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

[atypical_boro]

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

Doesn’t matter whose idea it was. Corbyn was the leader and could have ruled it out.

 

[atypical_boro]

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.

Ok. All good points, but what cannot be disputed is that his “position” didn’t win the hearts of the masses did it? His approach to the situation wasn’t clear enough. Can’t really see how anyone can claim it was. If it was he wouldn’t have lost a load of seats. It really is that simple.

 

[Scrote]

Ok. All good points, but what cannot be disputed is that his “position” didn’t win the hearts of the masses did it? His approach to the situation wasn’t clear enough. Can’t really see how anyone can claim it was. If it was he wouldn’t have lost a load of seats. It really is that simple.

It's not that simple at all. Labour were going to lose a huge chunk of seats by aligning with either Leave or Remain. They proposed a solution based on how the referendum had originally been sold.

The media (and parts of the PLP) were happy to spread the narrative that this was a complicated option that mere mortals couldn't understand but, much like GCSE level genetics - always described as really difficult, but turned out to be some simple maths - the process was very straightforward.

Anyone saying they didn't understand it either didn't actually try, or would struggle to understand the simple option of Leave or Remain without an L and an R painted on their wellies*.



*for the hard of thinking (and/or LessoftheLip) this is a jokey reference to Jimmy Cricket)

 

[LessoftheLip]

*for the hard of thinking (and/or LessoftheLip) this is a jokey reference to Jimmy Cricket)

I see your attempts at humour haven't yet progressed beyond lame. Keep trying though

 

[Andy_W]

Corbyn actually spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet, so I guess some of the blame should be placed on them.

What, collectively more than all of them put together, or spoke about it more than each of them at any one event?

I'm not sure how many events there were, how many he was at or how many his shadow cabinet were at etc. From what I recall of back then it just all seemed extremely flat from labour. Like I say, the red wall was where it was lost, and the red wall should have been more in favour of remaining in the EU than leaving, as being in the EU gave them the most protection in a 100 ways.

At any event he's at he should be speaking every time, as the leader, and speaking first with anyone else after him, so it should have been impossible for him to not be speaking more than the others.

Sure, the blame is on the shadow cabinet too, but he picked them and should have been guiding them. I remember the press having a field day with some of them too, especially Dianne Abbott, like when she went out with odd shoes on, with two left feet, I remember my ex-forces mates going on about that for months. They were going after how Corbyn dressed all the time too, these things don't matter to a lot of people, but they clearly do matter to a lot of people too.

It's a sad reality but being or appearing as a strong character/ leader, having the cabinet and rest of the party towing the line, and not being a target for the press are the qualities which have to be first on the list, as they're which can easily guarantee you don't get elected. It's like the press targeting thing, Corbyn was effectively bullied by the press, no doubt about that, but he should have stood up to them more. This is difficult mind, as unfortunately the people on the other side control the press, and bullying (and also lying) is seemingly allowed by our press. A free press is generally a good idea, but when they're not on your side, it can make the game massively unfair.

Of next importance is what you say, but what you do say has to be believable and realistic. Policies are way down the list when you're not in power, if you can't get the other things right first. Policies become no 1 when you get in power though, but you need to get there first.

 

[LessoftheLip]

What, collectively more than all of them put together, or spoke about it more than each of them at any one event?

That claim was debunked. His 'team' claimed that he had spoken at 122 events. When asked for the evidence it turns out that his speaking engagements were 'reported on' 122 times in the media. So 1 speaking event reported on numerous times was claimed to be multiple speaking events.

 

[Andy_W]

That claim was debunked. His 'team' claimed that he had spoken at 122 events. When asked for the evidence it turns out that his speaking engagements were 'reported on' 122 times in the media. So 1 speaking event reported on numerous times was claimed to be multiple speaking events.

Ah ok, cheers for the info.

To be honest, I didn't recall him being some sort of beacon for remain in general or in Labour, he seemed down the middle to me from what I recall, or like he was only saying remain as he had to, unconvincing. He seemed a bit more pro-remain after the vote had been lost, but anything he said was completely irrelevant then as, no matter what he would have said would have split the labour vote. Seemed to me the second labour voters were lost to leave, they were lost from Labour also, and then there was no way to win them back until after brexit had all gone through, as brexit trumped party votes. Won't have been that way for all, but I bet it was for the vast majority. 2017 people were still in dreamland that brexit could be reversed , or there could be a softer version (myself included), but this was then left to be a Tory only choice, and that massively impacted why Labour got battered in 2019.

The remain campaign from Tories and Labour was terrible, seem to remember the Lib Dems being the most vocal about it after the vote, but don't remember much of anything before the vote.

People can dig up articles of the past as a reference, to "prove" either way, but in reality it means absolutely zero unless compared to a snapshot of all other media around the time as well, and the public general feeling.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

What, collectively more than all of them put together, or spoke about it more than each of them at any one event?

I'm not sure how many events there were, how many he was at or how many his shadow cabinet were at etc. From what I recall of back then it just all seemed extremely flat from labour. Like I say, the red wall was where it was lost, and the red wall should have been more in favour of remaining in the EU than leaving, as being in the EU gave them the most protection in a 100 ways.

At any event he's at he should be speaking every time, as the leader, and speaking first with anyone else after him, so it should have been impossible for him to not be speaking more than the others.

Sure, the blame is on the shadow cabinet too, but he picked them and should have been guiding them. I remember the press having a field day with some of them too, especially Dianne Abbott, like when she went out with odd shoes on, with two left feet, I remember my ex-forces mates going on about that for months. They were going after how Corbyn dressed all the time too, these things don't matter to a lot of people, but they clearly do matter to a lot of people too.

It's a sad reality but being or appearing as a strong character/ leader, having the cabinet and rest of the party towing the line, and not being a target for the press are the qualities which have to be first on the list, as they're which can easily guarantee you don't get elected. It's like the press targeting thing, Corbyn was effectively bullied by the press, no doubt about that, but he should have stood up to them more. This is difficult mind, as unfortunately the people on the other side control the press, and bullying (and also lying) is seemingly allowed by our press. A free press is generally a good idea, but when they're not on your side, it can make the game massively unfair.

Of next importance is what you say, but what you do say has to be believable and realistic. Policies are way down the list when you're not in power, if you can't get the other things right first. Policies become no 1 when you get in power though, but you need to get there first.

There seems to be confusion between media appearances and events attended and that 122/123 figure is for media appearances.
Here is a chart from Business Insider showing the number of media appearances and Labour are far behind the Conservatives.

 

[Andy_W]

There seems to be confusion between media appearances and events attended and that 122/123 figure is for media appearances.
Here is a chart from Business Insider showing the number of media appearances and Labour are far behind the Conservatives.

View attachment 75209

The fact Farage is on there at no 4 makes me feel sick.

 

[SuperStu]

That claim was debunked. His 'team' claimed that he had spoken at 122 events. When asked for the evidence it turns out that his speaking engagements were 'reported on' 122 times in the media. So 1 speaking event reported on numerous times was claimed to be multiple speaking events.

There seems to be confusion between media appearances and events attended and that 122/123 figure is for media appearances.
Here is a chart from Business Insider showing the number of media appearances and Labour are far behind the Conservatives.

View attachment 75209

So the debunk is debunked then? Or LotL are you saying the same is true of everyone on the list in BBGs post? E.g. are you saying Cameron spoke once and it was reported on 499 times?

 

[LessoftheLip]

So the debunk is debunked then? Or LotL are you saying the same is true of everyone on the list in BBGs post? E.g. are you saying Cameron spoke once and it was reported on 499 times?

Stu, it wasn't me who claimed that Corbyn spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet.

And It wasn't me who put the 'league table' up.

Neither did I mention Cameron so I couldn't possibly be saying anything about Cameron.

BBG made a bold claim not supported by any facts.

The attached article from The Mirror is insightful.

Did Jeremy Corbyn really give 122 speeches during the EU referendum campaign?

The Corbyn campaign's 'fact checking' website has another ropey claim on it

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[SuperStu]

Stu, it wasn't me who claimed that Corbyn spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet.

And It wasn't me who put the 'league table' up.

Neither did I mention Cameron so I couldn't possibly be saying anything about Cameron.

BBG made a bold claim not supported by any facts.

The attached article from The Mirror is insightful.

Did Jeremy Corbyn really give 122 speeches during the EU referendum campaign?

The Corbyn campaign's 'fact checking' website has another ropey claim on it

www.mirror.co.uk

Have to say having flicked through the "insightful" article, I didn't see anything to suggest anyone in Corbyn's shadow cabinet made more appearances than he did during the Brexit campaign.

 

[LessoftheLip]

Have to say having flicked through the "insightful" article, I didn't see anything to suggest anyone in Corbyn's shadow cabinet made more appearances than he did during the Brexit campaign.

It's a fact-checking article Stu. Showing that Corbyn's team embellished the perceived 'effort' put in by Corbyn during the Remain campaign.

Like I said, it wasn't me who claimed that Corbyn spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet.

So perhaps you should ask BBG for the evidence.

But you won't, will you

 

[SuperStu]

So perhaps you should ask BBG for the evidence.

But you won't, will you

Media coverage of the EU Referendum (report 5) - Centre for Research in Communication and Culture

Media coverage of the referendum focused on the drama and dynamics of the campaign, the economics of leaving the EU and immigration.

blog.lboro.ac.uk

I think it's from here.

It's a fact-checking article Stu. Showing that Corbyn's team embellished the perceived 'effort' put in by Corbyn during the Remain campaign.

Like I said, it wasn't me who claimed that Corbyn spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet.

Well here's the claim you've said was debunked.

Corbyn actually spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet, so I guess some of the blame should be placed on them.

But your fact-checking article doesn't actually do any confirming/disputing of that claim does it? You're pointing out the Loughborough uni research is media coverage rather than speeches. But how are you getting from that to Corbyn speaking at more events than his shadow cabinet is false?

Btw I'm not sure how reliable this fact checker article should be considered.

So how many speeches did he make?​

At least 10.

"His activity included:

• 10 EU rallies, with speeches and meetings in London, Bristol, Stroud, Newquay, Perranporth, Cardiff, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Liverpool, Runcorn, Manchester, Truro, Sheffield, Widnes, Doncaster, Rotherham, Hastings, Brighton, Dundee, Aberdeen and Birmingham.

So it lists 21 locations but for some reason has only chose to state "at least 10" as the answer to how many speeches.

We've asked Jeremy For Labour for a full list of campaign speeches made by Mr Corbyn, but they have not as yet provided one.

Also this seems to be the evidence against the 122 figure stated by Corbyn's office. So its not really been proven false has it? Its just that they haven't provided the evidence they were asked for.

 

[r00fie1]

Here's the full quote in the Times of Israel.

“I do support Zionism,” he later told Jewish News. “I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland. My only concern is that Zionism can mean slightly different things to different people, and… to some extent it has been weaponized. I wouldn’t read too much into that. I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification.”

He thinks Zionism has been weaponised.

Its just been provided with weapons!

 

[r00fie1]

That claim was debunked. His 'team' claimed that he had spoken at 122 events. When asked for the evidence it turns out that his speaking engagements were 'reported on' 122 times in the media. So 1 speaking event reported on numerous times was claimed to be multiple speaking events.

Corbyn, still renting space in your head.

 

[LessoftheLip]

Corbyn, still renting space in your head.

Corbyn was mentioned by BBG in post #93 regarding the number of Remain events Corbyn spoke at.

I offered a comment.

No need for the nastiness

 

[LessoftheLip]

Media coverage of the EU Referendum (report 5) - Centre for Research in Communication and Culture

Media coverage of the referendum focused on the drama and dynamics of the campaign, the economics of leaving the EU and immigration.

blog.lboro.ac.uk

I think it's from here.



Well here's the claim you've said was debunked.



But your fact-checking article doesn't actually do any confirming/disputing of that claim does it? You're pointing out the Loughborough uni research is media coverage rather than speeches. But how are you getting from that to Corbyn speaking at more events than his shadow cabinet is false?

Btw I'm not sure how reliable this fact checker article should be considered.





So it lists 21 locations but for some reason has only chose to state "at least 10" as the answer to how many speeches.



Also this seems to be the evidence against the 122 figure stated by Corbyn's office. So its not really been proven false has it? Its just that they haven't provided the evidence they were asked for.

Lots of monitor ink used there Stu to say nothing new at all. Exceptional mental gymnastics too.

Yes the statistical information came from Loughborough University. It's actually linked in the Mirror article.

You obviously agree that BBG did indeed state that Corbyn spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet. No dispute there.

The Corbyn campaign fact-checking website states "Jeremy Corbyn did more Remain campaigning than anyone else in Labour, making the arguing (sic) for staying in and reforming Europe. He gave 122 speeches in the course of the campaign........".

My working assumption, and it's a reasonable one, is this is the source BBG is relying on for his claim.

When asked for a source to back up the claim, the Jeremy for Labour campaign said it was from the Loughborough University study.

BBG then talks about some 'confusion' but he didn't appear to be confused when he made the initial claim.

So, I'm not saying that Corbyn didn't speak at more Remain events than any of his shadow cabinet because I simply don't have the substantiation. However, BBG was quite clear (initially) so if there's any evidence to support his initial claim I'd be pleased to see it

 

[SuperStu]

Lots of monitor ink used there Stu to say nothing new at all. Exceptional mental gymnastics too.

Right, yeah.

So, I'm not saying that Corbyn didn't speak at more Remain events than any of his shadow cabinet because I simply don't have the substantiation.

"Nothing new at all" but you've slammed that debunk into reverse. Mental gymnastics, indeed.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Lots of monitor ink used there Stu to say nothing new at all. Exceptional mental gymnastics too.

Yes the statistical information came from Loughborough University. It's actually linked in the Mirror article.

You obviously agree that BBG did indeed state that Corbyn spoke at more Remain events during the campaign than any of his shadow cabinet. No dispute there.

The Corbyn campaign fact-checking website states "Jeremy Corbyn did more Remain campaigning than anyone else in Labour, making the arguing (sic) for staying in and reforming Europe. He gave 122 speeches in the course of the campaign........".

My working assumption, and it's a reasonable one, is this is the source BBG is relying on for his claim.

When asked for a source to back up the claim, the Jeremy for Labour campaign said it was from the Loughborough University study.

BBG then talks about some 'confusion' but he didn't appear to be confused when he made the initial claim.

So, I'm not saying that Corbyn didn't speak at more Remain events than any of his shadow cabinet because I simply don't have the substantiation. However, BBG was quite clear (initially) so if there's any evidence to support his initial claim I'd be pleased to see it

I didn't say I was confused, I said there was confusion between media appearance and campaign event figures, but you have no right to ask for evidence from me when I've been waiting 10 months for evidence of a claim you made. Have you found it yet ?