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

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

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.

Unless the EU would grant an extension, which I think most MPs would be asking for at that point. But that is an assumption, and that could make me an ass. 

[LondonLax]

21 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

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.

 

I’m not sure you’ve been paying attention to the events of the last few days.

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Unless the EU would grant an extension, which I think most MPs would be asking for at that point. But that is an assumption, and that could make me an ass. 

The EU cannot 'grant an extension' unilaterally. It is for the EU and the departing state to come to an agreement on that.

The executive (i.e. the PM on its behalf) is who would agree that by way of the UK's representative to the Council - that is unless Parliament were to pass legislation giving that power to someone else. Something which they wouldn't be able to do if Parliament is prorogued or dissolved.

Edited September 5, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

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.

You don't appear to be understanding the argument.

The PM doesn't, now, get to 'call an election'. The election date is fixed unless the provisions in the FTPA apply allowing for an early election. It is Parliament that gets to decide on whether an early election happens (either bny voting for it oor by hte default position occurring after a lost VONC by the existing government).

The PM, in those circumstances, gets to decide the date of that election not whether it happens or not. He therefore would go ahead with it but may choose to go ahead with it at a time that he feells most expedient for himself, hiw own political ambitions orr, perhaps, to ensure that the 'do or die' commitment is met in advance of an election.

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

I’m not sure you’ve been paying attention to the events of the last few days.

Sorry to pick on you, but yes, I have. Could you please explain your point?

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

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

You meant what 'retrospectively'?

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You meant what 'retrospectively'?

If the parliament decided to hold a snap election, I doubt that Tories would hold it after the official Brexit date.

IF however they did (which would be a cynical move, not taken well by anyone but hardcore Tories), I think that there would be a parliament wide consensus (take away Brexit Tory hardliners) to ask for an extension, and because of the pressure of this request, I think that such would be granted.

But we are very much hypothesising now. 

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

If the parliament decided to hold a snap election, I doubt that Tories would hold it after the official Brexit date.

IF however they did (which would be a cynical move, not taken well by anyone but hardcore Tories), I think that there would be a parliament wide consensus (take away Brexit Tory hardliners) to ask for an extension, and because of the pressure of this request, I think that such would be granted.

But we are very much hypothesising now. 

aaaarghhhhh

Why would they NOT hold it after the event?

Then they could campaign on having delivered what they promised and having wiped out the Brexit Party - it's their ideal scenario.

 

If they ask for an extension, which they've categorically said they will not under any circumstances, then they'll be campaigning having failed and lied.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

aaaarghhhhh

Why would they NOT hold it after the event?

Then they could campaign on having delivered what they promised and having wiped out the Brexit Party - it's their ideal scenario.

 

If they ask for an extension, which they've categorically said they will not under any circumstances, then they'll be campaigning having failed and lied.

THEY MIGHT. I said so above.

In which case, I think there would be an extension.

Would have they lied if there was an extension? Yes. But that would be a normal day at the office.

[snowychap]

Just now, Mic09 said:

If the parliament decided to hold a snap election, I doubt that Tories would hold it after the official Brexit date.

IF however they did (which would be a cynical move, not taken well by anyone but hardcore Tories), I think that there would be a parliament wide consensus (take away Brexit Tory hardliners) to ask for an extension, and because of the pressure of this request, I think that such would be granted.

But we are very much hypothesising now. 

But your whole argument is 'hypothesising'.

The date for an early election is set by the PM not 'the Tories'.

In order for Parliament to force seeking an extension (either by legislation such as yesterday's or by even more strident legislation giving the power to seek and agree an extension to someone other than the executive and its representative), it needs to be sitting, thus not prorogued or dissolved.

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

But your whole argument is 'hypothesising'.

The date for an early election is set by the PM not 'the Tories'.

In order for Parliament to force seeking an extension (either by legislation such as yesterday's or by even more strident legislation giving the power to seek and agree an extension to someone other than the executive and its representative), it needs to be sitting, thus not prorogued or dissolved.

Of course it's hypothesising, the vote for an early election has failed yesterday.

The whole argument started on why I thought Mr Corbyn wouldn't have want one now. So yeah, it was always meant to be speculation.

[snowychap]

Just now, Mic09 said:

Of course it's hypothesising, the vote for an early election has failed yesterday.

The whole argument started on why I thought Mr Corbyn wouldn't have want one now. So yeah, it was always meant to be speculation.

But it is 'speculation' that was either quickly rowed back from by you or that seems to be predicated on some fundamental misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about the processes and procedures involved (I'll grant that omniscience on these matters isn't present in anyone even the view of the most learned of experts to whom us amateurs need to look to further our own knowledge).

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

But it is 'speculation' that was either quickly rowed back from by you or that seems to be predicated on some fundamental misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about the processes and procedures involved (I'll grant that omniscience on these matters isn't present in anyone even the view of the most learned of experts to whom us amateurs need to look to further our own knowledge).

I don't think my speculation was rowed back (if it was please point me to it so I can sharpen my argument), and I appreciate that I might not know everything about parliamentary procedures. I don't think anyone does, and even if you are more knowledgeable, that does not make you correct on the possible reasons why I think Corbyn did not want an election, although he has called for one on numerous occasions.

So here are my reasons, as stated previously:

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.

If you can think of any more, please add them to the list of possible reasons. If I was a betting man, I would bet on option 1. 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I don't think my speculation was rowed back (if it was please point me to it so I can sharpen my argument)

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Now he doesn't want one because everyone knows Labour would lose.

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

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

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I don't think my speculation was rowed back (if it was please point me to it so I can sharpen my argument), and I appreciate that I might not know everything about parliamentary procedures. I don't think anyone does, and even if you are more knowledgeable, that does not make you correct on the possible reasons why I think Corbyn did not want an election, although he has called for one on numerous occasions.

So here are my reasons, as stated previously:

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.

If you can think of any more, please add them to the list of possible reasons. If I was a betting man, I would bet on option 1. 

I fully accept that you have a particular opinion on Corbyn's reasoning. I don't accept it.

My original beef was with the 'everyone knows' - I have no beef with the 'you think' other than to differ.

Edit: As you're keen on having a post repeated:

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

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.

Edited September 5, 2019 by snowychap

[peterms]

Ken Clarke on WATO now debunking this nonsense story that if Corbyn was head of a caretaker government he could somehow start implementing LP policy.  Astonishing that such a fantasy should still persist to the extent that he feels it necessary to debunk it, but still.

[Mic09]

@snowychap

Firstly, apologies for saying 'Everyone knows'. I might have got ahead of myself there, and that is not what I meant. Poor use of words. Please treat it as 'It is of my strong opinion'.

As for the part where you suggested it's about the timing, I take that on board. However, here are a couple of quotes from Corbyn from only a few days ago:
 

Quote

 

3rd Sept 2019:

‘We are ready for a general election, ready to take on this Government and ready to win a general election’

2nd September 2019:

‘The General Election will be vital in deciding the direction of our country’

2nd September 2019:

‘We are ready for a General Election, which will be a once in a generation chance for a real change of direction for our country’
Source: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/the-50-times-jeremy-corbyn-has-called-for-a-general-election-this-year/

 

It's all about the timing. But if Corbyn asks for a General Election and claims they can win only 2 days ago (!) I think he understands the timing rather well. I honestly think he overplayed his hand and does not believe he can win it. 

Other than winning a vote on no deal which has worked in his favour and should reinforce his stance, what has changed in the 24 hour that has made him back track on his own words?
 

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Other than winning a vote on no deal which has worked in his favour and should reinforce his stance, what has changed in the 24 hour that has made him back track on his own words?

I don't see what's so hard to understand, especially since the issue has been aired all over the media in some depth.

It's a tactical consideration about whether approving what Johnson wanted would give him leeway to change to proposed date of an election to advantage him and disadvantage others, and perhaps also to try to push through a no deal.  Why you are interpreting it as Corbyn not wanting an election at all is completely baffling, especially in view of the explanations you have been given.

A further tactical point is that if an election is held after the end of October and we haven't left, there is a good chance that Johnson will lose many of the Brexit Party votes he deperately needs.

[tonyh29]

28 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Other than winning a vote on no deal which has worked in his favour and should reinforce his stance, what has changed in the 24 hour that has made him back track on his own words?

Corbyn didn't table that vote so i'm not sure he "won " it

For once , Corbyn seems to have been well advised  ,  even if Boris dresses up as a chicken and walks around the commons making clucking noises I don't think Corbyn is going to fall into the trap that was put before him 

I do believe corbyn knows he won't win aGE  but I don't think that's his motive in this instance

Edited September 5, 2019 by tonyh29

[hippo]

if no deal is off the table the Brexit party will rise in the polls - damaging Johnsons Tories - I think that what Corbyn is waiting for. It might not be advisable for BJ to call Corbyn a coward to much - as when Johnson declines the TV debate  it could come back and bite him in the arse.