Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 58.3 % ❤ 2.9 % :thumbsup: 15.7 % 😯 1.5 % :grinning: 18.1 % 🧥 1 % 🙏 0.5 % 😟 1 % :cry: 1 %
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Cyclist wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:42 pm
What are you on, Red? What the fuck has Hercules the horse got to do with anything?
Isn't it a picture of Jezza being given a lift home? Sure that's him on the front seat next to the driver.
oboogie liked this
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
I'm not sure it's a bad idea at all. Brexit has happened, the choice is now between a bad deal and no deal. To delay or block the bad deal would lead to the worse outcome.

Starmer has a style. He lets things develop and then moves, rather than rushing in shouting and waving his arms. In time, hopefully a short time, the chickens of Brexit will come home to roost. Then we need him to have an alternative plan.
By Boiler
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:12 am
the choice is now between a bad deal and no deal.
Didn't a certain vicar's daughter have something to say on this matter...?

The question is: with Starmer four years away from an election, what could he offer that is better?
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
If they don't, there will be tweets and billboards declaring that Labour betrayed Britain, and they will be blamed for whatever we face in January. And people will believe them.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
"Labour refused to back our deal. Now look at the state we're in. Labour betrayed Britain."

Yes, I know that there's no logical connect, but we're so bloody polarised and tribal that it doesn't matter. It will be fucked up and the Tories will blame Labour and enough twats will believe it because it's simple and that's all that matters.

There's no positive outcome save for last minute tap out with a cry of "Norway!".
bluebellnutter liked this
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
I think they have to vote for it, but make sure it is clear that it is Johnson’s deal and it’s a vote for less harm and to give a foundation to build on, not an endorsement of what he has done. Brexit has happened. It can’t be reversed. No deal Brexit is not what the majority of anyone wants now or ever has, so that’s the pitch - making it clear they could do better, and will do better, but won’t seek to actively harm Britain any further than the damage the Tories have inflicted, and won’t allow the possibility of a more damaging no deal because Johnson can’t control elements of his own party.

Starmer’s relationship with the press is light years ahead of Corbyn’s. A consistent, solid line on this backed up with articles in the Tory press is doable.
Arrowhead liked this
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:55 am
Johnson has a majority of 80. He'll most likely get his deal through with Tory votes. We won't even get a proper impact assessment of it. Labour can't vote for that.
I think there's absolutely no easy answer, but my logic is:
1. it's happening anyway, as you say
2. abstaining gifts Johnson an "enemies of the people", "they haven't changed" attack line that he will exhaust forever
3. voting for it with caveats framed as "let's get on with things, but this is YOUR deal and you own it" looks proactive (when realistically you can't do anything BUT react)
4. it means if there *is* no deal, Labour can say they would have voted for the route of least harm but the failure to bring a deal is *entirely* on Johnson.

It's the path that gives Johnson the fewest avenues of cheap, lazy shots and backs him furthest into the corner.
  • 1
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 83
Roll Call

@Daley Mayle Yo! Are you OK? Not heard fro[…]

The Biden Presidency.

While I;m slightly staggered nothing happened,[…]

I stuck my todger through my next door neighbour[…]

It's not due to Williamson. He's lost, this is evi[…]