|
MikeCrotch posted:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45631792 quote:Delegates cheer as Keir Starmer says "nobody is ruling out remain as an option" in a further Brexit referendum october 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/07/keir-starmer-battles-to-keep-labour-support-for-peoples-vote-alive quote:Keir Starmer is battling to keep alive the prospect that Labour could ever support a second Brexit referendum as the party reacted angrily to Jeremy Corbyn’s offer to back Theresa May if she flexes her red lines. with the notable exception of how he championed it, ran on it at conference, deliberately pushed the leadership away from a compromise position repeatedly, with all these exceptions, sure it's bad history. which would have been news to keir starmer in october 2019 (giving a speech following leading the people's vote march) two months before we catastrophically lost because of this policy, where he said: quote:It asks them to honour our shared democratic values; it asks them not to turn away from us now and deny us the chance for the final say.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Three, but they can't enforce it unless the eviction ban comes off so basically so long as Covid is here it's a polite request. Even if the ban expires they'll still need to issue a new section 21 eviction notice, dated from after any law changes. If they're sending you a 3 month notice now in the expectation that the law will change within the next 3 months then I'm pretty that wouldn't be enforceable. Send a polite letter back saying that because have given less than the legal minimum notice you will not be complying with their demand, and keep a copy of it. Though I can't remember if you're in Scotland Gonzo? If so it's a slightly different process: https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/eviction_of_private_tenants/eviction_of_private_residential_tenancy_tenants This is a useful fact sheet for notice periods, which can vary depending on length of tenancy and the reason the landlord is giving to evict you: https://assets.ctfassets.net/6sqqfr...ial_Tenants.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think that it was all a trick played on the membership? i think from starmer's perspective it was, yes. i am sure there are plenty of people who genuinely thought starmer was being sincere, and i suspect quite a few people voted for him. quote:Your apparent take is that the Brexit party couldn't possibly have run against Labour if they had also been for Brexit, appears to ignore the wishes of the membership of a party that is trying to democratise because it gave the wrong result and believes that the Lib Dems and Greens would not have picked up people in the shuffle if Labour had changed tack? my take is we have an A/B here, within two years of one another, with the exact same contextual participants. i can say definitively and without hesitation that farage did not start the brexit party in 2017, nor did he exclusively target labour seats with it. can you articulate that contradiction better than i can?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Farage campaigned against May, he started the brexit party (or specifically the not campaigning in tory seats bit, the party had existed for a while as his latest grift) because Johnson was PM and completely adopted his platform, rendering UKIP entirely defunct and farage entirely supportive of the tory party. Again, it is very easy to make arguments if you deliberately ignore all the bits that contradict them. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
i think it's a conspiracy theory to say that the brexit shadow secretary influenced labour brexit policy. and sure, those sincerely held ideals have somewhat shifted https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/10/keir-starmer-accepts-end-of-eu-free-movement-in-brexit-reversal the same guy as above posted:Marr also pointed out that in January 2019, when he was asked specifically if he would bring back free movement of EU citizens to the UK, he had replied: “Yes of course, bring back, argue for, challenge.” but we can't infer anything meaningful from the things he does and says, we instead need to remember how we personally felt and allow that to inform our recollections, that's the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
2017 was not 2019 when it can to brexit. In 2017 Labour campaigners in Kensington could say Labour would do a second referendum for remain while those in Sunderland could say we were going to do brexit and end free movement. It was all so up in the air anything was possible. By 2019 you had seen all the failed brexit votes and people's patience had run out with the soft brexit plan, because it was painfully obvious that even with a Labour government it was going to be a nightmare to get through parliament and crucially, was not that popular any more. Remainer Labour members were willing to go through with soft brexit while it looked like a potentially winning strategy, but by 2019 Labour were in the dumpster pollwise (for a bunch of reasons). Not only that, most leavers didn't want soft brexit by this point, so the soft brexit plan is appealing to fewer and fewer people as positions polarise. And of course on top of this, let's not forget that Labour was losing "Red Wall" seats before strategic ambiguity was dropped. The soft brexit plan didn't stop Copeland, Mansfield and Middlesbrough South flipping to the Tories - there's little reason to think that even if Labour adopts a pro-leave position in 2019 that Labour doesn't keep losing seats in the ex-industrial Midlands and North like it had been for decades prior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:i think from starmer's perspective it was, yes. i am sure there are plenty of people who genuinely thought starmer was being sincere, and i suspect quite a few people voted for him. What is this based on? This gives Starmer a sense of power and control of messaging that is not really bourne out by how shite he's been at winning anything since then. It's closer to a conspiracy theory. It's not "impossible" but it sure as gently caress means giving no agency to people making choices and an awful lot of power to a man desperate that others stop calling him "Keith". This appears to be a failure to consider context. To give a hyperbolic example: "there was no Covid in Britain in February 2019, it's only been 2 years since then and I don't see why anything should have changed so I am going to go outside without a mask and meet all my friends". Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
CoolCab were you in the Labour party at this time? Because even in 2017 there were a ton of people who wanted Labour to be for Remain but we're willing to campaign for Corbyn and soft brexit through gritted teeth. When it was clear the soft brexit plan wasn't working anymore they were no longer willing to do so. Starmer was reflecting a tendency that was already there (as was Thornberry and many others) not creating something out of whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Niric posted:Even if the ban expires they'll still need to issue a new section 21 eviction notice, dated from after any law changes. If they're sending you a 3 month notice now in the expectation that the law will change within the next 3 months then I'm pretty that wouldn't be enforceable. Send a polite letter back saying that because have given less than the legal minimum notice you will not be complying with their demand, and keep a copy of it. Would gonzo not be better off not sending them a response, because that gives them a chance to correct it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:
Absolutely loving easy to counter that; just take a clear position one way or the other. Then the ads saying the opposite look stupid. The problem was not that all clear positions would lose the election; the problem was that any clear position would lead to an identifiable group of sitting MPs definitely losing their seats. And Corbyn was not able/willing to say ‘shut up, just go put there, do your job and lose’. Maybe a solution would have been to force a split, expel 20-30 pro-Brexit MPs, and after the election go into coalition with any of them who won their seats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Did they have 20-30 pro-Brexit MPs? Skinner is the only one who'd be worth going into coalition with, the rest were shits like Hoey and Starmer lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Three, but they can't enforce it unless the eviction ban comes off so basically so long as Covid is here it's a polite request. The left wing candidate was likely to win apparently. This is not going down well optics wise
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
radmonger posted:Absolutely loving easy to counter that; just take a clear position one way or the other. Then the ads saying the opposite look stupid. A full-Remain stance: he's always been a eurosceptic, look at his record; full Brexit: he campaigned for Remain & has voted against all of the Brexit legislation
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Necrothatcher posted:Sov cit lady ended up with a suspended sentence and a manageable costs order. lol there is no way its manageable to a sov cit
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Red Oktober posted:Would gonzo not be better off not sending them a response, because that gives them a chance to correct it? I've found and am viewing a nicer flat tomorrow so I'm okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
crispix posted:more like ian pissplop ian pissflaps
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Jose posted:smegma on pasta sounds just awful They call it parmesan so it sounds nicer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What is this based on? This gives Starmer a sense of power and control of messaging that is not really bourne out by how shite he's been at winning anything since then. It's closer to a conspiracy theory. It's not "impossible" but it sure as gently caress means giving no onus to people making choices and an awful lot of power to a man desperate that others stop calling him "Keith". yeah it's crazy it's almost as if he was elevated to leadership based on his factionalist abilities and position rather than personal qualities huh? it's based on the fact it literally happened? again, we have, some pretty direct A/B comparisons here - i will come out and say, for the seats we lost in 2019 that we kept in 2017 i attribute every single one of them to brexit to one degree or another - we didn't lose bolstover because something something may and farage didn't like each other or were too ideologically separated (what?) i would go further, i would say absolutely nothing of the parliamentary three ring circus, the people's vote, etc surrounding brexit moved the dial one iota - we lost ten points, on average, in every seat that voted leave countrywide. we would not have survived that in any context and that we stemmed the bleeding by only losing half of our remain vote to the lib dems changed vanishingly little because the conservatives lost almost as badly - to contrast in leave areas they gained six points. even if we'd gone hard remain and wiped out the lib dem party completely we would still have lost, badly - we still would be in the minority as we have been since 2016. MikeCrotch posted:CoolCab were you in the Labour party at this time? Because even in 2017 there were a ton of people who wanted Labour to be for Remain but we're willing to campaign for Corbyn and soft brexit through gritted teeth. When it was clear the soft brexit plan wasn't working anymore they were no longer willing to do so. oh yes, and i have plenty to say about those idiots too. starmer (and thornberry) were able to seize upon this split and use it as a pressure point to force their rival into wildly unpopular policy which, hey, as evidenced, was dropped like a hot rock the second it would impact his personal performance. i don't characterize these behaviours as "betrayal" or anything either, just competent politicking, and i am very critical of people who don't want to see it. same people who thought starmer was going to adhere to literally any of his 10 points lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I've found and am viewing a nicer flat tomorrow so I'm okay with it. In that case that's excellent! Hope the viewing goes well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
 we have always been at war with etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:
This is literally just advertorial, fascinating! I can't believe they've stooped quite as low as this (the indy, not the government, obvs). quote:Commercial content.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:
Independent*
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Niric posted:Independent*
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:
Whataboutery: What about the NHS workers doing most of the jabbing? What about the various people transporting persons to get their jabs for those who can't get 'there' by public transport and don't drive? What about etc etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:we lost ten points, on average, in every seat that voted leave countrywide I think regardless of anything else, how Labour played it, etc. etc. we eventually will have to admit to ourselves that the Tories played an absolute blinder by winning the Brexit vote, even if it seemed like a disaster for Cameron (of course in reality, it wasn't, he's come out smelling of roses, despite wading through poo poo to get there). Even if everybody thinks he's a scum prick, it affects his life in absolutely zero way. The Tories were always going to be the "party of Brexit" and now they've cemented themselves into power for all eternity by pushing the culture war poo poo and the easy narratives of "Bureaucrats and foreigners are stealing from you! The Tory party are the only ones who want to protect you!". And now they get to continue controlling the media, the BBC, and they get to redraw the constituency boundaries. In reality, IMO, as soon as the Brexit referendum result was in, it was over for Labour. Of course I'm saying this in hindsight, it wasn't totally obvious at the time... but *even with the best and most genuine Labour leader any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes*, Brexit won out. It's the king of all narratives and he who controls the narrative controls the world. Of course it helps having a PLP full of utter cunts and a media owned by Tories and Tory donors... but these are reasons again why I don't think that anything that Labour could have done would've won it for them. You could argue that Corbyn should have been more ruthless, and it was probably the better path to take, but if he'd gotten rid of all the worst cunts in the party then the press and the Tories would have pushed the "Stalinist purge" angle way way harder and it would have worked. There was no winning position for Labour. The Tories through the media get to set what the will of the people is through their total control of the media. Oppose Brexit? You're an enemy of the people and the Tories through the press will literally encourage people to assassinate you. Support Brexit? Alienate half of your natural base. Also, what kind of Brexit are you supporting? Soft Brexit or Hard Brexit? If it's Hard Brexit then that's massively anti-worker and you'll alienate your entire base since you lose the ability to say you're a party of labour. If it's a Soft Brexit then you don't really want a true break with Europe and therefore you're not carrying out the incontrovertible will of the people and are therefore an enemy of those very same people, and the Tories will literally encourage people to assassinate you. Some sort of superposition of the two? You're indecisive and "wishy washy" and won't give a straight answer and you can't be trusted to carry out the incontrovertible will of the people! and therefore you're an enemy again and the Tories will literally encourage people to assassinate you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:yeah it's crazy it's almost as if he was elevated to leadership based on his factionalist abilities and position rather than personal qualities huh? "It litterally happened" doesn't mean it happened because of the reasons you state it does. If I were to say that a tree falls down not because of a weakening of support over many years but because a secret elf named "Nimbol" snuck up to it in the dead of night and pushed it over that'd be mad. Your argument is "X is true, therefore Y is true" without linking the two up necessarily. I think that May was a weak leader of the Tories, the ambiguity worked in 2017, that going for Brexit meant ignoring the votes of Labour members and going for either option on 2019 would have lead to losses. If you think that the losses would have been lessened by going full bore "Pro-Brexit" then I can't stop you and you are quite possibly correct. However I don't think there is proof of it. I think we would probably also have lost a lot of support from young people that contributed hugely towards success in 2017. I am not even arguing against what you think entirely, it's just that your argument isn't necessarily convincing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
It wasn't necessarily over from the moment of the vote. I don't think a 2nd ref was actually impossible, it just needed a coherent reasoning e.g. a 2nd ref on the final deal, explicitly not a pure re-run. The debate around it was false from the get-go though, FBPE was used from day one as a stick to beat the left and promote the Lib Dems. Nobody on the Remain At All Costs side ever had to articulate how their idea might actually work, they just needed to say that it would and Corbyn wasn't doing it so Corbyn Bad. The proof ultimately being when Swinson hosed all of the indicative votes and then lost her seat, but even today if you look at any Brexit discussion it will have people lining up to blame Corbyn for saying 7/10 and Swinson won't even get a mention. I honestly don't know how to address that really, almost the entire argument was in bad faith, and if we had a way to avoid bad faith arguments the Tories wouldn't be in power in the first place. e: Speaking of, remember Starmer's Six Tests?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
I think it's also worth remembering that the press considered Corbyn a joke in 2017 and only went full bore in 2019 which soured a lot of people. Also people say Theresa May ran a terrible campaign but she also killed UKIP completely and got over 40% of the vote. UKIP and the Lib Dems were the real losers in that election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:"It litterally happened" doesn't mean it happened because of the reasons you state it does. If I were to say that a tree falls down not because of a weakening of support over many years but because a secret elf named "Nimbol" snuck up to it in the dead of night and pushed it over that'd be mad. Your argument is "X is true, therefore Y is true" without linking the two up necessarily. quote:I think that May was a weak leader of the Tories, the ambiguity worked in 2017, that going for Brexit meant ignoring the votes of Labour members and going for either option on 2019 would have lead to losses. If you think that the losses would have been lessened by going full bore "Pro-Brexit" then I can't stop you and you are quite possibly correct. However I don't think there is proof of it. the only evidence you would find compelling appears to be a parallel universe where we did something different? i agree we would have lost a great deal of support but i can also identify the irrelevance compared to what actually happened - i reiterate unambiguously: strong remain areas could not have possibly won us the election as they represent minority even if we completely obliterated every other remain party. we lost 52 leave constituencies while retaining all but two of our remain seats. we did get a people's vote and we catastrophically lost it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
There's no way to beat a fantasy wrapped in a Union Jack in British politics, if it has the backing of the media. Nationalism is brain poison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
I often feel unwell as a precautionary measure
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
I, too, visit hospitals during a highly contagious pandemic as a precautionary measure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
it's always something embarrassing when they don't say what it is a surfeit of corned beef fritters and babycham while watching the cricket imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Last time I think it was a urinary infection and they did say, but I think maybe they only confirmed that afterwards? E: Maybe it wasn't last time, but one of the times recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/suziegeewizz/status/1362097989586726916 Love to do huge data breaches. Prince Phillip has probably got an infection. At 98 years old they do send you to hospital for that since it will always get worse before it gets better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I often feel unwell as a precautionary measure As a precaution he's being rested six feet under soil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:This doesn't seem to have stopped people from lying about Jeremy Corbyn before. Yes, but it doesn’t need to. It merely needs to stop people believing those lies. There is a reason there is a measurable vote difference between Liverpool and areas matched to it demographically in every other way, which can be explained by the single word ‘Hillsborough’. Every time you force them to tell a lie is one step on the path to victory. The bigger the lie, the more people notice, and the less effective the next lie will be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Scikar posted:It wasn't necessarily over from the moment of the vote. I don't think a 2nd ref was actually impossible, it just needed a coherent reasoning e.g. a 2nd ref on the final deal, explicitly not a pure re-run. I'm not sure about this. I think any hint of a further referendum on anything would have been angrily cast as "the elites asking over and over until we vote right", which is a reputation EU-related referenda had before Brexit was a thing. And the FBPEs didn't help themselves at all by calling it "the people's vote", which they meant as "the people's vote on the deal once it's done, as opposed to just MPs getting a say", but was generally interpreted as "the people's vote on Brexit, as opposed to the 23rd of June which wasn't real people? Space aliens? Idiot gammons?" I just can't see a way the hard Brexiters (and their supporters in the press) would have allowed anything with "remain after all" as an option. Edit: Prez Demoted! White House press secretary Joe Biden said he will ask the department of justice to conduct a review of his legal ability to cancel student debt once his team is in place there. (from Graun live blog) Bobstar fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Three, but they can't enforce it unless the eviction ban comes off so basically so long as Covid is here it's a polite request. How're you getting 'three months' from 'For notices served between 29 August 2020 and 31 March 2021 inclusive of, the minimum notice period is six months, unless exceptions apply (see below)' ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
CoolCab posted:haven't i? i've articulated several concrete changes between 2017 and 2019, including the formation of the brexit party and evidence that extremely specifically in heavy leave areas we lost sixteen points. the issues you are claiming are mitigating were there in 2019 too - that's why i call it A/B. Not really. You've said that "my take is we have an A/B here, within two years of one another, with the exact same contextual participants." We didn't have the same contextual participants. We had similar participants, but not the same ones. And I am very sorry but I still don't follow you. You appear to be saying both that "We lost because of Brexit party in the North taking votes" and then saying that "Nothing differed between the two elections". The only way you can prove something true is to have it happen. Your idea, because it doesn't rely on observing things but exists as a potential, is much more believable to yourself. It's why lots of people think that "Brexit would have been great IF". It's based on going "this is how it could have been" and then trying to be much more sure about it because you don't actually get to test it's efficacy. I don't think strong leave areas could have won us the election either. Because we probably would have lost more remain seats than we did, due to going against remain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 20:13
|
|