Starmer is a lying rat/Corbyn was chuffing useless - discuss

[festa5]

 

[Laughing]

So it wasn't Corbyn's position that you disagreed with it was the fact that people were fed up and needed easy solutions to difficult problems and Corbyn couldn't deliver that impossibility.

The fact you have to tie yourself on knots to make the Labour position appear to be complicated sums up the fact that none of this actually had anything to do with Brexit and was all just a concerted push to make sure anything vaguely socialist got mainstream traction. My memory of the post-Brexit era was of a lot of very annoyed people doing whatever they could to keep us in the EU. The idea that they just abandoned that cause through fatigue is ridiculous. They abandoned it because the saw Corbynism as a greater threat to their finances than a Tory led Brexit.

You keep complaining about these discussions going round in circles but this has all been discusssed previously and the option Labour put forward was about as sensible as it could get, given the position the country was in. You seem to be saying that the right-wing media clouding the issue is Corbyn's fault, purely because he was Corbyn. And then you let that slide as if there's no option but to happily accept the right-wing influence on all our lives.

You talk ***** sometimes scrote and I do wonder why.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Fully agree with this.

Corbyn’s refusal to rule out a second referendum (we’ll have one if the people later decide they want one) was what cost him and Labour the election. Or certainly resulted in the trouncing they got.

It was simple. “We will respect the outcome of the referendum” was all he had to say. He might not have won but we wouldn’t have had the Boris landslide horror show we got.

Just because the referendum was a stupid idea with a self-sabotaging outcome didn’t mean it could just be ignored.

Second referendum was Starmer's idea. He went off piste and announced it in his conference speech.

 

[Laughing]

Second referendum was Starmer's idea. He went off piste and announced it in his conference speech.

It doesn't really matter who's idea it was though Bbg. I have loads of crap ideas at work. They get discussed and tossed if they are rubbish.

Even once starmer had opened his mouth, if it was outside of party lines he should have had the whip suspended or made to correct the record.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Second referendum was Starmer's idea. He went off piste and announced it in his conference speech.

No it wasn't and he never. I've evidenced this to you before.

 

[Laughing]

No it wasn't and I've evidenced this to you before.

As I said above Chris, it doesn't matter who's idea it was. It was not a good idea, didn't reflect where the electorate were at that time and should have been dumped.

 

[Chris_Boro]

As I said above Chris, it doesn't matter who's idea it was. It was not a good idea, didn't reflect where the electorate were at that time and should have been dumped.

I agree, just pointing out that the statement was incorrect and I've pointed it out a few times before.

 

[Scrug]

I genuinely once saw someone criticise Corbyn because; ‘Normally, when politicians are interviewed it appears they have the answers to questions before they’ve been asked them. With Corbyn, it seemed like he was almost thinking out-loud’.

What a nightmare.

 

[Scrote]

You talk ***** sometimes scrote and I do wonder why.

And yet you attack the man rather than rip the **** apart? Show me where I'm wrong. If it's all **** then that should be simple.

The country was in a complicated place. The TIGgers had already attempted to form a centrist coalition around Remain that ulimately went nowhere fast, but could easily have split the Labour party further. The Lib Dems were living in some fantasy land where they were about to storm to victory and the Tories had decided that the serial philanderer and compulsive liar, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, was the man who would lead us into the sunlit uplands of Brexit - mainly because he had an air of celebrity cult [check spelling - Ed.], and would, as it turned out, appeal to the masses who were more bothered about Brexit than austerity.

Corbyn had to navigate this. The PLP had already attempted to remove him as leader but the members had made it clear they were fully bought into his vision. Brexit was a problem but it was one of a number of serious problems facing the UK and anyone with any sense could see this.

As an aside, and anecdotally at least, one of the reasons Brexit happened is because the very centrists that were now hollering for Remain at all costs didn't go out and vote. They were convinced everyone else would do the sensible thing so didn't bother. I've heard this from two different sources about sizeable numbers of City workers.

The solution Labour came up with had to include a compromise. Campaigning on Leave or Remain directly would alienate half the traditional left-leaning vote.

This was all happening alongside a concerted effort by the media-classes and Labour-right to get Corbyn out by any means, including the manufactured antisemitism crisis.

Explain how you'd have done things differently, if it should have been so easy.

Fully agree with this.

Corbyn’s refusal to rule out a second referendum (we’ll have one if the people later decide they want one) was what cost him and Labour the election. Or certainly resulted in the trouncing they got.

It was simple. “We will respect the outcome of the referendum” was all he had to say. He might not have won but we wouldn’t have had the Boris landslide horror show we got.

Just because the referendum was a stupid idea with a self-sabotaging outcome didn’t mean it could just be ignored.

If Corbyn had ruled out the only possible route to Remain, he would have lost the people that did vote Labour on a remain basis. It was an impossible situation.

“We will respect the outcome of the referendum” was what he did say, repeatedly, and was castigated for it. Rewriting the narrative after the fact does no-one any favours.

The whole point of Labour's proposal was ensuring that the referendum outcome wasn't ignored, but it needed ratifying - as had been promised, in Parliament, and by lead Brexiters (e.g. Nigel Farage & Jacob Rees-Mogg) in the run up to the vote. It was the pulling of this particular carpet from under the process that led to the impasse of indicative votes.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

No it wasn't and he never. I've evidenced this to you before.

I apologise, the second referendum came from a conference motion but nevertheless the announcement wasn't in Starmer's original speech and adding it was his idea alone and it made headlines both here and abroad.

Corbyn was against this and we all know that conference motions don't have to be adhered to.

 

[LessoftheLip]

I genuinely once saw someone criticise Corbyn because; ‘Normally, when politicians are interviewed it appears they have the answers to questions before they’ve been asked them. With Corbyn, it seemed like he was almost thinking out-loud’.

What a nightmare.

Amazing isn't it?

Once I saw someone criticise Starmer for being vanilla, smartly dressed, having a profession before politics and having Rodney as his middle name

 

[Laughing]

And yet you attack the man rather than rip the **** apart? Show me where I'm wrong. If it's all **** then that should be simple.

The country was in a complicated place. The TIGgers had already attempted to form a centrist coalition around Remain that ulimately went nowhere fast, but could easily have split the Labour party further. The Lib Dems were living in some fantasy land where they were about to storm to victory and the Tories had decided that the serial philanderer and compulsive liar, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, was the man who would lead us into the sunlit uplands of Brexit - mainly because he had an air of celebrity cult [check spelling - Ed.], and would, as it turned out, appeal to the masses who were more bothered about Brexit than austerity.

Corbyn had to navigate this. The PLP had already attempted to remove him as leader but the members had made it clear they were fully bought into his vision. Brexit was a problem but it was one of a number of serious problems facing the UK and anyone with any sense could see this.

As an aside, and anecdotally at least, one of the reasons Brexit happened is because the very centrists that were now hollering for Remain at all costs didn't go out and vote. They were convinced everyone else would do the sensible thing so didn't bother. I've heard this from two different sources about sizeable numbers of City workers.

The solution Labour came up with had to include a compromise. Campaigning on Leave or Remain directly would alienate half the traditional left-leaning vote.

This was all happening alongside a concerted effort by the media-classes and Labour-right to get Corbyn out by any means, including the manufactured antisemitism crisis.

Explain how you'd have done things differently, if it should have been so easy.



If Corbyn had ruled out the only possible route to Remain, he would have lost the people that did vote Labour on a remain basis. It was an impossible situation.

“We will respect the outcome of the referendum” was what he did say, repeatedly, and was castigated for it. Rewriting the narrative after the fact does no-one any favours.

The whole point of Labour's proposal was ensuring that the referendum outcome wasn't ignored, but it needed ratifying - as had been promised, in Parliament, and by lead Brexiters (e.g. Nigel Farage & Jacob Rees-Mogg) in the run up to the vote. It was the pulling of this particular carpet from under the process that led to the impasse of indicative votes.

You talk ***** be cause you accused me of tying myself in knots when I made a perfectly reasonable observation.

I hope you have a great day but I am not about to waste my time arguing with you.

 

[Laughing]

I apologise, the second referendum came from a conference motion but nevertheless the announcement wasn't in Starmer's original speech and adding it was his idea alone and it made headlines both here and abroad.

Corbyn was against this and we all know that conference motions don't have to be adhered to.

Again Bbg none of this matters. A leader is to provide direction to his party and instill a coherent single message.

The message was wrong, where it came from, and who said it out loud doesn't matter.

This, in part at least, led to an 80 seat tory majority and allowed the hardest of Brexits to be achieved. Something that may found impossible because she led a minority government and it didn't take many dissenting voices to block every purposed deal.

Look I liked Corbyn and voted for him without caveats or holding my nose. He got 2019 wrong, badly wrong.

 

[Scrote]

You talk ***** be cause you accused me of tying myself in knots when I made a perfectly reasonable observation.

I hope you have a great day but I am not about to waste my time arguing with you.

I'm sorry. Your suggestion that remainers voted for a hard Tory Brexit just because they were sick of fighting for the option to remain is absurd. It isn't a reasonable observation and you've declined, twice, to back it up with any evidence or any explanation as to how it might be true.

The reality is that lot of people that were hard-remain were also anti-socialism where it looked like it might affect their living-standards, however slightly. Any excuse to not vote for Labour/Corbyn was welcomed. The receipts are all over Twitter et al. You don't have to invent new scenarios for what might have happened. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Laughing]

I'm sorry. Your suggestion that remainers voted for a hard Tory Brexit just because they were sick of fighting for the option to remain is absurd. It isn't a reasonable observation and you've declined, twice, to back it up with any evidence or any explanation as to how it might be true.

The reality is that lot of people that were hard-remain were also anti-socialism where it looked like it might affect their living-standards, however slightly. Any excuse to not vote for Labour/Corbyn was welcomed. The receipts are all over Twitter et al. You don't have to invent new scenarios for what might have happened. The evidence is overwhelming.

Way to paraphrase. As I said can't be bothered to argue with you. Enjoy your political homelessness and leave the rest of us to pursue a better society whilst you carp nonsense from the sidelines.

 

[Scrote]

Way to paraphrase

remainers voted for the tories just to get rid of Brexit [due to] ...a fair amount of brexit fatigue

remainers voted for a hard Tory Brexit just because they were sick of fighting for the option to remain

Feel free to point to the difference that changes the context in any discernable way.

 

[Chris_Boro]

I apologise, the second referendum came from a conference motion but nevertheless the announcement wasn't in Starmer's original speech and adding it was his idea alone and it made headlines both here and abroad.

Corbyn was against this and we all know that conference motions don't have to be adhered to.

It wasn't though...

The idea was floated right through 2017 after the election as Labour flip flopped on their Brexit stance, Corbyn in December 2017, in an interview with sky news, added that he wouldn't let Britain "go off a cliff in March 2019" (no deal). He never detailed what that meant.

Labour were being criticised from all sides, internal and external, for sitting on the fence and needed to clarify what they would do in the event of a bad or no deal Brexit. This was ramped up in the lead up to the 2018 conference.

Starmer did not make up this policy on the hoof unless Diane Abbott was being dishonest straight after the announcement...



After this, Corbyn clarified the policy further in the lead up to the 2019 conference. Most of the "going off script" attacks on Starmer were from Labour Brexiters and Tories.

Labour's failings over their Brexit position in their 2019 Election hammering was as a party, not an individual. At this point people were just sick of it all and the idea of more negotiations, deals and Brexit being dragged on and on was simply not palatable.

Johnson/Cummins took full advantage of this with a simple message, while Labour tied themselves up explaining theirs and the Lib Dems pressed the self destruct button.

 

[Scrote]

It wasn't though...

The idea was floated right through 2017 after the election as Labour flip flopped on their Brexit stance, Corbyn in December 2017, in an interview with sky news, added that he wouldn't let Britain "go off a cliff in March 2019" (no deal). He never detailed what that meant.

Labour were being criticised from all sides, internal and external, for sitting on the fence and needed to clarify what they would do in the event of a bad or no deal Brexit. This was ramped up in the lead up to the 2018 conference.

Starmer did not make up this policy on the hoof unless Diane Abbott was being dishonest straight after the announcement...

View attachment 75132

After this, Corbyn clarified the policy further in the lead up to the 2019 conference. Most of the "going off script" attacks on Starmer were from Labour Brexiters and Tories.

Labour's failings over their Brexit position in their 2019 Election hammering was as a party, not an individual. At this point people were just sick of it all and the idea of more negotiations, deals and Brexit being dragged on and on was simply not palatable.

Johnson/Cummins took full advantage of this with a simple message, while Labour tied themselves up explaining theirs and the Lib Dems pressed the self destruct button.

I can agree with all of this but the point still remains, in retrospect what should they have done differently that wouldn't have alienated another large chunk of the potential Labour vote.

Would keeping the 'red wall' but losing the remain vote of London, Manchester etc. have made a Labour victory more or less likely?

Would you have been happy with Labour taking us into a hard-brexit based on the same problems that May had to contend with?

I still think the Tories will pivot to Rejoin before Labour do. Having Labour as the architect of a no-deal Brexit by dint of being in power would have just accelerated that process and left Labour with nowhere to go.

 

[LessoftheLip]

It wasn't though...

The idea was floated right through 2017 after the election as Labour flip flopped on their Brexit stance, Corbyn in December 2017, in an interview with sky news, added that he wouldn't let Britain "go off a cliff in March 2019" (no deal). He never detailed what that meant.

Labour were being criticised from all sides, internal and external, for sitting on the fence and needed to clarify what they would do in the event of a bad or no deal Brexit. This was ramped up in the lead up to the 2018 conference.

Starmer did not make up this policy on the hoof unless Diane Abbott was being dishonest straight after the announcement...

View attachment 75132

After this, Corbyn clarified the policy further in the lead up to the 2019 conference. Most of the "going off script" attacks on Starmer were from Labour Brexiters and Tories.

Labour's failings over their Brexit position in their 2019 Election hammering was as a party, not an individual. At this point people were just sick of it all and the idea of more negotiations, deals and Brexit being dragged on and on was simply not palatable.

Johnson/Cummins took full advantage of this with a simple message, while Labour tied themselves up explaining theirs and the Lib Dems pressed the self destruct button.

Slam dunk Chris.
No coming back from that.

 

[Chris_Boro]

I can agree with all of this but the point still remains, in retrospect what should they have done differently that wouldn't have alienated another large chunk of the potential Labour vote.

Would keeping the 'red wall' but losing the remain vote of London, Manchester etc. have made a Labour victory more or less likely?

Would you have been happy with Labour taking us into a hard-brexit based on the same problems that May had to contend with?

I still think the Tories will pivot to Rejoin before Labour do. Having Labour as the architect of a no-deal Brexit by dint of being in power would have just accelerated that process and left Labour with nowhere to go.

The issue wasn't necessarily policy itself, logically, it was the best one, it was the public mood around Brexit after 6 years of nothing but division, lies and political games. Logic had gone out of the window.

The simple message won because people were just sick of it, we're out, just get it over with. The vast majority of people don't like politics and only engage for a GE cycle. At this point, politics had been shoved down their throat every day for too long and Governments weren't governing. Labour didn't recognise this and essentially promised more. Apathy was winning and Johnson jumped on the bandwagon.

I honestly don't believe Labour picking a different policy would have had much of an impact on the outcome. They were basically piggy in the middle and as you say, would have alienated large chunks of their own support base in picking leave or remain. They had been on the fence for too long, in the eyes of many.

The biggest hindsight action would to have avoided the 2019 election all together. Form a minority unity government, even if that meant Corbyn wasn't it's leader. It might not have achieved anything for Brexit, but it would have took us into Covid and a whole different chain of events.

Ultimately, the hardest part to accept in all of this is that vote leave played a blinder of political shithousery to first, force Cameron into a referendum, win it and then grind down the collective will of those who voted remain into acceptance.