Jump to content
Demitri_C

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

interesting .... to me , Corbyn shouting and getting flustered I found very negative (no surprise ) , he kept missing his words ,partly as a result of his lack of control  ....some some to defend this as passion and his anger , i personally thought he was rattled  ...  Corbyn's speech looked even more inept when Blackford came on after him with that measured and controlled manner of his , I'm no lover of the SNP and their brand of hypocrisy but Blackford does have quite a statesman like feel to him

i thought Boris did what he does best (subjective) that sort of ambling but quite witty style that infuriates haters but makes others kinda like him ... I'd be gobsmacked if anyone on VT saw it as anything but the complete opposite though

Different strokes...

To me, Corbyn was indeed getting hugely barracked by the tories - pretty disgracefully so. But he managed to come across, after the first 45 seconds or so as pretty good - he made good points, grounded in reality and mixed in with the more partisan stuff. Blackford afterwards was calmer, but didn't really hit home and wandered off into very SNP (as you'd expect) "Scotland"  this that and tho other. Fair enough to an extent, but it was in the UK parliament.

Johnson was dreadful. He re-used his joke from last week, and offered basically no defence of his position of PM of the UK doing that he's done. We know much of what he said was simply false.

I guess we all see it differently

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

i thought Boris did what he does best (subjective) that sort of ambling but quite witty style that infuriates haters but makes others kinda like him ... I'd be gobsmacked if anyone on VT saw it as anything but the complete opposite though

That just sums it up really. 

What he says means absolutely nothing as long as it infuriates his haters. 

Tribalism at it's worse. 

Edited by blandy
corrected quoted poster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

That just sums it up really. 

What he says means absolutely nothing as long as it infuriates his haters. 

Tribalism at it's worse.

i already wrote my last sentence so you didn't need to waste ink on the Internet :)

 

and to use your favourite phrase , thats completely disingenuous to what i actually wrote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

i already wrote my last sentence so you didn't need to waste ink on the Internet :)

 

and to use your favourite phrase , thats completely disingenuous to what i actually wrote

Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Corbyn is ten times the statesman and a hundred times the man Boris Johnson will ever be. I would love to see him as P.M. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, peterms said:

I think that when things come to a climax, Johnson will be condomned to the dustbin of history.

Not the first time he should have been condomned.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Same. He was legitimately angry at the contempt Johnson holds for his office, Parliament and the population. 

If only there was a chance he could do something about it, maybe by having an election or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Not the first time he should have been condomned.

Yes, the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip needs to pay much more care to the unintended effects of entering alliances with serially unfaithful words removed, like that saucy, reclining fantasist JRM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, blandy said:

the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Both we and US citizens would associate this phrase with "Johnson".  Though in the US, they would associate "member" with "Johnson".

But we would be as one in reading the phrase and thinking "cock".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

If only there was a chance he could do something about it, maybe by having an election or something...

On a serious note, I wonder if it's not too late and did Corbyn just lose in the game of chicken.

While I think that Boris will be asking for an extension (in which case a referendum is inevitable), it would not surprise me if we left the EU with no deal. Some legal loophole, something dodgy. Last thing we will see if Boris in prison so I am not holding on to that as a warranty.

Maybe this was Corbyn's only chance. After all, he can't have it both ways. IF Boris is a lying manipulative person, as the red part of the country sees him, isn't it likely he will go ahead with no deal? And if that's true, maybe it was worth going ahead with an election yesterday, and made it clear that his party will agree to it if it's held at a specific parliament agreed date.

Time will tell.

Edited by Mic09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

maybe it was worth going ahead with an election yesterday, and made it clear that his party will agree to it if it's held at a specific parliament agreed date

The motion yesterday (as last week) was under the FTPA, under which the power to choose the date of the election lies with the PM.

To have voted for the motion, would have been to vote for an election on the terms of the PM being the one who chooses when an election takes place.

There was no opportunity to 'agree to an election if it's held at a specific parliament agreed date [sic]'.

Edited by snowychap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The motion yesterday (as last week) was under the FTPA, under which the power to choose the date of the election lies with the PM.

To have voted for the motion, would have been to vote for an election on the terms of the PM being the one who chooses when an election takes place.

There was no opportunity to 'agree to an election if it's held at a specific parliament agreed date [sic]'.

I know there wasn't. But if the opposition said to Conservatives, ok, let's have an election but let's put it to the parliament to decide the date (within a legal/time frame). Even if it's just a suggestion within a public debate. It would do 2 possible things:

1. Call Boris's election bluff and see if he is ready for one. If he doesn't want to agree to this, it will show that he doesn't give a shit about the election. If that happens, we carry on as we are, but Labour might get a few extra % points with the angry public.

2. If he lied about the agreed date, well, that's the Tories over. Biggest PR and democratic harakiri in the history of politics. Boris is not that stupid even if he wants a no deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I know there wasn't. But if the opposition said to Conservatives, ok, let's have an election but let's put it to the parliament to decide the date (within a legal/time frame). Even if it's just a suggestion within a public debate. It would do 2 possible things:

1. Call Boris's election bluff and see if he is ready for one. If he doesn't want to agree to this, it will show that he doesn't give a shit about the election. If that happens, we carry on as we are, but Labour might get a few extra % points with the angry public.

2. If he lied about the agreed date, well, that's the Tories over. Biggest PR and democratic harakiri in the history of politics. Boris is not that stupid even if he wants a no deal.

They effectively did that. They said that they wouldn't vote for the motion but that they are very much prepared and keen to have a general election once (they believe) no deal has been avoided on the 31st October, either by a deal being brought back by the PM and voted upon by Parliament or the extension required by the Act which received Royal Assent having been sought (and granted).

'2' is a nonsense.

Firstly, it's unlikely to be the case - the current PM is an inveterate liar and has lied over and over and over again. He still appears to be electable with certain groups of people.

Secondly, if the point of refusing to agree to an election date is so as to prevent a no deal on 31st October then it would be utterly stupid to gamble that possibility on some loose idea of a future political and electoral jeopardy to be felt by those that may lie.

Just restating this  claim that you made earlier about 'that's the Tories over, &c.' doesn't make it any better than the first time you put it forward.

The facts of the matter are that the Government twice moved specific motions for an early election that would have had that election being called on specific terms, i..e. the timing would be at the behest of the PM. There is no room for maneouvre on that.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I know there wasn't. But if the opposition said to Conservatives, ok, let's have an election but let's put it to the parliament to decide the date (within a legal/time frame). Even if it's just a suggestion within a public debate. It would do 2 possible things:

1. Call Boris's election bluff and see if he is ready for one. If he doesn't want to agree to this, it will show that he doesn't give a shit about the election. If that happens, we carry on as we are, but Labour might get a few extra % points with the angry public.

2. If he lied about the agreed date, well, that's the Tories over. Biggest PR and democratic harakiri in the history of politics. Boris is not that stupid even if he wants a no deal.

Point 2 is where everyone disagrees with you because Johnson has already shown he will do anything it takes to leave by the 31st so many suspect he might be that stupid.

You can understand why Corbyn would be silly to trust him and take that risk. 

Edited by LondonLax
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

There really are no words

Quote

Labour MP @EmmaLewellBuck told @PaulBrandITV why she would choose the Brexit Party over the Lib Dems to go into a Brexit coalition

 

As bonkers as that and she is, it's completely uttterly irrelevant to anything or anyone. There's not the remotest chance of either the LDs or Farage's personal Gravy train party ever going into coalition with the Jemery Corbyns. It's liking asking me "Salma Hayek or Kate Beckinsale". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, blandy said:

As bonkers as that and she is, it's completely uttterly irrelevant to anything or anyone.

It's relevant to one thing - her imminent re-election campaign. If a quick throwaway line that she can and will never have to follow through on convinces a few more NF / Labour undecideds to stay loyal then it was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â