I wonder if Corbyn will resign if he loses another general election...
My guess is no.
Resign?
And forego the opportunity to outlast another Tory leader in ineffective opposition to them?
Perish the thought.
+5
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Corbyn may have once had strong overriding convictions, but it's pretty clear by now that his primary concern is to hold onto power no matter the ultimate cost.
Johnson of course gets around this because grabbing and holding power no matter the cost is his only conviction.
fuck gendered marketing
+10
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
It was inconceivable staying on after losing one election before Corbyn came along. At this point that convention is already broken. I'd honestly be surprised if Corbyn does leave after the next election. He has control of the leadership selection process so losing another election won't change that.
It hit me today that I understand what Corbyn is doing.
By waffling between Leave and Remain, he is trying to take a position between the two extremes and win voters from both sides AKA He is Triangulating!
You know, the thing Corbynistas say was Tony Blair's supreme moral failure as PM, the thing that made them blindly support Corbyn and his "he may be an old trot but he has principles".
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
eh, I think Corbyn personally (and that's all that matters to him, ever) is for Brexit from a very leftist, "the EU doesn't go far enough in the areas I want, tear it down get us out and start over" position. That this happens to line up with the right is a prime example of horseshoe theory in action.
It was inconceivable staying on after losing one election before Corbyn came along. At this point that convention is already broken. I'd honestly be surprised if Corbyn does leave after the next election. He has control of the leadership selection process so losing another election won't change that.
I'm kinda resigned to the country burning at this point and just taking an interest in precisely how the fire spreads. For example, I really can't wait to see what Corbyns excuse is for losing this general election, his second in a row (not to mention a terrible Euro and if memory serves some underwhelming locals too). I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the truly olympic grade mental gymnastics that the momentum lot will be performing to justify his continued leadership, the man who simply cannot fail to fail against the worst the Tories have to offer.
It's also going to be very interesting watching the dissolution of the UK. If you're a politics nerd there's gonna be stuff to study for years.
I'm kinda resigned to the country burning at this point and just taking an interest in precisely how the fire spreads. For example, I really can't wait to see what Corbyns excuse is for losing this general election, his second in a row (not to mention a terrible Euro and if memory serves some underwhelming locals too). I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the truly olympic grade mental gymnastics that the momentum lot will be performing to justify his continued leadership, the man who simply cannot fail to fail against the worst the Tories have to offer.
It's also going to be very interesting watching the dissolution of the UK. If you're a politics nerd there's gonna be stuff to study for years.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
And, obviously, because he's a brexiter too.
The majority of pro-Brexit voters are right-wingers, and they're not going to vote for him anyway but not all pro-Brexiteers are right wing even if the majority is.
If he was for Brexit and also for deregulation of H&S stuff etc, I could see this argument - but there's not a ton of other right wing policies coming out alongside this. It's just Brexit (even down to there not being much of a plan other than that.)
Blair's triangulation was completely different, in that it was about showing that you could be left-wing and still very business friendly.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
And, obviously, because he's a brexiter too.
The majority of pro-Brexit voters are right-wingers, and they're not going to vote for him anyway but not all pro-Brexiteers are right wing even if the majority is.
If he was for Brexit and also for deregulation of H&S stuff etc, I could see this argument - but there's not a ton of other right wing policies coming out alongside this. It's just Brexit (even down to there not being much of a plan other than that.)
Blair's triangulation was completely different, in that it was about showing that you could be left-wing and still very business friendly.
Right, Blair's triangulation was on a different axis. But Corbyn is absolutely still triangulating and trying to pick up more right-wing voters. He's just trying to pick up the more anti-immigrant set rather then the pro-business set.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
And, obviously, because he's a brexiter too.
The majority of pro-Brexit voters are right-wingers, and they're not going to vote for him anyway but not all pro-Brexiteers are right wing even if the majority is.
If he was for Brexit and also for deregulation of H&S stuff etc, I could see this argument - but there's not a ton of other right wing policies coming out alongside this. It's just Brexit (even down to there not being much of a plan other than that.)
Blair's triangulation was completely different, in that it was about showing that you could be left-wing and still very business friendly.
Right, Blair's triangulation was on a different axis. But Corbyn is absolutely still triangulating and trying to pick up more right-wing voters. He's just trying to pick up the more anti-immigrant set rather then the pro-business set.
Frankly, I'm not even sure it's not worse.
Xenophobia and anti-Semitism isn't really a political axis. It exists everywhere at once, unfortunately.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
And, obviously, because he's a brexiter too.
The majority of pro-Brexit voters are right-wingers, and they're not going to vote for him anyway but not all pro-Brexiteers are right wing even if the majority is.
If he was for Brexit and also for deregulation of H&S stuff etc, I could see this argument - but there's not a ton of other right wing policies coming out alongside this. It's just Brexit (even down to there not being much of a plan other than that.)
Blair's triangulation was completely different, in that it was about showing that you could be left-wing and still very business friendly.
Right, Blair's triangulation was on a different axis. But Corbyn is absolutely still triangulating and trying to pick up more right-wing voters. He's just trying to pick up the more anti-immigrant set rather then the pro-business set.
Frankly, I'm not even sure it's not worse.
I don't think he is, other than refusing to put Labour firmly as a Remain Party there's not been anything else to try to appeal to the anti-immigrant wing.
The fence sitting I think is more of a result of wanting to respect the democratic result of the Referendum and not wanting to go against the democratic choices made by the Party, especially when there is potentially an electoral cost of committing to Remain (which I'll admit might have been mitigated by a better leader coming out for Remain earlier). It's less triangulation to get more votes/not lose votes - but more two competing things you believe in that also have a cost attached to them.
I'm not going to argue that Corbyn doesn't lean towards Brexit (pro-Brexit is too strong a term for me, even if he certainly isn't Remain in any shape or form and is ambivalent at best towards the EU. But I don't think he would have ever called for a Brexit referendum to take place and wouldn't lose too much sleep over it not happening). But to suggest that his attempts to resist the Remain wing in his Party are down to him wanting to bring more right wingers in and move the party away from the left towards the centre (or even more nationalist) is just plain wrong.
He's got enough faults as a leader that we don't need to make more up.
It matters what you are triangulating between though. There's no threat of Corbyn dragging the Labour party towards the centre by trying to appeal to those who want to leave the EU (as they feel it threatens British workers by allowing a cheap underclass in to undercut them, and feel that the EU is too friendly to big corporations) - it's the rest of the party and his primary demographic who are wanting to do that.
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
And, obviously, because he's a brexiter too.
The majority of pro-Brexit voters are right-wingers, and they're not going to vote for him anyway but not all pro-Brexiteers are right wing even if the majority is.
If he was for Brexit and also for deregulation of H&S stuff etc, I could see this argument - but there's not a ton of other right wing policies coming out alongside this. It's just Brexit (even down to there not being much of a plan other than that.)
Blair's triangulation was completely different, in that it was about showing that you could be left-wing and still very business friendly.
Right, Blair's triangulation was on a different axis. But Corbyn is absolutely still triangulating and trying to pick up more right-wing voters. He's just trying to pick up the more anti-immigrant set rather then the pro-business set.
Frankly, I'm not even sure it's not worse.
I don't think he is, other than refusing to put Labour firmly as a Remain Party there's not been anything else to try to appeal to the anti-immigrant wing.
The fence sitting I think is more of a result of wanting to respect the democratic result of the Referendum and not wanting to go against the democratic choices made by the Party, especially when there is potentially an electoral cost of committing to Remain (which I'll admit might have been mitigated by a better leader coming out for Remain earlier). It's less triangulation to get more votes/not lose votes - but more two competing things you believe in that also have a cost attached to them.
I'm not going to argue that Corbyn doesn't lean towards Brexit (pro-Brexit is too strong a term for me, even if he certainly isn't Remain in any shape or form and is ambivalent at best towards the EU. But I don't think he would have ever called for a Brexit referendum to take place and wouldn't lose too much sleep over it not happening). But to suggest that his attempts to resist the Remain wing in his Party are down to him wanting to bring more right wingers in and move the party away from the left towards the centre (or even more nationalist) is just plain wrong.
He's got enough faults as a leader that we don't need to make more up.
Nah. He's clearly trying to appeal to Leavers. But without alienating Remainers.
The idea that he's trying to "respect the will of the people" is complete bullshit, as evidenced by his reaction to the will of the people within his party who keep setting goals at party conferences that he ignores.
He definitely did mention immigration under cutting wages or something similar which is a regular right wing talking point and also demonstrably wrong.
He is a left wing leaver, more or less. So any time a push towards Remain comes from within the Party - it's watered down from being out and out Remain due to the fact that Leave still has a voice at the top. Labour is heavily Remain but it's still far from unanimous and things are largely watered down rather than ignored. Afterall, in 2016, Leave won 406 constituencies and Remain won 242. This thought might be bolstered by the thought that moving to pure Remain will lose Labour Leave Voters, but it's not aimed at bringing in right wing votes.
Might even be the opposite, Corbyn would prefer to keep the old left-wing, trade union/working class Leave voters in the Party rather than trying to reach out and get the left fringe of the Remain Lib Dem voters (that's how you get Blairites!).
He is a left wing leaver, more or less. So any time a push towards Remain comes from within the Party - it's watered down from being out and out Remain due to the fact that Leave still has a voice at the top. Labour is heavily Remain but it's still far from Unanimous.
This thought might be bolstered by the thought that moving to pure Remain will lose Labour Leave Voters, but it's not aimed at bringing in right wing votes.
Might even be the opposite, Corbyn would prefer to keep the old left-wing, trade union/working class Leave voters in the Party rather than trying to reach out and get the left fringe of the Remain Lib Dem voters.
It's absolutely aimed at bringing in those more-right-wing voters who are pro-leave. He's aiming at grabbing people who are more conservative on the issue of immigration.
He is a left wing leaver, more or less. So any time a push towards Remain comes from within the Party - it's watered down from being out and out Remain due to the fact that Leave still has a voice at the top. Labour is heavily Remain but it's still far from Unanimous.
This thought might be bolstered by the thought that moving to pure Remain will lose Labour Leave Voters, but it's not aimed at bringing in right wing votes.
Might even be the opposite, Corbyn would prefer to keep the old left-wing, trade union/working class Leave voters in the Party rather than trying to reach out and get the left fringe of the Remain Lib Dem voters.
It's absolutely aimed at bringing in those more-right-wing voters who are pro-leave. He's aiming at grabbing people who are more conservative on the issue of immigration.
There are practically no Leave voters, who haven't previously voted for Labour in the last election, who are going to be swung by Corbyn's resistance to going full Remain with Labour. That's not a demographic that exists.
He is a left wing leaver, more or less. So any time a push towards Remain comes from within the Party - it's watered down from being out and out Remain due to the fact that Leave still has a voice at the top. Labour is heavily Remain but it's still far from Unanimous.
This thought might be bolstered by the thought that moving to pure Remain will lose Labour Leave Voters, but it's not aimed at bringing in right wing votes.
Might even be the opposite, Corbyn would prefer to keep the old left-wing, trade union/working class Leave voters in the Party rather than trying to reach out and get the left fringe of the Remain Lib Dem voters.
It's absolutely aimed at bringing in those more-right-wing voters who are pro-leave. He's aiming at grabbing people who are more conservative on the issue of immigration.
There are practically no Leave voters, who haven't previously voted for Labour in the last election, who are going to be swung by Corbyn's resistance to going full Remain with Labour. That's not a demographic that exists.
And yet Corbyn is going hard for the leave voters both in the party and gettable by the party. He's literally spent this entire time trying to appeal to Leavers and Remainers in order to win a GE.
Not picking something that will make your Party unpalatable to a significant portion of your voters is not 'triangulation'. Corbyn's Brexit position is clearly one of trying not to lose Leave Labour voters (of which he pretty much is one).
Corbyn's Brexit position is not going to win any votes from anywhere - it's barely even a position, other than not being "we're going to revoke Article 50". They're for a second referendum, just won't commit to campaigning as a party for one side or the other.
They're trying to win votes with left-wing policies - nationalising railways, abolishing private schools and setting up a NHS style education system, integrating social care into the NHS - this is not a manifesto from a Party that is looking to compromise with the Right to get into government. It's as much triangulation as any left wing party not campaigning for UBI is.
Not picking something that will make your Party unpalatable to a significant portion of your voters is not 'triangulation'. Corbyn's Brexit position is clearly one of trying not to lose Leave Labour voters (of which he pretty much is one).
Corbyn's Brexit position is not going to win any votes from anywhere - it's barely even a position, other than not being "we're going to revoke Article 50". They're for a second referendum, just won't commit to campaigning as a party for one side or the other.
They're trying to win votes with left-wing policies - nationalising railways, abolishing private schools and setting up a NHS style education system, integrating social care into the NHS - this is not a manifesto from a Party that is looking to compromise with the Right to get into government. It's as much triangulation as any left wing party not campaigning for UBI is.
"Corbyn's position is not triangulation, it's triangulation" is what you are saying in that first paragraph. He's very clearly trying to push a position where he doesn't have to commit too strongly either way in order to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. And since he's also trying to win a general election, he's obviously also trying to pull in new voters, in part by being able to be either a Leaver or a Remainer, depending on what specific groups want.
Like, there's no way around this. He's built his entire strategy around this kind of Brexit ambiguity in order to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate. It's a dictionary definition of triangulation on the Brexit issue. It's the same shit he yelled about others doing, except now it's ok because instead of doing it on economics, he's doing it on immigration.
Since Brexit clearly overwrites anything else, the political parties will eventually coalesce into the Leave Party and the Remain Party. So there's no middle to chase on a binary decision. So Corbyn is chasing an electorate that doesn't exists. Not to mention that, and this is my opinion, a second referendum is a cowardly position. If you are pro-Remain, you should be unashamed to do so, not just weasel your way to it.
I think when people say "bring in right-wing voters" they mean "try to win over pro-Brexit, anti-immigration voters" which is clearly something which Corbyn and Labour have tried to do
+6
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Since Brexit clearly overwrites anything else, the political parties will eventually coalesce into the Leave Party and the Remain Party. So there's no middle to chase on a binary decision. So Corbyn is chasing an electorate that doesn't exists. Not to mention that, and this is my opinion, a second referendum is a cowardly position. If you are pro-Remain, you should be unashamed to do so, not just weasel your way to it.
there’s no viable path to remain without a second referendum
Not picking something that will make your Party unpalatable to a significant portion of your voters is not 'triangulation'. Corbyn's Brexit position is clearly one of trying not to lose Leave Labour voters (of which he pretty much is one).
Corbyn's Brexit position is not going to win any votes from anywhere - it's barely even a position, other than not being "we're going to revoke Article 50". They're for a second referendum, just won't commit to campaigning as a party for one side or the other.
They're trying to win votes with left-wing policies - nationalising railways, abolishing private schools and setting up a NHS style education system, integrating social care into the NHS - this is not a manifesto from a Party that is looking to compromise with the Right to get into government. It's as much triangulation as any left wing party not campaigning for UBI is.
"Corbyn's position is not triangulation, it's triangulation" is what you are saying in that first paragraph. He's very clearly trying to push a position where he doesn't have to commit too strongly either way in order to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. And since he's also trying to win a general election, he's obviously also trying to pull in new voters, in part by being able to be either a Leaver or a Remainer, depending on what specific groups want.
Like, there's no way around this. He's built his entire strategy around this kind of Brexit ambiguity in order to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate. It's a dictionary definition of triangulation on the Brexit issue. It's the same shit he yelled about others doing, except now it's ok because instead of doing it on economics, he's doing it on immigration.
Only if triangulation is a meaningless word. If we'd had a bunch of policies designed to appeal to the hardcore anti-immigrant nationalists - bringing back capital punishment/national service etc alongside the more traditional leftist things like nationalising utilities and expanding the NHS I'd have agreed with you.
Going from the Wiki explanation: In politics, triangulation is the strategy in which a political candidate presents their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
No one is under under any illusion that Corbyn's government would be anything other than firmly left wing, though the part we might be disagreeing with each other here is whether or not Brexit is definitely a purely Right wing idea, or something that crosses the political spectrum (which it can be even if it is considered more favourably by those on the right). The collapse in British politics I would say comes from the fact that it isn't, but is another axis entirely drawn somewhat perpendicular to the traditional Left/Right axis. The Open/Closed Society axis that was talked about in the aftermath of the referendum.
It does seem that Labour has lost a lot of votes due to the ambiguity, but I've not seen a proper breakdown of how it went. Anecdotally, it would seem that the Leave ones all went to the Brexit party from all the Vox pops - don't think I've heard anyone saying they'd stick with Labour to see how they'd do it. But I've not seen anything to say how many would have left if they had just come out as Remain, or how many Lib Dems would have switched to Labour in order to back the bigger Remain party.
The only thing that does seem clear, is that Labour's fence sitting policy is not about winning votes, just not losing votes you might already have. And I think there's a fundamental difference between changing your policies to attract new voters who wouldn't have considered voting for you (New Labour/Clinton) and not committing to one side or the other of a debate in order to not lose the voters who have supported you in the past.
Honestly, if Corbyn's reluctance to commit costs Labour voters to the Greens and Lib Dems, but doesn't shed to many to the Tories or Brexit in a GE, I'd be happy with that as long as it meant that the Not No Deal parties came out on top. This all has to go to second referendum anyway if there's anyway out, and if we have a GE first that lets us get that done - I'm certain there will be another one after the referendum when the alliance collapses.
I expect it'll go GE -> No Deal Alliance -> 2nd Ref for Remain -> GE with Tory minority government.
Because we can't have nice things and Corbyn won't resign.
It's why I think we need the 2nd Ref first, to let the Tories own this mess and suffer the rejection of their madness rather than having some 'traitors' come in to steal Brexit at the last moment.
Since Brexit clearly overwrites anything else, the political parties will eventually coalesce into the Leave Party and the Remain Party. So there's no middle to chase on a binary decision. So Corbyn is chasing an electorate that doesn't exists. Not to mention that, and this is my opinion, a second referendum is a cowardly position. If you are pro-Remain, you should be unashamed to do so, not just weasel your way to it.
It's pretty fascinating because Corbyn obviously doesn't like the ceiling that EU "neoliberalism" places on his projects but it is hard to imagine him running on a platform of massive budget deficits way outside the SGP rules that no one complies with anyway.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Not picking something that will make your Party unpalatable to a significant portion of your voters is not 'triangulation'. Corbyn's Brexit position is clearly one of trying not to lose Leave Labour voters (of which he pretty much is one).
Corbyn's Brexit position is not going to win any votes from anywhere - it's barely even a position, other than not being "we're going to revoke Article 50". They're for a second referendum, just won't commit to campaigning as a party for one side or the other.
They're trying to win votes with left-wing policies - nationalising railways, abolishing private schools and setting up a NHS style education system, integrating social care into the NHS - this is not a manifesto from a Party that is looking to compromise with the Right to get into government. It's as much triangulation as any left wing party not campaigning for UBI is.
"Corbyn's position is not triangulation, it's triangulation" is what you are saying in that first paragraph. He's very clearly trying to push a position where he doesn't have to commit too strongly either way in order to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. And since he's also trying to win a general election, he's obviously also trying to pull in new voters, in part by being able to be either a Leaver or a Remainer, depending on what specific groups want.
Like, there's no way around this. He's built his entire strategy around this kind of Brexit ambiguity in order to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate. It's a dictionary definition of triangulation on the Brexit issue. It's the same shit he yelled about others doing, except now it's ok because instead of doing it on economics, he's doing it on immigration.
Only if triangulation is a meaningless word. If we'd had a bunch of policies designed to appeal to the hardcore anti-immigrant nationalists - bringing back capital punishment/national service etc alongside the more traditional leftist things like nationalising utilities and expanding the NHS I'd have agreed with you.
Going from the Wiki explanation: In politics, triangulation is the strategy in which a political candidate presents their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
No one is under under any illusion that Corbyn's government would be anything other than firmly left wing, though the part we might be disagreeing with each other here is whether or not Brexit is definitely a purely Right wing idea, or something that crosses the political spectrum (which it can be even if it is considered more favourably by those on the right). The collapse in British politics I would say comes from the fact that it isn't, but is another axis entirely drawn somewhat perpendicular to the traditional Left/Right axis. The Open/Closed Society axis that was talked about in the aftermath of the referendum.
It does seem that Labour has lost a lot of votes due to the ambiguity, but I've not seen a proper breakdown of how it went. Anecdotally, it would seem that the Leave ones all went to the Brexit party from all the Vox pops - don't think I've heard anyone saying they'd stick with Labour to see how they'd do it. But I've not seen anything to say how many would have left if they had just come out as Remain, or how many Lib Dems would have switched to Labour in order to back the bigger Remain party.
The only thing that does seem clear, is that Labour's fence sitting policy is not about winning votes, just not losing votes you might already have. And I think there's a fundamental difference between changing your policies to attract new voters who wouldn't have considered voting for you (New Labour/Clinton) and not committing to one side or the other of a debate in order to not lose the voters who have supported you in the past.
Honestly, if Corbyn's reluctance to commit costs Labour voters to the Greens and Lib Dems, but doesn't shed to many to the Tories or Brexit in a GE, I'd be happy with that as long as it meant that the Not No Deal parties came out on top. This all has to go to second referendum anyway if there's anyway out, and if we have a GE first that lets us get that done - I'm certain there will be another one after the referendum when the alliance collapses.
I expect it'll go GE -> No Deal Alliance -> 2nd Ref for Remain -> GE with Tory minority government.
Because we can't have nice things and Corbyn won't resign.
It's why I think we need the 2nd Ref first, to let the Tories own this mess and suffer the rejection of their madness rather than having some 'traitors' come in to steal Brexit at the last moment.
Dude, he is trying to appeal to the hardcore anti-immigrant nationalists. That's what Brexit is. He's literally said his unicorn Brexit would include ending freedom of movement. No amount of words gets around that simple fact.
His plan is to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. To take an ambiguous position in order to appeal to both the pro- and anti-immigrant crowd.
The US must lift restrictions on UK businesses if it wants a trade deal with the UK, Boris Johnson has said.
Travelling to the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, the PM said there were "very considerable barriers in the US to British businesses".
Mr Johnson said he had already spoken to President Donald Trump about his concerns, adding he would do so again when they meet on Sunday morning.
The prime minister will also hold talks with EU Council President Donald Tusk.
"There are massive opportunities for UK companies to open up, to prise open the American market," Mr Johnson said.
"We intend to seize those opportunities but they are going to require our American friends to compromise and to open up their approach, because currently there are too many restrictions."
Offering an example of a restriction, Mr Johnson said: "Melton Mowbray pork pies, which are sold in Thailand and in Iceland, are currently unable to enter the US market because of, I don't know, some sort of food and drug administration restriction."
Posts
Resign?
And forego the opportunity to outlast another Tory leader in ineffective opposition to them?
Perish the thought.
Johnson of course gets around this because grabbing and holding power no matter the cost is his only conviction.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49445515
Real fight starts then.
By waffling between Leave and Remain, he is trying to take a position between the two extremes and win voters from both sides AKA He is Triangulating!
You know, the thing Corbynistas say was Tony Blair's supreme moral failure as PM, the thing that made them blindly support Corbyn and his "he may be an old trot but he has principles".
Nothing like the "perhaps we should sell out a bit to get elected" style they pitch the Blairite version as.
The pro-brexit contingent are right-wingers, from any of the research we've seen. That's what correlates with Leave voting. He is by definition dragging the party towards a centrist position to win voters.
And, obviously, because he's a brexiter too.
Neil Kinnock stayed on, as did others.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
"May you live in interesting times"
There's a reason that was a curse.
Steam | XBL
The majority of pro-Brexit voters are right-wingers, and they're not going to vote for him anyway but not all pro-Brexiteers are right wing even if the majority is.
If he was for Brexit and also for deregulation of H&S stuff etc, I could see this argument - but there's not a ton of other right wing policies coming out alongside this. It's just Brexit (even down to there not being much of a plan other than that.)
Blair's triangulation was completely different, in that it was about showing that you could be left-wing and still very business friendly.
Right, Blair's triangulation was on a different axis. But Corbyn is absolutely still triangulating and trying to pick up more right-wing voters. He's just trying to pick up the more anti-immigrant set rather then the pro-business set.
Frankly, I'm not even sure it's not worse.
Xenophobia and anti-Semitism isn't really a political axis. It exists everywhere at once, unfortunately.
I don't think he is, other than refusing to put Labour firmly as a Remain Party there's not been anything else to try to appeal to the anti-immigrant wing.
The fence sitting I think is more of a result of wanting to respect the democratic result of the Referendum and not wanting to go against the democratic choices made by the Party, especially when there is potentially an electoral cost of committing to Remain (which I'll admit might have been mitigated by a better leader coming out for Remain earlier). It's less triangulation to get more votes/not lose votes - but more two competing things you believe in that also have a cost attached to them.
I'm not going to argue that Corbyn doesn't lean towards Brexit (pro-Brexit is too strong a term for me, even if he certainly isn't Remain in any shape or form and is ambivalent at best towards the EU. But I don't think he would have ever called for a Brexit referendum to take place and wouldn't lose too much sleep over it not happening). But to suggest that his attempts to resist the Remain wing in his Party are down to him wanting to bring more right wingers in and move the party away from the left towards the centre (or even more nationalist) is just plain wrong.
He's got enough faults as a leader that we don't need to make more up.
Nah. He's clearly trying to appeal to Leavers. But without alienating Remainers.
The idea that he's trying to "respect the will of the people" is complete bullshit, as evidenced by his reaction to the will of the people within his party who keep setting goals at party conferences that he ignores.
Might even be the opposite, Corbyn would prefer to keep the old left-wing, trade union/working class Leave voters in the Party rather than trying to reach out and get the left fringe of the Remain Lib Dem voters (that's how you get Blairites!).
It's absolutely aimed at bringing in those more-right-wing voters who are pro-leave. He's aiming at grabbing people who are more conservative on the issue of immigration.
There are practically no Leave voters, who haven't previously voted for Labour in the last election, who are going to be swung by Corbyn's resistance to going full Remain with Labour. That's not a demographic that exists.
And yet Corbyn is going hard for the leave voters both in the party and gettable by the party. He's literally spent this entire time trying to appeal to Leavers and Remainers in order to win a GE.
Corbyn's Brexit position is not going to win any votes from anywhere - it's barely even a position, other than not being "we're going to revoke Article 50". They're for a second referendum, just won't commit to campaigning as a party for one side or the other.
They're trying to win votes with left-wing policies - nationalising railways, abolishing private schools and setting up a NHS style education system, integrating social care into the NHS - this is not a manifesto from a Party that is looking to compromise with the Right to get into government. It's as much triangulation as any left wing party not campaigning for UBI is.
"Corbyn's position is not triangulation, it's triangulation" is what you are saying in that first paragraph. He's very clearly trying to push a position where he doesn't have to commit too strongly either way in order to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. And since he's also trying to win a general election, he's obviously also trying to pull in new voters, in part by being able to be either a Leaver or a Remainer, depending on what specific groups want.
Like, there's no way around this. He's built his entire strategy around this kind of Brexit ambiguity in order to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate. It's a dictionary definition of triangulation on the Brexit issue. It's the same shit he yelled about others doing, except now it's ok because instead of doing it on economics, he's doing it on immigration.
there’s no viable path to remain without a second referendum
Only if triangulation is a meaningless word. If we'd had a bunch of policies designed to appeal to the hardcore anti-immigrant nationalists - bringing back capital punishment/national service etc alongside the more traditional leftist things like nationalising utilities and expanding the NHS I'd have agreed with you.
Going from the Wiki explanation: In politics, triangulation is the strategy in which a political candidate presents their ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
No one is under under any illusion that Corbyn's government would be anything other than firmly left wing, though the part we might be disagreeing with each other here is whether or not Brexit is definitely a purely Right wing idea, or something that crosses the political spectrum (which it can be even if it is considered more favourably by those on the right). The collapse in British politics I would say comes from the fact that it isn't, but is another axis entirely drawn somewhat perpendicular to the traditional Left/Right axis. The Open/Closed Society axis that was talked about in the aftermath of the referendum.
It does seem that Labour has lost a lot of votes due to the ambiguity, but I've not seen a proper breakdown of how it went. Anecdotally, it would seem that the Leave ones all went to the Brexit party from all the Vox pops - don't think I've heard anyone saying they'd stick with Labour to see how they'd do it. But I've not seen anything to say how many would have left if they had just come out as Remain, or how many Lib Dems would have switched to Labour in order to back the bigger Remain party.
The only thing that does seem clear, is that Labour's fence sitting policy is not about winning votes, just not losing votes you might already have. And I think there's a fundamental difference between changing your policies to attract new voters who wouldn't have considered voting for you (New Labour/Clinton) and not committing to one side or the other of a debate in order to not lose the voters who have supported you in the past.
Honestly, if Corbyn's reluctance to commit costs Labour voters to the Greens and Lib Dems, but doesn't shed to many to the Tories or Brexit in a GE, I'd be happy with that as long as it meant that the Not No Deal parties came out on top. This all has to go to second referendum anyway if there's anyway out, and if we have a GE first that lets us get that done - I'm certain there will be another one after the referendum when the alliance collapses.
I expect it'll go GE -> No Deal Alliance -> 2nd Ref for Remain -> GE with Tory minority government.
Because we can't have nice things and Corbyn won't resign.
It's why I think we need the 2nd Ref first, to let the Tories own this mess and suffer the rejection of their madness rather than having some 'traitors' come in to steal Brexit at the last moment.
It's pretty fascinating because Corbyn obviously doesn't like the ceiling that EU "neoliberalism" places on his projects but it is hard to imagine him running on a platform of massive budget deficits way outside the SGP rules that no one complies with anyway.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Mostly behind a paywall but the title says it all.
Great way to see a bunch of dead officers.
[edit]Oh wait, even better - the English police they're thinking of are the Met.
The perfect excuse to send in the military.
It's quite easily to calculate, it's after the next election that doesn't need the DUP to support to the Westminster Government.
Dude, he is trying to appeal to the hardcore anti-immigrant nationalists. That's what Brexit is. He's literally said his unicorn Brexit would include ending freedom of movement. No amount of words gets around that simple fact.
His plan is to appeal to both Leavers and Remainers. To take an ambiguous position in order to appeal to both the pro- and anti-immigrant crowd.
Because we hold the upper hand here.