Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Soft thread split, hard thread split, no-deal thread split. Who gives a sh!t as long as we get a thread split by the 15:35 deadline.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The trusted parties weren't trusted in the latest Nationwide elections.  That's the dilemma.  That's what has the Traditional (trusted) parties pulling their hair out.  'Which way do we go?  What do our majorities really want?  If we say Hard Brexit we might lose our majority.  If we say Soft Brexit we might lose our majority. '

They can do base studies and polls as much as they like, they know that the polls are unpredictable and often downright wrong, proven again and again.  So they're afraid....because their natural reaction is trying to sit on the fence on many issues, try to glide to some mythic Centre where supposedly most voters are.  Well it seems on Brexit, most voters are not somewhere in the middle.  They are exhausted by the mushy middle.  Even the traditional Middle Party is gone die-hard Remain. ... and picking up votes because of it.  Voters want parties that will give them a clear route to either side of Brexit.

Now that's not to say that any party might then fudge if all again when elected. No party should ever have the Trusted tag placed on them.  Even the Brexit Party might do a fudge if they got in, but if you want those votes - what did Truss say up there earlier? - vision.

Voters really don't want to much boardroom detail really.  They want a vision they can cling to.  'Maybe we will and maybe we won't' won't work.

The point is that so many voters are blind to the facts or ignore them. The Tories have been beyond rank rotten for years now but still got enough votes to win the last election. They've made a complete Horlicks over Brexit multiple times yet they are still in power and now they are preparing to throw their support wholly behind Coco the Clown to be the next PM. And despite all of that polls still have them as the most popular party (well in England and Wales anyway). Do not get me wrong the door is gapingly widely open for a new party but not one led by the loathed Milk Shake Kid. And not one not fully thinking through the future. I could easily see them winning many seats if they had a competent and respected leader and whose sole reason for being is rubbishing the EU. Politics is a far broader spectrum than that.

In 'England and Wales' maybe, but not in England and in Wales!

I hate this 'England and Wales' nonsense. 'Snowdon is the highest peak in England and Wales.' Which part of it is in England?

I cannot say how the Tories are doing seats-wise in Wales but do know the hotbed of their seats/support is England so I used the term England and Wales. The Tories have been a minority party in Scotland now for sixty years hence why I did not include Scotland in there.

It wasn't aimed at you, I just don't like the 'England and Wales' thing. Wales is quite solidly Labour-voting, although Plaid did gain another seat last time.

Hunt:

I want to make it clear to the EU that if they are not willing to engage, I won't keep kicking the can down the road. And I'll kick that can down the road until I make it clear to the EU that if they don't engage I will not keep kicking the can down the road. So of course I'll kick the can down the road to give time to the EU to change their mind and agree to engage or I will not kick the can down the road.


Hamlet! Cue music.

SecretFly wrote:Hunt:

I want to make it clear to the EU that if they are not willing to engage, I won't keep kicking the can down the road.  And I'll kick that can down the road until I make it clear to the EU that if they don't engage I will not keep kicking the can down the road.  So of course I'll kick the can down the road to give time to the EU to change their mind and agree to engage or I will not kick the can down the road.


Hamlet!   Cue music.

To be honest I have not got past the whole 'you losing your job is a price I am prepared to pay for a no deal Brexit' thing.

Yeah but I'll raise you 'Staying in is what you meant when you voted to Leave'.

Who's said that?

Yes, lost. Who actually said that?

"I was at an amazing company that manufactures steel wheels for offroad vehicles. They've got about half the European market sewn up.

"It employs just over 350 people just outside of Kidderminster. Their margins are about 4 per cent. A 10 per cent tariff on their products would wipe them out so there would be an economic impact of no deal.

"If that was the only way to deliver Brexit then I'm afraid we have to do that because that is what people have voted for and we are a democracy first and foremost."

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/17725870.anger-at-jeremy-hunts-comments-after-cookley-factory-visit/

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:"I was at an amazing company that manufactures steel wheels for offroad vehicles. They've got about half the European market sewn up.

"It employs just over 350 people just outside of Kidderminster. Their margins are about 4 per cent. A 10 per cent tariff on their products would wipe them out so there would be an economic impact of no deal.

"If that was the only way to deliver Brexit then I'm afraid we have to do that because that is what people have voted for and we are a democracy first and foremost."

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/17725870.anger-at-jeremy-hunts-comments-after-cookley-factory-visit/

Well, he's right on that score.  Sometimes certain sections of society suffer when people vote.  It's virtually a certainty.  Most extreme example being soldiers sent to die in war.  

On my comment?  Well, it's been implied by many commentators since the Referendum.  Here's one example I suppose.  Gina Miller to Jacob Rees-Mogg:  "And then you come to the idea that, you know, it's what the will of the people wanted.  How on Earth do you actually know what was in the mind of people when they voted?  Stop talking about things you have no idea about."

Nobody questions the true intent of those that voted Remain.  By implication though, Leave voters are told by some very passionate Remainers that they might not have intended their vote to mean Leave at all, albeit that being the other blunt option on the ballot paper.

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:"I was at an amazing company that manufactures steel wheels for offroad vehicles. They've got about half the European market sewn up.

"It employs just over 350 people just outside of Kidderminster. Their margins are about 4 per cent. A 10 per cent tariff on their products would wipe them out so there would be an economic impact of no deal.

"If that was the only way to deliver Brexit then I'm afraid we have to do that because that is what people have voted for and we are a democracy first and foremost."

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/17725870.anger-at-jeremy-hunts-comments-after-cookley-factory-visit/

Well, he's right on that score.  Sometimes certain sections of society suffer when people vote.  It's virtually a certainty.  Most extreme example being soldiers sent to die in war.  

On my comment?  Well, it's been implied by many commentators since the Referendum.  Here's one example I suppose.  Gina Miller to Jacob Rees-Mogg:  "And then you come to the idea that, you know, it's what the will of the people wanted.  How on Earth do you actually know what was in the mind of people when they voted?  Stop talking about things you have no idea about."

Nobody questions the true intent of those that voted Remain.  By implication though, Leave voters are told by some very passionate Remainers that they might not have intended their vote to mean Leave at all, albeit that being the other blunt option on the ballot paper.

Look, a squirrel!

Some people are complaining that the BBC may be biased.  Thinking about possible BBC bias - how much coverage has the BBC given to the weaknesses and shannigans that is part of the EU development and present?  Anybody that has studied the EU knows that it is  and has always been predominantly a political project.  There are problems with the EU and there are problems coming out of the EU.  But the BBC and a large section of the remainer side have turned it into a morality and personality issue.

Indeed they have. They've given countless hours' coverage to Nigel Farage. A man who is entirely personality and very little substance. Just look what happened when he got his Brexit. He vanished. Then look at him now, a single issue party with no policies.

Remember when we had to vote Brexit to save the fishing industry, now Hunt is promising a bail out in the event of No Deal.

One of these days the people will realise they were lied to systematically, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:"I was at an amazing company that manufactures steel wheels for offroad vehicles. They've got about half the European market sewn up.

"It employs just over 350 people just outside of Kidderminster. Their margins are about 4 per cent. A 10 per cent tariff on their products would wipe them out so there would be an economic impact of no deal.

"If that was the only way to deliver Brexit then I'm afraid we have to do that because that is what people have voted for and we are a democracy first and foremost."

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/17725870.anger-at-jeremy-hunts-comments-after-cookley-factory-visit/

Well, he's right on that score.  Sometimes certain sections of society suffer when people vote.  It's virtually a certainty.  Most extreme example being soldiers sent to die in war.  

On my comment?  Well, it's been implied by many commentators since the Referendum.  Here's one example I suppose.  Gina Miller to Jacob Rees-Mogg:  "And then you come to the idea that, you know, it's what the will of the people wanted.  How on Earth do you actually know what was in the mind of people when they voted?  Stop talking about things you have no idea about."

Nobody questions the true intent of those that voted Remain.  By implication though, Leave voters are told by some very passionate Remainers that they might not have intended their vote to mean Leave at all, albeit that being the other blunt option on the ballot paper.

It would be helpful to know what Gina Miller was replying to there, Fly. Could Rees-Mogg have been talking about leaving the single market or the customs union, neither of which were mentioned on the ballot paper? The referendum question was indeed blunt!

Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.  The Remain people didn't need a bible of words on the paper before they marked their part of the paper.  Remain meant Remain...not Remain but Leave a little or Remain but demanding some take back of Authority to London.  Nope...just Remain.

Indeed Remain - had it passed - placed the UKs MPs/MEPs in a potentially dangerous guagmire of their own as I think Cameron at the time was mouthing something about remaining in a restructured Europe...a modified Europe. Well, had Remain won and had he returned to Europe telling Brussels that he wanted an overhaul of the EU as that is what his public voted for...well, some smart EU negotiator would have undoubtedly told him his people voted for no changes but only to Remain in that which currently exists. No mandate to force change on the EU! Just 'Remain'.

But that's all just yesterday's news. Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum. Simple.  "You really meant you wanted to stay in when you voted Leave."

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.

Leave meant no longer being a member state of the European Union. Just that. No asterisks. No mention of the single market or customs union.

Brexit is a mixed message. If it meant the same thing to everyone, we'd have left by now.

I've already made this point, but there are a number of MPs, never mind citizens, who want to leave the EU but certainly don't want to leave without a deal.

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.  The Remain people didn't need a bible of words on the paper before they marked their part of the paper.  Remain meant Remain...not Remain but Leave a little or Remain but demanding some take back of Authority to London.  Nope...just Remain.

Indeed Remain - had it passed - placed the UKs MPs/MEPs in a potentially dangerous guagmire of their own as I think Cameron at the time was mouthing something about remaining in a restructured Europe...a modified Europe.  Well, had Remain won and had he returned to Europe telling Brussels that he wanted an overhaul of the EU as that is what his public voted for...well, some smart EU negotiator would have undoubtedly told him his people voted for no changes but only to Remain in that which currently exists.  No mandate to force change on the EU!  Just 'Remain'.

But that's all just yesterday's news.  Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum. Simple.  "You really meant you wanted to stay in when you voted Leave."

Pity the ERG voted against leaving when May's bill came up in Parliament. I guess they didn't realise what the people voted for.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.

Leave meant no longer being a member state of the European Union. Just that. No asterisks. No mention of the single market or customs union.

Brexit is a mixed message. If it meant the same thing to everyone, we'd have left by now.

I've already made this point, but there are a number of MPs, never mind citizens, who want to leave the EU but certainly don't want to leave without a deal.

The 'deal' is an assumed 'trap' for those that want to Leave.  Non-time stamped Backstop is legal quicksand as in theory Deal 'talks' could last eternally as the UK remained in the EU, paying and voting, until a deal was agreed in 3866. Leavers aren't dumb.  Backstop is a designed rat trap.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.  The Remain people didn't need a bible of words on the paper before they marked their part of the paper.  Remain meant Remain...not Remain but Leave a little or Remain but demanding some take back of Authority to London.  Nope...just Remain.

Indeed Remain - had it passed - placed the UKs MPs/MEPs in a potentially dangerous guagmire of their own as I think Cameron at the time was mouthing something about remaining in a restructured Europe...a modified Europe.  Well, had Remain won and had he returned to Europe telling Brussels that he wanted an overhaul of the EU as that is what his public voted for...well, some smart EU negotiator would have undoubtedly told him his people voted for no changes but only to Remain in that which currently exists.  No mandate to force change on the EU!  Just 'Remain'.

But that's all just yesterday's news.  Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum. Simple.  "You really meant you wanted to stay in when you voted Leave."

Pity the ERG voted against leaving when May's bill came up in Parliament. I guess they didn't realise what the people voted for.

Are you a member of ERG?

Then we're in a pickle, aren't we? A pickle that repeating 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'Leave means Leave' won't solve. All the slogans in the world won't make this complicated thing easy.

No name Bertie wrote:Some people are complaining that the BBC may be biased.  Thinking about possible BBC bias - how much coverage has the BBC given to the weaknesses and shannigans that is part of the EU development and present?  Anybody that has studied the EU knows that it is  and has always been predominantly a political project.  There are problems with the EU and there are problems coming out of the EU.  But the BBC and a large section of the remainer side have turned it into a morality and personality issue.

The BBC is a big organisation, and I am concerned with how much people want to read into the situation. I do think it is easy to pick up on some general and specific issues.

The general issue is the feeling that in what is presented as an attempt to keep balance in discussions wacky theorists can be given the same weight as people whose actual job is to understand all of this. (But - you know - we have apparently had enough of experts).

A couple of examples of specifics.
1) Michael Dougan and never being seen on the BBC
2) Question time never apparently inviting an MEP to appear unless they are Brexit/UKIP.
3) The Cambridge Analytica story that somehow disappeared from the BBC schedules when it was being reported elsewhere.

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:"I was at an amazing company that manufactures steel wheels for offroad vehicles. They've got about half the European market sewn up.

"It employs just over 350 people just outside of Kidderminster. Their margins are about 4 per cent. A 10 per cent tariff on their products would wipe them out so there would be an economic impact of no deal.

"If that was the only way to deliver Brexit then I'm afraid we have to do that because that is what people have voted for and we are a democracy first and foremost."

https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/17725870.anger-at-jeremy-hunts-comments-after-cookley-factory-visit/

Well, he's right on that score.  Sometimes certain sections of society suffer when people vote.  It's virtually a certainty.  Most extreme example being soldiers sent to die in war.  

On my comment?  Well, it's been implied by many commentators since the Referendum.  Here's one example I suppose.  Gina Miller to Jacob Rees-Mogg:  "And then you come to the idea that, you know, it's what the will of the people wanted.  How on Earth do you actually know what was in the mind of people when they voted?  Stop talking about things you have no idea about."

Nobody questions the true intent of those that voted Remain.  By implication though, Leave voters are told by some very passionate Remainers that they might not have intended their vote to mean Leave at all, albeit that being the other blunt option on the ballot paper.

Yes. But then there is a viable alternative where those jobs are protected.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.  The Remain people didn't need a bible of words on the paper before they marked their part of the paper.  Remain meant Remain...not Remain but Leave a little or Remain but demanding some take back of Authority to London.  Nope...just Remain.

Indeed Remain - had it passed - placed the UKs MPs/MEPs in a potentially dangerous guagmire of their own as I think Cameron at the time was mouthing something about remaining in a restructured Europe...a modified Europe.  Well, had Remain won and had he returned to Europe telling Brussels that he wanted an overhaul of the EU as that is what his public voted for...well, some smart EU negotiator would have undoubtedly told him his people voted for no changes but only to Remain in that which currently exists.  No mandate to force change on the EU!  Just 'Remain'.

But that's all just yesterday's news.  Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum. Simple.  "You really meant you wanted to stay in when you voted Leave."

Pity the ERG voted against leaving when May's bill came up in Parliament. I guess they didn't realise what the people voted for.

Are you a member of ERG?

What do you think?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Then we're in a pickle, aren't we? A pickle that repeating 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'Leave means Leave' won't solve. All the slogans in the world won't make this complicated thing easy.

Remove Backstop...possible Deal.  It's simple.  

Election or remove Backstop as gun-to-the-head non-moveable obstacle.  

I think the two of us are providing a valuable service here, Luckless.  Think we've done the circle on this now a few times and each time we get back to only two options for possible movement - Election or End of Backstop Guarantee.

Someone phone Boris , Hunt, Corby and the other boys.  They need to be looking at 606!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.  The Remain people didn't need a bible of words on the paper before they marked their part of the paper.  Remain meant Remain...not Remain but Leave a little or Remain but demanding some take back of Authority to London.  Nope...just Remain.

Indeed Remain - had it passed - placed the UKs MPs/MEPs in a potentially dangerous guagmire of their own as I think Cameron at the time was mouthing something about remaining in a restructured Europe...a modified Europe.  Well, had Remain won and had he returned to Europe telling Brussels that he wanted an overhaul of the EU as that is what his public voted for...well, some smart EU negotiator would have undoubtedly told him his people voted for no changes but only to Remain in that which currently exists.  No mandate to force change on the EU!  Just 'Remain'.

But that's all just yesterday's news.  Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum. Simple.  "You really meant you wanted to stay in when you voted Leave."

Pity the ERG voted against leaving when May's bill came up in Parliament. I guess they didn't realise what the people voted for.

Are you a member of ERG?

What do you think?

Oh sorry...only the Alt-View folks here must answer questions.  Keeps slipping my mind, I do apologise.

I think most of the people who voted in the Referendum (Remain or Leave) are not members of the ERG.

Therefore ERG = irrelevant.  

So to recap

"Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum"

Let me also throw in: Conservative and Labour, just to keep things cosy for the ever offended 'Everyone is to blame' crowd.

SecretFly wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.

Leave meant no longer being a member state of the European Union. Just that. No asterisks. No mention of the single market or customs union.

Brexit is a mixed message. If it meant the same thing to everyone, we'd have left by now.

I've already made this point, but there are a number of MPs, never mind citizens, who want to leave the EU but certainly don't want to leave without a deal.

The 'deal' is an assumed 'trap' for those that want to Leave.  Non-time stamped Backstop is legal quicksand as in theory Deal 'talks' could last eternally as the UK remained in the EU, paying and voting, until a deal was agreed in 3866. Leavers aren't dumb.  Backstop is a designed rat trap.

Eh? But we're a sovereign Nation. Great Britain and all that. Surely, if we felt the talks were dragging on, we'd simply walk away. After all, isn't that what Boris et al are saying we can do as it stands now? I smell something that's normally associated with male members of the bovine class...

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Leave meant Leave.  On the ballot paper, Luckless.  That's all it meant.  The beauty is the bluntness.  No mixed messages.  

People knew what they were voting for.  No context needed.  The Remain people didn't need a bible of words on the paper before they marked their part of the paper.  Remain meant Remain...not Remain but Leave a little or Remain but demanding some take back of Authority to London.  Nope...just Remain.

Indeed Remain - had it passed - placed the UKs MPs/MEPs in a potentially dangerous guagmire of their own as I think Cameron at the time was mouthing something about remaining in a restructured Europe...a modified Europe.  Well, had Remain won and had he returned to Europe telling Brussels that he wanted an overhaul of the EU as that is what his public voted for...well, some smart EU negotiator would have undoubtedly told him his people voted for no changes but only to Remain in that which currently exists.  No mandate to force change on the EU!  Just 'Remain'.

But that's all just yesterday's news.  Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum. Simple.  "You really meant you wanted to stay in when you voted Leave."

Pity the ERG voted against leaving when May's bill came up in Parliament. I guess they didn't realise what the people voted for.

Are you a member of ERG?

What do you think?

Oh sorry...only the Alt-View folks here must answer questions.  Keeps slipping my mind, I do apologise.

I think most of the people who voted in the Referendum (Remain or Leave) are not members of the ERG.

Therefore ERG = irrelevant.  

So to recap

"Today many politicians don't want to honour the wish of the people spoken in the Referendum"

Let me also throw in: Conservative and Labour, just to keep things cosy for the ever offended 'Everyone is to blame' crowd.

Yes, but I can understand why some Remain-thinking politicians would want to thwart Leave. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can understand it.
But when Brexiteer MPs thwart Brexit, it can only mean that they think 'Leave doesn't mean Leave'.
If only they'd listen to you.

An overview of where Politics is at in this moment in time is the Shadow Chancellor asking the Chancellor in the Commons to back a VONC if the next leader tries to push through no deal....The Chancellor replying "This House has to stop No deal at all costs.."

Johnson can't get a better deal...The EU know No deal will hurt the UK so don't need to negotiate.....They know the Commons will stop it....

So all this garbage about putting No deal back on the table is water off a duck's back to Juncker and Co..

They don't buy it....

Johnson is going to be in deep trouble with all the garbage he is coming out with when his deluded followers realise he is a windbag...

Which is why there will be a GE sooner rather than later....They have to take Corbyn on because Johnson loses to anyone else.....Corbyn won't be around forever.

Might not even be Labour who are the main threat in a GE.

Spouting a load of **** he cant back up has gotten Boris this far in life, why stop now.

GSC wrote:Might not even be Labour who are the main threat in a GE.

Spouting a load of **** he cant back up has gotten Boris this far in life, why stop now.

First past the post kills the Lib Dems.....Lib Dems can finish 10 points ahead of Labour and have a 1/3 of their seats...

Shocking YG poll for Labour....

Con 24
Brex 23
Lib 20
Lab 18...

Big decision for Corbynistas.....Do they stay pure or do they replace the leader and compromise on the agenda..

Preferably the latter.

I'd like to see how this would equate to seats at Westminster. But I don't know what more it's going to take for Labour members to act. It's not just the party's non-stance on Brexit, it's Corbyn. Middle England is frankly scared of him, and it's not even important whether it's justified or not. And that fear of Corbyn must go some way to explaining why so many people can look at the Conservative's record in government and say 'same again'.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'd like to see how this would equate to seats at Westminster. But I don't know what more it's going to take for Labour members to act. It's not just the party's non-stance on Brexit, it's Corbyn. Middle England is frankly scared of him, and it's not even important whether it's justified or not. And that fear of Corbyn must go some way to explaining why so many people can look at the Conservative's record in government and say 'same again'.

I'd be shocked by people saying they are scared of JC. Less so if they said how scared they were by his incompetence.

Corbyn's Labour is very different to New Labour, at least in the eyes of the people who went from the Conservatives to New Labour in 1997. I think he's been portrayed quite successfully as a hard-left Marxist - and it hasn't taken much spin to do it. Labour needs those voters, but I don't think they grasp that they won't automatically get the votes of those who don't like the current government.

I'd argue it's probably more trying as hard as possible to avoid having an actual position on Brexit

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Corbyn's Labour is very different to New Labour, at least in the eyes of the people who went from the Conservatives to New Labour in 1997. I think he's been portrayed quite successfully as a hard-left Marxist - and it hasn't taken much spin to do it. Labour needs those voters, but I don't think they grasp that they won't automatically get the votes of those who don't like the current government.

And he doesn't do much about it. He seems more content to blame the media and keep a low profile instead of engaging. It is the sort of thing that works well with the dedicated following but does very little to persuade anyone from outside it.

Precisely. Keeping a low profile means allowing his opponents to define him. And you'll get people defending him by saying that Labour did better than expected at the last general election. Well, yes it did, but it still wasn't in power at the end of it.

GSC wrote:I'd argue it's probably more trying as hard as possible to avoid having an actual position on Brexit

You need to know what a party intends to do if it comes to power - even if they wouldn't be able to do it. Why would you vote for Labour if you don't know what they would do?

Plaid Cymru and the Greens not fielding candidates for the Brecon and Radnorshire by election to avoid splitting the remain vote. LDs were 2nd last time

Whilst I disagree with Corbyn's approach to Brexit, he's far more active than people give him credit for, but the mainstream media chooses to ignore this and most of the time only talk about Labour when there's anti-semitism accusations, Tom Watson manouevrings or splits on Brexit to report on - that's the chosen narrative.

I think under Corbyn Labour have pretty much written off any fair coverage* from most of mainstream media and instead are concentrating on social media - will be interesting to see how effective this is.

I do believe though that assuming we're going to have a general election soon, Labour should play it a bit differently to last time round.  Whilst I think they should stick to a radical platform (a lot of these policies are popular amongst electorate) I think they should involve more of the shadow cabinet this time round - utilise Keir Starmer who can successfully court remain-minder voters, put people like Angela Rayner who is a good down-to-earth communicator at forefront of campaign, in addition to Corbyn himself.

With regards to Brecon and Radnorshire, a smart move from Plaid Cymru and Green - this is a v important by-election and the parliamentary arithmetic is crucial - a Lib Dem MP makes a big difference on key Brexit related votes with wafer-thin majorities.

* - doesn't apply during general elections as broadcasters are required under electoral law to comply with rules on fair broadcasting.

I agree with parts of it but cant agree on Labours brexit position.

Being cynical, it seems to be pretend to have a position while the Tories deliver something then self destruct. It has about as much substance as Boris or Hunt pretending they can renegotiate a deal

@ GSC, true, but isn't that always the luxury of being in opposition? I don't recall the Tories having any useful constructive suggestions for dealing with the big financial crisis in 2007/8 (they wanted even more lax financial controls than Brown permitted leading up to the crash) yet that didn't stop them from profiting from the issue.

I think Labour have come out pretty clear against a No Deal Brexit, but there isn't much more beyond that. One school of thought is that going in fully for Remain would be a 'trap' for Corbyn leading to them losing huge chunks of support to Brexit party, propelling the Tories into power with a larger majority. However, given that the chances of securing a Norway style arrangement appear to have faded, it looks increasingly likely we're heading for No Deal or 2nd referendum and Labour need to shift position accordingly.

Yeah but on Brexit its backfired I think, staying on the fence has seen them excluded from people who pick a side

Wishful thinking is a great booster for enthusiasm but again, I ask the question, would the Majority of Corbynite Labour supporters - the vehement anti-Blairites as it were - truly be courted by Remain-minded Keir Starmer?

And if not then why suggest him?  If you want to encourage Remainers whilst holding onto Eurosceptics, whilst holding the hand of staunch Brexiteers, whilst hugging die-hard European Integrationists.....well, what the hell kind of party are you?  A dead one most likely.  
People want firm colours hoisted.  They want to know what ship they are sailing on.  You just can't bluff your way through these realities using old style fence sitting and duplicity.  The public won't buy these old tricks.

If part of the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn is that hes not a traditional politician, it's not a great look that Labour have taken a backseat on the most important issue in years because they viewed it politically convenient to not be on a side.

@SecretFly: Bluffing his way through realities maybe where Boris comes unstuck. To get to where he has as next Tory leader he's obviously made some promises to the ERG which he is really going to be able to struggle to keep and he will reap the backlash from this - this autumn is likely to be v volatile.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Shocking YG poll for Labour....

Con 24
Brex 23
Lib 20
Lab 18...

Big decision for Corbynistas.....Do they stay pure or do they replace the leader and compromise on the agenda..

Preferably the latter.

Easiest job in the world for Boris. Promise no-deal, GE in early October, destroy the Brexit Party, allow Labour and the LDs to rip shreds out of each other's vote, win a huge majority, job done.

Your plan assumes a huge chunk of the electorate wants a no-deal Brexit.

Only a narrow majority of voters wanted Brexit in 2016, and that was when a deal with the EU was a given. I'd say it's highly unlikely that they're all fine with us now leaving without one.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Your plan assumes a huge chunk of the electorate wants a no-deal Brexit.

My plan assumes Boris will capture most of those who currently say they will vote for the Brexit Party. He can easily get 35% minimum of the vote in a GE if he does that which, because of FPTP and Labour's troubles, would be enough for a sizeable majority.

Again, you seem to be assuming that all those who voted Conservative last time out will be on board with a no-deal Brexit.