|
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/826589131497168896 A little disappointing more people don't want it cancelled, but nice that less than 50% want him to come.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
HJB posted:The PMQs Zinger of the Week™: May about Corbyn - "He can lead a protest, I'm leading a country." The BBC immediately described this as a 'body blow' for Labour.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Why are catheters so thick, then? Wouldn't a thinner version be less uncomfortable? Someone already said, but they come in a variety of sizes. As a general rule the size is inversely proportional to how annoying a patient you are. Just kidding. It's generally the first acceptable size I can find in the drawer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Well, it's resign or get punted. You can't be in the shadow cabinet and disobey a 3 line whip. Even when it's a loving stupid 3 line whip. But apparently you can come back fairly rapidly, which is probably what's going to happen. More ridiculous tradition bollocks. At the end of the day I have sympathy for Corbyn on this. Not whipping would have been a PR disaster and would have genuinely demonstrated weak leadership. Labour needs a position on Brexit, and 'it's going to happen but we want the best one' is about as good as a position can get. Corbyn is still the only left-wing hope for Labour, it would be loving stupid for people to abandon him over something that is, at best, a symbolic vote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
SNP amendment defeated with 104 votes for, which points to somewhere around 40 Labour rebels.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'll still vote for him if it comes to another election, unless there's another candidate with the rest of his platform that I would trust half as far as i can throw them them. But, well, I dunno about the whole whipping thing. Spin is going to be everything in this later scenario. Coming out and saying you were always against Brexit and it was always going to be terrible doesn't put the blame on the Tories, it puts the blame on the British public for voting for it. How do you think that will go down? Claiming it was inevitably going to gently caress up indirectly lets the Tories off the hook because hey, they were just following instructions. Claiming Brexit could have been a success and the Tories hosed it up is a much more effective method of opposition in my opinion, even if it's not strictly true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Forgive me if I am skeptical here, maybe I just don't know enough about the UK parliamentary system, but this was wayyyyyy too much of a "roll over and show my belly" act to believe that Labour will actually get hardline about amendments later if they didn't do poo poo until now. There is no 'hardline' about amendments. Either they are supported by Tory rebels, or they fail. Labour has zero leverage to force amendments through.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Then maybe don't talk to me about how amendments come at a later stage??? Just a thought. Labour wants to amend the bill and not block it, so they will be voting for amendments. Voting against the bill at this stage would be voting to block it. You might say they should try to block it, I'm not sure why 'amendments come later and can't be forced through' is a difficult concept. EDIT: I didn't say amendments wouldn't pass, I said they can't be forced through by Labour. Saying they should be more 'hardline' is meaningless. jabby fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Feb 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Trying to get amendments passed after you made the strongest show in the world that you're willing to super-mega-roll-over, three-whippingly-fuckingly-strongly, is kind of the same as accepting a job for a certain salary saying "but I hope I can count on you to get a 100% raise after six months! but hahaha no big deal". Just not gonna loving happen. You seem to be implying that by threatening to vote against the bill Labour would have a better chance of getting amendments passed, which is simply untrue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
I hope Tim Farron is repeatedly reminded that as a percentage, more Lib Dem MP's rebelled against his instructions than Labour MP's against Corbyn.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I have to say it's making my head spin a lot that we started this whole thing with "Support Corbyn for a leader who will actually oppose the Government's evil plans!" and now we're not a million miles away from "Support Corbyn for a leader who recognises that we can't possibly oppose the Government's evil plans!" This is becoming a really annoying comparison. Supporting Article 50, a single issue the British public voted for after Labour voted to give them a referendum, is not the same as supporting welfare cuts or another of the Tories policies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I think most supporters are pretty pissed off actually. Don't be a sore winner. Are you seriously that pissed about a vote which at best amounts to a show of principle that you're willing to go full Pissflaps? No wonder the left never makes any progress.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/826920595837349888/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Times suggesting that May might still face rebellion , particularly over the right of currently resident EU nationals to stay in the UK.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure being told 'don't bother coming home tonight' is more likely to be a humorous exaggeration rather than genuine news that they're being thrown out of their home by their spouse. LemonDrizzle posted:The penalty for lying on your nomination form is: you go to prison for up to six months, you're banned from voting for multiple years, and if you've been elected, you're automatically kicked out What's the penalty for wearing a ridiculous flat cap with your expensive suit and coat to try and big up your working class image? jabby fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Both party representatives on This Week taking the opportunity to bash Corbyn despite agreeing with his three line whip. Derek Hatton, the guest, tells Andrew Neil that the only reason he was invited on was because he was expected to bash Corbyn after writing a critical article about him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:They're reportedly very poorly organised Well the favourite for leadership handed in his paperwork too late, the winner quit after a few days, and Nuttall lied on his candidacy application. I think it's past 'reportedly'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Also interesting to note: the turnout in the ward Labour lost was higher than the turnout in which they won. 19% vs 32%. Council elections are a poor indicator of anything at the national level, comparing the turnouts to say one result is more significant than another is trying pretty desperately hard to make the Lib Dems look good/Labour look bad. I certainly wouldn't characterise it as 'interesting'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
One positive contribution from Harriet Harman tonight - pointing out that Diane Abbott said she was going to vote to trigger Article 50 on Question Time last week. So the idea she deliberately avoided the vote in order to maintain some air of mystery about her position doesn't seem very likely.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Just actually loving stand up for the thing you believe in. The press and the public like or hate all sorts of positions but they hate phoneys most of all. That's so hilariously wrong. The press know that 99% of politicians are totally unprincipled. They only care about whether their position is one the owners of the press support. No one is ever going to get props for 'standing up for what they believe' if what they believe isn't right wing racism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Labour should adopt the Tory leadership election process. Do you not think it's slightly bad for democracy for nobody but MPs to get any say in what the two major parties are offering?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Tory members vote for the final two candidates nominated by their MPs. And the MPs get total control over the ideological stance of the candidates. If your views happen to differ from what theirs, you have no chance of getting representation. The left wing of Labour only got power by mistake. If your views align with theirs regardless of what you may think about Corbyn, MPs cannot be given complete control over the direction of the leadership.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You could vote for a candidate from a different party? And so can you, but since you continue to moan about the direction Labour are taking I'm sure you realise what a disingenuous argument that is. The ideological bent of the two major parties matters massively in our political system. Not to mention that if you support MPs picking leaders for Labour and the Tories, I'm sure you support it for other parties to. The only thing that brings is complete domination of the system by the elites.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's not disingenuous at all. I understand perfectly that Labour is going to lose many votes - potentially mine included - as a consequence of the path it has gone down. And yet rather than simply vote for another party, you complain that Labour specifically are not catering to you any more. But when someone else complains that your ideas for Labour wouldn't represent them, you say 'just vote for someone else'. It's disingenuous because having Labour represent your views is clearly important to you, but you suggest it shouldn't matter to anybody else because other parties exist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying it shouldn't matter to them. I'm saying they have that option - as do I, as you have identified. Actually you're specifically saying they shouldn't have that option, because total control of the party and it's direction should be given to MPs. I can safely assume the reason for this is that the views of Labour MPs line up better with yours than with the majority of the grassroots. So you don't want representation to be given democratically, you want it kept for the elites because their views are closer to yours.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think there's some confusion here. I'm saying that any voter has the option of voting for a party or not at a constituency level. I'm not talking about leadership elections. Then you're moving the goalposts. I'm specifically calling you a hypocrite for complaining that the leadership doesn't represent you while trying to shut down the same argument from others with 'just vote for someone else'.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'd rather have a competent centre left Labour Party back. Maybe one day. 'Just vote for someone else' is the exact response you gave to people who prefer a left-wing Labour party, and yet apparently it's not good enough for you. Shocking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
The guardian have written a whole article and given it prominent billing because Diane Abbott's office said they 'expect' her to vote with the whip on Article 50 rather than she definitely will. I mean it's slightly wishy-washy phrasing, but saying they expect her to vote with the whip is really as far as they can be expected to go without actually making the decision for her.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
So BBC news is taking about how awesome it is that we're moving away from the idea that everyone has to own their own house and how great renting is. Absolutely no mention of the fact that a) the idea everyone has to own their own home came from the Tories and they've been pushing it for years, b) it's their fault homes are now unaffordable for most people and c) they are basically admitting their policy has failed massively and home ownership will now be reserved for the rich. Incisive and hard-hitting journalism guys.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks Labour should support remaining in the EU should watch Caroline Lucas on Peston today. As much as I admire her she had absolutely no answer to the question of 'why did you support a referendum and now reject leaving the EU?' and it's painful to watch. Possibly because it's an impossible question to answer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Plenty of MPs didn't. Incidentally, they were right to oppose the referendum purely for keeping the Tory Party together. Some didn't support a referendum. Corbyn and the vast majority of Labour did, and the Greens did. The honest answer to the question of course is either 'we didn't really want a referendum but wanted to seem like we support democracy' or 'we wanted a referendum but the public voted wrong so now we want to ignore it'. Neither of which is likely to go down well with the public. JFairfax posted:you would have thought she might have anticipated that question, and maybe prepare for it You can have all the time in the world to prepare for a question and there still not be a good answer. jabby fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could probably give an accurate answer that the leave case was predicated on absolute lies but given they're lies that people really want to believe I doubt you could sell that in the timeframe available. She tried that and Peston countered with the fact that the remain camp were lying through their teeth too, with the so-called 'punishment budget' being a particularly egregious example. Yes, the Greens weren't responsible for that but both sides doing it makes it a lot harder to say the result should be overturned in favour of remain because 'the leave side lied'. As an answer it's also very vulnerable to the standard 'so you think the British public are stupid?' defence. Very few people are going to be convinced by an argument that rests on them being unable to spot when politicians/the media are lying to them, because everyone thinks they are too smart for that to happen. forkboy84 posted:Hence why I said all of the Labour Party is useless. I absolutely think what Corbyn is doing is dumb. Leaving the EU will be bad for poor people. Despite the EU being bad for poor people because neoliberalism inherent to the EU is bad. I think that's a reasonable argument, but I think if you feel that way you should be mad at him for voting in favour of a referendum. Not for voting to trigger Article 50. Once he voted to give the decision to the public then the die was cast so to speak. jabby fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Cool, you don't know what the word lie means. Yes, the remain arguments put across by Cameron and Osbourne were completely truthful, and a budget with huge tax rises and massive spending cuts was a realistic prospect rather than a transparent threat which would crash the economy if ever implemented.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Lol if you think Brexit won't crash the economy. Of course Brexit will crash the economy, I'm not talking about the predictions of the damage it would do. Those weren't lies. I'm talking about Osbourne claiming he would force through a budget that would be the absolute worst thing to do in that situation in an attempt to scare the population. That was a lie. In any case the lies are a weak argument for opposing Brexit when you supported a referendum. You always come back to the fact that if Brexit is so terrible (it is) the decision should never have been left up to the British people. So don't be mad at Corbyn for whipping Article 50, be mad at Corbyn, the rest of Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and a lot of other people for supporting the referendum in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Osborne thinking that max austerity is the solution to all problems seems consistent with his previous positions, it didn't happen because Osborne stopped being Chancellor. In the long term the punishment budget will probably happen. It's a matter of when. Wait, you actually think Osbourne believes austerity will solve Britain's problems? You think he believes austerity helps people, rather than knowing his policies gently caress the country and the public and not caring because they help him and his mates? There's charitable and there's crushingly naive. Fangz posted:But you're shifting the goalposts, eh? The position that Osborne's predictions was a 'punishment budget' is a Leave position. Osborne created a projection of what a Brexit crash in 2019-2020 would mean and how he would address it in terms of spending cuts and tax rises. So how does this turn into a lie? Is the lie here that Osborne didn't actually think Brexit would lead to an economic crunch? Is the lie that Osborne is actually a secret Keynesian? Osbourne is well aware Brexit will harm the economy. He's also aware that the budget he proposed was a threat, rather than something that would actually come to pass. He was relying on people not knowing how the economy worked enough to think his budget was a possible scenario. Pissflaps posted:There are people in this thread who believe that Labour will force concessions out of the Tories on the article 50 vote by three line whipping for it and stating multiple times that they will vote for it even if they don't get amendments. It's hilarious and also pathetic. Let's see a quote to back that up. Most people are smart enough to know that how Labour votes has absolutely no impact on them getting amendments through.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Okay, work through this. The key question is: Does Osborne believe that increased austerity is seen by the UK public as a reasonable response to a financial downturn? Yes. Fangz posted:1. If he does believe that, then how is this claim a threat? He's saying he'll do what most people think is the right thing when the crash happens. Because even though the public believes it's the right thing for the economy (incorrectly) they understand the concept of higher taxes affecting them personally. It's not rocket science. Fangz posted:And the proposed budget is not just a possible scenario, it's a very likely scenario. If the public finances get squeezed, the right wing press get antsy about debt, and boom austerity measures. This is basically the constant of UK economic policy for the last two governments. The budget wasn't just about austerity, it also included higher taxes. A Tory government would almost always rather see the economy suffer than raise taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Increased taxes would be less damaging than trying to do it through spending cuts alone, so you're saying Osborne lied by saying that Brexit would be less bad than it would actually be. I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this, but yes the fact that Osborne lied about his budget and the fact that Cameron lied about not resigning does taint the Remain side. I'm not saying it's particularly rational, I'm saying it's a genuine argument that's being used that's hard to counter in a TV interview. Not that it really matters, because telling the public you wanted a referendum but were totally shocked that the other side lied is such a loving non-starter that it's hard to imagine anyone thinking otherwise. People know politicians lie. The politicians that voted for the referendum are aware politicians lie. Literally the only credible argument against the referendum result is that the decision should never have been given to the British people, and you can't make that argument if you voted for the referendum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, BBC news has a video of an NHS manager going around with a credit card machine demanding £800 a day from foreign visitors to stay in hospital. How do people like that actually live with themselves? I know a lot of doctors, myself included, who are going to get very angry if they see anyone like that going near their patients.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Looking forward to hearing about the article 50 bill amendments that Labour are going to force onto the Tories somehow I haven't seen a single person claim Labour can 'force' amendments onto the Tories. Everyone is well aware that amendments will only pass if some Tories are convinced to support them. You're complaining about a position that no-one holds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Fangz posted: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. I too remember how the Tories are constantly pillioried for voting for Iraq while in opposition, and take the majority of the blame for us going to war.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 23:30
|
|