|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
Namtab posted:I'm not sure I like what you're trying to say about me, but I'm positive that I'd like you to stop.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
I suspected Corbyn was pro Leave when I saw his risible performance during the referendum campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I don't think people looked at it that closely because he was the leader of a party (and supporters) that were so pro-Europe for so long. I'm sure people might have guessed that he personally was against the EU, but it wasn't the defining feature in their eyes. This is literally the exact argument he made though - people were complaining that he wasn't going 'I'M 100% FOR THE EU AND NO MISTAKE' instead of trying to make a nuanced case. Don't forget that the Labour Remain vote was only a few % lower than the Lib Dems', and you'd expect them to have a much easier sell. But the narrative being pushed (this was part of the scheduled coup) was that 'Corbyn lost the referendum', and Tim Farron joined in without even blinking. Whatever Corbyn's personal opinion, his public position has always been 'better in' Hoops posted:They think he's thrown the baby out with the bathwater. How so? The Tories have a majority and Corbyn didn't have the power to force anything. Labour's position at this point is purely one of principle given the current reality of the situation. People might not like it, and it is hard to swallow, but it hasn't had any material effect on what's actually happening - it's a reaction to it. The Tories are fully in control It's like people think Corbyn had the deciding vote and did some pantomime villain 'hahaha now we LEAVE' reveal or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Fair enough. I don't really think I can claim to be one of them, to be honest. Honestly, the EU wasn't a big deal of neoliberal awfulness before the financial crash. Yeah, it was bad and shady, but it was bad and shady the same way most large international organisations in our already-capitalist world were. I don't think (or, certainly didn't feel) it was particularly bad compared to any multinational company, the world bank, etc etc. Bad, certainly, but not notably bad enough to get mentioned preceding an "etc" in a list of stuff I thought was a problem in the world. After the GFC it jumped on the austerity bandwagon like they'd spotted the last seat and this directly translated to destroying communities and lives and killing disabled people and pensioners, and at that point they became extra-special bad. Eurocentric as hell, I'll grant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Hoops posted:It's a joke big man Some things are no joke
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:How so? The Tories have a majority and Corbyn didn't have the power to force anything. Labour's position at this point is purely one of principle given the current reality of the situation. People might not like it, and it is hard to swallow, but it hasn't had any material effect on what's actually happening - it's a reaction to it. The Tories are fully in control The language you're using here: 'Corbyn didn't have the power', 'reality of the situation', 'Tories are fully in control' etc are not the words of somebody talking about a 'principled' act. The point of principles are that you hold them regardless. You don't pick the principle - in this case Corbyn's supposed devotion to referenda - to suit the occasion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:After the GFC it jumped on the austerity bandwagon like they'd spotted the last seat and this directly translated to destroying communities and lives and killing disabled people and pensioners, and at that point they became extra-special bad. Eurocentric as hell, I'll grant. So did you vote to leave in the end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
The .pdf raised an interesting point I didn't think about; "hard brexit" sounds like "a tough (on them) exit" to a lot of the people who voted to leave, rather than "a jarring, harsh exit". I hadn't even considered that. I wonder what other terms mean totally different things to Brexiteers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
The principle is respecting the result and trying to be pragmatic about going forward
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:So did you vote to leave in the end? God no. But my view is "If I'm worried about nuking everyone's livelihoods we're presently better off staying in the EU and trying to shift it, or at least setting better groundwork for leaving, rather than jumping off the Freedom Cliff straight back into another recession". It helped a lot of the supposed selling points in favour are blatantly delusional fantasies. spectralent fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:This is literally the exact argument he made though - people were complaining that he wasn't going 'I'M 100% FOR THE EU AND NO MISTAKE' instead of trying to make a nuanced case. quote:Don't forget that the Labour Remain vote was only a few % lower than the Lib Dems', and you'd expect them to have a much easier sell. But the narrative being pushed (this was part of the scheduled coup) was that 'Corbyn lost the referendum', and Tim Farron joined in without even blinking. Whatever Corbyn's personal opinion, his public position has always been 'better in' quote:How so? The Tories have a majority and Corbyn didn't have the power to force anything. Labour's position at this point is purely one of principle given the current reality of the situation. People might not like it, and it is hard to swallow, but it hasn't had any material effect on what's actually happening - it's a reaction to it. The Tories are fully in control And people don't like what he did no, thats what we're discussing isn't it? quote:It's like people think Corbyn had the deciding vote and did some pantomime villain 'hahaha now we LEAVE' reveal or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The principle is respecting the result and trying to be pragmatic about going forward Pragmatism is another word not used when describing a principled act.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Unless the poster in question is a member of the tory party it is probably best not to suggest they are nonces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Same point as above, people didn't really believe him. He was very defensive when the journalists tried to gotcha him (although he usually is tbh) and his public (televised, that is) statements were not convincing at all. Again, I found it convincing. The two arguments presented were "The EU is fantastic and is never bad" and "It's all poo poo we're going to pull money out of our arses if we leave". Neither of those were plausible. "It sucks but less" was nice. And again, turnout for Labour was good; if the country all voted like Labour voters did we'd be in. This was a tory loss, caused by Cameron's overconfidence the entire thing would be over by Christmas and consequently refusing to control his party for fear of hurting anyone's feelings after their inevitable win. quote:It's not like that. It's the symbolism of him not standing up for one of the most important political opinions the majority of his supporters hold. They feel betrayed by the leader they voted for. This, however, is completely true. If he's not going to stand for his members and he isn't being an opposition to the Tories what in god's name is he for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
spectralent posted:This, however, is completely true. If he's not going to stand for his members and he isn't being an opposition to the Tories what in god's name is he for? It's interesting, and worrying, how often Corbyn's obligation to 'labour members' is referred to rather than labour voters. The latter group is more important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Nah, people didn't believe him when he said he was behind staying in. Sometimes the press magic up a narrative and sometimes they sniff one out and bite onto it, and I think the public felt that "Corbyn secretly wants to leave the EU" was more of the latter. I'm not so sure. I suspect that your average "disengaged citizen who doesn't really follow politics" probably thought, "He's Labour, and everyone knows Labour are pro-EU, so he must be pro-EU," while with your stereotypical "young leftist pro-Corbyn" sorts, it was more likely, "Euroscepticism is racist, and everyone knows Jeremy Corbyn is not a racist, so he must be pro-EU".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
The Labour leave voters in the risky seats vs the Labour remain voters in the safe seats
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The principle is respecting the result and trying to be pragmatic about going forward He represents the Labour Party, whose voters voted remain overall. I (and presumably all the voters who have turned on him) don't want or believe he should do whatever it is that Tory or UKIP or Lib Dem voters want to happen. If a country-wide vote is the test of what a principled democrat should respect and go along with, how about the AV referendum? People voted for FPTP, so that's it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's interesting, and worrying, how often Corbyn's obligation to 'labour members' is referred to rather than labour voters. I think the members are also voters
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Namtab posted:The Labour leave voters in the risky seats vs the Labour remain voters in the safe seats Those labour leave voters in risky seats won't be voting labour at the next election either way. Namtab posted:I think the members are also voters Look up. That's the point going over your head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Hoops posted:I understand what this sentiment is, but I think you're working backwards in justification from the point of "Corbyn was correct to do what he did", and you've ended with the position that you should stop fighting when you lose. I don't think there's a very credible way that Corbyn, a man elected on a platform of "democracy is great" could turn around and say that democracy is bad when it gives a bad result. He's pretty committed to the idea that people have a right to democratically decide things and politicians should serve the result of that. I don't always agree with him on it but it's not really a surprise, he's been quite open about it from day 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:He's pretty committed to the idea that people have a right to democratically decide things and politicians should serve the result of that. I don't always agree with him on it but it's not really a surprise, he's been quite open about it from day 1. Which, as is often pointed out, is horseshit: unless he intends to three line whip in support of every Tory bill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Those labour leave voters in risky seats won't be voting labour at the next election either way. You never told me why you wanted me to prove my age
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I'm not so sure. I suspect that your average "disengaged citizen who doesn't really follow politics" probably thought, "He's Labour, and everyone knows Labour are pro-EU, so he must be pro-EU," while with your stereotypical "young leftist pro-Corbyn" sorts, it was more likely, "Euroscepticism is racist, and everyone knows Jeremy Corbyn is not a racist, so he must be pro-EU".
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Namtab posted:You never told me why you wanted me to prove my age It was a joke. You said you're a 'grown man' and I requested proof in a standard d&d way, indicating i found the claim unbelievable. I do not need to see your ID.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You said you're a 'grown man' and I requested proof in a standard d&d way, indicating i found the claim unbelievable. I do not need to see your ID. I'm not sure why you didn't believe me, and I'm not sure you're entitled to proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I'm not sure why you didn't believe me, and I'm not sure you're entitled to proof. I understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps stop hassling posters for dickpics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I understand. Post the recipe
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:If the plan was to leave the EU and abolish neoliberalism, ok maybe I would believe you. But the plan seems to be to leave the EU to... give all power to a Tory neoliberal government that has already shown it wants to privatise everything and turn the UK into a tax haven??? Am I missing something here? My main criticism of "Lexit" is that it assumes leaving the EU makes achieving left wing goals easier. The only reason the EU is a neoliberal institution is because the big member states have been neoliberal. The EU framework doesn't have to be neoliberal. If Corbyn was PM and Hamon was President of France and Schulz Chancellor of Germany you could be drat sure the EU would start to look a different pretty soon. But centrist or right wing governments are going to do centrist or right wing things whether or not the EU exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Corbyn was asked specifically how enthusiastic he was about staying in the EU, not whether the EU was perfect. "Seven and a half" out of ten was a dumb answer to that question. You can say "the EU has faults but I definitely think we should stay in because on balance we're better off in". You don't have to pretend its perfect. But if there's a vote taking place and you're campaigning for one side to win and you say you want people to vote for your side "seven and a half out of ten" then you're a bad campaigner. The anger that followed wasn't because people felt the referendum result was all his fault, it was because people felt he'd done a lousy job. Labour's policy was 100 per cent to stay in the EU and then try to reform it, not 75 per cen to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Hoops posted:You're saying the parliamentary opposition is redundant, by its nature. In terms of parliamentary votes nothing about that vote was conceptually or procedurally different to any other vote, if you use that argument here you have to use it for everything the governing party wants to do. You know this isn't true at all. Effectively the vote was either respecting or rejecting the results of an incredibly charged democratic referendum. It's not the usual situation where they act as our representatives and vote on our behalf - direct democracy had already taken place Labour was put in a situation where the public had already voted, the Tories basically had a lock on the result in the Commons, the media were looking to savage anyone who blocked the process (and for a convenient scapegoat when things go badly), and Labour is already in a weak position going into a completely new era of British politics. Nothing about this is a normal vote, and they had to make a decision: vote against Article 50, change nothing, and suffer vilification and blame and distrust for the next two years - or hold their noses, alienate supporters, and take the difficult position to try and make the best of things going forward. And people like to blame Corbyn for this, but they discussed this plan internally, and the vast majority of MPs voted yes despite being heavily pro-Remain. They didn't do it out of their famous loyalty and fear of his leadership
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
When I see people refer to the EU as the "EUSSR" in Guardian comments I think to myself "actually that would be great". Imagine full socialist EU, having learned from the mistakes of the Russian experiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:My main criticism of "Lexit" is that it assumes leaving the EU makes achieving left wing goals easier. The only reason the EU is a neoliberal institution is because the big member states have been neoliberal. The EU framework doesn't have to be neoliberal. If Corbyn was PM and Hamon was President of France and Schulz Chancellor of Germany you could be drat sure the EU would start to look a different pretty soon. But centrist or right wing governments are going to do centrist or right wing things whether or not the EU exists. Hoops fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Devils advocate then - isn't it easier for the left to succeed in one isolated country that is not interdependent with right wing governments than it is to succeed in five or six countries at the same time? It's easier to move an island nation to the left than move a whole continent. No because the economy will go down the shitter and the right wing is extremely efficient during times of hardship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Devils advocate then - isn't it easier for the left to succeed in one isolated country that is not interdependent with right wing governments than it is to succeed in five or six countries at the same time? It's easier to move an island nation to the left than move a whole continent. Can the working class of our country overcome the contradictions with our peasantry and establish an alliance, collaboration with them? Can the working class of our country, in alliance - with our peasantry, smash the bourgeoisie of our country, deprive it of the land, factories, mines, etc., and by its own efforts build a new, classless society, complete Socialist society? Such are the problems that are connected with the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country. Leninism answers these problems in the affirmative. Lenin teaches us that "we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete Socialist society." Hence we can and must, by our own efforts, overcome our bourgeoisie and build Socialist society. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and those other gentlemen who later became spies and agents of fascism, denied that it was possible to build Socialism in our country unless the victory of the Socialist revolution was first achieved in other countries, in capitalist countries. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen wanted to turn our country back to the path of bourgeois development and they concealed their apostasy by hypocritically talking about the "victory of the revolution" in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:No because the economy will go down the shitter and the right wing is extremely efficient during times of hardship. Probably more of an indictment of the left than complimentary of the right. I'm not terribly fussed myself. I'm not a socialist. I read a lot of Marxist books when I was in university but they weren't very persuasive. But I'm not set against it or anything. I much prefer the British socialism to the European socialism, though. You know, the whole "owes more to Methodism than Marx" thing? That seems a lot more relatable to me. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Probably more of an indictment of the left than complimentary of the right. What would you describe your political leanings as?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:What would you describe your political leanings as? Unionist, but not dead set against a united Ireland in the near or distant future on principle. Other than that, I have a legal background and tend to be most interested in constitutional issues, which is a niche topic even for politics hobbyists. I have read a lot of Ronald Dworkin, who I know is broadly a social liberal, but I am mainly interested in what he has to say about the philosophy of judicial decision-making. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
I agree with Joe
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:15
|
|