Non-Labour voting anti-HardBrexiters, would you vote Labour?
Discussion
Jimboka said:
technodup said:
id he though?
I know he says so, but he's a politician. And not a very good one at that.
Whatever you think of his beliefs, that statement is clearly not true.I know he says so, but he's a politician. And not a very good one at that.
And he failed to beat probably the worst Tory campaign ever, after a decade of 'Tory cuts' and him promising everyone free stuff.
He's a useless
. Only marginally more useless than the incumbent mind. And as for the OP, the only reason I'd consider voting Labour would be to f
k the SNP.Atomic12C said:
So if that is true, Labour are stating that if the negotiations result in a deal that is bad for Britain, and the government say that a 'no deal' situation is better for the national interest, that they would prefer to have a bad damaging deal that would go to only benefit the EU at the expense of the UK?
The Tory government are saying that no deal is better for the national interest. That doesn’t necessarily make it true, especially as they don’t seem to have fully explored what no-deal would look like. It means it is better politically for the tories to say so.
But in answer to the OP-no I wouldn’t vote for labour. They’re too much of a liability.
Voting for Labour under Corbyn to solve Brexit is like shooting yourself in the head to fix a migraine.
The original problem might be very unpleasant but the 'solution' is catastrophic.
One important thing to remember with Corbyn is that he has made a long career being on the opposite side to every argument. So being 'anti Brexit' doesn't mean he really is, and if things were slightly different he'd be back to being the one supporting the hardest Brexit possible. Don't look to him for a solution to anything.
The original problem might be very unpleasant but the 'solution' is catastrophic.
One important thing to remember with Corbyn is that he has made a long career being on the opposite side to every argument. So being 'anti Brexit' doesn't mean he really is, and if things were slightly different he'd be back to being the one supporting the hardest Brexit possible. Don't look to him for a solution to anything.
Jonesy23 said:
Voting for Labour under Corbyn to solve Brexit is like shooting yourself in the head to fix a migraine
The Economist had an interesting piece recently on Corbyn and McDonnell. They focused on fact, and in particular, C & M's open admiration of Marx and Marxist thinking. The editorial made clear that much of what Karl Marx predicted has come to pass, that much of his issues, based on inequality etc, were and are depressingly true. Inequality is growing and is unacceptable.
But The Economist also pointed out that the problem with Marxism isn't the diagnosis of the problem but the hugely destructive cure. Which was proven throughout the last century, not least in Russia. Indeed one look at Venezuela today confirms Marxism's cure kills the patient.
Ironically communist states like China and Vietnam have cleverly remained communist but embraced many aspects of so called ''capitalism''. The Chinese in particular admire wealth, and wealth creation. As the super smart Deng Xiaoping said in 1962 about business/private wealth creation ''it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice''.
The difference with Jeremy and his closest colleagues, is their politics are based on class anger and a deep hatred of the freedom required in a system to allow wealth creators to flourish, to allow a re-distribution across society. Deng understood this brilliantly. Jeremy in his heart does not.
Corbyn's recorded dislike of the EU is not IMO because of our freedom. It's because he passionately believes in total state control, his control, where business is a necessary evil to be squeezed hard for every penny. Grudgingly I would take modern day China over Corbyn and McDonnell's vision. The Chinese haven't grown to be a global powerhouse by driving out business and wealth. Quite the opposite, and while corruption is a big problem, there's no doubting Deng's strategy is paying off big time.
To your point, voting for Labour with Corbyn in control is very much shooting yourself in the head to cure a migraine.
Camlet said:
Inequality is growing and is unacceptable.
It is neither growing nor unacceptable.The idea that inequality is immoral, or bad, just makes no sense. If you let people keep a good fraction of their productive output, as you seem to need to do to keep people doing productive things, then it's right that people end up with differing amounts.
The drive to equalise what people have is corrosive to society, and to everyone's quality of life, eventually.
It starts when people are children. If two siblings each get a pound for some sweets, and one of them eats the whole bag on the way home, do people genuinely think that they one who decided to save some should be forced to share his with the glutton?
Then you move on to getting your first Saturday job. Should the kid who's willing to do the crappy shifts be able to get a shift allowance which means that he takes home more money?
At every level, and at every age, it is right that some people end up with more than others. Inequality is good, and right, as long as it comes from fairness, not unfairness.
If I am paid less than my less productive colleague because he's white, then that is wrong. If I can't get a good job because my parents don't have the right contacts, then that's wrong, too.
If, on the other hand, I stay on at school, then do a hard but valuable degree. If I follow it up with putting in the effort to get into a good, but hard career, and then spend twenty years doing my very best, every day, then it's not unfair if I end up with a nicer house and car than my school friend who preferred to bunk off for a smoke, and who took the first job that he could find at age sixteen, followed by spending twenty years complaining about the boss and doing as little as possible.
Fairness, that's what matters. Protection for people who genuinely can't look after themselves. Training for people who didn't "get" school the first time round, all of these things are good, but equality, it really isn't a positive thing.
TVR Moneypit said:
Typical of the left. Can you imagine the outcry in the Conservatives tried a similar trick?
Those cuddly conservatives would never put party before country, eh?To answer the question posed in the topic - yes. If I thought it would steer us away from a "hard Brexit", I'd vote Labour for the first time in my life. We can get ride of them after 5 years max - Brexit damage will take much longer to undo.
mx5nut said:
TVR Moneypit said:
Typical of the left. Can you imagine the outcry in the Conservatives tried a similar trick?
Those cuddly conservatives would never put party before country, eh?To answer the question posed in the topic - yes. If I thought it would steer us away from a "hard Brexit", I'd vote Labour for the first time in my life. We can get ride of them after 5 years max - Brexit damage will take much longer to undo.
I think you underestimate how much damage a Labour Government can do in a very short space of time
mx5nut said:
To answer the question posed in the topic - yes. If I thought it would steer us away from a "hard Brexit", I'd vote Labour for the first time in my life. We can get ride of them after 5 years max - Brexit damage will take much longer to undo.
The choice is listed below:Acceptable deal
Bad deal
No deal
The 'hard brexit' being the "no deal" option.
UK government is currently aiming for an 'acceptable deal' (soft brexit?), but stating that if the EU refuse to offer an acceptable deal then they are surely not going to accept a bad deal.
This then leaves the remaining option, a "no deal".
So the Labour position is that if the EU offer a 'bad deal', Labour would accept that 'bad deal' as opposed to the 'no deal'.
There is a basic logic step error in that position. A bad deal is not in the UK national interest.
I have heard some Labour MPs say "well simply go back and renegotiate for a better deal in that scenario".
Forgetting that the negotiation period will be over. The EU27 will have little interest in spending time and effort in a continuing negotiation that they know the 27 members are not all going to agree on. So the position that is reached in March2019 is likely the end result and the one that the UK is able to freely accept or decline.
This is the intended nature of the 2-year period. Otherwise negotiations could last for decades with both sides not going anywhere.
Atomic12C said:
The choice is listed below:
Acceptable deal
Bad deal
No deal
The 'hard brexit' being the "no deal" option.
UK government is currently aiming for an 'acceptable deal' (soft brexit?), but stating that if the EU refuse to offer an acceptable deal then they are surely not going to accept a bad deal.
This then leaves the remaining option, a "no deal".
So the Labour position is that if the EU offer a 'bad deal', Labour would accept that 'bad deal' as opposed to the 'no deal'.
There is a basic logic step error in that position. A bad deal is not in the UK national interest.
"No deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "bad deal". Despite the slogans, the Conservatives would be handing us a Labour government for years to come if they allowed it to happen.Acceptable deal
Bad deal
No deal
The 'hard brexit' being the "no deal" option.
UK government is currently aiming for an 'acceptable deal' (soft brexit?), but stating that if the EU refuse to offer an acceptable deal then they are surely not going to accept a bad deal.
This then leaves the remaining option, a "no deal".
So the Labour position is that if the EU offer a 'bad deal', Labour would accept that 'bad deal' as opposed to the 'no deal'.
There is a basic logic step error in that position. A bad deal is not in the UK national interest.
mx5nut said:
"No deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "bad deal". Despite the slogans, the Conservatives would be handing us a Labour government for years to come if they allowed it to happen.
How do you reach that conclusion?A 'bad deal' by definition is a bad deal. Something that does not work in the UK national interest.
A 'bad deal' would likely include many elements of a 'no deal' but also hand additional elements of control to the EU with the UK gaining nothing in return.
Conversely to what you say, a "bad deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "no deal".
Atomic12C said:
mx5nut said:
"No deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "bad deal". Despite the slogans, the Conservatives would be handing us a Labour government for years to come if they allowed it to happen.
How do you reach that conclusion?A 'bad deal' by definition is a bad deal. Something that does not work in the UK national interest.
A 'bad deal' would likely include many elements of a 'no deal' but also hand additional elements of control to the EU with the UK gaining nothing in return.
Conversely to what you say, a "bad deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "no deal".
If you think there will be solutions agreed to any of those things - that'll be the deal we're talking about, so it's not "no deal".
What "bad deal" would be worse than that?
mx5nut said:
Atomic12C said:
mx5nut said:
"No deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "bad deal". Despite the slogans, the Conservatives would be handing us a Labour government for years to come if they allowed it to happen.
How do you reach that conclusion?A 'bad deal' by definition is a bad deal. Something that does not work in the UK national interest.
A 'bad deal' would likely include many elements of a 'no deal' but also hand additional elements of control to the EU with the UK gaining nothing in return.
Conversely to what you say, a "bad deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "no deal".
If you think there will be solutions agreed to any of those things - that'll be the deal we're talking about, so it's not "no deal".
What "bad deal" would be worse than that?
mx5nut said:
Atomic12C said:
mx5nut said:
"No deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "bad deal". Despite the slogans, the Conservatives would be handing us a Labour government for years to come if they allowed it to happen.
How do you reach that conclusion?A 'bad deal' by definition is a bad deal. Something that does not work in the UK national interest.
A 'bad deal' would likely include many elements of a 'no deal' but also hand additional elements of control to the EU with the UK gaining nothing in return.
Conversely to what you say, a "bad deal" is orders of magnitude worse than a "no deal".
If you think there will be solutions agreed to any of those things - that'll be the deal we're talking about, so it's not "no deal".
What "bad deal" would be worse than that?
For example, the Spanish have unilaterally confirmed that in the event of a Hard Brexit, Brits will be allowed to stay, and they want to keep things as they are- 17 Million Brits visit Spain every year, and they will be ensuring that they can still come - so no flights will be grounded to Spain.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/22/u...
hyphen said:
Are you making things up?
For example, the Spanish have unilaterally confirmed that in the event of a Hard Brexit, Brits will be allowed to stay, and they want to keep things as they are- 17 Million Brits visit Spain every year, and they will be ensuring that they can still come - so no flights will be grounded to Spain.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/22/u...
Yes and that means allowing spanish imigrants to stay here, itll be no bueno when we impose limits on immigration from spainFor example, the Spanish have unilaterally confirmed that in the event of a Hard Brexit, Brits will be allowed to stay, and they want to keep things as they are- 17 Million Brits visit Spain every year, and they will be ensuring that they can still come - so no flights will be grounded to Spain.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/22/u...
mx5nut said:
"No deal" means nothing. British citizens across Europe with no right to live or work anymore. EU citizens in the same boat here. Flights grounded as no right to carry out their journeys. Lorries queued up at Dover and Calais... etc etc.
If you think there will be solutions agreed to any of those things - that'll be the deal we're talking about, so it's not "no deal".
What "bad deal" would be worse than that?
Can you seriously imagine any scenario where the airlines just stop flying? Honestly?If you think there will be solutions agreed to any of those things - that'll be the deal we're talking about, so it's not "no deal".
What "bad deal" would be worse than that?
Money talks. Whatever the outcome, business will continue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff