Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit referendum and negotiations 2016-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yatenga
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post



    We don't really need that to have happened to make an educated guess though.

    Labour's 2017 vote was split about 60/40 in favour of remain. They managed to hold onto 2/3rds of that Leave vote with an ambiguous position.

    2/3rds of Tory remainers were offered two alternatives. A Lib Dem party that was offering to revoke Article 50, and a Labour Party offering a second vote.

    They still voted for the party that unequivocally stated that it would definitely, hell or high water, leave.


    In the alternative scenario, Labour would have come out totally in favour of remain. They'd have had to retain every single one of the 2/3rds of their Brexit voters. Given that one third departed based on ambiguity, I think it's fair to say that a few more would have decamped based on a definite Remain platform.

    Then they'd have had to take every single point of the vote that the Lib Dems secured. All 11.6% of it.

    That would have brought them in at 43.8 to the Tories 43.6. No real way of telling how that would have broken out in seats.


    But those are the headline numbers. Labour would have had to wipe out - totally zero - the Lib Dems and retain millions of Brexit voters on a totally committed Remain campaign.
    I dont think it was Labors equivocal position on Remain that rankled: I just dont think anybody trusted Corbyn on Brexit. I think he is/was a Brexiteer, or at least that was how he came across, probably from a more deeply ideological place than Johnson (not hard I know) and so his trying to play both sides smacked of insincerity and political calculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Last Stand
    replied
    Originally posted by Jenta View Post


    It was also assessed by a list of 163 economists and academics who were enthusiastic enough about it to write a letter to the Financial Times. A group of academics who are, on the whole, no more ideologically driven that the IFS.

    The headline policies in the manifesto were also quite resoundingly popular. Labour's manifesto simply cannot be looked at as the main reason they lost the election.

    Labour lost the election so badly because of the popularity of Brexit, the failure of British media and the unpopularity of Corbyn.

    Labour are in a bind now though. How does the new leader lean enough to the left to get party members on board while also being "centrist" enough not to suffer the same savaging at the hands of billionaire controlled media outlets.
    They backed the spending plans - the problem was the assumptions for raising taxes to fund those plans. And I am not anti at all a lot of what was proposed aside from wanting to see a full impact assessment of the nationalisation plans. Bottom line is that it is not the coherent strategy you have promoted it as. Nice in theory and promising is a fair assessment.

    At the same time, what the Tories advocated is far more irresponsible. And I fully expect their madness to lead to severe ramifications - the currency will continue to take a battering as will the fall out from Brexit.

    But perhaps what Labour could do is to bank these policies and build. They need to produce some simplified messages around these policies and keep focused. If they get this right and can find a way to back a strong non decisive leader then they will be well primed when the Tory ship hits the rocks.
    Last edited by The Last Stand; 19th-December-2019, 16:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdolphusGrigson
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post



    I think you're right in terms of public perception, but really, I'm baffled by the idea that people thought Labour's policy ambiguous or complex.

    Negotiate a deal with the EU (given that Johnson's deal had been rejected repeatedly by Parliament) and put it to the country, allowing them to choose to stay or leave with a defined exit route.

    it wasnt complex - it was ridiculous.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSa2wvJCIEc

    Leave a comment:


  • Major TNT
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowboy View Post
    Labour seem to have brought a quill to a gunfight in this past election.

    Sex Wonka is like when Mr Blobby used to turn up on television in the 90s, none of what he said made sense and you were just waiting for things to get knocked over and broken on the set.

    His message was 3 words, (a lie) and labour couldn't wrestle the public consciousness away from those three words
    True that, whereas the tories had the bbc and other broadcast media on their side along with newspapers, facebook, and whatever cambridge analytica have mutated into.

    In the face of that and consistent tory lies labour didnt stand a chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowboy
    replied
    Labour seem to have brought a quill to a gunfight in this past election.

    Sex Wonka is like when Mr Blobby used to turn up on television in the 90s, none of what he said made sense and you were just waiting for things to get knocked over and broken on the set.

    His message was 3 words, (a lie) and labour couldn't wrestle the public consciousness away from those three words

    Leave a comment:


  • Jenta
    replied

    Originally posted by The Last Stand View Post

    The Manifesto was assessed by the IFS (who are not a right wing think tank) as pretty much not implementable in its entirety. Plus the punitive corporate tax increases would likely have had a serious impact on investment and would not have raised the necessary money for his spending and nationalisation plans.

    On the U.K. corporate tax regime - to be fair to the Tories they did make it a more attractive regime with their rate but at the same time they broadened the base hence increasing revenues.
    It was also assessed by a list of 163 economists and academics who were enthusiastic enough about it to write a letter to the Financial Times. A group of academics who are, on the whole, no more ideologically driven that the IFS.

    The headline policies in the manifesto were also quite resoundingly popular. Labour's manifesto simply cannot be looked at as the main reason they lost the election.

    Labour lost the election so badly because of the popularity of Brexit, the failure of British media and the unpopularity of Corbyn.

    Labour are in a bind now though. How does the new leader lean enough to the left to get party members on board while also being "centrist" enough not to suffer the same savaging at the hands of billionaire controlled media outlets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Balla Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by The Last Stand View Post

    The Manifesto was assessed by the IFS (who are not a right wing think tank) as pretty much not implementable in its entirety. Plus the punitive corporate tax increases would likely have had a serious impact on investment and would not have raised the necessary money for his spending and nationalisation plans.

    On the U.K. corporate tax regime - to be fair to the Tories they did make it a more attractive regime with their rate but at the same time they broadened the base hence increasing revenues.


    I think you're right in terms of public perception, but really, I'm baffled by the idea that people thought Labour's policy ambiguous or complex.

    Negotiate a deal with the EU (given that Johnson's deal had been rejected repeatedly by Parliament) and put it to the country, allowing them to choose to stay or leave with a defined exit route.


    Leave a comment:


  • The Last Stand
    replied
    Originally posted by Jenta View Post

    Labour's Brexit policy made perfect sense, the directions of Corbyn's glasses is irrelevant and the manifesto was a dynamic and progressive document that would have injected some hope into a stagnant economy.

    Instead, people actually voted for a disastrous Brexit policy, pushed by a man who looks like an exploded mattress at the head of a party that has flattened the British economy, pumping out politics of division with seemingly no policies whatsoever.
    The Manifesto was assessed by the IFS (who are not a right wing think tank) as pretty much not implementable in its entirety. Plus the punitive corporate tax increases would likely have had a serious impact on investment and would not have raised the necessary money for his spending and nationalisation plans.

    On the U.K. corporate tax regime - to be fair to the Tories they did make it a more attractive regime with their rate but at the same time they broadened the base hence increasing revenues.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdolphusGrigson
    replied
    Originally posted by Jenta View Post

    Labour's Brexit policy made perfect sense, the directions of Corbyn's glasses is irrelevant and the manifesto was a dynamic and progressive document that would have injected some hope into a stagnant economy.

    Instead, people actually voted for a disastrous Brexit policy, pushed by a man who looks like an exploded mattress at the head of a party that has flattened the British economy, pumping out politics of division with seemingly no policies whatsoever.
    Corbers has proven to be a disastrous choice - and should have done the honourable/sensible thing after 2017. It is an indictment of the Labour Party that he wasnt taken aside and explained gently that given the reality of the British political system and media he wasnt the man for the job. He had a go - possibly worth a punt - but no 2nd chance. If you believe you have good policies - pretending that selling them is not important - or that you can ignore the political envrironment in which you want to sell the policies - is just plain stupid.

    Rattling on in the wilderness about having "won the argument" - which seems to be the party line/mantra post election - is a bit pointless and a bit embarrassing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jenta
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post


    Instead, all you got from him was:
    - incoherence on Brexit (when the electorate wanted clarity)
    -wonky specs (when people like symmetry)
    -a feeling of stale, old politics (when people clearly want progressive change)
    -and bitterness & anger (when people prefer optimism & joy)
    Labour's Brexit policy made perfect sense, the directions of Corbyn's glasses is irrelevant and the manifesto was a dynamic and progressive document that would have injected some hope into a stagnant economy.

    Instead, people actually voted for a disastrous Brexit policy, pushed by a man who looks like an exploded mattress at the head of a party that has flattened the British economy, pumping out politics of division with seemingly no policies whatsoever.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdolphusGrigson
    replied
    Originally posted by blackwarrior View Post

    As for use of the term Comrade, what a load of rubbish in this day and age.
    Same with the use of term "socialist" which seems to be thrown as an occasional bone for the 'left' when matters which are deemed to be ideoligically suspect (e.g practical matters) are being discussed.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackwarrior
    replied
    Originally posted by Daithi View Post

    Corbyn's Labour were toxic, and still it's supporters want to blame others for its demise. Go figure Comrade!?
    As for use of the term Comrade, what a load of rubbish in this day and age.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdolphusGrigson
    replied
    The right wing of the Labour Party say it was Corbyn and the left wing say it was Brexit...

    bit of truth in both.

    I think we can more safely say that Blair's new Labour (whatever that was supposed to mean) taken with his invasion of Iraq probably lost Scotland for Labour (which was a big positive).

    Leave a comment:


  • Daithi
    replied
    Originally posted by RED 49 View Post
    Labour's issues were

    They had no coherent strategy on Brexit, playing both sides of the fence a week out from the election killed their vote.
    Corbynn when asked if you get into power and negotiate a deal with the EU how will you campaign on it ? Remain or for the deal you have negotiated?

    He could not give a decisive answer and that lost him a huge amount of votes.
    Exactly, if my auntie had b@@lls she'd be my uncle!!

    Corbyn couldn't decide whatever he was, so how were the electorate to!? Pathetic, hardly covers it.

    P.s. I was looking at a behind the scenes Brexit 2019 programme on the beeb last night, which was excellent btw, but it was clear from viewing it Corbyn also needed a good old image makeover ( & I ain't any spin doctor). But a nice straight pair of transparent spectacles would certainly have helped, as would a young female deputy leader, and maybe a few transparent policies while he was at it.

    Instead, all you got from him was:
    - incoherence on Brexit (when the electorate wanted clarity)
    -wonky specs (when people like symmetry)
    -a feeling of stale, old politics (when people clearly want progressive change)
    -and bitterness & anger (when people prefer optimism & joy)

    Corbyn's Labour were toxic, and still it's supporters want to blame others for its demise. Go figure Comrade!?

    Leave a comment:


  • RED 49
    replied
    Labour's issues were

    They had no coherent strategy on Brexit, playing both sides of the fence a week out from the election killed their vote.
    Corbynn when asked if you get into power and negotiate a deal with the EU how will you campaign on it ? Remain or for the deal you have negotiated?

    He could not give a decisive answer and that lost him a huge amount of votes.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X