|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 10, 2019 21:46:48 GMT 1
Well said though I feel it will be in vein He’s got his head in the sand and hoping it will all go away. It won’t. Millions of labour voters want Brexit. Or is he claiming of the 17.4m Brexiteers, none vote Labour!? No wonder they still lost an election to this mess of a government if they are all as deluded as Venceremos I guess it'll all come down to priorities; as with seemingly everything to do with UK politics today, what folk would deem the least worse option. How many Tories for example, could live with a Corbyn government if it meant the UK remained in the EU compared to how many Labour supporters would be willing to continue with the Tories if it meant the chances of the UK leaving were higher. Even if some Labour supporters haven't got a clue I've no doubt Corbyn knows that he is walking a tight line, sure he knows he has a very difficult balancing act on his hands. All depends on how many votes maybe lost and gained and also where, as I guess that will be all important when it would come to an election. He's in a difficult spot. Agreed The Tories are the ones sooooo divided, yet it’s the Labour leader with his hands tied, whichever way he decides to turn. Hmmmm Also, In my opininion only, Tories would take Brexit over Corbyn. A lot of Remainers do still have a view of “we had the vote just get on with it”. Whereas a Corbyn government is unthinkable to the right. That’s why Mrs May is still polling in the 40’s and as high as 43%. Corbyn barely breaches 40%
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Jan 10, 2019 21:55:57 GMT 1
We will find out if the Conservatives value brexit over a general election next week. Unless something surprising happens "The Deal" will be voted down and Corbyn will call for a no confidence vote in the government. For a no confidence vote to pass some Conservative mps would need to abstain or vote against their party. I can't see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 10, 2019 22:00:13 GMT 1
We will find out if the Conservatives value brexit over a general election next week. Unless something surprising happens "The Deal" will be voted down and Corbyn will call for a no confidence vote in the government. For a no confidence vote to pass some Conservative mps would need to abstain or vote against their party. I can't see that happening. Agreed, as I said above, my opinion is the threat of 5 years of Corbyn and his clueless cronies Abbot and McDonnell outweighs Brexit, even for remainers in the Tories. That’s why I think Mrs May would win a no confidence vote I could be wrong. Hopefully not
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 10, 2019 22:10:31 GMT 1
5,000? That can't be right can it? Where did you get that number? Only from what is reported here... Germany: 150 percent rise in number of homeless since 2014...the number of those living on the streets of Germany stands at 52,000. I gather sleeping and living on the streets is considered the same when looking to these statistics. So not sure how there can be such a huge difference between the two... And I can certainly say living in one of Germany's bigger cities that there has been a very noticeable increase these last few years. 5,000 sleeping on the streets, sleeping rough. That won't include those sleeping in tents, cars, sofa surfing, homeless hostels, B+Bs, emergency accommodation, temp accommodation, women's refuges. The figure for those is closer to 350,000. This country is seriously fu#tup and a right wing Tory brexit is the very last thing it needs. Like since when did Tories care about poor people or the working class. They see us as commodities and nothing more and yet they still get working class votes. 5,000 & 350,000 in the UK compared to 52,000 & 860,000 here in Germany. Germany must be in one hell of a mess... And yeah, who'd have thought it but I do believe at the last election more working class people voted Tory than Labour. But then that's hardly surprising when you think that Labour is now the party of the middle class. Many of whom find themselves on the wrong side of the class divide and so have decided to make politics about identity. Their opinion of the working class, more so after the referendum, has been a real eye opener. Still, keeps them happy I suppose spending their days berating the working class for not knowing whats good for them, for not doing as they should. Since when did the Tories care about the working class? I reckon about the same as the good few middle class w****rs that now make up Labours ranks...
|
|
|
Post by salopross on Jan 10, 2019 22:18:41 GMT 1
5,000? That can't be right can it? Where did you get that number? Only from what is reported here... Germany: 150 percent rise in number of homeless since 2014...the number of those living on the streets of Germany stands at 52,000. I gather sleeping and living on the streets is considered the same when looking to these statistics. So not sure how there can be such a huge difference between the two... And I can certainly say living in one of Germany's bigger cities that there has been a very noticeable increase these last few years. 5,000 sleeping on the streets, sleeping rough. That won't include those sleeping in tents, cars, sofa surfing, homeless hostels, B+Bs, emergency accommodation, temp accommodation, women's refuges. The figure for those is closer to 350,000. This country is seriously fu#tup and a right wing Tory brexit is the very last thing it needs. Like since when did Tories care about poor people or the working class. They see us as commodities and nothing more and yet they still get working class votes. ‘A right wing Tory Brexit’ - my parents, traditional Labour voters (not, by the way, Corbyn - IRA sympathiser, racist, anti-semite - voters) who have voted Labour all their life up until last year’s election and who also voted Brexit, my grandparents (traditionally Liberal voters) who also voted Brexit and myself (as aforementioned, Conservative member since 16 and now approved candidate) who also not only voted but campaigned for Leave, all agree on Brexit - we voted to leave the European Union. My parents and grandparents are far, far from right wing (my father and grandfather are actually left wing and dislike, strongly, the Tories - (causes a little family friction 😉) so to suggest that what’s being fought for (WTO Brexit) is a ‘right wing Tory Brexit’ is unbelievable!
|
|
|
Post by salopross on Jan 10, 2019 22:28:06 GMT 1
5,000? That can't be right can it? Where did you get that number? Only from what is reported here... Germany: 150 percent rise in number of homeless since 2014...the number of those living on the streets of Germany stands at 52,000. I gather sleeping and living on the streets is considered the same when looking to these statistics. So not sure how there can be such a huge difference between the two... And I can certainly say living in one of Germany's bigger cities that there has been a very noticeable increase these last few years. 5,000 sleeping on the streets, sleeping rough. That won't include those sleeping in tents, cars, sofa surfing, homeless hostels, B+Bs, emergency accommodation, temp accommodation, women's refuges. The figure for those is closer to 350,000. This country is seriously fu#tup and a right wing Tory brexit is the very last thing it needs. Like since when did Tories care about poor people or the working class. They see us as commodities and nothing more and yet they still get working class votes. Also, in addition to my last response, to say ‘when did the Tories care about poor people or the working class’ and to say we see people as ‘commodities and nothing more’ is unjust and despicable. Myself, my parents and grandparents are all working class and proud, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 10, 2019 22:34:22 GMT 1
5,000 sleeping on the streets, sleeping rough. That won't include those sleeping in tents, cars, sofa surfing, homeless hostels, B+Bs, emergency accommodation, temp accommodation, women's refuges. The figure for those is closer to 350,000. This country is seriously fu#tup and a right wing Tory brexit is the very last thing it needs. Like since when did Tories care about poor people or the working class. They see us as commodities and nothing more and yet they still get working class votes. ‘A right wing Tory Brexit’ - my parents, traditional Labour voters (not, by the way, Corbyn - IRA sympathiser, racist, anti-semite - voters) who have voted Labour all their life up until last year’s election and who also voted Brexit, my grandparents (traditionally Liberal voters) who also voted Brexit and myself (as aforementioned, Conservative member since 16 and now approved candidate) who also not only voted but campaigned for Leave, all agree on Brexit - we voted to leave the European Union. My parents and grandparents are far, far from right wing (my father and grandfather are actually left wing and dislike, strongly, the Tories - (causes a little family friction 😉) so to suggest that what’s being fought for (WTO Brexit) is a ‘right wing Tory Brexit’ is unbelievable! 35% labour voted Brexit. Let’s be kind and pick Red Ed’s feeble share of votes - 9.3m x 35% is 3.2 million Brexiteers But yeah, it’s all a right wing Tory mess!! Laughable
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 0:27:15 GMT 1
"90% supported parties who blah, blah, blah ......" I voted Labour, as did a lot of people I know, including my europhile, Lib Dem brother. We just wanted the Tories out. We also knew brexit was light years away from being delivered and there was every chance it wouldn't happen if we got rid of them or, even if it did, it wouldn't be a brexit that any of the brextremists would recognise or like. Do you support 100% of everything in the manifesto of the party that gets your vote and do you expect them to deliver 100% of that manifesto? I doubt the former and you'd be astonishingly naive to do the latter. 90% of voters did not vote for brexit in 2017 and it's only mischievous brexiteers who keep peddling that nonsense. All of me hopes Labour backs anything that stops brexit. It's nonsense to assert this would cost them millions of votes when the evidence is that most Labour voters voted remain in 2016 and most are opposed to brexit now. Labour doesn't win elections in Stoke and Sunderland, it wins them in Scotland, the south, London and the other big cities - remain areas, in other words. If Labour is too closely associated with brexit, it will be suicidal. Bexit was always going to dominate the policy of this parliament whoever won the 2017 election. By the way, it did cost them millions of voters in 2015. Not just right wing Tories who made up the 3.8m UKIP votes. Millions of labour too, turned their back on Red Ed and his policy grave stone The EU was not a primary issue in the 2015 election. The notion that it cost Labour “millions of voters” in that election is absurd. Not as absurd as claiming, against all the post-referendum evidence, that Labour is a party of leave voters, but not far behind. Do you always peddle “alternative facts”? I agree brexit was always going to be a huge issue in this parliament. But the question of how, and even if, we leave isn’t settled in 2019, and certainly wasn’t in June 2017. So your 2017 vote didn’t have to reflect the opinion you had on brexit - that was all still up for grabs. Neither Labour nor the Tories were of one voice on brexit then (or now), so the notion that 90% of voters were on the same side on brexit in 2017 is risible. But, even if that were true, do you think 90% of voters are in agreement on brexit now?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 1:06:34 GMT 1
Labour already has millions of remainers, far more than it has leavers - 65% of Labour's 2015 voters voted remain in 2016, 35% voted leave - YouGov. Stop with the b******s about Labour support being for leave. It isn't and never was. Eh? He's not saying that is he. He's saying the element of Labour's support that voted for Brexit, which may indeed be in the millions, may now turn their back on Labour at the next election (if they look to reverse Brexit). Which could hurt them. If a fair chunk of that 35% dump Labour it will do. ..unless remainers come over from elsewhere. But with corbyn in place, not sure too many tory remainers would do so. Labour needs all the votes it can get, it can't afford to lose any no matter what you think. Even Corbyn understands this... He may be saying that but, as usual, it’s partial, one-eyed nonsense. If Labour don’t back a second referendum, or are seen to be aligned with brexit, they risk losing “a fair chunk” of the votes of that 65%, which I think even you and the one-eyed chap will recognise is almost twice as big a number as the 35%. We’re on the same page with that calculation, yeah? If Corbyn wants to consider the potential vote loss then he has that arithmetic to consider. If you want to be politically calculating about it, Labour has a bigger margin for votes to be lost in the Stokes and Sunderlands without losing the seat than it does in more marginal remain voting southern and city seats. And it can never regain ground in Scotland if it’s seen as a brexit party. It can never win an election with only its “heartland” seats and without a lot of Scottish, southern and city seats. Even Corbyn must understand that. But that’s assuming Labour’s leave constituencies are still leave supporting. I’m not sure the subsequent polling evidence suggests that’s true. I also question what seems to me a lazy assumption that leave voters are more likely to change their party vote if they feel betrayed, let down or whatever on this issue. Do you expect all remain voters to shrug their shoulders and act as though nothing has changed? Tory remainers don’t have to vote Labour if they want to change. There was some evidence of brexit influenced tactical voting in 2017 and this could continue. The Tories have no majority now. They can’t afford to lose any seats to the Lib Dems or SNP but they’ll be vulnerable to them in some seats, as well as to Labour. For me, the only positive aspect of the entire brexit farrago is that it might be the catalyst for the destruction of the two party system. For all its faults, I used to think it was a relative strength of our politics, but I’m coming to the conclusion that its demise can’t happen soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 1:16:57 GMT 1
VAIN genius. A vein is a blood vessel. FFS the the Tories really need to spend more on education 😀 A post which says “I have no comeback to the point made in your post” Must try harder I think it says something more pertinent. Something like, “your use of English is as questionable as your curiously partial arithmetic”. Here, try this teaser. If 35% of Labour voters voted leave, what percentage of Labour voters voted remain? Which is the bigger figure?
|
|
|
Post by shropshirelad42 on Jan 11, 2019 8:33:15 GMT 1
A post which says “I have no comeback to the point made in your post” Must try harder I think it says something more pertinent. Something like, “your use of English is as questionable as your curiously partial arithmetic”. Here, try this teaser. If 35% of Labour voters voted leave, what percentage of Labour voters voted remain? Which is the bigger figure?
|
|
|
Post by shropshirelad42 on Jan 11, 2019 8:37:30 GMT 1
I think the answer to that teaser would most definitely depend on knowing the percentage of abstainers/non voters !!!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 11, 2019 8:55:48 GMT 1
Eh? He's not saying that is he. He's saying the element of Labour's support that voted for Brexit, which may indeed be in the millions, may now turn their back on Labour at the next election (if they look to reverse Brexit). Which could hurt them. If a fair chunk of that 35% dump Labour it will do. ..unless remainers come over from elsewhere. But with corbyn in place, not sure too many tory remainers would do so. Labour needs all the votes it can get, it can't afford to lose any no matter what you think. Even Corbyn understands this... He may be saying that but, as usual, it’s partial, one-eyed nonsense. If Labour don’t back a second referendum, or are seen to be aligned with brexit, they risk losing “a fair chunk” of the votes of that 65%, which I think even you and the one-eyed chap will recognise is almost twice as big a number as the 35%. We’re on the same page with that calculation, yeah? If Corbyn wants to consider the potential vote loss then he has that arithmetic to consider. If you want to be politically calculating about it, Labour has a bigger margin for votes to be lost in the Stokes and Sunderlands without losing the seat than it does in more marginal remain voting southern and city seats. And it can never regain ground in Scotland if it’s seen as a brexit party. It can never win an election with only its “heartland” seats and without a lot of Scottish, southern and city seats. Even Corbyn must understand that. But that’s assuming Labour’s leave constituencies are still leave supporting. I’m not sure the subsequent polling evidence suggests that’s true. I also question what seems to me a lazy assumption that leave voters are more likely to change their party vote if they feel betrayed, let down or whatever on this issue. Do you expect all remain voters to shrug their shoulders and act as though nothing has changed? Tory remainers don’t have to vote Labour if they want to change. There was some evidence of brexit influenced tactical voting in 2017 and this could continue. The Tories have no majority now. They can’t afford to lose any seats to the Lib Dems or SNP but they’ll be vulnerable to them in some seats, as well as to Labour. For me, the only positive aspect of the entire brexit farrago is that it might be the catalyst for the destruction of the two party system. For all its faults, I used to think it was a relative strength of our politics, but I’m coming to the conclusion that its demise can’t happen soon enough. So as you admit yourself, whether it is from the 35% or the 65%, Labour could well lose votes depending on whether they mean to implement Brexit or push for a second referendum. And wherever those votes are lost, whether from the remain vote or the leave vote, it could well hurt them at the polls. And considering the poster above was specifically referring to the scenario of Labour backing a second referendum to stay in the EU, we're discussing the scenario where it would be the leave vote that could well look to another party who are still meaning to implement Brexit. Just because they would be losing votes from a smaller section of the their support doesn't mean it may not have an impact come an election. Which is what the poster above was saying, not that most Labour voters are for Brexit but that those who are may hurt them come the next election. Labour can't afford to lose any votes, even if it is from the 35% who voted to leave. You seem to be saying that it is better to keep the 65% online that the 35%. Well yeah, of course it is. But if a good chuck of the 35% dump Labour that could still hurt them at the polls. We’re on the same page with that calculation, yeah? As for Stoke, Sunderland and the other midland and northern towns and cities that voted to leave then I guess, as you say, it would depend on just how big an impact it would be. What the reaction would be if Labour were to back a second referendum. And I think that is the fine line that Corbyn and Labour has to walk. Whether he is as confident as you are that it my all work out OK come an election, I have no idea. I would think Labour are concerned about the impact in those heartland seats. So then it would come down to what I mentioned above, what is then the priority for those on each side of the divides. Would a Tory voter back Labour in order to get a second referendum but knowing that would mean a Corbyn government. Would a Labour voter vote Tory knowing it would mean yet more years under the Tories but knowing they would at least have a government who are still meaning to implement Brexit. Perhaps many from the LibDems, Greens and others would go with Labour in order to get a second referendum and perhaps those numbers may counter those that they may lose from within their own ranks. No idea. But I don't think it's that clear and I think its a difficult position for Labour. They may wipe the floor with the Tories, they may end up in a worse position because Brexit and a second referendum would add a whole new dimension to the next election and how people would vote. You think it'll work out well for Labour, others think different. And of course in all the above we haven't yet discussed that it would appear that Corbyn does wish to go ahead an implement Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 11, 2019 9:01:06 GMT 1
A post which says “I have no comeback to the point made in your post” Must try harder Here, try this teaser. If 35% of Labour voters voted leave, what percentage of Labour voters voted remain? Which is the bigger figure? Still not quite got your head around that one have you. Taking it to extremes, Labour cant win an election if 35% of their vote vote for someone else. That is the point being made, the impact any loss of vote share from leavers may have on their chances of winning an election.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 11, 2019 9:57:10 GMT 1
A post which says “I have no comeback to the point made in your post” Must try harder I think it says something more pertinent. Something like, “your use of English is as questionable as your curiously partial arithmetic”. Here, try this teaser. If 35% of Labour voters voted leave, what percentage of Labour voters voted remain? Which is the bigger figure? Your still missing the point despite StuggarterShrew emphasising it The vast majority of those 65% will stick with Labour regardless of if they support Brexit (see 2017 election results when they got a large %). My opinion is should they back a 2nd referendum and remain, a large Marjority of that 35% would look elsewhere. As I said, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 11, 2019 10:00:28 GMT 1
Bexit was always going to dominate the policy of this parliament whoever won the 2017 election. By the way, it did cost them millions of voters in 2015. Not just right wing Tories who made up the 3.8m UKIP votes. Millions of labour too, turned their back on Red Ed and his policy grave stone The EU was not a primary issue in the 2015 election. The notion that it cost Labour “millions of voters” in that election is absurd. Not as absurd as claiming, against all the post-referendum evidence, that Labour is a party of leave voters, but not far behind. Do you always peddle “alternative facts”? I agree brexit was always going to be a huge issue in this parliament. But the question of how, and even if, we leave isn’t settled in 2019, and certainly wasn’t in June 2017. So your 2017 vote didn’t have to reflect the opinion you had on brexit - that was all still up for grabs. Neither Labour nor the Tories were of one voice on brexit then (or now), so the notion that 90% of voters were on the same side on brexit in 2017 is risible. But, even if that were true, do you think 90% of voters are in agreement on brexit now? How can you say the EU wasn’t a primary issue in 2015 election, when UKIP got almost 4m votes, and were at points polling as high as 20%!! It was a big factor in 2015 alright. Where did Red Ed’s voters go in 2015 then? A lot to SNP yes, but certainly an awful lot to UKIP too In terms of voters thoughts on Brexit now, I put a link to the top poll website from Google earlier in this thread. It’s still a close run thing, as it was in 2017
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 10:48:40 GMT 1
5,000 sleeping on the streets, sleeping rough. That won't include those sleeping in tents, cars, sofa surfing, homeless hostels, B+Bs, emergency accommodation, temp accommodation, women's refuges. The figure for those is closer to 350,000. This country is seriously fu#tup and a right wing Tory brexit is the very last thing it needs. Like since when did Tories care about poor people or the working class. They see us as commodities and nothing more and yet they still get working class votes. Also, in addition to my last response, to say ‘when did the Tories care about poor people or the working class’ and to say we see people as ‘commodities and nothing more’ is unjust and despicable. Myself, my parents and grandparents are all working class and proud, thank you. Of course you care. That's why your party implements policies that have inflicted 'great misery' on the people with 'punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous' austerity measures. ( see UN report). But im sure if that's to frilly and left wing and partisan for you. You've also: -pushed more into homelessness -decreased per pupil funding -increased hospital waiting times -pushed councils into bankruptcy -increased arms sales to regimes that commit human rights violations -cut police budgets -cut police numbers -carried out a top down reorganisation of the NHS in 2012 after you promised you wouldn't. This incidentally is being totally ripped up again in the new review at the cost of billions. All this and more in the pursuit of arbitrary deficit reduction measures that your current Chancellor has abandoned all pretence of achieving beyond the next decade. So good for you mate. You keep it up. You keep on caring. Proud.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 11:34:29 GMT 1
I think it says something more pertinent. Something like, “your use of English is as questionable as your curiously partial arithmetic”. Here, try this teaser. If 35% of Labour voters voted leave, what percentage of Labour voters voted remain? Which is the bigger figure? Your still missing the point despite StuggarterShrew emphasising it The vast majority of those 65% will stick with Labour regardless of if they support Brexit (see 2017 election results when they got a large %). My opinion is should they back a 2nd referendum and remain, a large Marjority of that 35% would look elsewhere. As I said, just my opinion. I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with the point. You say the vast majority of the 65% will stick with Labour regardless of what line they take over brexit. I know Labour voters who'll do no such thing and none who don't care what Labour does about brexit. You don't need to spend long on Twitter to find a lot of Labour supporters disillusioned with the party's failure to oppose brexit. The Labour conference was firmly in favour of a people's vote. If Corbyn thinks he can ignore this and take these votes for granted, Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, lose a lot of seats in the cities and the south and struggle to get 200 seats overall. As I said, it would be suicidal. There is no risk-free option for Labour or the Tories. They will upset one large section of their support whatever choice they make. You seem to believe that disappointed remainers will be more loyal to the party that let them down but, as that represents 65% of Labour voters, it would be a strange tactic for Corbyn to alienate the largest group.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 11:56:49 GMT 1
The EU was not a primary issue in the 2015 election. The notion that it cost Labour “millions of voters” in that election is absurd. Not as absurd as claiming, against all the post-referendum evidence, that Labour is a party of leave voters, but not far behind. Do you always peddle “alternative facts”? I agree brexit was always going to be a huge issue in this parliament. But the question of how, and even if, we leave isn’t settled in 2019, and certainly wasn’t in June 2017. So your 2017 vote didn’t have to reflect the opinion you had on brexit - that was all still up for grabs. Neither Labour nor the Tories were of one voice on brexit then (or now), so the notion that 90% of voters were on the same side on brexit in 2017 is risible. But, even if that were true, do you think 90% of voters are in agreement on brexit now? How can you say the EU wasn’t a primary issue in 2015 election, when UKIP got almost 4m votes, and were at points polling as high as 20%!! It was a big factor in 2015 alright. Where did Red Ed’s voters go in 2015 then? A lot to SNP yes, but certainly an awful lot to UKIP too In terms of voters thoughts on Brexit now, I put a link to the top poll website from Google earlier in this thread. It’s still a close run thing, as it was in 2017 You understand what the word "primary" means? It was a factor, but not a primary one as I recall. The Tories said they'd hold a referendum and it was the high point of Ukip's existence but look back at the actual campaigns and there were bigger issues than the EU. Labour and the Tories lost votes to Ukip, that's true. You could argue they should have tried to make more of the EU as an election issue but they didn't. Why? Because nobody in 2015 seriously expected the UK would be leaving, not even Cameron, whose referendum pledge was designed to nail the issue, derail Ukip and unite his party. Had he not been so lazy and complacent and actually conceived a more sensible referendum structure and campaign, he might have done that. By the way, "Red Ed"? You use 2015 "jokes" from the Sun and expect to be taken seriously?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 12:16:54 GMT 1
Here, try this teaser. If 35% of Labour voters voted leave, what percentage of Labour voters voted remain? Which is the bigger figure? Still not quite got your head around that one have you. Taking it to extremes, Labour cant win an election if 35% of their vote vote for someone else. That is the point being made, the impact any loss of vote share from leavers may have on their chances of winning an election. But Labour can win an election if 65% of their vote goes elsewhere? That is the point I'm making, the impact any loss of vote share from remainers may have on their chances of winning an election, to borrow your phrase. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? You keep telling me what Valerioch said. Here's what he actually said: "Where will labour gain millions of remainers from? Might get a few across Green/SNP/Lib Dems but apart from Scotland it would hardly dent the surface.
They have a lot more to lose, millions of labour supporters voted Leave and would feel betrayed should they back a 2nd referendum "I accept the premise in your earlier post that there are votes to be lost for Labour (and the Tories) depending on their final brexit positions - a big section of their voters will be disappointed & angry. There are also votes to be won from the other side, of course, but that tends to be overlooked. But my response to the above was essentially that Labour was never a leave party. It has more remainers than leavers, as the referendum voting analysis demonstrates, by a 65:35 margin. What sort of leader would conclude from that analysis that they must keep the support of the 35% and ignore the 65%? How does Labour win an election if it loses a good proportion of the 65%?
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 11, 2019 13:01:55 GMT 1
Your still missing the point despite StuggarterShrew emphasising it The vast majority of those 65% will stick with Labour regardless of if they support Brexit (see 2017 election results when they got a large %). My opinion is should they back a 2nd referendum and remain, a large Marjority of that 35% would look elsewhere. As I said, just my opinion. I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with the point. You say the vast majority of the 65% will stick with Labour regardless of what line they take over brexit. I know Labour voters who'll do no such thing and none who don't care what Labour does about brexit. You don't need to spend long on Twitter to find a lot of Labour supporters disillusioned with the party's failure to oppose brexit. The Labour conference was firmly in favour of a people's vote. If Corbyn thinks he can ignore this and take these votes for granted, Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, lose a lot of seats in the cities and the south and struggle to get 200 seats overall. As I said, it would be suicidal. There is no risk-free option for Labour or the Tories. They will upset one large section of their support whatever choice they make. You seem to believe that disappointed remainers will be more loyal to the party that let them down but, as that represents 65% of Labour voters, it would be a strange tactic for Corbyn to alienate the largest group. Where will these voters go then? Liberal? Green? UKIP? They stuck with Labour in 2017 despite them backing Brexit in their manifesto, and would do again in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 11, 2019 13:02:33 GMT 1
Corbyn campaigned for Remain in 2016, so its probably not a red line for many of those who voted Labour in 2017.
Also, note the hypocrisy of Brexiteers shrieking 'WHY DO YOU NOT ACCEPT DEMOCRACY', while conveniently ignoring the fact the official Vote Leave campaign exceeded its spending limits by funnelling more that 0.5m through BeLeave.
Leave.EU was fined for multiple breaches of electoral law by the Electoral Commission.
But 'oh, my precious democracy'.
Pull the other one..
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 11, 2019 13:03:17 GMT 1
How can you say the EU wasn’t a primary issue in 2015 election, when UKIP got almost 4m votes, and were at points polling as high as 20%!! It was a big factor in 2015 alright. Where did Red Ed’s voters go in 2015 then? A lot to SNP yes, but certainly an awful lot to UKIP too In terms of voters thoughts on Brexit now, I put a link to the top poll website from Google earlier in this thread. It’s still a close run thing, as it was in 2017 You understand what the word "primary" means? It was a factor, but not a primary one as I recall. The Tories said they'd hold a referendum and it was the high point of Ukip's existence but look back at the actual campaigns and there were bigger issues than the EU. Labour and the Tories lost votes to Ukip, that's true. You could argue they should have tried to make more of the EU as an election issue but they didn't. Why? Because nobody in 2015 seriously expected the UK would be leaving, not even Cameron, whose referendum pledge was designed to nail the issue, derail Ukip and unite his party. Had he not been so lazy and complacent and actually conceived a more sensible referendum structure and campaign, he might have done that. By the way, "Red Ed"? You use 2015 "jokes" from the Sun and expect to be taken seriously? Cameron lazy? Tell me exactly what Saviour Jezza did for the Remain campaign? Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jan 11, 2019 13:06:18 GMT 1
You understand what the word "primary" means? It was a factor, but not a primary one as I recall. The Tories said they'd hold a referendum and it was the high point of Ukip's existence but look back at the actual campaigns and there were bigger issues than the EU. Labour and the Tories lost votes to Ukip, that's true. You could argue they should have tried to make more of the EU as an election issue but they didn't. Why? Because nobody in 2015 seriously expected the UK would be leaving, not even Cameron, whose referendum pledge was designed to nail the issue, derail Ukip and unite his party. Had he not been so lazy and complacent and actually conceived a more sensible referendum structure and campaign, he might have done that. By the way, "Red Ed"? You use 2015 "jokes" from the Sun and expect to be taken seriously? Cameron lazy? Tell me exactly what Saviour Jezza did for the Remain campaign? Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while Er, delivered 65% of Labour voters, as you keep telling us!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 11, 2019 13:07:01 GMT 1
Still not quite got your head around that one have you. Taking it to extremes, Labour cant win an election if 35% of their vote vote for someone else. That is the point being made, the impact any loss of vote share from leavers may have on their chances of winning an election. What sort of leader would conclude from that analysis that they must keep the support of the 35% and ignore the 65%? How does Labour win an election if it loses a good proportion of the 65%? I can only help so much. But Labour can win an election if 65% of their vote goes elsewhere?
No. Of course not. No one has said that or would even suggest so. The point is whether it can do so if it forces a number of the 35% who voted to leave to chose between Brexit and a Tory government (or any other that means to implement Brexit). That is what is being discussed here. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
What? That the potential to lose votes from 65% of their support compared to 35% is a worse outcome? And no leader would seek to do so if it can be avoided? It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. If fact it's such an easy concept that no one really saw the need to voice it because it really does go without saying. But anyhow, the important point to raise here is that we are talking about the scenario raised by Valerioch, which was Labour backing a second referendum. That is why we are talking about the 35%. There are also votes to be won from the other side, of course, but that tends to be overlooked.
Absolutely and that is the crux of the matter isn't it, this is what Labour need to weigh up. Valerioch thinks that number won't counter the leave vote lost to Labour. You may think different. That's what Labour need to really consider very carefully. Perhaps they have real concerns that if they do back a second referendum before an election there is a real chance they may lose seats in certain areas. But my response to the above was essentially that Labour was never a leave party.
Yeah, but you are talking to yourself as no one has said that within this discussion. Valerioch is specifically talking about the Labour support that backed leave which although in the minority, can probably still be counted in the "millions". I don't think he has said that the Labour vote is majority leave? But there are millions who did. And if Labour lose some of them in the next election it could hurt them. That was Valerioch's point (and clearly his hope if Labour do announce support for a second referendum). Corbyn and Labour don't wish to lose anyone of course and I gather that is the reason they maintain that all options are on the table (in case there is to be a general election). Why Labour is so vague, why they won't confirm one way or the other. They want to keep everyone on board, they want the votes from the 65% and the 35%. They confirm one way or the other and they risk that.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Jan 11, 2019 13:07:30 GMT 1
Still not quite got your head around that one have you. Taking it to extremes, Labour cant win an election if 35% of their vote vote for someone else. That is the point being made, the impact any loss of vote share from leavers may have on their chances of winning an election. But Labour can win an election if 65% of their vote goes elsewhere? That is the point I'm making, the impact any loss of vote share from remainers may have on their chances of winning an election, to borrow your phrase. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? You keep telling me what Valerioch said. Here's what he actually said: "Where will labour gain millions of remainers from? Might get a few across Green/SNP/Lib Dems but apart from Scotland it would hardly dent the surface.
They have a lot more to lose, millions of labour supporters voted Leave and would feel betrayed should they back a 2nd referendum "I accept the premise in your earlier post that there are votes to be lost for Labour (and the Tories) depending on their final brexit positions - a big section of their voters will be disappointed & angry. There are also votes to be won from the other side, of course, but that tends to be overlooked. But my response to the above was essentially that Labour was never a leave party. It has more remainers than leavers, as the referendum voting analysis demonstrates, by a 65:35 margin. What sort of leader would conclude from that analysis that they must keep the support of the 35% and ignore the 65%? How does Labour win an election if it loses a good proportion of the 65%? What sort of leader? You’ve got one now!! 2017 labour and Corbyn stood to see Brexit through Thus ignoring the 65% and going with the 35% It’s not hard!
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 13:08:38 GMT 1
I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with the point. You say the vast majority of the 65% will stick with Labour regardless of what line they take over brexit. I know Labour voters who'll do no such thing and none who don't care what Labour does about brexit. You don't need to spend long on Twitter to find a lot of Labour supporters disillusioned with the party's failure to oppose brexit. The Labour conference was firmly in favour of a people's vote. If Corbyn thinks he can ignore this and take these votes for granted, Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, lose a lot of seats in the cities and the south and struggle to get 200 seats overall. As I said, it would be suicidal. There is no risk-free option for Labour or the Tories. They will upset one large section of their support whatever choice they make. You seem to believe that disappointed remainers will be more loyal to the party that let them down but, as that represents 65% of Labour voters, it would be a strange tactic for Corbyn to alienate the largest group. Where will these voters go then? Liberal? Green? UKIP? They stuck with Labour in 2017 despite them backing Brexit in their manifesto, and would do again in my opinion Speaking as one of those voters, and knowing many more, I've already explained how and why we stayed with Labour in 2017. It's up to others to decide for themselves but I won't vote Labour next time if I see it backing brexit this year.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 11, 2019 13:13:06 GMT 1
Where will these voters go then? Liberal? Green? UKIP? They stuck with Labour in 2017 despite them backing Brexit in their manifesto, and would do again in my opinion Speaking as one of those voters, and knowing many more, I've already explained how and why we stayed with Labour in 2017. It's up to others to decide for themselves but I won't vote Labour next time if I see it backing brexit this year. If Labour continue the same message as now, that all options are on the table. How will you vote? Would you then be OK to continue with Labour? And you can tell me to bugger off and that its none of my business by the way, no issue with that...
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 13:16:09 GMT 1
You understand what the word "primary" means? It was a factor, but not a primary one as I recall. The Tories said they'd hold a referendum and it was the high point of Ukip's existence but look back at the actual campaigns and there were bigger issues than the EU. Labour and the Tories lost votes to Ukip, that's true. You could argue they should have tried to make more of the EU as an election issue but they didn't. Why? Because nobody in 2015 seriously expected the UK would be leaving, not even Cameron, whose referendum pledge was designed to nail the issue, derail Ukip and unite his party. Had he not been so lazy and complacent and actually conceived a more sensible referendum structure and campaign, he might have done that. By the way, "Red Ed"? You use 2015 "jokes" from the Sun and expect to be taken seriously? Cameron lazy? Tell me exactly what Saviour Jezza did for the Remain campaign? Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while Yes, Cameron was lazy and complacent. He could have confirmed before the vote that the referendum was advisory, which was the true legal position. He could have thought about the possibility of a close result, the division that would bring and made clear that a minimum winning margin (say 10%) was needed before embarking on the massive disruption of leaving the EU. He could have researched why the leave movement had the momentum it did and not just campaigned so airily on what might happen to the economy if we left - there are so many other consequences that were barely mentioned in the campaign. I'm not sure why you make it a comparative test between Cameron and Corbyn. Both were useless.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 11, 2019 13:22:26 GMT 1
Speaking as one of those voters, and knowing many more, I've already explained how and why we stayed with Labour in 2017. It's up to others to decide for themselves but I won't vote Labour next time if I see it backing brexit this year. If Labour continue the same message as now, that all options are on the table. How will you vote? Would you then be OK to continue with Labour? And you can tell me to bugger off and that its none of my business by the way, no issue with that... By the time of the election, I wouldn't expect all options still to be on the table. I'll be surprised if there's a general election soon. But, if asked today, my response would be that, if Labour insists on "respecting the result", it's lost my vote. I'd weigh up between the Lib Dems and Green - assuming I had that choice in my constituency. If Labour supports going back to the people, I might still vote Labour, although I couldn't really call myself a Corbyn supporter. I think a change is needed. While things fudge and muddle along in between those two, I really don't know how I'd vote - and I know a lot of Labour voters who feel the same. Labour - and this country - is crying out for a charismatic, pro-European, internationalist leader!
|
|