rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
the thing is that, while his stance on the EU is what made him so inept and labour so rudderless during the referendum, seeing as he actually wanted to leave it to begin with (just not for the same reasons as boris and farrage), this is exactly what makes him ideal to help britain exit the eu, if he was to come into power.

whether he can communicate any of that, in a way that matters to the electorate, is another issue.

this is true though -
Yet he shares one flaw: when it’s all about you and your purity, it is hard to be agile, allow your ideas to comingle with those of people who may be less pure, and change with a changing world.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Zoe Williams has been pretty fair on Corbyn all through afaik (unlike some of the wankers who the Guardian employs), and it's a decent article.

"I don’t agree that his time as leader has been a disaster – leave would have won the referendum regardless. It would always have turned the debate into a conversation about immigration and hammered out its racist cant, whoever opposed it." Good. Some common sense.

I personally don't want Corbyn to go because (a) I like him for what he's done for British politics, in shifting the terms of debate, and (b) because a lot of the people who are organising this coup are odious, as well as backstabbers from the word 'go'. But if there is someone equally principled who wants to be leader (which obviously was never Corbyn's dream), then...well, it needs to be considered. But only if that person is clearly not going to lead the Labour Party back down the "I want to lead a Labour Party that’s genuinely as passionate about wealth creation as we are about wealth distribution" route.

Article 50 - I've lost track. Is there anyone in the Tory Party who is actually signalling that they are going to trigger it? Like, ever?
 

vimothy

yurp
It probably will try to, but wouldn't that just legitimise the concerns of those who voted to leave?

Indeed. It's also worth asking whether, if Britain had voted to remain (say by an equally small margin), the EU would have been prepared to reform an such a way that would satisfy those who would like it to be more respectful of the nation state (and who are not limited to the UK, by any means).
 

rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
She's arguing that Labour should run on the policy that they won't invoke article 50, hence that's why she thinks Corbyn should go

the idea of not invoking it sounds like a bit of a fantasy.
and would also go against what people voted for, fair and square, regardless of how the campaigns were run.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I think you're likely right, but is it such a far-out fantasy? quite a few referendums have been re-run in the recent past, as far as i can see. I think there would be carnage if that scenario were to play out, but surely it's still possible, if for example a snap election is called?
 

rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
Zoe Williams has been pretty fair on Corbyn all through afaik (unlike some of the wankers who the Guardian employs), and it's a decent article.

starting to think 80% of guardian journalists are lefty posers.
they like a bit of cool left wing cred.
just not the actual ideologies.
corbyn meanwhile does believe in the ideology, but perhaps too rigidly.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I really think most broadsheet political journalists are awful. They see politics not as a forum in which matters of importance to millions of people can be debated, and lives made better, but an endless sequence of little dramas that they can prove themselves more knowledgeable about than others - they're interested in politics and not the political. it's all about being right, and pretending to be coming from a place of objectivity beyond everyone else (Glenn Greenwald skewered this absolutely in an article I'll have to dig out). I worked with a couple, and while they were by no means awful human beings away from the job, when they were in 'political journalist' mode they were terrible.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
watching parliamentlive.tv (wtf am i doing with my life?):

Cameron just laughed at the idea of having a second referendum, and no-one spoke up. That idea is clearly dead. But as for a parliamentary vote on Article 50 - much less clear, again and again Cameron saying that that's a matter for the next PM
 
Last edited:

sadmanbarty

Well-known member
nothing new being said there. everyone knows boris is a mendacious, insincere, blithe scumbag. why wasnt he being shouted down louder when it actually counted?

his column in the telegraph today -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/

"the pound remains higher than it was in 2013 and 2014"

Not quite true. Compared to the Euro, that's the case, but that's because the value of the Euro has also plummeted in the wake of the vote.

Compared to the dollar, the pound is in fact at a 30 year low.
 
Cl-R3lHWkAAcadD.jpg


:eek:
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I can't see how either calling a second referendum or refusing to invoke Article 50 could be anything other than a gift to Farage. His whole schtick is based around telling people that none of the three mainstream parties listens to them. Refusing to honour the will of the electorate will just prove him right.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yesterday, Cameron appeared nine times on the first page of a Google image search for 'worst uk prime minister ever'.

Today the count is 15.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Totally correct, T. However much we hate this we have to suck it up. Any attempt to undo this decision would be even more distasterous than where we are now. It was a referendum with no rules laid out for percentages, to reverse it might lead to a different result, but it would also exacerbate the divisions and make the hardcore Leavers more determined and possibly violent.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I think that's unfair on Cameron. I'm not a big fan of referendums, but the Scots and EU questions had to be faced at some point. Every government we've had has debated doing it, but couldn't face the possible outcome. You can say it was misguided, but you can't say it wasn't gutsy or even democratic. To argue against that may be, I suppose, sensible, but not a good look for nominal democrats.
 
Top