmer as we get closer to the election, think again. They will attack him all guns blazing and a lot of it will be supposition, innuendo and downright lies. If he eats a bacon sardine, I hope there are no hack pack photographers about.
 

gregorgregorovich

Well-known member
This thread has changed into labour infighting ?
I know, I've probably contributed to that I'm afraid but I was about to answer the original question and say that they should be carried to the stocks, flogged and 5 times a day, every day for a month be pelted with putrid fruit and vegetables or alternatively watch repeats of Sunderland till I die. Let out for a day and repeat.
 

Andy_W

Well-known member
If you think the Tory press won't start attacking Starmer as we get closer to the election, think again. They will attack him all guns blazing and a lot of it will be supposition, innuendo and downright lies. If he eats a bacon sardine, I hope there are no hack pack photographers about.
Of course they will, but what are they going to throw at him? They were trying it at some points during the last year, but they haven't got much, nothing compared the the clowns/ party in charge. People are daft, but not that daft, even the Tory voters can see their party is a joke, hence the massive change in approval ratings.
 

gregorgregorovich

Well-known member
Of course they will, but what are they going to throw at him? They were trying it at some points during the last year, but they haven't got much, nothing compared the the clowns/ party in charge. People are daft, but not that daft, even the Tory voters can see their party is a joke, hence the massive change in approval ratings.
Well for one thing, the myth about him and the Jimmy Saville cover up will make a reappearance. As I said it will be lies, lies and more lies, with the aim being to take up so much time refuting the "stories", that you then have less time to talk about what you really want to.
 

BlindBoyGrunt

Well-known member
Yes. I am well aware the general public had a lot more information available to them by 2019 on Brexit truths and Brexit consequences. I'm well aware many were sick of Brexit and I am well aware that Corbyn and his office had done everything they could to not reach a position that was in the best interests of the country, deliberately put out mixed messages to confuse the public about the Labour position,
This story that Corbyn's position on brexit was as 'clear as mud' was absolute lies and spin, perpetrated by his opponents both inside and outside of the party. It used to annoy me whilst listening to 5Live when callers repeated this myth and and the hosts were either complicit or too lazy to correct them. Elsewhere his ideas were understood and accepted.

EU favours Corbyn 'deal' as a solution to the Brexit stalemate​



“There is growing support at EU level for the vision of Brexit being presented by the leader of the UK opposition, Labour's Jeremy Corbyn.”

“His proposal includes keeping the UK in a customs union with the EU, a move that would help ensure no return to a hard Border.”

“Mrs May has still to outline exactly what "alternative arrangements" she wants to the backstop that she already agreed with the EU. The prime minister is believed to have used last night's meeting to explain her desire for legally binding changes to the Brexit deal. This has been repeatedly ruled out in recent days by Mr Varadkar and a series of key EU leaders.”

“Sources believe that if any deal is to get through the UK parliament, it will need cross-party support. "We are still very much in the party politics perspective. The only hope is that, at some point, the threat of 'no-deal' disruptions would mobilise minds in the UK," said an EU diplomat.
"For now, May is still looking at her own party rather than a nationwide consensus.””

“Mr Varadkar described the Corbyn plan as "very interesting"."I think what Jeremy Corbyn has done is fleshed out a potential future relationship which is one that would mean a future relationship that is very close between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and I think in that regard they are very interesting," he said."But ultimately when dealing with these matters I deal with the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom and that is headed by prime minister May.”"

It was Starmer who without the knowledge of Corbyn or McDonnell, deviated from his written conference speech and and announced that Labour were the party of remain and floated the idea of a second referendum, which spooked the brexiteers and ultimately cost Labour the red wall.






 
Top
X