Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

domalino said:
More likely a sign she's implicated in the parties story. When it first came out, it was said all the political editors knew about it and some might have been there.

They managed to dodge that by whipping up the frenzy against no.10 but there's a reckoning coming for people like Kuenesburg who sold their journalistic integrity for access.
Click to expand...
……..if kuensberg did parties……
 
Brewster's millions said:
He won that general election because he recognised that a majority of the electorate actually wanted a hard Brexit. He also won in 2019 because a majority of the electorate had a deep-seated belief that Corbyn was unelectable.
Click to expand...
Well that's rubbish. Most people voted in that election for parties either opposed to Brexit or offering a second referendum.

It was only ever a small minority of the electorate wanted a hard Brexit. Even smaller now.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Well that's rubbish. Most people voted in that election for parties either opposed to Brexit or offering a second referendum.

It was only ever a small minority of the electorate wanted a hard Brexit. Even smaller now.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Both Labour and the Conservatives had manifesto pledges in the 2017 election to leave the single market - the cleanest definition of a hard Brexit - and they had a combined vote share north of 80%, which I believe to be in the highest in decades. No obvious opposition to a hard Brexit there.

The tories then gained 43.6% of the vote in 2019, higher than even Blair managed in 97. The DUP and Brexit party a further c2.8% combined. Labour didn’t have a credible Brexit position - granted they did offer the chance of another referendum on their preferred deal and a chance to remain - but they didn’t commit on the type of deal they favoured. In my view their negotiated/preferred option would likely have been tantamount to a hard Brexit, as I believe there would have been major pressure to explicitly commit to leaving the single market.

Of course it’s hard/impossible to prove that each of those Tory votes was a vote for a hard Brexit. But the 2019 vote was probably as close to a single issue election as we’ve had in recent UK political history, and many of the previous Tory MPs expelled by Johnson stood as independents, which would presumably have provided an alternative outlet for usual Tory voters who favoured remaining.

But the fact is that Johnson offered a limited deal with the EU which most people understood to equate to a hard Brexit, and he won an historic landslide. If it was only a small minority favouring a hard Brexit, he simply wouldn’t have won in the manner that he did.
 
Brewster's millions said:
I disagree.

Both Labour and the Conservatives had manifesto pledges in the 2017 election to leave the single market - the cleanest definition of a hard Brexit - and they had a combined vote share north of 80%, which I believe to be in the highest in decades. No obvious opposition to a hard Brexit there.

The tories then gained 43.6% of the vote in 2019, higher than even Blair managed in 97. The DUP and Brexit party a further c2.8% combined. Labour didn’t have a credible Brexit position - granted they did offer the chance of another referendum on their preferred deal and a chance to remain - but they didn’t commit on the type of deal they favoured. In my view their negotiated/preferred option would likely have been tantamount to a hard Brexit, as I believe there would have been major pressure to explicitly commit to leaving the single market.

Of course it’s hard/impossible to prove that each of those Tory votes was a vote for a hard Brexit. But the 2019 vote was probably as close to a single issue election as we’ve had in recent UK political history, and many of the previous Tory MPs expelled by Johnson stood as independents, which would presumably have provided an alternative outlet for usual Tory voters who favoured remaining.

But the fact is that Johnson offered a limited deal with the EU which most people understood to equate to a hard Brexit, and he won an historic landslide. If it was only a small minority favouring a hard Brexit, he simply wouldn’t have won in the manner that he did.
Click to expand...

A narrative based on emotional bullshit arguments would always have beaten Corbyn's awkward remain 2nd referendum. Despite having some good policies they didn't do anything about persuading people on the merits of those policies prior to the election.

When a privately educated journalist working for the BBC is asking Labour party representatives if they want to nationalise Sausages you know they aren't playing the game in a level playing field with debates based on facts and grounded in reality.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
A narrative based on emotional bullshit arguments will always have beaten Corbyn.

When a privately educated journalist working for the BBC is asking Labour party representatives if they want to nationalise Sausages you know they aren't playing the game in a level playing field with debates based on facts and grounded in reality.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…but when the Labour Party chooses not to have a position on the defining factor of a single issue election, they probably aren’t doing themselves any favours.

It tends to preclude any genuine debate based on facts and grounded in reality, and creates a vacuum which invites ridiculous questions from journalists.

They had ample opportunity to sort themselves out after the 2017 election and they didn’t do it.
 
Brewster's millions said:
Hmmm…but when the Labour Party chooses not to have a position on the defining factor of a single issue election, they probably aren’t doing themselves any favours.

It tends to preclude any genuine debate based on facts and grounded in reality, and creates a vacuum which invites ridiculous questions from journalists.

They had ample opportunity to sort themselves out after the 2017 election and they didn’t do it.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. Brexit was never about reality.

Hence the leaders of the Brexit campaign stacking up mountains of emotional bullshit instead of a coherent alternative.

Because ultimately Brexit was a self-serving idea for a section of the elite to reshape society to a low tax, low regulation regime for their benefit and to the detriment of the majority of the British population.

But just like the Republican party in the USA, they would never be able to win a majority in any election or referendum if they told the truth about their plans.

You can't fight a fair election without confronting that fact, but unfortunately it upsets quite a lot of people to point out that they were tricked by plum voiced con artists, so you can't make that argument either.
 
Brewster's millions said:
I disagree.

Both Labour and the Conservatives had manifesto pledges in the 2017 election to leave the single market - the cleanest definition of a hard Brexit - and they had a combined vote share north of 80%, which I believe to be in the highest in decades. No obvious opposition to a hard Brexit there.

The tories then gained 43.6% of the vote in 2019, higher than even Blair managed in 97. The DUP and Brexit party a further c2.8% combined. Labour didn’t have a credible Brexit position - granted they did offer the chance of another referendum on their preferred deal and a chance to remain - but they didn’t commit on the type of deal they favoured. In my view their negotiated/preferred option would likely have been tantamount to a hard Brexit, as I believe there would have been major pressure to explicitly commit to leaving the single market.

Of course it’s hard/impossible to prove that each of those Tory votes was a vote for a hard Brexit. But the 2019 vote was probably as close to a single issue election as we’ve had in recent UK political history, and many of the previous Tory MPs expelled by Johnson stood as independents, which would presumably have provided an alternative outlet for usual Tory voters who favoured remaining.

But the fact is that Johnson offered a limited deal with the EU which most people understood to equate to a hard Brexit, and he won an historic landslide. If it was only a small minority favouring a hard Brexit, he simply wouldn’t have won in the manner that he did.
Click to expand...
Utter tosh.

Labour manifesto 2017:

"We will scrap the Conservatives’
Brexit White Paper and replace it
with fresh negotiating priorities that
have a strong emphasis on retaining
the benefits of the Single Market
and the Customs Union – which
are essential for maintaining
industries, jobs and businesses in
Britain. Labour will always put jobs
and the economy first."

Maths:

"The tories then gained 43.6% of the vote in 2019, higher than even Blair managed in 97. The DUP and Brexit party a further c2.8% combined".

Well that's 46.4%, so most people voted for parties either explicitly for remaining in the EU, or at least offering a way out of Brexit by a second referendun, and we all know why the Brexiters were desperate to avoid another referendum.
 
Vic said:
Utter tosh.

Labour manifesto 2017:

"We will scrap the Conservatives’
Brexit White Paper and replace it
with fresh negotiating priorities that
have a strong emphasis on retaining
the benefits of the Single Market
and the Customs Union – which
are essential for maintaining
industries, jobs and businesses in
Britain. Labour will always put jobs
and the economy first."

Maths:

"The tories then gained 43.6% of the vote in 2019, higher than even Blair managed in 97. The DUP and Brexit party a further c2.8% combined".

Well that's 46.4%, so most people voted for parties either explicitly for remaining in the EU, or at least offering a way out of Brexit by a second referendun, and we all know why the Brexiters were desperate to avoid another referendum.
Click to expand...
Labour’s Brexit position in 2017 was utter tosh - the only way to have the benefits of the single market and a customs Union is to stay in the single market and the customs Union. But they didn’t commit to that as they explicitly wanted to leave the Single market.

Cakeism doesn’t even get close to their 2017 position. If you leave the single market, you will ultimately have a hard Brexit, unless you want to cede to the EU any meaningful influence or control in relation to future technical standards, customs policies & procedures, immigration and indeed commit to automatically replicating the EU’s own trade deals with third countries. That’s a fact, and so the 2017 manifesto Brexit position of the Labour Party - although extremely disingenuous in terms of how it was presented - would ultimately have resulted in a Hard Brexit.

Labour could have committed to staying in the single market in 2017 and then 2019 if they thought that would provide an electoral advantage, but they chose not to. Committing to staying in the single market would have been the easiest way to communicate a clear preference for a soft Brexit - and create a clear differentiation to the Conservatives - but again they chose not to.

Instead, both the conservatives and Labour explicitly advocated leaving the single market in 2017 and they gained a historically large combined share of the vote. Again, if the electorate was/still is as wedded to the idea of a soft Brexit as you suggest, I doubt that would have happened.

And in relation to 2019, 46% is less than 50% as you correctly point out, but the key question is why did Johnson win a landslide victory if support for a Hard Brexit - the central, overriding element of his campaign - was such a minority view in the UK?

Also genuinely interested as to why you think a second EU referendum would have produced a different result, or indeed be seen to have any real legitimacy/ not simply resulted in the need for a third vote as a decider?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top