Because he has a popular mandate from a record half a million members.Why won’t he fuck off?
Entryists. I know many lifelong members of Labour, not to mention councillors and such who can't stand him. He should have been forced out to the SWP decades ago.Because he has a popular mandate from a record half a million members.
The PLP should represent the views of those members, but it doesn't. The reason Corbyn and Labour are so weak is that the PLP is made up of tory-lite MPs who've spent all their efforts trying to oust Corbyn since he was elected rather than spending their efforts doing what their job is - to represent members views.
Entryists. I know many lifelong members of Labour, not to mention councillors and such who can't stand him. He should have been forced out to the SWP decades ago.
Because he has a popular mandate from a record half a million members.
The PLP should represent the views of those members, but it doesn't. The reason Corbyn and Labour are so weak is that the PLP is made up of tory-lite MPs who've spent all their efforts trying to oust Corbyn since he was elected rather than spending their efforts doing what their job is - to represent members views.
Bollocks. Corbyn is not where any party should be. He has no interest in British politics really, only protesting that it must be wrong. He's made his life's mission to say that everything everyone else does in the West is wrong and voted against his whip accordingly, on everything. He has never had a realistic answer to anything and is being shown up now as leader of the opposition as fundamentally lazy in that regard.Corbyn IS what the Labour party should be though.
People have recognised that politics has stagnated, we have two political parties who agree with each other on everything, it's boring, the only thing that is debated is immigration.
I'd much rather see a more right wing Tories and a more left wing Labour and get rid of UKIP so we don't have to have the extremities in mainstream politics anymore.
Put it this way, I'd much rather see a Corbyn/Sanders revolution in politics than a Trump/Farage revolution, simply because I genuinely believe that Corbyn/Sanders have the people at the forefront of their image and genuinely want to change their countries to suit the populace better, at the detriment to the rich (hence why this very middle class forum is very hostile to him.) Whereas Trump just wants a better life for the rich whilst lying to the poor.
As for Corbyn himself, I'm not sure what the fucks going on where he can pose a decent opposition, you would have thought he would thrive in gaining mass support against the Tories, and historically has been in his character, but I suspect something is going on in the background where he's being held back or something.
Bollocks. Corbyn is not where any party should be. He has no interest in British politics really, only protesting that it must be wrong. He's made his life's mission to say that everything everyone else does in the West is wrong and voted against his whip accordingly, on everything. He has never had a realistic answer to anything and is being shown up now as leader of the opposition as fundamentally lazy in that regard.
If that's the case it's easily remedied by anyone interested enough in how the labour party is goverened eh?Entryists.
I also like the way he gets criticised for his stance on talking to terrorist groups; he was talking to the ANC and the IRA WAY before it was cool to do so, a bit like Hamas or central figures in Hamas will be central to a peaceful solution in Israel/Palestine.
Whilst I understand there's a degree of incompetence from him, I do feel like there has been a massive amount of character assassination by the Media, you know, the companies that are owned by people that will be targeted by a Corbynite Government.
Oh man. Raab is so fucking thick. He can’t interpret a simple graph:
View: https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1072744754096549888
I totally trust these people with our economy.
I may be missing something but it’s not an alternative to the backstop as far as I can see. If the EU were already convinced this would work it would be the deal. If they can be convinced in the transition period then it would mean that the backstop doesn’t need to be invoked but the backstop still needs to be in there now because they haven’t yet agreed that this proposal is feasible.Yesterday probably wasn't the best day to launch this, but this looks intriguing:
https://capx.co/a-better-deal-an-alternative-to-the-irish-backstop/
Well theyre not going to if the main negotiator accepts they wont before she even leaves the fucking house.I'm wondering how long you believe that the EU will change their stance.
If you can't accept that then there really is no hope for you.
All the key players on the EU side said they ain’t budging. Maybe accepting reality is better then pig-headed inability to face facts sometimes.Well theyre not going to if the main negotiator accepts they wont before she even leaves the fucking house.
She is broken.
Yesterday probably wasn't the best day to launch this, but this looks intriguing:
https://capx.co/a-better-deal-an-alternative-to-the-irish-backstop/
Text of EU summit conclusions on Brexit
UK withdrawal deal 'not open for renegotiation'
1. The European Council reconfirms its conclusions of 25 November 2018, in which it endorsed the Withdrawal Agreement and approved the Political Declaration. The Union stands by this agreement and intends to proceed with its ratification. It is not open for renegotiation.
2. The European Council reiterates that it wishes to establish as close as possible a partnership with the United Kingdom in the future. It stands ready to embark on preparations immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the UK’s withdrawal.
3. The European Council underlines that the backstop is intended as an insurance policy to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and ensure the integrity of the Single Market. It is the Union’s firm determination to work speedily on a subsequent agreement that establishes by 31 December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered.
4. The European Council also underlines that, if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would apply temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that a hard border is avoided. In such a case, the Union would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop, and would expect the same of the United Kingdom, so that the backstop would only be in place for as long as strictly necessary.
5. The European Council calls for work on preparedness at all levels for the consequences of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal to be intensified, taking into account all possible outcomes.