O/T Jeremy corbyn

Good post as ever, John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

The 65% is arrived at as all polling suggests that we're split pretty evenly between no deal, revoke and in between.

I don't think the attempted negotiations were a waste of time as it was a good faith attempt to unlock the situation.

Your end scenario is a likely outcome. As you know from previous posts, I'm far from happy about it but compromise is the only way to avoid the extremes

---

I don't think it sensible to try to guess what would have happened based on current polling data.

I don't know whether Labour acted in good faith or whether they were continuing to play politics with the issue and placing themselves in a position where it's activists could claim they acted in good faith.

In fairness, it may be the case that some of the Labour side were acting in good faith and others weren't given the divisions within the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John2

I like how you're complementary without even realising it, like in your mind the content is such high quality it *must* have been taken from elsewhere otherwise why would you suggest it's not original. Every time you accuse someone of copy and pasting when to everyone else it's obviously just something they've written I read it as an accidental complement and smile.

---

I was thinking this. I hardly ever copy/paste, usual just link to articles. I may write a load of *******s, but at least it fools some folks into thinking it's by a proper writer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I don't think it sensible to try to guess what would have happened based on current polling data.

I don't know whether Labour acted in good faith or whether they were continuing to play politics with the issue and placing themselves in a position where it's activists could claim they acted in good faith.

In fairness, it may be the case that some of the Labour side were acting in good faith and others weren't given the divisions within the party.

---

No you don't really need to use current polling data to read the referendum. It speaks for itself in that 48% wanted to remain and the other 52% we can safely say would be split between soft/hard brexiters. The fact that 'Hard Brexit' to most people meant leaving the SM and CU still implied that there was a deal involved. So I think that it is absolutely safe to state the the majority of people when voting were in favour of soft/hard brexit/remain. You could argue against this as the No Dealers are attempting to but surely common sense and elementary maths argue against it.

In discussing this at lengths over the years with my fellow activists (! XD) I have not heard one person in the party even remotely suggest that "we must just take a line that will lead to a general election, whatever that line is". It just doesn't happen. The vast majority of labour supporters want us to remain, but those that want to honour the election just want to protect the economy and livelihoods by negotiating a deal that does this. I know of not one No Deal labour party in the 50 or so that I have met in our area. Not one has talked of doing whatever it takes to bring the government down. I see what you are saying but it sounds paranoid and twisted in my opinion.

And todays newly adopted in phrase is

" activist"

New kid on the block eh, or is that bloc?

You wouldn't be labelling supposed socialist policies there by any chance Mt Kerr. You may be wrong you know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

And todays newly adopted in phrase is

" activist"

New kid on the block eh, or is that bloc?

---

Yep. And remember "activist", trying to make an argument for a cause is "bad" Very "bad". Even if everyone on the board is doing this :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

No you don't really need to use current polling data to read the referendum. It speaks for itself in that 48% wanted to remain and the other 52% we can safely say would be split between soft/hard brexiters. The fact that 'Hard Brexit' to most people meant leaving the SM and CU still implied that there was a deal involved. So I think that it is absolutely safe to state the the majority of people when voting were in favour of soft/hard brexit/remain. You could argue against this as the No Dealers are attempting to but surely common sense and elementary maths argue against it.

In discussing this at lengths over the years with my fellow activists (! XD) I have not heard one person in the party even remotely suggest that "we must just take a line that will lead to a general election, whatever that line is". It just doesn't happen. The vast majority of labour supporters want us to remain, but those that want to honour the election just want to protect the economy and livelihoods by negotiating a deal that does this. I know of not one No Deal labour party in the 50 or so that I have met in our area. Not one has talked of doing whatever it takes to bring the government down. I see what you are saying but it sounds paranoid and twisted in my opinion.

---

I appreciate that it suits your argument to use current polling data to try to draw ‘65%’ conclusions from the referendum that took place more than three years ago, but no amount of quasi maths makes it a valid or sensible exercise. Who are you to say that Leave voters were equally spilt between hard and soft? Those terms hadn’t even been coined at that time.

Maybe the people who voted Leave wanted out and didn’t give much though to how it would happen? I don’t think it remotely safe let alone ‘absolutely’ safe to draw the conclusions that you are doing. I think you doing nothing more than trying to find a basis for what you want to be so and making up the maths to suit.

The public position of your party time and time again has been that it wants a General Election. Indeed, that is the only clear positon that they have adopted over Brexit. The Great Leader even said it on the day after the European Elections.

There is no deal that will protect the economy and livelihoods. Leaving means economic disruption. It’s as simple as that, but Leave won. Labour has since been instrumental in preventing the UK leaving on the only deal that is on offer and has punctuated its position with a no confidence vote and repeated calls for a GE.

Labour went into talks with the government demanding a commitment to a Custom Unions. Setting aside whether that is a good idea (I’d argue that it isn’t a good idea to commit to anything without knowing the price), they knew that May could not agree to it and that even if she did, there was no guarantee that either this or a future Parliament would agree to it. There was certianly no guarantee that a future Tory PM would. I don’t know if it was game playing or just an indication that Labour couldn’t think of anything else to do, but it was always a futile exercise.

Why are you taking umbrage at ‘activist’? You have told us that you like to get on the knocker to tell people of the happiness that you have found in the words of Jez. You are an activist. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rolymiller

You wouldn't be labelling supposed socialist policies there by any chance Mt Kerr. You may be wrong you know!

---

I don't think that you have got the hang of this labelling thing. I'm not labelling anyone or anything. I'm simply offering my views of what current Labour Party policies would do to the country.

The clue is the endless spending promises and the lack of any real idea of how to grow the economy to pay for it.

As for whether I'm wrong - it does happen. Interestingly, however, John McDonnell appears to recognise that a Labour government would cause a flight of capital out of the country (for which read 'jobs'). He let on a couple of years ago that he had been 'war gaming' the issue.

It seems that you must have a different dictionary to everyone else on here then when it comes to defining words. You are a one!