O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[ragingpup]

I think we've already established that whichever side Labour chooses, it will lose a big chunk of votes. I think that if they do choose. evidence shows that more will be lost if they choose a hard Brexit, simply as evidence shows that most Labour voters voted Remain (65%) and swung behind the Brexit/Greens in the EU vote.

It's a resounding Lose either way, just a case of which will do the most damage. Staying as they are, despite still aiming to honour the referendum looks increasingly untenable as the public appetite now is resoundingly, and very sadly, not to compromise on either a No Deal or Remain.

Tories do have hope for a GE in that if they do declare for No Deal under new leader then the vast majority of the brexit Party would vote for them in the GE whereas Labour/Green/Lib Dems would be horribly split. Only chance there would be to form a Remain alliance party. However, if such a leader is elected and pushes No Deal, I think the anti-no deal people in the Conservative party could bring them down by teaming up with other parties for No Confidence. But this still leaves the way open for that GE and lots of Brexit Party voters willing to back the Tories under a No Deal manifesto.

Without an allience of anti-No Deal parties, Labour are pretty screwed in all scenarios. But probably the worst scenario for them is to back a No Deal Brexit as apart from the mainly Northern former Labour voters, most No Dealers are Tory/UKIP voters who would not vote for Labour in any scenario.

I think that this piece offers a sensible analysis of our current analysis, and one of the few who whilst not siding with the migration fixated voters who only want closed borders and blame immigrants for all ills, actually acknowledges the anger of working class folks in former industrial towns, and how this resulted in such heavy Brexit Party support there:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...xit-tribal-war

[great_fire]

A deal is better than no deal but no deal is better than the WA.

So the EU needs to renegotiate of it will be no deal, but it's very unlikely they will.

Labour will have to come off the fence before the next election.

[ragingpup]

A deal is better than no deal but no deal is better than the WA.

So the EU needs to renegotiate of it will be no deal, but it's very unlikely they will.

Labour will have to come off the fence before the next election.

The EU are least likely of all to re-negotiate on the backstop, not least because we asked for it to be in there.

Another thing from left field I heard this morning. The US Congress is extremely unlikely to agree to the US-UK trade deal if there if the peace process is affected by the border going up in the event of a No Deal. Gets better and better

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I think we've already established that whichever side Labour chooses, it will lose a big chunk of votes. I think that if they do choose. evidence shows that more will be lost if they choose a hard Brexit, simply as evidence shows that most Labour voters voted Remain (65%) and swung behind the Brexit/Greens in the EU vote.

It's a resounding Lose either way, just a case of which will do the most damage. Staying as they are, despite still aiming to honour the referendum looks increasingly untenable as the public appetite now is resoundingly, and very sadly, not to compromise on either a No Deal or Remain.

Tories do have hope for a GE in that if they do declare for No Deal under new leader then the vast majority of the brexit Party would vote for them in the GE whereas Labour/Green/Lib Dems would be horribly split. Only chance there would be to form a Remain alliance party. However, if such a leader is elected and pushes No Deal, I think the anti-no deal people in the Conservative party could bring them down by teaming up with other parties for No Confidence. But this still leaves the way open for that GE and lots of Brexit Party voters willing to back the Tories under a No Deal manifesto.

Without an allience of anti-No Deal parties, Labour are pretty screwed in all scenarios. But probably the worst scenario for them is to back a No Deal Brexit as apart from the mainly Northern former Labour voters, most No Dealers are Tory/UKIP voters who would not vote for Labour in any scenario.

I think that this piece offers a sensible analysis of our current analysis, and one of the few who whilst not siding with the migration fixated voters who only want closed borders and blame immigrants for all ills, actually acknowledges the anger of working class folks in former industrial towns, and how this resulted in such heavy Brexit Party support there:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...xit-tribal-war

It’s the Guardian

As biased as things get

[ragingpup]

It’s the Guardian

As biased as things get

That’s not true Grist. Media Bias fact Check, as independent and rigorous a fact checking/bias reporting website there is (that I’ve found anyway, please suggest others if you know of them).

They show the Guardian bias as ‘Centre Left’ and High for factual reporting.

The Sun, Express and Mail, which I am guessing is your preferred choice of reading materials (correct me if wrong and I’ll check on that if you like), and all have a higher political bias – going far beyond the ‘centre right’ into ‘Right wing bias’ but not quite making it into ‘Far Right’ territory. More worrying for you (well, not you I guess as I assume you don’t care) is that all three of these papers have ‘Mixed’ factual ratings, with all three prone to poor fact checking/sourcing in order to sway their readers with their biased reporting. I’ve linked to all 4 paper’s reviews with summaries below for those that can’t be arsed:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

In review, story selection favors the left, but is generally factual. They utilize emotionally loaded headlines such as “The cashless society is a con – and big finance is behind it” and “Trump back-pedals on Russian meddling remarks after outcry”. The Guardian typically utilizes credible sources such as thoughtco.com, gov.UK, HuffPost, independent.co.uk, and the Miami Herald.
A factual search reveals that the Guardian has a clean fact check record.
Overall, we rate The Guardian Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favours the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/

In review, The Sun is a classic trashy tabloid that features celebrity gossip, current events and right leaning news stories. There is significant use of loaded sensational headlines In general, the paper publishes sensationalized misleading stories with a right wing bias.
A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks.
Overall, we rate The Sun Right Biased based on story selection and political affiliation that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to overly sensationalized headlines and numerous failed fact checks.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-express/

The Daily Express is a British right wing tabloid newspaper that routinely utilizes sensational headlines The paper’s editorial stances have often been seen as aligned to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Euroscepticism and many other right-wing factions including the right-wing of the Conservative Party.
A factual search reveals a few failed fact checks via IFCN fact checkers.
Overall, we rate the Daily Express Right Biased based on editorial content and Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing conspiracies & pseudoscience as well as a few failed fact checks.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

In review, the Daily Mail tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wordings In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an ‘unreliable’ source. When it comes to sourcing information they use minimal hyperlinked sourcing as well as sourcing to themselves. In general, most stories favor the right, however the Daily Mail will report either side if the story is sensational enough.
A factual search reveals that the Daily Mail has a poor track record with fact checkers
Overall, we rate Daily Mail Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor sourcing of information.

[millmoormagic]

Yes I know but the country do not want freedom of movement which the Labour party will not drop from their manifesto hence why they will not win a GE.

So, to clarify, you post something factually incorrect, I correct you with fact, you then post in agreement, but chuck another reason in to suit your argument?

Well done, reasoned debate is alive and well on MM as usual I see.

[BigLadonOS]

So, to clarify, you post something factually incorrect, I correct you with fact, you then post in agreement, but chuck another reason in to suit your argument?

Well done, reasoned debate is alive and well on MM as usual I see.

Dont be pedantic.

[Exiletyke]

I see Trump wants the NHS to be included in any future trade deal with the US [if we leave with no deal]
Now there's a surprise
On your bike Donald
Tory wannabees distance themselves from the notion

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Still laughing at this

Donald Trump has turned down a request from Jeremy Corbyn to meet during his state visit, calling Labour's leader "somewhat of a negative force".


I bet that’s the cleaned up version.

[Exiletyke]

Still laughing at this

Donald Trump has turned down a request from Jeremy Corbyn to meet during his state visit, calling Labour's leader "somewhat of a negative force".


I bet that’s the cleaned up version.

Negative force ie someone who disagrees with him