Jeremy Corbyn

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Imo a lot of it was a protest vote against the establishment from communities that were dismantled and forgotten about from the Thatcher Period. Yes FOM and sovereignty were important issues but the whole feel of the vote felt like a big middle finger to the establishment. I dont think centrists politicians arguing for more of the same would convince many leave voters whereas a progressive leader like Carolyn Lucas (i think you've suggested her previously) would at least be able to say "we've heard your concerns, we are going to fix them, but that is best done inside the EU"

nothing I said ruled any of that out.

But the tories aren't going to be promising the earth, and Labour - any 'version' of Labour - aren't in the position to.

And Corbyn tried that last time, with his half-arsed 'remain and reform' efforts that gave people the OK to vote out if they wanted.
(ironically today he's backing 'remain-and-can't-do-anything-to-change-it' which is just pathetic back against that).

The EU is worth staying in for its own reasons, reasons which are becoming clearer to the public. We don't need to have another vote about undeliverable unicorns, we need to keep it on what's relevant and do-able.

 

2 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I completely agree that there can't be factionalism and the remain camp must be united once the campaign starts, but I just feel that if remain wants to win it can't have prominent faces who are as representative of the establishment and metropolitan elite as Blair Chuka etc. In fact theyd be best served to lock Blair in a cupboard for the entire campaign 

I'd say that Blair is less toxic with the public at large than Corbyn, as it happens.

Perhaps it's Jez that should be locked up for the duration?   Cos he's never going to be part of a unified campaign (or do enthusiastic for the EU, as he showed last time).

[strummer77]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that only proves that another group to 'the Blairite group' is more concerned with 'the Blairite group' than they are the bigger issues. Twats.

Why the fuck do they think lifetime-brexiter/remain-and-reform-and-go-on-holiday/sit-on-the-fence/remain-and-can't-reform/dither/dither/dither Corbyn is going to be a better advocate?

The 'Blairite' group (I wouldn't call them that tbh, but the establishment group) that led the campaign last time ran an awful, arrogant operation that is a huge part of the reason we're in this mess.

They should be let nowhere near it.

Edited January 23, 2019 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, strummer77 said:

The 'Blairite' group (I wouldn't call them that tbh, but the establishment group) that led the campaign last time ran an awful, arrogant operation that is a huge part of the reason we're in this mess.

that will be the campaign that Corbyn refused to support and undermined.

And then went on holiday.

 

1 minute ago, strummer77 said:

They should be let nowhere near it.

They were pretty-much nowhere near it last time. It was all about Fat Dave and Boris.

And Corbyn was mostly no-where to be seen (tho he did get around a bit, preaching to the converted out of sight of the uninvited media).

[strummer77]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that will be the campaign that Corbyn refused to support and undermined.

And then went on holiday.

 

Corbyn was supposedly electoral poison back then but got criticised after as the reason the campaign lost... for not campaigning.

For the record I''m not saying Corbyn should lead it, he shouldn't, but the people who did last time should definitely not either.

 

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

They were pretty-much nowhere near it last time. It was all about Fat Dave and Boris.

And Corbyn was mostly no-where to be seen (tho he did get around a bit, preaching to the converted out of sight of the uninvited media).

But that power base most certainly were. And misjudged it. Mandelson was a key part of the remain campaign from around 2013

Edited January 23, 2019 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

Mandelson was a key part of the remain campaign from around 2013

he had a reported opinion on it, he wasn't part of the campaign. 

7 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

the people who did last time should definitely not either.

 

[strummer77]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he had a reported opinion on it, he wasn't part of the campaign. 

Not so sure about that... He met with Cameron and Osborne a lot from 2013 forming the campaign that would become Stronger In. Straw was involved too.

This article from just after the referendum details the failures quite well, and Mandelson's name crops up a fair number of times early on

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign

(The article says some stuff about Corbyn's involvement/lack of too)

Edited January 23, 2019 by strummer77

[Mr.Tease]

14 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

Not so sure about that... He met with Cameron and Osborne a lot from 2013 forming the campaign that would become Stronger In. Straw was involved too.

This article from just after the referendum details the failures quite well, and Mandelson's name crops up a fair number of times early on

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign

(The article says some stuff about Corbyn's involvement/lack of too)

Corbyn got a significant upgrade a few months before the general election- not sure if he got media training or what, but everyone saw the difference in the general election campaign. The referendum campaign was much earlier on, when things were much more shambolic and he wasn't as effective (and had a much less effective team around him). Critics can never seem to make up their mind if he's an all powerful god that had/has the power to stop brexit, or if they think he's an effective fool.

Blaming Corbyn for the brexit vote is daft (notice the other remain campaigners get a pass)- it was decades in the making and he did actually manage to get the labour vote out. Think his sceptical stance matched a lot of remainers (I voted remain but I have big misgivings with the EU). The idea that an ardent pro-EU zealot would have had greater success is again daft.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

Not so sure about that... He met with Cameron and Osborne a lot from 2013 forming the campaign that would become Stronger In. Straw was involved too.

This article from just after the referendum details the failures quite well, and Mandelson's name crops up a fair number of times early on

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign

(The article says some stuff about Corbyn's involvement/lack of too)

ah, you're right, he was a director of the campaign.

But so was Lucas, and so was (randomly) June Sarpong. It was a broad church.

The problem was not particularly the remain campaign, it was that brexit was everything to anybody - there was Boris and Farage and others saying about Norway, won't leave the SM, etc, promises on buses, easiest deal ever, free movement from Turkey, customs union, improved British business, glorious future, 'taking back control'. Etc, etc, etc.

Turns out they were lies, and it's now clear they were lies. What the brexiters promised was never available.

They'll try to win it with "tell them again", but they'll be met with "tell us again how it'll be the easiest deal ever", "tell us again how we'll stay in the SM". To sensible people the brexiter claims are now a busted flush.

There's plenty of people who'll never give it up, but they're not going to be swayed by inconvenient things like facts, or anything at all. It's a religion to them and they can't be won over; they'd even hate their own perfect brexit, let alone the imperfect one the real world would give them.

[strummer77]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Corbyn got a significant upgrade a few months before the general election- not sure if he got media training or what, but everyone saw the difference in the general election campaign. The referendum campaign was much earlier on, when things were much more shambolic and he wasn't as effective (and had a much less effective team around him). Critics can never seem to make up their mind if he's an all powerful god that had/has the power to stop brexit, or if they think he's an effective fool.

Blaming Corbyn for the brexit vote is daft (notice the other remain campaigners get a pass)- it was decades in the making and he did actually manage to get the labour vote out. Think his sceptical stance matched a lot of remainers (I voted remain but I have big misgivings with the EU). The idea that an ardent pro-EU zealot would have had greater success is again daft.

Yeah I agree with most of this. Always seemed strange to me the way that in 2016 the mainstream saw him as electoral suicide for Labour - but then blamed him for the EU defeat because he didn't join in. 

I almost posted similar to the second paragraph actually. I remember him saying on TV he was 7/10 about the EU - which is basically my view on it. 

It's why i think any future remain campaign has to be very careful who they pick to lead it. Having the flag waving, #FBPE, 'THE EU IS WONDERFUL' brigade out in force will be a huge turn off again.

[Mr.Tease]

5 hours ago, jackarmy said:

As we edge closer to the possibility of a 2nd referendum these things have to be considered. I can't see Chukka, Soubry, Mandelson etc. willingly letting go of the reins as the face of the Remain campaign. Maybe we'd have to see two prominent Remain groups, like Leave had in the last referendum.

Yep, that Buzzfeed article summarised all my fears for a second referendum. Centrists are snake bit politically at the moment (it happens to all wings at various times), having them head or advise anything right now is asking for trouble

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/the-campaign-for-a-peoples-vote-on-brexit-has-descended

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Corbyn got a significant upgrade a few months before the general election- not sure if he got media training or what, but everyone saw the difference in the general election campaign.

that's the difference between campaigning for something he believes in and something he doesn't.

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Blaming Corbyn for the brexit vote is daft (notice the other remain campaigners get a pass)- it was decades in the making and he did actually manage to get the labour vote out.

I don't think he's solely responsible, but I also think he deliberately campaigned half-heartedly - as demonstrated by him taking a week's holiday during the campaign.

Would better leadership from labour have made a difference? We can never know. But the margin was so small and Corbyn so lacklustre and gave permission for Labour voters to vote out that it might have been the difference.

7 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Think his sceptical stance matched a lot of remainers

We're all aware that the EU is not perfect, but it's also better than the alternatives  and there's no nuance in that.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

almost posted similar to the second paragraph actually. I remember him saying on TV he was 7/10 about the EU - which is basically my view on it. 

but you cannot be 7/10ths in. You're wholey for in, are you not?

By Corbyn saying doubts were OK with his 7/10, he gave permission for people to go with out. 
(which i posted on these forums somewhere after his very first EUref speech - far too weak and unconvincing, offering what he wasn't in a position to do).

Polling showed that 50% of Labour voters thought the labour position was out!

Edited January 23, 2019 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but you cannot be 7/10ths in. You're wholey for in, are you not?

By Corbyn saying doubts were OK with his 7/10, he gave permission for people to go with out. 
(which i posted on these forums somewhere after his very first EUref speech - far too weak and unconvincing, offering what he wasn't in a position to do).

Polling showed that 50% of Labour voters thought the labour position was out!

No because humans are nuanced. People pretending they are 10/10 in when there a lots of clear issues means that the public don't trust them. How can they when they know they are lying? The best way is to admit it's flaws, and to say we will change these. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater etc.

Re the polling, Labour admittedly didn't put their point across very well... but then I really don't think people voted along party lines? Labour voters ultimately came out in good numbers and in support of remain. The leave campaign won because of the Tory civil war.

[Mr.Tease]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but you cannot be 7/10ths in. You're wholey for in, are you not?

By Corbyn saying doubts were OK with his 7/10, he gave permission for people to go with out. 
(which i posted on these forums somewhere after his very first EUref speech - far too weak and unconvincing, offering what he wasn't in a position to do).

Polling showed that 50% of Labour voters thought the labour position was out!

Right, so which 100% pro EU zealot, who didn't share any of the euro sceptical voters concerns should have fronted the campaign and would have guaranteed victory? 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

No because humans are nuanced.

there is nothing nuanced about the decision to be in the EU. You're either in or you're not.

A campain's job is to convince people to go to one side, and not to help validate any concerns to perhaps turn them the other way. Corbyn's manner of campaigning validated those concerns and made it OK for people to vote out.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Right, so which 100% pro EU zealot, who didn't share any of the euro sceptical voters concerns should have fronted the campaign and would have guaranteed victory? 

 

There's no point re-running a failed past campaign, the point is not to make make mistakes next time.

And it's not about personalities, it's about policies and processes. About why it's better to stay in the EU.

So that's nothing about "but really it's an evil capitalists plot and it's OK for you to think that". So that's nothing about "this is what I'd do if I wasn't pie in the sky".

Appeal to the intelligence of the electorate (to those that have it, anyway), with reasons that are able to be put against what we now know a real brexit will look like - cos that's what's been changing minds so far.

[strummer77]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there is nothing nuanced about the decision to be in the EU. You're either in or you're not.

Well I think the last two years of negotiations shows this is absolutely not the case. That's why the referendum question was daft and we're at stalemate.

But regardless, there is nuance to arguments Pretending the EU is perfect is an absolutely ridiculous line to take so when Corbyn rated it 7/10 that was at least feasible and could appear honest. An admission it isn't perfect but that we should stay. Imagine if he said 10! It would just be clear lying. 

If you go around waving flags deifying the EU, like many are, leave will win again. 100%

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by strummer77

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

There's no point re-running a failed past campaign, the point is not to make make mistakes next time.

And it's not about personalities, it's about policies and processes. About why it's better to stay in the EU.

So that's nothing about "but really it's an evil capitalists plot and it's OK for you to think that". So that's nothing about "this is what I'd do if I wasn't pie in the sky".

Appeal to the intelligence of the electorate (to those that have it, anyway), with reasons that are able to be put against what we now know a real brexit will look like - cos that's what's been changing minds so far.

I think you're misunderstanding the zeitgeist in politics at the moment- emotional resonance beats rationalism. That's why I fear a leave surge- their argument is more appealing, because it emotionally resinates with more of the electorate (who by now have apocalypse fatigue, so scare stories don't budge them much whether they're true or not)

[eFestivals]

Just now, strummer77 said:

Well I think the last two years of negotiations shows this is absolutely not the case. That's why the referendum question was daft and we're at stalemate.

there's lots of different versions of out, and this part is why we're at stalemate.

There is only one version of in.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think you're misunderstanding the zeitgeist in politics at the moment- emotional resonance beats rationalism.

that "emotional resonance" isn't there for winning; it's religion.

The mistake is to chase a minority portion of the electorate who are not open to rational argument because even if they got all their wishes they wouldn't be satisfied. 

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that "emotional resonance" isn't there for winning; it's religion.

The mistake is to chase a minority portion of the electorate who are not open to rational argument because even if they got all their wishes they wouldn't be satisfied. 

Using emotion to filter through information is how we make most of our decisions. In modern politics I think it's more a case of information overload- people are bombarded with so much conflicting info from so many conflicting sources about something they don't care that much about and don't particularly understand. At that point they just filter through the information based on what emotionally resonates with either their gut feeling, life story, or outlook in life (or they'll defer judgment to those they trust). It's how we make most of our decisions. Sure you could sit down and reason with them, but if they're not that interested to start with, they're very unlikely to take the time to research the issue, and you're unlikely to hold their attention enough to see it through. 

So a non-political example of this would be- you need to get a new mobile phone, but aren't really interested in mobile phones. You do a google search for best phones, and 5 different lists come up, with different phones ranked at different places. Some say Apple are better than Android, some say Android is better than Apple. Now sure, a few people who really don't like to waste money, would go away and do further research to see which reviewers can be trusted, which claims stack up etc. But for most people at that point they'll feel overloaded and will switch to picking the phone they like the look of, or the one they just like, or the one a trusted source recommends etc.

So whilst you might know your info on brexit is right and brexiteers info is wrong, to the average person who isn't particularly interested, it's just two people arguing two different things. They'll either defer to the judgement of the person they trust, or they'll go with what they liked the sound of more. Any campaign based on reason will really struggle if it can't emotionally resonate.

[strummer77]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's lots of different versions of out, and this part is why we're at stalemate.

There is only one version of in.

Again, not really the case. The UK have been offered concessions, aren't in the Euro etc.

The way to win a referendum isn't to pretend the EU is perfect - because it isn't at all - because voters will see through it. Instead you need to explain why it is practically beneficial to be inside, how we can change it for the better and offer an ambitious, progressive vision of a Europe that benefits us. Nobody successfully did this.

The flag marchers with EU flag bobble top hats and #FBPE hastaggers on twitter simply put people off. The arguments grate, their enthusiasm seems misplaced when we know about the organisation's flaws and sinister elements and with flags etc they bizarrely display elements of the nationalists they are supposedly against.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

So whilst you might know your info on brexit is right and brexiteers info is wrong, to the average person who isn't particularly interested, it's just two people arguing two different things.

I don't really disagree.

But the point is now that positions are entrenched with the believers. They're not for changing, while others are.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

Again, not really the case. The UK have been offered concessions, aren't in the Euro etc.

The way to win a referendum isn't to pretend the EU is perfect - because it isn't at all - because voters will see through it. Instead you need to explain why it is practically beneficial to be inside, how we can change it for the better and offer an ambitious, progressive vision of a Europe that benefits us. Nobody successfully did this.

The flag marchers with EU flag bobble top hats and #FBPE hastaggers on twitter simply put people off. The arguments grate, their enthusiasm seems misplaced when we know about the organisation's flaws and sinister elements and with flags etc they bizarrely display elements of the nationalists they are supposedly against.

the 'in' we're talking about is the in we already have, not a different one.

I've not suggested the EU is perfect, just that it's more perfect than each of the different real-world versions of brexit, and this is now fairly easy to demonstrate.

It wasn't easy to demonstrate in the previous ref, because brexit was undefined and everything was about how easy and wonderful it would be. Easy and wonderful won't hold up against the real world options.

"change it for the better" is pie in the sky, no different to a wonderful brexit. We can only start trying to change it when there's a UK govt that wants it to change as well as a willingness in the eu27 for change.

The campaign needs to stick to the real. If remain can invent it's fantasies and thinks they can stand them up, just think how well the brexit lot would do.  (same as last time).

The campaign needs to campaign unequivocally for 'in', for why in the real world it's the best option in a choice against any real-world brexit.

Edited January 23, 2019 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The campaign needs to campaign unequivocally for 'in', for why in the real world it's the best option in a choice against any real-world brexit.

If they pretend the EU as it is now is absolutely great and we should all jump aboard the great European project then it will lose. Again.