You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
June 3 2020 10.43pm

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 444 of 444 First< 440 441 442 443 444

 

View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 15 Apr 20 10.16am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by serial thriller

Exactly!!!

Labour's first mission is to become a government. So it begs the question even more: why were there so many actively working to prevent this from happening?

Well quite. Pushing that second referendum idea was insanity yet it enjoyed popular support within the Labour Party leadership and membership.


Mentalists. All of them.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 15 Apr 20 10.31am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Well quite. Pushing that second referendum idea was insanity yet it enjoyed popular support within the Labour Party leadership and membership.


Mentalists. All of them.

Yup. He should have accepted brexit and then if in power try to get some independence in decision and operation of the uk from the EU. Then try to show we can be in the EU in a different form. Who knows if we the public would go for that in a few years but to not even realise he was fighting a battle he had already lost was dumb.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 15 Apr 20 4.27pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Yup. He should have accepted brexit...

The bit I have always struggled with in terms of Labours change to a second referendum stance was that it made zero electoral sense.

Scotland was lost so if Labour wanted to win then it needed to secure a majority in England and Wales. Both of whom voted Leave, not only in 2016 but also then in the 2019 Euro elections.

And in terms of both votes, if broken down on a constituency basis, then a very definite desire for Leave.

It never made any sense on the most basic rational understanding of the electoral landscape out there. The maths not complex to understand and absolutely in your face.

So was it pushed by way of actually wanting Labour to lose? That the desire to rid the party of Corbyn meant that pressure was exerted on it to adopt a policy that GUARANTEED they got slaughtered?

It is the only logical explanation. Nothing else makes any sense because their policy on a second referendum was sheer lunacy and that never made any sense.

Unless it was deliberate. The actual method of sabotaging Corbyn by people in his own party?

Now yes, you might all want to pile on and call me a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic but in light of this current revelation of what happened around the 2017 election, then surely my proposition actually has some credibility?

Edited by Matov (15 Apr 2020 4.37pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 Apr 20 4.36pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

The bit I have always struggled with in terms of Labours change to a second referendum stance was that it made zero electoral sense.

Scotland was lost so if Labour wanted to win then it needed to secure a majority in England and Wales. Both of whom voted Leave, not only in 2016 but also then in 2019.

And in terms of both votes, if broken down on a constituency basis, then a very definite desire for Leave.

It never made any sense on the most basic rational understanding of the electoral landscape out there. The maths not complex to understand and absolutely in your face.

So was it pushed by way of actually wanting Labour to lose? That the desire to rid the party of Corbyn meant that pressure was exerted on it to adopt a policy that GUARANTEED they got slaughtered?

It is the only logical explanation. Nothing else makes any sense because their policy on a second referendum was sheer lunacy and that never made any sense.

Unless it was deliberate. The actual method of sabotaging Corbyn by people in his own party?

Now yes, you might all want to pile on and call me a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic but in light of this current revelation of what happened around the 2017 election, then surely my proposition actually has some credibility?

Basically tried to appease the Leavers and the Remainers amongst their own party - leaving a very incoherent policy.
Boris' triumph was in being clear in that Leave would definitely happen - regardless of party critics. Like it or lump it. The message was clear - whether you agreed with it or not.
This made Labour look indecisive and divided - which they clearly were. Whilst Boris seemed dynamic and strong.
One could imagine never ending European negotiations with Corbyn, whilst Boris was not going to give Europe the chance to draw things out ad infinitum.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Online Flag 15 Apr 20 4.46pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Basically tried to appease the Leavers and the Remainers amongst their own party - leaving a very incoherent policy

But the policy was electoral suicide. Achieved nothing when put to the ultimate electoral test. With all the facts there. Already in votes case in 2016 and 2019.

The task for Labour was not a complex one in what it needed to do. Win a majority of seats in England and Wales. That was it. And by no longer offering to honour the 2016 result, then guaranteeing you could not achieve that.

Also, as I grasp the nature of these revelations, a significant amount of the 'worst' culprits from 2017 in terms of the Labour hierarchy who apparently did their best to try and ensure that Labour did not win went on to have roles in the Peoples Vote campaign.

Forget 52-48 as the percentages of the referendum. When broken down on a constituency basis it was nearer to 65-35. Meaning that adopting a policy of not honouring that was not only shockingly bad but actually negligent if you want your party to win an election.

And these are people who live and breathe this stuff 24/7. Who know the insides and outs of it all. Professionals. Paid, supposedly, to ensure their chosen party does well.

Leaving you with two options about Starmer who was the chief proponent of Labours change of stance over Brexit.

1. Starmer is a fool.
2. Starmer deliberately sought to stop Labour winning in 2019.


If there is a third option then please let me know.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 Apr 20 4.58pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

But the policy was electoral suicide. Achieved nothing when put to the ultimate electoral test. With all the facts there. Already in votes case in 2016 and 2019.

The task for Labour was not a complex one in what it needed to do. Win a majority of seats in England and Wales. That was it. And by no longer offering to honour the 2016 result, then guaranteeing you could not achieve that.

Also, as I grasp the nature of these revelations, a significant amount of the 'worst' culprits from 2017 in terms of the Labour hierarchy who apparently did their best to try and ensure that Labour did not win went on to have roles in the Peoples Vote campaign.

Forget 52-48 as the percentages of the referendum. When broken down on a constituency basis it was nearer to 65-35. Meaning that adopting a policy of not honouring that was not only shockingly bad but actually negligent if you want your party to win an election.

And these are people who live and breathe this stuff 24/7. Who know the insides and outs of it all. Professionals. Paid, supposedly, to ensure their chosen party does well.

Leaving you with two options about Starmer who was the chief proponent of Labours change of stance over Brexit.

1. Starmer is a fool.
2. Starmer deliberately sought to stop Labour winning in 2019.


If there is a third option then please let me know.

There is a third option, one that often pops up in Ireland.
How about if Labour knew they would be divided if they won? Add that to likely not having the money to deliver electoral promises, perhaps also uncertainty caused by Brexit? Then Labour people such as Starmer - perhaps even Corbyn himself - decided this term of government was a poison chalice that would make Labour even weaker than they already were: possibly even destroy Labour and turn them into the new Liberals?
Many Labour delegates may also have considered it likely that Boris would drop some kind of clanger (hardly the biggest stretch of the imagination) and they could look all responsible and alluring in opposition. They might have figured next election could see them make major gains - even win.
Or perhaps they haven't read 'The Prince' or 'The Art of War'? Or maybe I'm crediting politicians with brains they are unlikely to possess?

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 15 Apr 20 5.33pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

A 4th option is that corbyn didnt want to sack abbott so losing was less painful. Skeletons in the cupboard maybe.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 444 of 444 First< 440 441 442 443 444

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn