The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Few weeks ago he would do everything for an election. Now he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose.

I'm sorry but that is rubbish.

[cyrusr]

20 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

The thing is, nobody is buying this from Labour.

I really think it's Corbyn that's to blame, a really arrogant, clueless leader. Few weeks ago he would do everything for an election. Now he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose. 

Really poor politics. 

As @snowychap has said, to be fair to Corbyn, he has been clear on this, get no deal off the table then go to election. I don't think that is unreasonable and given how little trust I have in Boris/Tories not to try and pull something sneaky, I really don't blame him. Just because he isn't biting Boris' baiting doesn't mean he doesn't want it. Its school yard behaviour, which from people that are meant to be running the country is appalling. The fact that people believe Boris is worrying. 

[Chindie]

It's refreshing to see someone on the outside acknowledge that there is an obscene bias against a Corbyn. For all of his faults and failings, it's self evident that the media, including, tragically, the BBC, is outright hostile to him and Labour.

[chrisp65]

25 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

The thing is, nobody is buying this from Labour.

I really think it's Corbyn that's to blame, a really arrogant, clueless leader. Few weeks ago he would do everything for an election. Now he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose. 

Really poor politics. 

What would be really poor politics would be agreeing to an election on Johnson’s terms.

He calls for an election.
Labour says yes.
Johnson says the election is on 1st November, after we’ve crashed out with no deal.

Are you suggesting that would be better politics?
 

[hippo]

Whats the point of having a fixed term parliament which states that 75% of HOC need to approve an election - If you are harangued for not voting that way ? 

Might as well go back to the previous system we the PM can call an election whenever he wants   

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, hippo said:

Whats the point of having a fixed term parliament which states that 75% of HOC need to approve an election - If you are harangued for not voting that way ? 

Might as well go back to the previous system we the PM can call an election whenever he wants   

A 2/3 majority not 3/4.

I think the events of the last few days have lifted the FTPA in a few people's eyes as it has prevented a petulant PM from just exercising his obviously questionable judgment in the matter.

[Mic09]

57 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm sorry but that is rubbish.

That's not strictly true;

Quote

The 50 times Jeremy Corbyn has called for an election this year

https://blogs-spectator-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-50-times-jeremy-corbyn-has-called-for-a-general-election-this-year/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15676771935966&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.spectator.co.uk%2F2019%2F09%2Fthe-50-times-jeremy-corbyn-has-called-for-a-general-election-this-year%2F

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

That's not strictly true;

https://blogs-spectator-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-50-times-jeremy-corbyn-has-called-for-a-general-election-this-year/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15676771935966&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.spectator.co.uk%2F2019%2F09%2Fthe-50-times-jeremy-corbyn-has-called-for-a-general-election-this-year%2F

It was your reasoning that was rubbish

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

That's not strictly true;

I'm not disputing that Corbyn has frequently and regularly called for an election - he's still calling for one (only under particular circumstances - not on Johnson's say - though I don't think Corbyn goes far enough if the reports about what they're willing to accept, i.e. just Royal Assent, are correct)..

I say that your claimed 'reason', i.e. ' Now he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose', is rubbish.

You do understand that last night's vote happened in a wider political context, don't you?

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by snowychap

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I'm not disputing that Corbyn has frequently and regularly called for an election - he's still calling for one (only under particular circumstances - not on Johnson's say - though I don't think Corbyn goes far enough if the reports about what they're willing to accept, i.e. just Royal Assent, are correct)..

I say that your claimed 'reason', i.e. ' Now he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose', is rubbish.

You do understand that last night's vote happened in a wider political context, don't you?

 

Yes, however I think that he doesn't want one because Labour is likely to lose. 

If he was confident of victory, why wouldn't he want one?

[cyrusr]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Yes, however I think that he doesn't want one because Labour is likely to lose. 

If he was confident of victory, why wouldn't he want one?

Because they are currently trying to get through legislation that would prevent No-Deal. If he agreed to an election now, then parliament goes without the legislation being completed and allowing the government to have the final say over no deal rather than parliament. What else have they been doing over the last few days?  

Decisions are not binary, nor should they be. 

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Yes, however I think that he doesn't want one because Labour is likely to lose.

Ah, you think he doesn't want one because Labour is likely to lose?

That's a world away from 'he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose'.

I think we can write off that original claim, then.

Quote

If he was confident of victory, why wouldn't he want one?

He does want one. He said that he wants one.

The issue is one of timing and who controls when this ought to take place.

It is not, any longer, up to the PM to choose when an election should take place this is, under the FTPA, up to Parliament.

Edit: That's incorrect - it is up to Parliament to decide whether or not an early election takes place. It is still then up to the PM to decide the date for that election.*

Parliament has said that it has other priorities at the moment.

An election would ceriously adversely impair preparations for leaving on October 31st (with or without an agreement) given purdah rules - even more than proroguing Parliament.

 

* Unless anything else were passed, a vote to allow an early election could quite well result in the date for that being set for after Oct 31st regardless of what Johnson may have said about October 15th in public or in the House of Commons.

Edited September 5, 2019 by snowychap

[Chindie]

All the opposition parties want an election.

What they don't want is to give Johnson the election he wants, as nobody trusts him to not use an election on his terms to force a No Deal Brexit. If Brexit wasn't a thing, Parliament would have backed an election last night. But Brexit is THE thing, and that needs sorting first, especially with such an intensely untrustworthy government.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Chindie

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Yes, however I think that he doesn't want one because Labour is likely to lose. 

If he was confident of victory, why wouldn't he want one?

Johnson is a proven undisputed compulsive liar.
Why on earth would anybody just take it on trust that if they agreed to an election he would set it for 15th October?
It would be an absolute first for him to actually keep his word.

There is a world of difference between not wanting an election and not wanting one purely on Johnson’s terms on a date chosen by Johnson. Can you really not see the difference?
 

[Mic09]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Johnson is a proven undisputed compulsive liar.
Why on earth would anybody just take it on trust that if they agreed to an election he would set it for 15th October?

I honestly think that agreeing on an election and not going through with it would be political suicide. I just don't believe this to be true, I think he has every intention of calling one. Even he isn't that stupid on the biggest topic of European politics and on the eve of negotiating trade terms with future partners.

I also don't think it would be on Johnson's 'terms'. The suggested date of mid October is the only plausible time to organise everything and do it before the official Brexit date. We could of course have one later, and ask EU for Extension, but Tories are unlikely to agree to that. Regardless of yesterday, they have a better hand at the minute.

To answer some of the above concerns, I can see a few reasons why Corbyn would not want a GE now (in spite of some of the suggestions above, I understand we are not in a vacuum, and there are many factors to consider)

1. He thinks Labour will lose.
2. He thinks there will be a hung parliament with a slight Tory advantage, which in current circumstances would not change much anyway.
3. He think he will win - but the mess created by Tories goes waaaay down the rabbit hole and there is no way to fix this in Brussels and make his party look good.
4. He feels that he will win, but calling for another referendum OR calling to withdraw article 50 would cause his party more damage than good in the long term.

I think that should there be an election now, and should Labour win, EU will be more than happy to extend the withdrawal date, but that is my guess. I could of course be wrong. I just think that Corbyn would rather stir the shit pond created by Tories rather than actually do something to fix it and take control. In a way, Labour is in a safe position where whatever Tories do is wrong. Why would he want to take the hot seat?

Edited September 5, 2019 by Mic09

[Chindie]

If an election had been granted last night, Johnson would be able to at his whim decide when that election is, the date would not be set in stone. So while he may say he wants the election for mid October, what he actually could do is decide he really prefers it for mid November, forcing the No Deal he's quite happy to see happen.

And the rest of parliament isn't happy to see that, but they'd be buggered.

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

If an election had been granted last night, Johnson would be able to at his whim decide when that election is, the date would not be set in stone. So while he may say he wants the election for mid October, what he actually could do is decide he really prefers it for mid November, forcing the No Deal he's quite happy to see happen.

And the rest of parliament isn't happy to see that, but they'd be buggered.

Again, you could be right. I just don't think that such a move would go well with the public or the MPs.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I think that should there be an election now

There can't be 'an election now'.

An election would have to happen at some date in the future (25 working days after dissolution) and, whilst Parliament stands dissolved, the PM and Ministers remain in place but there are no MPs as there is no Parliament.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Again, you could be right. I just don't think that such a move would go well with the public or the MPs.

If the aim were to leave the EU on October 31st come what may then whether it 'goes well' is immaterial. If the election date were set for Nov 1st (or even 31st October, I guess) then, absent some form of litigation to successfully overturn the decision, the die would be cast.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There can't be 'an election now'.

An election would have to happen at some date in the future (25 working days after dissolution) and, whilst Parliament stands dissolved, the PM and Ministers remain in place but there are no MPs as there is no Parliament.

I meant 'retrospectively' in the light of yesterday's events.