|
Namtab posted:The only worthless thing here is your "contributions" Lashing out at me won't transform Corbyn's Article 50 strategy into something that isn't a tyre fire. Sounds like the final vote on the bill is going to be three line whipped as well. Wonder what the justification will be for it this time. Maths or something?
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
You crying about it won't either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:You crying about it won't either. How is it you Brexiters describe people who aren't happy with the triggering of Article 50 again? 'Remoaners'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Labour minority in "having no legislative power whatsoever" shocker. Next up: Parties that win more than 50% of seats have total governmental fiat? FPTP expert tells us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Labour minority in "having no legislative power whatsoever" shocker. They threw away what slim leverage they had by literally voting with the Tories and not offering any opposition whatsoever. Ah well. At least Corbyn fans thought it was 'clever' and 'nuanced' for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
The comments in that BBC article show that hope is still a lie in 2017
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Labour minority in "having no legislative power whatsoever" shocker. But don't you see, the only way to undo brexit is by crying about it on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But don't you see, the only way to undo brexit is by crying about it on the internet. It's amusing to see you co-opt the language and tone of the typical Brexiter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:You crying about it won't either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Dugong posted:The comments in that BBC article show that hope is still a lie in 2017 Hope was a lie from day one. When so far this year have we had reason to hope? None. No times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Has throwing away Labour's leverage and handing the country on a plate to spivs made Hungary less fascist yet Yep. It's a utopia already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So these people justifying Corbyn's loving awful three line whip on this bill by saying Labour will get amendments Uh the point was that not threatening to block could make it easier for Tories who are willing to vote against the government line to do so. And even though it's what a lot of them want, I'm not holding my breath The bit you didn't quote was where I contrasted that with your idea that if Labour had voted against Article 50, the Tory rebels would have totally joined in and defeated it. If there was any chance of that, then surely the broadly popular amendments getting lots of support will be a piece of piss. The only reason to vote against them is tory party unity, so I guess we'll see how that works out huh!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's amusing to see you co-opt the language and tone of the typical Brexiter. gently caress me, you don't half bang on like a tuppeny ha'penny record. Go and irritate another forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
If the tories are willing to vote lock step with the party line without pressure to do so I doubt they would stop doing so if the alternative was actually loving up the A50 vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The bit you didn't quote was where I contrasted that with your idea that if Labour had voted against Article 50, the Tory rebels would have totally joined in and defeated it. Providing opposition to the bill in the hope that it can be defeated or amended makes a lot more sense than voting for the bill and hoping it can be defeated or amended. This is not complicated. OwlFancier posted:If the tories are willing to vote lock step with the party line without pressure to do so I doubt they would stop doing so if the alternative was actually loving up the A50 vote. We'll never know because instead of opposing the bill Labour supports it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:We'll never know because instead of opposing the bill Labour supports it. That is how picking a strategy works, yes, however I would venture that we may reasonably intuit that the tories as a party want to see A50 invoked, and any who obstructed that would face severe ire from the leadership. Thus rebellion is unlikely to occur if it actually threatens the party line. I know you have a fondness for unspecified alternatives but I'm afraid that an alternative not being proven in practice does not automatically make it the better one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So these people justifying Corbyn's loving awful three line whip on this bill by saying Labour will get amendments Nobody you quoted said anything about 'forcing' through amendments, and Namtab specifically said the Tories could push the bill through regardless of anything Labour did. Your idea that people think Corbyn's strategy is to enable Labour to force through amendments is a total fantasy. Everyone here is telling you that's not what they think, and you're still shaking your fist at your imaginary strawman. Pissflaps posted:They threw away what slim leverage they had by literally voting with the Tories and not offering any opposition whatsoever. Ah well. At least Corbyn fans thought it was 'clever' and 'nuanced' for some reason. Aaanndd now you show yourself to be the one with unrealistic fantasies by claiming Labour had 'leverage' over the Tories in any way shape or form. I'm genuinely not sure how to explain how our political system works to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is how picking a strategy works, yes, however I would venture that we may reasonably intuit that the tories as a party want to see A50 invoked, and any who obstructed that would face severe ire from the leadership. Thus rebellion is unlikely to occur if it actually threatens the party line. Except I told you that this strategy would not work. It's not working. It was never going to work. I think you knew it wasn't going to work yourself. jabby posted:Aaanndd now you show yourself to be the one with unrealistic fantasies by claiming Labour had 'leverage' over the Tories in any way shape or form. I'm genuinely not sure how to explain how our political system works to you. A Labour party, competently led and opposed to Brexit, could have built up some momentum in public opinion and in the house. To be fair, looking at what's leading Labour right now, that does seem an unrealistic fantasy. I was never expecting Corbyn to be able to do this - this is what a Labour party with a real leader would have done. Not one led by the bearded poo poo it has right now. Roll on 2030. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:We'll never know because instead of opposing the bill Labour supports it. We'll know if none of them vote for the amendments that offer guarantees they've been calling for
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Except I told you that this strategy would not work. It's not working. It was never going to work. I think you knew it wasn't going to work yourself. And, as I said, that does not mean the alternative was any more likely to work. Sometimes there is no way to achieve what you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
There is not, nor has there ever been, a way of stopping brexit after the referendum gave that result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Seeing as a ton of people are not happy with how it's panning out already, even before any kind of concerted attempt by any important political party-slash-movement to rally opinion against it, you'd think there might actually have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Namtab posted:There is not, nor has there ever been, a way of stopping brexit after the referendum gave that result. It seems that way in hindsight because an alternative was never offered. There's still a way of stopping it now - you just can't imagine it's possible because the Tories can do what they like and Labour are helping them do it. OwlFancier posted:And, as I said, that does not mean the alternative was any more likely to work. This is the same negativity that leads a minority to think Corbyn is the best Labour can do. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It seems that way in hindsight because an alternative was never offered. Go for it, how can we stop brexit
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Go for it, how can we stop brexit I've posted this multiple times. A competent labour leader, on an anti brexit platform, putting pressure on this pro-brexit government, ultimately replacing it and reversing the damage done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I've posted this multiple times. A competent labour leader, on an anti brexit platform, putting pressure on this pro-brexit government, ultimately replacing it and reversing the damage done. So you don't actually have any ideas. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Namtab posted:So you don't actually have any ideas. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Well I mean neither do the labour party...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Namtab posted:So you don't actually have any ideas. Cool. I've given you a very specific idea. It's a much better idea than 'literally do nothing'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
I'm going to whack out my time machine and stop Corbyn from ever getting elected, just for you. I can't believe the key to stopping brexit happened before brexit was a thing. This is a realistic idea that definitely could have happened
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I think a newspaper which occasionally attacks inequality & low pay does its cause immeasurable damage by exploiting unpaid schemes like this which ultimately are going to favour people whose parents are wealthy enough to give their kid a 2 week free ride, on top of already paying for them to be able to afford London rents I think you're making heavy assumptions here. Like the first question is whether you think they are exploiting the students that apply... and the answer is probably not? It's a 2-week mentorship scheme, it costs their employees' time to pay attention to their kids, and it's unlikely they will get much meaningful work out of these kids except for some cups of coffee made. The scheme will be mainly to the applicants' benefit - it's basically a work experience/CV padding exercise. The second question is whether this benefits the relatively well to do over the super-poor. This is unfortunately true, but like I said, with the law as it is this is pretty much the only thing they can do (apart from offering bursaries for journalism students, which is the other thing they do). OTOH you don't have to be *that* rich to benefit from the scheme, like they say they are covering travel expenses so you don't have to live right by the offices. There'll be plenty of less well to do students and so on that can survive not working part time or whatever for two weeks. If it was for a longer period it'd be a larger issue. It's not a perfect scheme by any means, but in the context of the law, I can't really think of how I would do things differently. It's certainly better than nothing. It has been running for several years anyway so if it does its cause damage, you're years out of date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I'm going to whack out my time machine and stop Corbyn from ever getting elected, just for you. I'd really appreciate it if you could. As would the thousands and thousands of people who will die under this, and the next, and the next, Tory government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
I can't believe brexit was all corbyns fault all along
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
a competent labour leadership candidate would have been able to galvanise the membership and beat a jam making, lifetime backbencher but alas, they never came forward. Shame that
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I can't believe brexit was all corbyns fault all along I wouldn't say it was his fault, but he certainly shares the blame. Initially for his piss poor performance during the referendum, more recently for his enabling of Tory Brexit policy. Though it turns out his support for the latter explains the former behaviour. He's worse than I ever imagined tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
If only Owen Smith were the leader
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I've given you a very specific idea. It's a much better idea than 'literally do nothing'. My solution to this is that we all keep quiet and hope that the right doesn't get more empowered, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Namtab posted:If only Owen Smith were the leader Owen Smith never impressed me much but I think he'd have done something other than unquestioningly supporting the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
I'm not naive about the potential to stop brexit, especially now. I think the priority is to build on the anger many remain voters now feel, and whether many leavers now feel, about the vast amount of fuckage that is coming this way due to this decision, and not to betray them by repeatedly emphasizing that their opinions don't matter at all. This will basically be a second Iraq war vote. If Labour doesn't fight this, when are they going to start fighting? The argument for their surrender on this issue can be extended to a shitload more. You are basically establishing a precedent for full capitulation. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Fangz posted:I think you're making heavy assumptions here. Like the first question is whether you think they are exploiting the students that apply... and the answer is probably not? It's a 2-week mentorship scheme, it costs their employees' time to pay attention to their kids, and it's unlikely they will get much meaningful work out of these kids except for some cups of coffee made. The scheme will be mainly to the applicants' benefit - it's basically a work experience/CV padding exercise. It cuts out anyone who has to meet rent. So yeah, you've got to be from either a family where your folks can afford to pay for you to live in London or commuting distance from London, or live with parents who already live in that area. So yes, it's certainly not going to be only beneficial to those from a well off background, but it remains a fact that these work experience/CV padding things are often hugely beneficial to people and are largely restricted to those who are already from a background where they can afford to go two weeks without being paid. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. It's a very bad thing. It does nothing more than work to entrench inequality further. Yes, it's a common practice for lots of companies, for MPs, and yes, it's hugely problematic in every case. I am deeply opposed to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 23:28
|
|
