advertisement


In praise of Gina Miller

Seanm said:
It can't be pointed out too often that Miller prioritised stopping Corbyn over stopping Brexit. If you asked her to go back and choose between a left wing Labour government and hard Brexit led by Boris Johnson she would, once again, choose the latter.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...-s-corbyn-fear-behind-legal-bid-a4065706.html

I don't doubt her personal commitment to her cause, and it's admirable in a way, but those are her priorities and her politics.
Click to expand...

“If a prime minister had been able to use the royal prerogative... to alter people’s rights,” she explained, it would have “set a precedent that a future prime minister could also do that. Labour could [have] come in with Mr Corbyn having that power. “I was more worried about him than... Brexit.”

She clearly didn't think much of Corbyn. I'd take "I was more worried..." as a turn of phrase though. She was just giving an example of why it was important a crap (in her opinion) future PM not be allowed to sideline parliament and push through problematic legislation.

Here's what she wrote to JC a few months earlier.

Historically, some of our worst mistakes have been made when the opposition has failed in its fundamental duty to question and stress-test the policies of the government of the day, and I believe historians will one day look back on the Labour party under you, Mr Corbyn, and ask a simple question: why did you sit on the fence right from the start? Why did you leave it to me, as a private citizen, to question the unlawful use of the royal prerogative to trigger article 50? Your membership, the vast majority of young Labour voters and the unions, are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit because the European Union is, I would submit, the most successful union of our time.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...corbyn-peoples-vote-brexit-labour-gina-miller
 
paulfromcamden said:
“If a prime minister had been able to use the royal prerogative... to alter people’s rights,” she explained, it would have “set a precedent that a future prime minister could also do that. Labour could [have] come in with Mr Corbyn having that power. “I was more worried about him than... Brexit.”

She clearly didn't think much of Corbyn. I'd take "I was more worried..." as a turn of phrase though. She was just giving an example of why it was important a crap (in her opinion) future PM not be allowed to sideline parliament and push through problematic legislation.

Here's what she wrote to JC a few months earlier.

Historically, some of our worst mistakes have been made when the opposition has failed in its fundamental duty to question and stress-test the policies of the government of the day, and I believe historians will one day look back on the Labour party under you, Mr Corbyn, and ask a simple question: why did you sit on the fence right from the start? Why did you leave it to me, as a private citizen, to question the unlawful use of the royal prerogative to trigger article 50? Your membership, the vast majority of young Labour voters and the unions, are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit because the European Union is, I would submit, the most successful union of our time.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...corbyn-peoples-vote-brexit-labour-gina-miller
Click to expand...
I would take her word for it: it was less Brexit itself than what what it would allow a left wing PM to do. Not what it would allow a Conservative PM to do, you understand. She's telling you what her priorities are here in very plain language. She's not alone: other key Remain figures - "decent Tory" Nick Boles, Gavin Shukar of ChUKTIG, Mandelson - have said it too: our priority wasn't stopping Brexit it was stopping Corbyn. They accepted hard Brexit as collateral damage.
 
Seanm said:
I would take her word for it: it was less Brexit itself than what what it would allow a left wing PM to do. Not what it would allow a Conservative PM to do, you understand. She's telling you what her priorities are here in very plain language. She's not alone: other key Remain figures - "decent Tory" Nick Boles, Gavin Shukar of ChUKTIG, Mandelson - have said it too: our priority wasn't stopping Brexit it was stopping Corbyn. They accepted hard Brexit as collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Her campaign where she took the Conservative government to court to prevent it sidelining parliament over article 50 was in fact all about stopping Corbyn?

Sorry Sean I honestly think we're going to have to agree to disagree - not intended as a dig at you, we're just not going to agree on this one!
 
paulfromcamden said:
Her campaign where she took the Conservative government to court to prevent it sidelining parliament over article 50 was in fact all about stopping Corbyn?

Sorry Sean I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of one thing being cover for another, it's a question of what your priorities are when one goal comes into conflict with another, or when assessing the risks and collateral damage of a strategy.

Many different actors involved in People's Vote and other Remain organisations pursued a very high risk strategy of focusing their campaign on Labour. The ostensible aim was to get them to commit to a 2nd referendum. The risk was that by stomping up and down on the faultlines of Labour's shaky electoral coalition they'd break Labour and usher in a Johnson government and a hard Brexit.

For some - ChUKTIG, Mandelson - the explicit goal was to break Labour and Brexit was irrelevant. Others had their priorities and at the very least this will have affected their risk assessment.

I just think, when someone tells you their priorities you should believe them. Miller cared more about stopping Corbyn than stopping Brexit: she says so. This will have been a factor in her campaign and in its outcome.
 
foxwelljsly said:
I was hoping I'd missed some encouraging news concerning Chris Grayling there, but it turns out he is still the serving Frank Spencer of the Conservative party.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that Chris Grayling is honest, sincere and free of hypocrisy?

I mean, you may be right, but I suspect the truth is far less arcane.
 
eguth said:
I praised her for a long while. Now, I am more inclined to praise Jeremy Corbyn. He is honest, sincere and free of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

That great achiever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

In the 2017 general election, Labour increased its share of the vote to 40%, with its 9.6% vote rise their largest improvement since the 1945 general election. This resulted in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament, but the Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, formed a minority government and Labour remained in Opposition.

In 2019, after deadlock in Parliament over Brexit, Corbyn endorsed holding a referendum on the withdrawal agreement, with a personal stance of neutrality. In the 2019 general election, Labour's vote share fell to 32%, leading to a net loss of 60 seats and leaving it with 202, its fewest since 1935.
 
Well, there's no accounting for idiots that voted for Boris, they knew what he was like but believed the words of Dacre, Barclay, Murdoch, Watson, Hodge etc rather than the evidence of their own eyes. Still, it's all turned out just dandy, eh?
 
tuga said:
That great achiever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

In the 2017 general election, Labour increased its share of the vote to 40%, with its 9.6% vote rise their largest improvement since the 1945 general election. This resulted in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament, but the Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, formed a minority government and Labour remained in Opposition.

In 2019, after deadlock in Parliament over Brexit, Corbyn endorsed holding a referendum on the withdrawal agreement, with a personal stance of neutrality. In the 2019 general election, Labour's vote share fell to 32%, leading to a net loss of 60 seats and leaving it with 202, its fewest since 1935.
Click to expand...
Achieving is not a great guide to merit...in politics..
 
tuga said:
That great achiever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

In the 2017 general election, Labour increased its share of the vote to 40%, with its 9.6% vote rise their largest improvement since the 1945 general election. This resulted in a net gain of 30 seats and a hung parliament, but the Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, formed a minority government and Labour remained in Opposition.

In 2019, after deadlock in Parliament over Brexit, Corbyn endorsed holding a referendum on the withdrawal agreement, with a personal stance of neutrality. In the 2019 general election, Labour's vote share fell to 32%, leading to a net loss of 60 seats and leaving it with 202, its fewest since 1935.
Click to expand...
I believe it’s traditional to leave out the stuff about 2017.
 
Seanm said:
I believe it’s traditional to leave out the stuff about 2017.
Click to expand...
I believe it’s dumb. Well, I would but I’m an atheist.

PS: we need to move away from the two-party paradigm and have governing coalitions
 
tuga said:
I believe it’s dumb. Well, I would but I’m an atheist.

PS: we need to move away from the two-party paradigm and have governing coalitions
Click to expand...
Why? The last (only) one imposed austerity, destroyed public services, and created the perfect conditions for Brexit.
 
droodzilla said:
Why? The last (only) one imposed austerity, destroyed public services, and created the perfect conditions for Brexit.
Click to expand...

It works very well in Europe’s more advanced democracies, why should it work here?

Besides, just because one coalition failed in your adult lifetime that is not reason enough to not try again.
And if you think that you had austerity you should have live in Portugal or Greece after the crash…
 
tuga said:
It works very well in Europe’s more advanced democracies, why should it work here?

Besides, just because one coalition failed in your adult lifetime that is not reason enough to not try again.
And if you think that you had austerity you should have live in Portugal or Greece after the crash…
Click to expand...
Tell that to the 300,000 people who are believed to have died as a result of austerity in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top