General Election 2019 thread (7 Viewers)

Astute

Well-Known Member
He wants the public to decide. You want to know his personal opinion I.e. how he would vote. That’s the only co text in which a binary remain or leave would make sense.
Do I?

I have constantly said I would like to know which side of Brexit he would campaign for. Or would he still try and stay neutral?

You know this. I have said it enough. And I know you can read and comprehend what you have read. You choose to try and make out I have said something totally different. Nothing unusual though.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.

There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.
I couldn't agree any more.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I'd say the arguments I put were the definition of centrist, but it depends on your perspective I guess.

Pointing out, and applauding, that the minimum wage is relatively high and has been increased above the rate of inflation several times in recent years is not right wing. Pointing out, and applauding, the fact that the starting rate of tax is higher than other major economies is not right wing. Saying that the very top earners should pay a bit more is not right wing. Stating that some industries are better in private hands is not an extremist position and is shared by many on the centre-left. Defending the existence of private schools is not an extreme view When Diane Abbott sent her kids to private schools, she was accused of hypocrisy, but not of being 'right wing'. I think people should have the choice, but equally, I think investment in education should be a major priority. So yes, my views, if I were to expand on all of them in detail and bore the socks off you, are pretty centrist, certainly when viewed in an historical context but perhaps they will not qualify me for a membership card for Momentum right now.

This, partly, is the reason why many are turning away from the left. You see it so often now; decent, charitable, generous people (often with left leanings) being labelled a fascist because they express a view out of sync with the doctrines laid down by the woke left twitter mobs.

We are reliant on an old economic model that is no longer fit for purpose. Every action is short term, reactionary and ultimately does not address the underlying issue which is why it comes back time and again.

If your politics considers Labour’s idea as ‘loony left’ - my politics consider their policies as long term ideas that will ultimately provide a better society with happier people. Sure... some very rich people might not make as much money in the future... I think that’s a price worth paying to the benefit of the general populous.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
It's the generalised schizzle that pushes in that direction though. I could come on with a general 'nationalisation is good' and you'd throw your hands up, call me a fantasist lefty, and then I'd have to explain how I thought it was pretty centrist to have utilities in public ownership, allow the profits from said utilities to be fed back into the state investment, rather than profits leave the country in the form of dividends to (in some cases) foreign state-owned utilities.

Now moving on from to that, I'd consider the removal of tuition fees pretty centrist. It's making a progressive tax system more up front if you tax the higher earners a little more, rather than claim back a loan. After all, the idea of investing in education is that it pays off further down the line, and if it pays off for the indivdual, it's also giving the country a competitive advantage as a result, the better trained its population are. It's only since the 1990s that paying for education has come to be seen as acceptable - before they even offered grants to the poorer sections, so they were able to have an equal opportunity for study. It may be a paper debt, but it's still a debt, and that's offputting to a fair few people to see £50k of debt before income, and before a guarantee of a return. Raise the taxes in a progressive manner (it doesn't even have to be much) and it does the same thing. That's also a completely different issue to the desire of various govenments (both Conservative and Labour) to push for increased higher education participation, not from a sense of improving learning, but by stopping them featuring on an unemployment index! In addition to the removal of tuition fees, a rounded policy would encourage meaningful apprenticeships in meaningful trades, and stop a qualification snobbery when it comes to recruitment, and emphasise capability can be demonstrated in other ways.

What we don't do is invest in society. It's not fantasy economics to do so and yes, it is regressing to a former age, but the likes of Lloyd George (who, let's not forget, ended up leading a Tory government, effectively) and Attlee had exactly the right idea in increasing the level of state involvement as an investment, an investment that would bear fruit down the line. Nobody, nobody is advocating a 90% rate for top earners (and if they did, it probably wouldn't affect any of us whenever it kicked in!) There is much we have done which shifts the burden onto people who can afford it least, increases in VAT coupled with decreases in income tax, so an attempt to re-address that and revert to a position that, ironically, was 'fairer' for much of Thatcher's time in power is not unreasonable.

None of us are alone, and an attempt to address society is refreshing, as whether we like it or not society improving helps us all a lot more, in the long run, than a possible individual improvement, at the expense of somebody else.

On the issue of tuition fees, you mention participation. Surely that is a laudable aim, and it is somewhat cynical to suggest this is largely about reducing youth unemployment, even if that is an inevitable (and not undesirable) consequence. Since tuition fees were introduced, participation has increased, not least amongst those from poorer backgrounds. Many will argue that student debt acts as a barrier to those who want to enter further education, but the evidence contradicts that quite clearly. What we have, in effect, is a graduate tax. The extent of the amount borrowed will have little consequence to the rate at which it is paid back, or indeed how much of it is paid back. I don't really see the benefit of the state picking up the tab, other than that is plays well with those who believe education should be free. Nothing is free, and I fail to see what we gain from this.

I am all for spending more, I think it is time the purse-strings were loosened, I'm just not sure this should be a priority.

Great post btw. I disagree with some of it, but very well put.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.

There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.

every accusation you've made there you could level at the tories and Libdems.
That's not an attempt at whataboutery it just highlights the poverty of political talent in the country at the moment.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Dreamer Jeremy Corbyn has just confirmed labour policy is NOT to back a remain strategy but Is neutral.

Thoughts?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
He's just stated clearly his campaigning position on a second referendum, anyway.
 

Walsgrave

Well-Known Member
So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.

Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.

Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?

Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.

Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, a bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.

We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?

Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?

Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.

You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.


Put it this way; if private schools did not bestow an unfair advantage on those who attend them, parents would not be willing to pay for them. I suggest that you read David Kynaston and Francis Green's recent seminal book on the matter to educate yourself about it. For the record, they both attended independent schools.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Corbyn confirms he will allow the break up of the union and let Sturgeon have her way in 2 years - incredible admission
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
OK, so we'll all have our own biases (personally I think Corbyn's held up pretty well) but this BBC One format is a bit rubbish. It's like Question Time without the actual debate between the politicians afterwards, so it's just a bunch of polemical rants which can be batted off reasonably easily.

Let's see how the others do!
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Corbyn confirms he will allow the break up of the union and let Sturgeon have her way in 2 years - incredible admission
He didn't actually say that. he said an independence referendum was not a priority, it definitely wouldn't happen for the first couple of years... and he added at least to that. There's no commitment at all to a referendum.

Now, personally, I'#d say him allowing for a better Brexit (or not!) deal for Scotland while investing in Scotland is the best way to ensure the union survives, as opposed to the kamikaze approach of Johnson, which sacrifices Scotland and Ireland on the altar of power and Brexit.
 

Walsgrave

Well-Known Member
Corbyn confirms he will allow the break up of the union and let Sturgeon have her way in 2 years - incredible admission

This would only be possible if the SNP gain a majority at Holyrood in 2021 - a doubtful proposition, especially in the hypothetical event that Labour get into power and engineer a soft Brexit/second referendum which resultsi n a Remain vote.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Why are you both pretending that I have said it is about how Corbyn votes when I have made the truth clear several times?

Do I?

I have constantly said I would like to know which side of Brexit he would campaign for. Or would he still try and stay neutral?

You know this. I have said it enough. And I know you can read and comprehend what you have read. You choose to try and make out I have said something totally different. Nothing unusual though.

You've accused me of choosing to make out I have said something completely different to what I have before. You accused me of calling you a leaver when I did no such thing and when I explained your misunderstanding you then said I didn't mean that at all. I literally explained it to you and you said I didn't understand my own words! You've also accused me of wanting to end private education when I'd said no such thing. So it hardly a one way thing in making out someone has said something thy haven't.

But can you explain to me why you find it so important what Corbyn plans to do rather than the party, given that it's the party you vote for? This isn't a Presidential election.

If Corbyn had said 'I'm remain' but the Labour position was 'leave', would you vote for Labour? If not then your entire desire to know what his personal campaigning stance is is pointless.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
You've accused me of choosing to make out I have said something completely different to what I have before. You accused me of calling you a leaver when I did no such thing and when I explained your misunderstanding you then said I didn't mean that at all. I literally explained it to you and you said I didn't understand my own words! You've also accused me of wanting to end private education when I'd said no such thing. So it hardly a one way thing in making out someone has said something thy haven't.

But can you explain to me why you find it so important what Corbyn plans to do rather than the party, given that it's the party you vote for? This isn't a Presidential election.

If Corbyn had said 'I'm remain' but the Labour position was 'leave', would you vote for Labour? If not then your entire desire to know what his personal campaigning stance is is pointless.
What a load of crap. Just admit you was wrong for once.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.

There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.

Tony Benn was further left than the current Labour Party. I'm struggling to understand your point here, he was an intellect yes also part credited with "the longest suicide note in history" which was Labour's manifesto in 1983.

As for the Tories, this is the furthest to the right Tory party we've seen. Pritti Patel, Kwasi Koteng, Dim Raab, Liz Truss are ultra Thatcherites who even wrote a book about utterly destroying the regulations that keep people in jobs with reasonable pay and conditions and consumers safe from harm.

The other thing I'd say about them is that Truss and Raab in particular are thick as mince and make their opposite numbers look like mensa candidates.

I've worked in public service or close to it for 16 years now, the last few years in the NHS. Hospitals are in their knees, with massive deficits being forced to outsource services all over the place, all by quite deliberate design through underfunding.

I've not seen one post yet telling me why I should even consider voting Conservative, not one report of anything in their manifesto apart from the pathetic and misleading "Get Brexit Done" soundbite.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Put it this way; if private schools did not bestow an unfair advantage on those who attend them, parents would not be willing to pay for them. I suggest that you read David Kynaston and Francis Green's recent seminal book on the matter to educate yourself about it. For the record, they both attended independent schools.

I don't need educating on anything. The arguments for and against private schools are older than you or I and are well understood.

Of course they bestow an advantage on those who attend, who would argue that point? But, to abolish them would make no sense and would be motivated by ideology and nothing else.

There are way over 600,000 pupils in private schools. The average spend per pupil in the UK is around £5200. We're talking about £3.5 billion extra every year just to maintain the current spend per pupil. Why not just spend that on the state system as it is to close the per pupil spending gap?

The disadvantage won't go away, all that would happen is that the money saved by the wealthy parents would be used to pay for extra private tuition. It would be a senseless policy that benefits nobody and which thankfully has been ditched.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
I've not seen one post yet telling me why I should even consider voting Conservative, not one report of anything in their manifesto apart from the pathetic and misleading "Get Brexit Done" soundbite.
You should vote Tory if you are rich, consider yourself to be well off, don't give a toss about people not doing very well in life, not bothered about the NHS or are a fookin lunatic.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
This format's a bit like the forums when Fisher fronted up us moving to Northampton. Sturgeon's getting a harder time of it, because by the nature of her party, it's focussed a lot on Scottish Independence, but it's still the case when put under pressure, the presenter has to move on to another question and another point.

Even Johnson should come out of this format alright!
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Dreamer Jeremy Corbyn has just confirmed labour policy is NOT to back a remain strategy but Is neutral.

Thoughts?

He said he personally would be neutral.

When the "renegotiated deal and 2nd ref' policy was revealed, it was stated that the Labour policy was to then back remain in the ref. I remember it well because political commentators and topical news shows such the News Quiz had a field day on how do you negotiate a deal and then campaign against it (although some people did also make wisecracks like "who do they think they are? Dominic Raab or David Davis?" That derision had seen them go quite on that issue, although it may well have been that data analysis of opinion stated it would be better to sit on the fence and appear non committal. During his debate with Johnson it appeared to me he was quietly saying the party policy would be back remain - maybe I mistook what he said.

Personally I believe he would give his party an open choice to campaign whichever way they wished but the party is still a predominantly remain party. If it wasn't they'd have just passed the brexit bill. They wouldn't have a 2nd ref with remain on the table as their Brexit policy. Their issue is having Labour heartlands that voted Leave and how to marry those things together in a GE.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
What a load of crap. Just admit you was wrong for once.

It isn't crap - you argued both of those points I made.

I just want an answer to the question - why is what Corbyn personally thinks and would do so important rather than what the party would do? Would you still vote labour if Corbyn said he was for remain even if Labour wasn't?
 

Walsgrave

Well-Known Member
I don't need educating on anything. The arguments for and against private schools are older than you or I and are well understood.

Of course they bestow an advantage on those who attend, who would argue that point? But, to abolish them would make no sense and would be motivated by ideology and nothing else.

There are way over 600,000 pupils in private schools. The average spend per pupil in the UK is around £5200. We're talking about £3.5 billion extra every year just to maintain the current spend per pupil. Why not just spend that on the state system as it is to close the per pupil spending gap?

The disadvantage won't go away, all that would happen is that the money saved by the wealthy parents would be used to pay for extra private tuition. It would be a senseless policy that benefits nobody and which thankfully has been ditched.

The benefits of private education are not captured purely in the fee numbers (which, mind you , are shocking - the minimum average spend per pupil in the private sector, of £11k per annm, more than doubles that of the state sector - and if we level that up to the very elite schools, where fees are around 44k per annum, this is around an 8-fold monetary advantage). These advantages are cumulative - creating an environment where parents with the means to pay who care for their children's education are able to buy the ideal environment for their children. Those who cannot pay do not have a choice in the matter, even if their child is capable of taking advantage of such an environment. It leaves ambitious pupils in the state sector, who through whatever circumstance has not been fortunate enough to have a decent education bought for them, lounging with the mediocrity. Not to forget the incentive this creates for the best teachers in the state sector - why stay in the state sector when one can teach in a private school where the kids/parents care, and often for higher pay? The poaching of the best teachers from the state to the private sector is a big issue which is very rarely picked up on.

One may retort that private schools in fact offer huge bursaries and fee assistance for disadvantaged pupils, and there are certainly some individuals from the poorest backgrounds who are lucky enough to have 100% bursaries/even more. But in reality, such a small percentage of pupils benefit from this - there are some figures in their New Statesman article from 2014 'Education's Berlin Wall: The private school conundrum". This paragraph is telling:

"We need to look closely at the facts. As one examines the figures for the 1,223 member schools of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), a few things become clear: although 33.7 per cent of pupils at private schools receive help with their fees, two-thirds of these are either reductions for military, clergy, siblings and staff, or scholarships, and generally they provide only a quarter of the average day fee (barely one-tenth of the average boarding fee); only one in 12 private school students receives a means-tested bursary; and among these, 58.6 per cent are still paying at least half the full fee. The number of students in receipt of a full bursary, paying no fees at all, is fewer than one in a hundred".

So in reality, the bursaries, of which proponents of private schooling use to support their argument that private schools should continue to be branded as 'charities', are in fact subsidising the fees of teachers of such schools more than genuinely disadvantaged pupils.

One further retort might be that parents should be able to spend their money on what they like - akin to the question of 'would you ban holidays, the purchases of villas etc'. Well the issue of this is that it is the child's education that is at stake. Unlike in adulthood, where there is sufficient time for one to work their socks off and potentially get filthy rich; before the age of 18 a kid had limited say in the matter of where they are educated - this is dictated almost solely by parental wealth/propensity to behave like a helicopter. It's just not equitable; and to say that nothing's fair isn't really an answer.

I don't for one minute blame either pupils of the private sector, nor the parents who sent their children to them - they are doing what's best for themselves. I do blame the system which rewards such schools, reprehensibly rewarding those with the means to pay and even granting them charitable status - at the expense of the other 93%, who are left to face cuts to per-pupil spending. The state sector just cannot compete with the private sector, and this surely is not a good outcome or one whom a proponent of social justice can believe is fair.
 
Last edited:

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
He said he personally would be neutral.

When the "renegotiated deal and 2nd ref' policy was revealed, it was stated that the Labour policy was to then back remain in the ref. I remember it well because political commentators and topical news shows such the News Quiz had a field day on how do you negotiate a deal and then campaign against it (although some people did also make wisecracks like "who do they think they are? Dominic Raab or David Davis?" That derision had seen them go quite on that issue, although it may well have been that data analysis of opinion stated it would be better to sit on the fence and appear non committal. During his debate with Johnson it appeared to me he was quietly saying the party policy would be back remain - maybe I mistook what he said.

Personally I believe he would give his party an open choice to campaign whichever way they wished but the party is still a predominantly remain party. If it wasn't they'd have just passed the brexit bill. They wouldn't have a 2nd ref with remain on the table as their Brexit policy. Their issue is having Labour heartlands that voted Leave and how to marry those things together in a GE.

Your analysis is all over the place
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It isn't crap - you argued both of those points I made.

I just want an answer to the question - why is what Corbyn personally thinks and would do so important rather than what the party would do? Would you still vote labour if Corbyn said he was for remain even if Labour wasn't?

the party has no position on it
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Jo Swinson is showing why Labour being relatively non-committal on Brexit isn't that bad. Getting it in the neck from both leavers and remainers.

On that subject she could say about unlaterally voting "if LD got a Commons majority you could clearly take that as a mandate that the country wanted to revoke Brexit". If anything it'd be a stronger mandate than a small majority in a 2nd ref IMO.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
That wasn't because Labour had come out as backing remain.

They were responding specifically to the point that Labour would negotiate a new deal and then campaign against that deal in favour of remain. That was their position when they announced the policy that they seem to have backtracked on.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
They were responding specifically to the point that Labour would negotiate a new deal and then campaign against that deal in favour of remain. That was their position when they announced the policy that they seem to have backtracked on.
Nope, it was the possibility that they might.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Your analysis is all over the place

Why? Labour heartlands predominantly voted leave. So if the Labour party were for leave and their voters want to leave, they'd just say they were for leave wouldn't they? But they haven't. Why would that be? The most obvious reason is that the party want to remain but really can't afford to alienate that core vote.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top