Do you have any references to back up your claims?

Quote ="IR80"Ah yes, YouGov from 2017, CEO a German, that's credibility for you.'" What relevance does the CEO being German have to the credibility of the data from YouGov? Given that the guy left Germany when he was 5 years old and has lived in the UK and US ever since, it seems like a somewhat misleading point as well. I’d have gone with him being a member Social Workers Student Society while he was at Oxford, if trying to imply a left-wing bias. Although that might be undermined by his having been a Conservative candidate in the 1997 General Election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Shakespeare Also, May 2017 - are you suggesting a massive sea-change in public opinion in the last 29 months?

Quote ="IR80"Ah yes, YouGov from 2017, CEO a German, that's credibility for you.'" What relevance does the CEO being German have to the credibility of the data from YouGov? Given that the guy left Germany when he was 5 years old and has lived in the UK and US ever since, it seems like a somewhat misleading point as well. I’d have gone with him being a member Social Workers Student Society while he was at Oxford, if trying to imply a left-wing bias. Although that might be undermined by his having been a Conservative candidate in the 1997 General Election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Shakespeare Also, May 2017 - are you suggesting a massive sea-change in public opinion in the last 29 months?

The last few posts encapsulate the frustration of the committed Labour supporter; what JC proposes is far from radical, by any measure - it's mostly democratic socialism of the Scandinavian model, and is centred mostly on reversing austerity, and renationalising utilities and services that are essential to the public. All policies that have been very successful in any number of countries. The problem here of course is that so many establishment figures get fat off the profits of providing the basics of life to the general public, many of them Tory MP's and even more of them Tory donors, that it serves them well to whip up a frenzy about JC as being a Marxist Trot, who will take away all privately owned assets and give them to homeless people.

In truth, most people are socialists - in that we believe in free education, free healthcare and people not starving to death or living in a cardboard box; the problem is that the 1% of people in this country who are insulated from the stresses and strains of daily life, by virtue of inherited wealth and privilege, control the narrative and somehow, manage to convince great swathes of the population to vote against their own interests - aided and abetted by a clique of multi-millionaire non-dom media barons, and a public service broadcaster filled with client journalists and courtiers.

Great post.

Spot on
Similar situation the US
Trump will win in 2020 based on nothing more than whipping a frenzy over whichever Democrat candidate wins simply by labelling them a "Socialist".
Millions of people will listen to soundbites of this and think the same thing over there that the Tories have whipped up about Corbyn (I'm not a massive fan but hes been labelled as some kind of Demon over here) and theyll vote for anyone But

We will decide on Decemberv12th, and cringebin can go to the Job Centre+

I agree with you in some ways. I'm not entirely opposed to public ownership of certain services as long as they are run effectively, and certainly nothing like they were prior to privatisation - some people' memories are easily clouded. But let's not forget the absolutely massive cost of privatisation and serious concerns over the willingness of public services to invest versus the need of private companies to invest.

Don't forget Corbyn himself has been pretty insulated from the stresses and strains of daily life. He had a slight sniff of a 'real' job in his youth and has enjoyed the Westminster bubble for decades.

Even if I agreed with *some* of his ideas, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike and distrust Jeremy Corbyn. Firstly (and of course you lot will wrap this up as right-wing hysteria), I abhor his past associations, which tell us more about his true loyalties than the current politician meticulously steered and distilled (and dressed) by his advisors. The outspoken, controversial and (in his favour) genuine politician has been watered down to hopefully maximise his appeal.

This is a man who invited Gerry Adams and two convicted IRA members to Westminster two weeks after the Brighton bombing, who lied about ever meeting members of the IRA, who was arrested for obstruction while protesting against the trial of the (guilty) Brighton bomber Patrick Magee, a man who attended over 70 Republican events while the IRA were active, a man who often expressed sympathy for dead terrorists over British soldiers.

A man who has barely disguised his antisemitic views by his hollow words and inaction over the rife and vicious antisemitism in the Labour party and amongst Labour members. I have no particular love for the policies of Israel and plenty of sympathy with Palestinians, but not to that degree. In that vein, this is a man who campaigned to overturn the convictions of the (guilty) Palestinian bombers of the Israeli Embassy and United Jewish Israel Appeal in 1994 for no real reason other than...well, I think it's probably obvious.

A man who calls Hamas and Hezbollah his friends. A man who will by nature condemn pretty much every single action of the British and Western military yet support violent groups. He called the death of Bin Laden a 'tragedy'. He called the Falklands War a 'Tory plot' and wanted to negotiated a 'joined administration' with Argentina. His views on ISIS were as evasive as ever, as was his response to the Russia novichok poisonings.

BTW I absolutely realise some of those quotes should be taken in context. But in politics words are everything. Either that he is not fit to lead, or he is happy to let his true views leak.

Some of his other policies - abolition of private schools, taking possession of vacant private property, inheritance tax proposals, Trident, etc are highly controversial and I could never vote for them.

He has shown himself as anti-UK, anti-West, anti-Capitalist, pro-Russian and when I put all of this together I find the prospect of Corbyn (and the extremist McDonnell) in power a worrying thing. Not to mention the calibre of those in his shadow cabinet such as Rayner and Long-Bailey and the racists such as Abbott and Lammy.

Oh, and for purely selfish and personal reasons I want to avoid a party of high taxation.

BTW, we already get free education and the NHS isn't free.

Gonna vote for Boris’s Tories then?

I’m voting Green, if they stand a candidate around here, I think.

This is where any arguments, no matter how reasonable-sounding, fall down. I got past the bit where you called him antisemitic but questioning people's loyalty to country, US Republican style, exposes your real, unpleasant, agenda.

Probably. I want to see Brexit done. Labour are out for my given reasons. Lib Dems nope for their Brexit policy. Greens likewise. Brexit Party and UKIP are a wasted vote. Not much else to vote for.



If Boris can deliver half the stuff he's been promising he'll do fine. He needs to stay focused and not revert to 'classic Boris'. If they manage their campaign well he will win with a majority. If something seriously 'inconvenient' crops up (as I'm sure Labour and the lefty media will ensure happens) we're heading for a hung Parliament again.

How much "lefty" media is there out there ??
There appears to be a hell of a lot more of the right wing persuasion and whilst I'm no fan of Corbyn, the media assassination of his character is significantly worse than anything that Blue Eyed Boris will ever endure.

Corbyn's only hope is for Farage and Boris to knock lumps out of each other (politically) and there still remains a strong chance of a hung Parliament, which will keep the merry go round spinning.

On question that should be answered before the off is, why the hell did we have the charade of The Queens Speech, which wax clearly some early electioneering by the Tories and should be fully called out and should Boris actually secure a majority, will there be another Queens speech ?

Plenty. Despite what some believe, the BBC is not some Tory puppet. QT's panels are consistently majority left and/or remain. Newsnight has always been left-leaning. Andrew Neill was a tw6t to everyone he interviewed whatever his personal views. Channel 4 News is hugely left leaning. The Indy, Guardian & Mirror are leftist. Even the Economist is brazenly left-wing these days.
However - perhaps more importantly in this day and age are the online influences; the places out youth go for their news: Huff Post, Buzzfeed, The Canary, Evolve Politics, Novara Media, Skwawkbox, Another Angry Voice, Joe - the vast majority of online media are massively left-leaning.


I agree, though even if Farage & Boris go head to head, Corby still has to contest with the Lib Dems, who are likely to steal many of his hard remain votes, and the Greens, who will attract many influenced by the climate emergency and Extinction Rebellion.

The Queen's speech was a time-killer. No-one actually listened to it. We all know that.

Boris doesn’t deliver on promises. It’s kind of his thing. Beneath his contrived bumbling affectations, he views himself as some sort of Ubermensch, above parochial bourgeois concerns about things like honesty. I, in contrast, view him as a conceited, narcissistic div and so assume that through a combination of lies and incompetence he won’t deliver half of what he’s promising. Those things he does get done, will no doubt be those I find least palatable.

I daresay he’ll win the upcoming GE though. His Brexit deal is hard enough to stop too much bleed to Farage, but dealy enough to get most of the remaining Tory wets on board. Labour’s fear of upsetting leavers or remainers has, in the end, upset both. The Lib Dems will pick up some seats, and the SNP will likely sweep Scotland, but it looks like 5 years of Boris Johnson as leader of her majesty’s government. 5 years. Raab, Mogg, Gove. 5 years. Feckin’ absurd.

I’d like to think this is as bad as it gets, but recent experience has shown me that, that is tempting fate.

As we slowly, finally approach the end of the divorce phase, I do wonder whether the difficulties in getting here have been more accidental-procedural, than reflecting underlying polarisation among the public. The conflict and angry blame game makes a more compelling news story, but was it really, mostly just a balls up in the way the original referendum was structured?

It’d be nice to think so, as we try to move on from it.

Key lessons, imo, are:

1. It is a bad idea for a Government to hold a referendum, when that Government favours the continuity position over the change position, and has no plan to implement the latter

2. It is a bad idea to have a referendum on a foreign policy issue ahead of agreement with foreign partners about what the change will look like. If we want to change domestic laws via referendum from time to time, that could work, as it can be enacted independently. But as an approach to Brexit, it was pretty daft.

Polls show a probable winning majority for Johnson. We'll see.
Polls don't usually take account of tactical voting and political parties doing their bit in standing down candidates. Both which will happen like never before.
Polls won't have taken into account the 2m people who have registered to vote in the past 8 weeks.
May was a dreadful election campaigner, Johnson isn't as bad but ain't good either. A polished performer from an opposition party would destroy him.
There is all to play for. Labour have started with the NHS which is a winner for them. Their ascertion that the NHS will be for sale to USA Pharma and Med Companies won't go down well to Leave or Remain voters. Johnson's closeness to Trump and his desperation for a FTA with America could well be his undoing.
Given the number of seats he's going to lose in Scotland, West of Bristol and London and South East I just can't see him winning a majority.
Unless Johnson wins an overall majority Brexit is dead!

So, prove me wrong.

I've outlined many reasons I distrust Corbyn, and how his response to world events is - almost without exception - never in support of this nation, but reeks of hand-wringing and excuse-making. He has consistently taken an apologist stance for Islamic extremism, Russian aggression, the IRA and others.

Answer me this: is Northern Ireland part of the UK? Do the majority of the population of NI identify as British or Northern Irish and wish to remain part of the UK? Do only a minority of the population support reunification (even amongst Catholics - just)? The answer to all of this, btw, is yes.
So, the British MP Jeremy Corbyn, in the face of an armed conflict on British soil, campaigned against his own people and the wishes of the majority of British citizens both in NI and the wider UK. Throughout the Troubles he supported and campaigned for the IRA and condemned the killing of Republican terrorists, all the while condemning the British Army and government for any activity damaging the Republican movement. He's the Lord Haw Haw of the Irish Republican movement.

Hardly pro-UK so far, is he?

Furthermore, he can never bring himself to condemn Islamic extremists without trying to bring moral equivalence to Western actions. He can only condemn ISIS if in the same breath he lambasts Western imperialists: ISIS is “brutal, yes, some of what they have done is quite appalling” but “likewise, what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling.” He could only say, “I have no support for ISIS whatsoever,” by comparing “The way in which they (the Mau Mau) had been treated by the British Army in Kenya in 1955 was disgusting.” He was only willing to concede that the 9/11 attacks were a tragedy only in the context of what he regards as equal tragedies - Bin Laden’s death, the Iraq War, the “attack on Afghanistan,” Guantánamo Bay, and Bagram.

My argument doesn't fall down in the slightest, because the evidence is out there. That you can't see it exposes your blinkered outlook.

Ahh I see. Anyone who questions the foreign policies of any British government is "anti-British". I'm with you, no wonder you have a warped view of who can and cannot be deemed to be patriotic.

I have no truck with Corbyn, am a member of a different political party and have never voted Labour. But I've got even less time for right wing extremists claiming for themselves the mantles of Britishness and of patriotism based on simplistic jingoism and Daily Mail levels of misinformation.

Ahh I see. Anyone who provides inconvenient facts about Jeremy Corbyn is a right wing, Daily Mail-reading, jingoistic extremist. Sorry but you'll have to tell me what the Mail prints these days, it's been a very, very long time. In the words of Ross Geller, "you could not be any more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful." Sling your insults elsewhere, they simply don't work on me.

Corbyn has a decades-long track record that speaks for itself. He doesn't simply question British foreign policy, he supports opposing views almost without fail. As I demonstrated, he will only ever condemn his violent pet causes by bringing equivalence to Western actions. One might almost say that if you are socialist, communist, Islamist or a person of colour, you're on Corbyn's list of acceptable causes but that's probably unacceptable.

Typical of the left, you choose to ignore the awkward truth staring us all in the face. You must be Lib Dem.



Sorry, I digress. Once again: prove me wrong. Less of the rhetoric. Let's have some facts from our resident EU academic. I've quoted plenty of Corbyn's own words in his own context. Misinformation? Let's see you prove it.

BTW, I never mentioned the word 'patriotism'.

That's pretty much how I see it too.
Labour, for all of it's confirmatory referendum promises, needed to pick a side in the Brexit debate and fully commit to it.
Unfortunately, the party is split down the middle on the issue and I believe that this will see them hit from both sides of the argument.
Anyone that wants "leave" will vote Tory or Brexit and anyone who wants to remain will vote Libdem (or SNP). Unless they come up with something really significant on Boris, a fatal blow, they could take a bath, similar to the shambles under Michael Foot and as you say, the thought of Johnson, Gove, Raab, Patel etc "leading" the country makes you want to emigrate.

Why?

Their position couldn't be more straightforward - it just happens to be a bit too grown up for most people to tolerate.

Especially for you, here it is in just 19 words:

"You can have a second vote on whether to choose a Labour Brexit, or remain in the EU."

Sorry Bren but, I've had this discussion with loads of my pals and for those not in the "Labour bubble", this is just an awful position.

Even IF Labour were to gain power and we had a "confirmatory vote" what on earth happens then ?
We've had political paralysis for the last 3 years and a second vote will merely prolong the uncertainty.

This is a policy that tries to keep everyone happy but, in the end, will please nobody.
Labour are equally (maybe even more) fractured on Brexit than the Tories and this policy just doesnt work.

It will all look great up until the point of the second vote and then we will be back in the brown stuff.

The only circumstance that this may have been a runner is, if there had been a huge swing in either direction on Leave / Remain, which there seems little evidence of and therefore, all this does is kill an amount of time and for those who voted out, just imagine how their anger would build.

Sadly, their solution will not solve the issue and it wont do anything to heal the deepening divisions in the country and all of this while the ecconomy further stagnates.

So what are you suggesting - crash out with no deal?

You seem to have a deep yearning for binary politics - a simple solution to an intractably complex situation - whilst simultaneously describing and acknowledging that complexity; it's a very Newsnight approach, whereby a narrative only works if there are two polar opposite positions to pit against each other. The last 3 years have very clearly demonstrated that both parliament and the public are hung on this matter - and the tribal, binary, black or white political model we use, simply doesn't solve it.

Your position is more confusing than Labour's.

This is a bit of a rant post, but it isn’t directed at you. It is just frustration and disappointment, and the prospect of what is to come.

It screams uncertainty and abdication of responsibility, a refusal to advocate or even take a position. Yes, I appreciate that politics should be more nuanced than it often is, but this isn’t clever on any level, imo, as policy or politics.

Eventually they have to choose, or why would anybody whose voting choice is heavily influenced by Brexit choose them? It’s a shrug, ‘I dunno, I just wish it’d go away, can you decide for us?’ approach.

Forced into a corner, Johnson did eventually stop pretending there was a magical solution to the NI border issue and chucked the DUP overboard. Whether is was good or bad, right or wrong, it was at least a decision.

What would happen if Labour won and negotiated a new softer Brexit deal? Would they stay neutral, or advocate that deal in the second referendum? They’re not going to win, so it is a moot point, but it’s such an unattractive policy, I half wonder whether they want to win this time. 5 years of Boris and the realities of a Tory Brexit, might leave them well positioned to win in 2024 with a new leader, but we have to survive those 5 years first.

Ultimately the country has to do something. The EU will eventually stop agreeing to extensions.

I think Labour could say ‘we’re going to respect the Brexit vote, but go for a deal that leaves us more closely aligned with the EU on trade and standards, in the interests of national prosperity and quality of life’. So they’re not upsetting the ‘concerns about EU immigration’ section of their base, and they hopefully allay the fears of workers and of businesses who rely on EU trade. The fans of Rees-Mogg and Farage won’t vote labour anyway, so no loss there. Some Labour remainers will switch to the Lib Dems maybe, but many would be sophisticated enough to vote tactically where relevant.

Or they could come out advocating Remain, to appeal to the young, liberal, metropolitan section of their support. The People’s Vote campaign imploding makes that more difficult now though.

Politics is complicated, and this is a difficult problem. I just don’t think you solve it by adding complexity and trying to ride two bikes at once.

Come on Bren, I think that you are being a little more than disingenuous there.

During any political campaign, any and every party needs a clear message and for 3 years, due to the split within it's membership and more importantly, its parliamentary party, Labours position has become more and more fudged.

Labour has gone from a party which was originally campaigning to remain, to a party that then became on of "leave" to now campaigning on neither.
Members of the shadow cabinet, most notably Thornberry, have said that they would negotiate a deal and then vote against it ??? and you question my position.
Anyone going into a negotiation has to first know exactly what they want. Firstly and ideal position and secondly, what they would accept and then strive to achieve one of these outcomes.
How the hell could Labour negotiate, when they dont even know if they want to be in or out - it's laughable and at the risk of repeating myself, they should have decided by now (it's been 3 years since the referendum), exactly what their position is.
They needed to grow a pair and fight to remain and not just try to wreck the Tory deal(s) in the hope of gaining power in the UK and both you and I are going to lose twice.
Very soon we will have a Tory government AND be out of the EU.

It's a bloody disgrace that a so called "remain" part has sat on the fence for 3 years and in Corbyn's case, didn't fight harder for remain in the first instance.
This may have rid us of Cameron and Osborne but, look what we have instead.

I'm seriously thinking of emigrating.