That's exactly what they did argue for. That the argument got lost amidst cretins from left and right calling for (close as damn it to) no deal or revoke may well be true, but it isnt true that they didn't make it.
No dear, I'm pointing out that you miss the point. Then is not now, and itmatters little whether we are talking about 1917, 1945 or 1917. Ideas aren't just like shoes that you can pull out from under the bed and slip back on your feet twenty years later. Things move on, Labour need a new and even better manifesto.
Good job we're heading for a Labour majority then huh?
I'd say that there's got to be a risk of that, especially given the increased likelihood of discouraging weather, (anyone who lives off the proper/bigger M&S reductions of "Tramps' buffet" knows that a good dose of cold & rain can keep the oldies at home with Countdown, leaving the yellow labels for the younger cost-conscious
).
Fucking hell, 70%, that's depressing
Yeah, but it's a catch all tag...L & R...bound to be high given that politics has been little else for yonks.
The only detailed constituency by constituency projections of the election so far is the Best for Britain MRP, which paints a very bad picture for Labour in the Brexit leaning marginals - but it's hard to see how they could make this picture much better by tacking towards leave.
On the first para, my point is that from the Article 50 vote onwards the leadership should have been seeking to build something rather than avoiding having something because of their fear of the internal/voter divisions. Yeah, hindsight as I said, but I think there was a way through this. Not an easy one, not one that necessarily pulled the party together, but something that started with the social democratic vision, the defence of workers interests and then formulated brexit accordingly. Technically, the 6 tests (was it six?) did that, but in a rather smug way that used the tests to avoid facing up to divides, flack and the rest. The lack of that assertive message has still, right up to fucking now, left Starmer unable to answer whether he would vote for his own party's future renegotiated deal. There's very little in labour's faffing about that resonates with people's lives.
But as I said in reply to killer b, that was largely in the '6 tests' or the late in the day offer to May to get her deal through. It was institutional/parliamentary politics and I certainly didn't see it as part of a real, engaged, attempt at meeting the concerns that led to the leave vote.
Good job we're heading for a Labour majority then huh?
FWIW though, Corbyn has always been up against it. They could have done some things better, but jesus christ.
But most of those concerns weren't really anything to do with our relationship with the EU - except for around immigration. The decades of under-investment and deindustrialisation that fucked those communities and led to the breakdown in community weren't caused by the EU. They are being addressed by the rest of Labour policy, policy that would (and could) be implemented whether in the EU or not.
No, I'm being patronising.
the full brexit lot and paul mason
The public vote bit is pretty important, for sure, but what else, formally, has changed?
Very easy for us to say. It's almost impossible to really have a clear view of it though, so I won't.
