chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 1 minute ago, blandy said: Corbyn is about as competent as Boris Johnson. The bloke’s effing useless as a leader. He’d be an awful pm. Labour’s policies are in some cases excellent and in some cases not. Labour’s problem isn’t policy, it’s Corbyn and his band of angry tramps. He’s not Satan, he’s just a massive pillock, and a bit of a wrong ‘un. in a hypothetical scenario where I had to vote and its a binary of Johnson or Corbyn, there would be not a flicker of doubt I'd be voting Corbyn removed from such extreme hypo's, I'm glad I have other options 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted July 23, 2019 It's going to be an election in October, there's just no other way out for Boris whether he calls it or not. Will be good entertainment though, can see Labour party conference pushing Labour to full-on remain sucking the life out of the lib dems, and Boris will go all out leave making the brexit party redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: But I wouldn't expect Swinson to support a Labour programme and the thought of the Libs being the larger party and getting Labour onboard as junior partners isn't really going to happen. I know we're in strange times, but a swing that sees Labour and LibDem with the majority of seats, but the Libs going from 9 to, to what? 170? and Labour losing 60 or 70 seats? Not going to happen. Maybe. But it doesn't change the principle of the matter. Also, I don't see what the satisfactory answer to the question is that she is supposed to give. They are trying to attract disaffected voters from Labour and Conservative. If she pipes up with "we'd consider a coalition with Labour" then they lose Tories who are terrified of Corbyn and lose Labour voters who if they wanted a Labour Government then they'd just vote for them in the first place. So even if it's something that would consider, they'd be silly to shout it from the rooftops now. Besides, it just gives them one more promise to inevitably go back on later in the year... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ml1dch Posted July 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2019 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 Just now, ml1dch said: Also, I don't see what the satisfactory answer to the question is that she is supposed to give. ... It was that she was so specific. That she could deal with Labour, but not Corbyn. I understand they all have to posture on things. Day one and she's gone for an attack on an individual she could possibly need to be dealing with in a matter of weeks or months. Nice start. But then she was in government with Cameron and Osborne. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: It was that she was so specific. That she could deal with Labour, but not Corbyn. I understand they all have to posture on things. Day one and she's gone for an attack on an individual she could possibly need to be dealing with in a matter of weeks or months. Possibly. But then maybe the tactic is to be as hardline as possible. If she's saying that she won't deal with Corbyn, then maybe that gives her leverage if it ever becomes an issue. I'm pretty sure that if Corbyn needs Lib Dem support to form a government, and this just posturing on her part then he's not going to let her saying this now prevent it. It might be a terrible tactic, but it's not without its plausibility. Either way though, her priority should be to get as many people voting Lib Dem and as many MPs from the party into Parliament. Right now, attacking Corbyn is probably the best way to attract waverers from both sides, rather than laying the groundwork for a hypothetical coalition with him. Edited July 23, 2019 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 23, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 hours ago, chrisp65 said: in a hypothetical scenario where I had to vote and its a binary of Johnson or Corbyn, there would be not a flicker of doubt I'd be voting Corbyn removed from such extreme hypo's, I'm glad I have other options Yeah, me too. I don’t fancy blowing my brains out with a revolver. They’re both utterly unfit for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 hours ago, ml1dch said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 hours ago, blandy said: Corbyn is about as competent as Boris Johnson. The bloke’s effing useless as a leader. He’d be an awful pm. Labour’s policies are in some cases excellent and in some cases not. Labour’s problem isn’t policy, it’s Corbyn and his band of angry tramps. He’s not Satan, he’s just a massive pillock, and a bit of a wrong ‘un. So party with incompetent leader and some excellent policies or Party with incompetent leader and no decent policies whatsoever Seems a no brainer to me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Does Labour have anyone better than Corbyn, who from casual observance seems like a real stiff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 44 minutes ago, maqroll said: Does Labour have anyone better than Corbyn, who from casual observance seems like a real stiff? I've been to a few events and hustings and open forums etc locally, to see and hear their reps at local, Westminster, Senedd and european level. I think it's fair to say that here, in what was once a heartland, they've currently lost their mojo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 54 minutes ago, maqroll said: Does Labour have anyone better than Corbyn, who from casual observance seems like a real stiff? Dan Jarvis - Keir Starmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Clive Lewis would be the man, for me. Mostly shares JC's ethos. More pro Europe. Can probably build some party bridges too. Plus he ticks the ethnic diversity box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 24, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Wainy316 said: So party with incompetent leader and some excellent policies or Party with incompetent leader and no decent policies whatsoever Seems a no brainer to me Oh, it is. Neither. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 24, 2019 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Wainy316 said: So party with incompetent leader and some excellent policies or Party with incompetent leader and no decent policies whatsoever Seems a no brainer to me Perpetuating the two party state is going to do no one any favours at this stage. The more people vote for a party not Labour or Tory, the more chance we have of electoral reform. Electoral reform is the key to saving the country from the utter bellendry that we have as choices from the two main parties at the minute 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 11 hours ago, chrisp65 said: It was that she was so specific. That she could deal with Labour, but not Corbyn. I understand they all have to posture on things. Day one and she's gone for an attack on an individual she could possibly need to be dealing with in a matter of weeks or months. Nice start. But then she was in government with Cameron and Osborne. I believe Clegg said he couldn't work with Brown, before entering coalition with the tories and doing all that shit. It's not really about the individuals, it's about the policies the Libs will and won't support. Their very recent record over the last few years spsaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 13 minutes ago, peterms said: I believe Clegg said he couldn't work with Brown, before entering coalition with the tories and doing all that shit. It's not really about the individuals, it's about the policies the Libs will and won't support. Their very recent record over the last few years spsaks for itself. Pre election , Clegg said he wouldn’t work with Brown if he didn’t win the most votes because he would lack legitimacy , not that he wouldn’t work with him outright , so different to what Swinson is saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 7 hours ago, Wainy316 said: So party with incompetent leader and some excellent policies or Party with incompetent leader and no decent policies whatsoever Seems a no brainer to me bit harsh , I’m sure Corbyn has at least one decent policy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 24 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: bit harsh , I’m sure Corbyn has at least one decent policy He puts his empties out every night. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Pre election , Clegg said he wouldn’t work with Brown if he didn’t win the most votes because he would lack legitimacy , not that he wouldn’t work with him outright , so different to what Swinson is saying He said all sorts of things, and his position was changing with the polling and on the basis of discussions which were taking place between the parties. Here is one mention of the changing scenery, for example. He suggests that he could work with a being from outer space, but not Brown. At other times, Libdems being Libdems, he will have said other things, again depending on what the latest polling showed. He's presenting it in this snippet as it being unacceptable that Brown personally could carry on as PM if Labour came third, but not that the party having the most votes should have their leader as PM. As usual when people say "I've been very clear", it's not clear. Quote Clegg, however, has not been deterred from trying to set out the Lib Dem stance. He said: "I think, if Labour do come third in terms of the number of votes cast, then people would find it inexplicable that Gordon Brown himself could carry on as prime minister. As for who I'd work with, I've been very clear – much clearer than David Cameron and Gordon Brown – that I will work with anyone. I will work with a man from the moon, I don't care, with anyone who can deliver the greater fairness that I think people want." Asked if he could work with the "man from the moon but not Gordon Brown", he said: "I just don't think the British people would accept that he could carry on as prime minister, which is what the convention of old politics dictates when, or rather if, he were to lose the election in such spectacular style." Lib Dem officials confirmed that Clegg was singling out Brown as the man the country would not tolerate if Labour dropped to third in share of the vote. It's interesting that his criterion for working with another party was claimed to be delivering "the greater fairness that I think people want". That went well, didn't it? His record in government, his party's record, should be remembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts