YepRees Mogg isn't interested in becoming PM. He's only after his bank balance.
I think he’s interested but not now. He isn’t thick enough to be left holding the Brexit baby. Think we’ll see a few more conspiring not to be left to the membership vote either.
I still think he is more interested in making money out of Brexit than he is in leading the country.I think he’s interested but not now. He isn’t thick enough to be left holding the Brexit baby. Think we’ll see a few more conspiring not to left to the membership vote either.
I get the hard left gammons like mcluskey are probably feeling at bit bruised at the collapse in labours vote, but they should really be looking at themselves shouldn’t they. I mean its a bit of a feck up isn’t it.
Think you'll find that Corbyn's played a blinder.I get the hard left gammons like mcluskey are probably feeling at bit bruised at the collapse in labours vote, but they should really be looking at themselves shouldn’t they. I mean its a bit of a feck up isn’t it.
4d chess eh.Think you'll find that Corbyn's played a blinder.
The only person in the UK to miss more open goals than Jesse Lingard.Think you'll find that Corbyn's played a blinder.
This is so irritating.The only person in the UK to miss more open goals than Jesse Lingard.
Paul thinks young people getting rid of their iPhones would solve the housing crisis. Plus I think he's said he would have voted tory in 2015 .This is so irritating.
The Brexit party is in a massive lead. If you add UKIP and the Conservatives it is close to 50% votes for Leave. If you add Lib Dems and Greens (after all, as you and everyone else in this thread have said, Labour is a brexit party), it is *not* close to 50% for remain.
The fallacy is that there is some mass of Remain voters waiting to jump ship to Labour in a parliamentary election, which can offset Leave losses, and I just don't see it.
They might well do better, there's no guarantee of it (they might do worse too). There's also no guarantee that a second referendum wouldn't be Leave again.
It's a Brexit party because of Corbyn and the people pulling his strings and moving his mouth. But not sure it is seen as a Brexit party or a Remain party or an anything party by everyone.This is so irritating.
The Brexit party is in a massive lead. If you add UKIP and the Conservatives it is close to 50% votes for Leave. If you add Lib Dems and Greens (after all, as you and everyone else in this thread have said, Labour is a brexit party), it is *not* close to 50% for remain.
The fallacy is that there is some mass of Remain voters waiting to jump ship to Labour in a parliamentary election, which can offset Leave losses, and I just don't see it.
They might well do better, there's no guarantee of it (they might do worse too). There's also no guarantee that a second referendum wouldn't be Leave again.
And you think the soviets would solve itPaul thinks young people getting rid of their iPhones would solve the housing crisis. Plus I think he's said he would have voted tory in 2015 .
But anyway something something Corbyn is rubbish.
I don't think there's a way for them to win votes. The question is how they can lose these fewest seats/votes.It's a Brexit party because of Corbyn and the people pulling his strings and moving his mouth. But not sure it is seen as a Brexit party or a Remain party or an anything party by everyone.
Trying to be everything but actually being nothing will not win them votes.
?And you think the soviets would solve it
I like to see the best in people and hope that no sane individual would think Corbyn is going to turn the UK into the Soviet Union(Although it would one way to fix the housing crisis)
Maybe not but having a strong leader and a strong position against the worst government even in my long living memory might helpI don't think there's a way for them to win votes. The question is how they can lose these fewest seats/votes.
Again, I'm not sure if this is the right strategy. But it's not an "open goal" to victory if Labour just supported Remain.
*in parliamentary, not European elections
Can only imagine what could have been with Owen Smith in charge. What a loss.Maybe not but having a strong leader and a strong position against the worst government even in my long living memory might help
Lib Dems just need a decent charismatic leader and they could do very well next election. Enter David Milliband?
Didn't mean I find him charismatic. More that he is probably eyeing it up from across the pond.
No idea who he is but surely Labour must have a better candidate for leader than Corbyn.Can only imagine what could have been with Owen Smith in charge. What a loss.
The only one of the useless cnuts who had the balls to actually run against him.No idea who he is but surely Labour must have a better candidate for leader than Corbyn.
Or, you know, Labour could just show some principles.This is so irritating.
The Brexit party is in a massive lead. If you add UKIP and the Conservatives it is close to 50% votes for Leave. If you add Lib Dems and Greens (after all, as you and everyone else in this thread have said, Labour is a brexit party), it is *not* close to 50% for remain.
The fallacy is that there is some mass of Remain voters waiting to jump ship to Labour in a parliamentary election, which can offset Leave losses, and I just don't see it.
They might well do better, there's no guarantee of it (they might do worse too). There's also no guarantee that a second referendum wouldn't be Leave again.
do you think taking a firm stance for remain or leave would get them a big boost in parliamentary elections?Or, you know, Labour could just show some principles.
Taking a stance and arguing for it? Yes, absolutely. If the Labour party is only going to argue for things that voters already agree with, what is the point of them?do you think taking a firm stance for remain or leave would get them a big boost in parliamentary elections?
Corbyn's labour has taken a firm stance on economic issues and not on Brexit. The Brexit party has done it the other way around. They are 1 and 2 in national polling for Westminster.Taking a stance and arguing for it? Yes, absolutely. If the Labour party is only going to argue for things that voters already agree with, what is the point of them?
And which subset of electoral voters will they be gaining to outweigh the loss of Labour leave voters?Taking a stance and arguing for it? Yes, absolutely. If the Labour party is only going to argue for things that voters already agree with, what is the point of them?
Its closer than it should be. But i think the brexiters are more frenzied than remainers. Having meps doesn't really change a lotI am starting to think that Remain is not a majority in UK. Or at least not enough majority to deserve a second Referendum
How is it a failure of a project again?Why would anyone want to remain in this failure of a project?
The UK is lucky, your people had the balls to do the right thing and vote leave. Why do you want to ruin it so badly?
It's not. It's a failing project. Admittedly one that did a lot of good but right now it's looking very vulnerable.How is it a failure of a project again?
Is that due to the 'project' itself or due to the misinformation spouted by racist chancers across the eu, with the general public too thick to understand what the eu contributes and protects.It's not. It's a failing project. Admittedly one that did a lot of good but right now it's looking very vulnerable.
Umm... I'm unsure I see the relevance. The project has always been a democratic one.Is that due to the 'project' itself or due to the misinformation spouted by racist chancers across the eu, with the general public too thick to understand what the eu contributes and protects.
Democratic? So the people in my country votes for a certain policy but it's not allowed by the EU. How is that democratic? That's tyranny.Umm... I'm unsure I see the relevance. The project has always been a democratic one.
But, yeah, it's the fashy sorts who are screwing it up.
Yes! You're seeing the light! Our votes are largely meaningless in every and all elections and abused by the powers that be. Democracy is a con! Viva anarchy!Democratic? So the people in my country votes for a certain policy but it's not allowed by the EU. How is that democratic? That's tyranny.
When the EU first started out, it was more of a trade union. Now it's looking more likely that the long term vision is that of a central government for the EU region.
Then there's the other argument the currency. Using a single currency over so many different countries with such a different socio-economic background will never works and history backs that statement. Single currencies in such scenarios always fail.
Good morning Pierre-Joseph.Yes! You're seeing the light! Our votes are largely meaningless in every and all elections and abused by the powers that be. Democracy is a con! Viva anarchy!
Your tangent about currency is an odd one for an anarchist but it's a strong start nonetheless.
Well, that other party is capturing meaty chunks of labour voters whilst labour doesn't appear to be capturing leave voters from others. How confident are you Labour will not lose even more voters come GE if it doesn't change tack?And which subset of electoral voters will they be gaining to outweigh the loss of Labour leave voters?
Some of you are so caught up in Labour having to be flat out remain when we already have a party to capture those voters. If a non right wing goverment is going to be established it's likely going to be with Labour getting votes of some leave voters.
Labour going remain isn't gaining the votes of Tories (the Brexit Party), it's just taking them away from the Lib Dems and Green.
I'm hoping they now support a 2nd ref but if instead it's a general election they should run on a soft brexit and accept lost votes to the Lib Dems.