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

[chrisp65]

6 hours ago, Mic09 said:

So is there any possibility that the stars could allign so that Corbyn actually pulls the trigger on the election?

Because right now he is playing a dangerous game of the public thinking he might be taking the piss just to make parliamentary life difficult. 

Corbyn’s just completely torn on the whole thing.
He wants Brexit, but he’s leading a broadly sort of remainish party. He doesn’t particularly want a tory style Brexit, though I suspect he does think a few years of tory Brexit would then return a radical left government that wouldn’t have to worry about EU rules. Nobody wants an election there's not a good chance of winning - that's the only reason, the absolutely only reason, Johnson does want one. He thinks he has the song n dance moves to hypnotise the pensioners and gammonati.
But whatever, there isn’t an easy ‘out’ here for Labour. The PM has gone back on every die in a ditch / lay in front of the bulldozers statement he’s ever made. But for some peculiar reason enough people that don’t really pay attention ‘like’ him and would vote for him. Many of them would vote for him totally misunderstanding the electoral system in this country. Thinking they are voting for Johnson or Corbyn when they don’t even live in those two constituencies.
Many are happy to hear that we can’t have a second referendum because ‘the people have spoken’. Well, the people have spoken at general elections in 2015 and 2017. They are supposed to be 5 years terms, there’s now going to be a third one. So we are to have three elections in 5 years instead of 15 years. But only one referendum because we must respect democracy.
People aren’t overly engaged in politics, but they do vote. It’s quite an issue.

Once again, I put forward my offer of a benign dictatorship with Samba available free on the NHS, prison for crooked CEO’s that crash a business whilst taking 6 figure bonuses and vast investment in energy saving rather than nuclear power.
 

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, snowychap said:

The date of the election is the date that the election actually happens.

If a motion under the FTPA is passed then the date of the election is for the PM (that lying shit that is Johnson) to decide. It doesn't matter what he's said to Parliament (see things like commitment to go in front of liaison committee) about when it should/might/ought/will be.

As soon as the HoC votes for an election under the FTPA, Johnson could decide on any date he wishes (even if he's said over and over and over and over again in Parliament that it should be 12th Dec).

The logical outcome of 'not holding an election' for the reasons you outline in your second paragraph is that we can't hold an election until 2022, and have to ask the EU for about a dozen extensions in the meantime. That isn't sustainable, and the opposition are running out of good reasons. The public are paying enough attention to realise that in this Parliament, there is only one game in town, which is Johnson's deal. If the opposition don't want Johnson's WAB, then they need to remove him from Downing Street. 

There's no reason to think Johnson will break his word on December 12th anyway. Not because he's honest, but because he stands nothing to gain. After years of his party being bitterly divided, he finally gets them all together to agree on something (at significant cost to his relationship with the DUP), and he throws it away to play some stupid trick to try to leave without a deal, which Parliament would obviously block anyway? I don't see it. 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Samba available free on the NHS,

Thats two steps too far

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

Thats two steps too far

It was an idea that I put to Plaid at Pride, and within 10 minutes they'd tweeted it as 'official policy'. 

 

[bannedfromHandV]

As far as I see it, and I may be wrong but labour don’t want an election for the exact same reason that the Tories do want it - because they know they will not win.

An election right now is a bit like when you have that one mate who has a massive dick and they just want to get it out at every opportunity because they know yours is smaller. I don’t even see what it solves, if there is an election and the Tories win what changes? They’re still the same corrupt arseholes they are right now and public confidence will not increase so what is the point?

Its tragic that there isn’t a viable alternative to Boris frickin Johnson, we literally have a clown in charge of the country and there’s no one capable of replacing him, what a sad state of affairs.

[Mic09]

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The logical outcome of 'not holding an election' for the reasons you outline in your second paragraph is that we can't hold an election until 2022, and have to ask the EU for about a dozen extensions in the meantime. That isn't sustainable, and the opposition are running out of good reasons. The public are paying enough attention to realise that in this Parliament, there is only one game in town, which is Johnson's deal. If the opposition don't want Johnson's WAB, then they need to remove him from Downing Street. 

There's no reason to think Johnson will break his word on December 12th anyway. Not because he's honest, but because he stands nothing to gain. After years of his party being bitterly divided, he finally gets them all together to agree on something (at significant cost to his relationship with the DUP), and he throws it away to play some stupid trick to try to leave without a deal, which Parliament would obviously block anyway? I don't see it. 

That's what I thought.

Corbyn must realise that by not agreeing to end this mess (this parliament) he appears to not want to "get it over with" which is latest catchphrase in town. 

I'll give it to him, he has balls to push this further (we really don't know what the next twist in the plot might be) but I feel the public won't see it that way. They will see that he doesn't want a no deal brexit, he doesn't want Mays deal, he doesn't want Boris deal, he doesn't want a referendum. Does he like the EU? Does he not?

What does he want? The media will surely spin it to look like he wants to oppose anything this government does. And when it actually comes to the inevitable GE, it will cost his party a big chunk of the votes.

[bannedfromHandV]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

That's what I thought.

Corbyn must realise that by not agreeing to end this mess (this parliament) he appears to not want to "get it over with" which is latest catchphrase in town. 

I'll give it to him, he has balls to push this further (we really don't know what the next twist in the plot might be) but I feel the public won't see it that way. They will see that he doesn't want a no deal brexit, he doesn't want Mays deal, he doesn't want Boris deal, he doesn't want a referendum. Does he like the EU? Does he not?

What does he want? The media will surely spin it to look like he wants to oppose anything this government does. And when it actually comes to the inevitable GE, it will cost his party a big chunk of the votes.

He’s trying to wait for the opportune moment to have a chance of winning an election.

If one was called tomorrow Labour does not win, all he needs to do is let nature run it’s course and the longer Boris remains as PM the more absurd people will realise it and he is, the Jennifer Arcuri shit has yet to come to the boil, I suggest once full details of the investigation is done on that Labour will call for a GE.

its in labours interest for Boris to be PM because he’s doing far more damage to the Tory party than labour could ever hope to achieve 

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

As far as I see it, and I may be wrong but labour don’t want an election for the exact same reason that the Tories do want it - because they know they will not win.

I said a similar thought months ago and I agree.

Boris is happy to roll the dice. He doesn't have a majority anyway, so losing 5/10 seats isn't the end of the world for him. We will pick up right where we left off. I'm actually worried he will gain seats, because unlike Labour his party seems to have a political line - as bad as it is - "get it over with". People can get behind that message.

By losing the election Corbyn loses a major bargaining chip. Call one now, lose it, you lost the party leadership (likely, depending on extent of losing) and you lost the power to de-throne Boris. 

Maybe the best course of action is to actually have a consistent Brexit policy of a referendum/remain/new deal - take that message forward, build on it, and gather voters around it. 

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

its in labours interest for Boris to be PM because he’s doing far more damage to the Tory party than labour could ever hope to achieve 

That's one way to look at it.

Problem is people don't know what the hell Labour's stance is. If they did, maybe they could get behind it.

Right now it's a turd sandwich (Boris) or the unknown. Some people like turd. No one likes uncertainty.

[blandy]

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is dispiriting to see. Labour need to back an election. The time to do it is now.

They effing don't! It's absolutely not the time.

There are multiple, exceedingly sound reasons not to;

1. Johnson could change the date of it, if he felt like it, to be after any extension date - thus causing no deal Brexit. No responsibile opposition should allow that possibility to arise. ON that grounds alone Labour should tell him to get to f...

2. Parliament just voted to consider Johnson's deal, to debate it, amend as appropriate and vote it through (or reject it). That needs to happen. It needs adequate time, not some arbitrary short time decided by Johnson for his own purposes.

3.The main, massive issue the UK has is sorting out Brexit. A GE will not do that, it will put that on hold yet again. Parliament has voted to get on with that, to address and potentially pass Johnson's deal, or amend it as necessary - he cannot be allowed to continue the pretence that it's everyone else that is stopping it - it's him. His hole, he dug it. Make him suffer the consequences of his lying and cheating. Opposition parties have the high ground here. "We voted to let Johnson's deal be debated, to let Brexit proceed on it's way and he's pulled it in favour of trying to get re-elected. He's not "getting on with it"".

4. Labour's self interest - they'll get walloped because they are an utterly shambolic clueless mess, with nothing but a satirical parody of a Brexit policy. Have an election( which they'll lose), then get a long extension from the EU (which they won't grant) then re-open all the EU negotiations, then when that's done have a special, oh so Jeremy Corbyn, special party conference thing to decide and vote amongst themselves whether they like what they will have just spent 5 or 6 months negotiating with the EU , or whether actually, they don't like it... then hold a referendum, where they either will or won't recommend acceptance of their own deal. Just gruesomely awful, beyond laughable. Shoot me now.

Even the effwit Corbyn can't be daft enough to fall for Johnson's latest wheeze to get what he wants. Or at least his carers shoudl step in if he is.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

As far as I see it, and I may be wrong but labour don’t want an election for the exact same reason that the Tories do want it - because they know they will not win.

 

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

I said a similar thought months ago and I agree.

Boris is happy to roll the dice. He doesn't have a majority anyway, so losing 5/10 seats isn't the end of the world for him. We will pick up right where we left off. I'm actually worried he will gain seats, because unlike Labour his party seems to have a political line - as bad as it is - "get it over with". People can get behind that message.

By losing the election Corbyn loses a major bargaining chip. Call one now, lose it, you lost the party leadership (likely, depending on extent of losing) and you lost the power to de-throne Boris. 

Maybe the best course of action is to actually have a consistent Brexit policy of a referendum/remain/new deal - take that message forward, build on it, and gather voters around it. 

I don't agree here. Labour do have a clear Brexit policy, which is simply 'we would like to renegotiate and then have a referendum, but if not we think there should be a referendum anyway'. I don't believe Labour stalled on the last election because they didn't think they were going to win. It's not in character, and it doesn't fit with 2017, when Labour uniformly voted for an election despite being much further behind in the polls. The stated reason - stopping Boris from leaving without a deal - is also the real reason. However, whether it was the right policy at the time or not (and I thought it was) it isn't any more. Boris isn't going to try to bounce the country into a No Deal exit, he's going to try to ram through his Withdrawal Agreement with Labour votes, and he'll probably be successful. The only way for the Labour leadership to prevent that is to take their argument to the country. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

They effing don't! It's absolutely not the time.

There are multiple, exceedingly sound reasons not to;

1. Johnson could change the date of it, if he felt like it, to be after any extension date - thus causing no deal Brexit. No responsibile opposition should allow that possibility to arise. ON that grounds alone Labour should tell him to get to f...

2. Parliament just voted to consider Johnson's deal, to debate it, amend as appropriate and vote it through (or reject it). That needs to happen. It needs adequate time, not some arbitrary short time decided by Johnson for his own purposes.

3.The main, massive issue the UK has is sorting out Brexit. A GE will not do that, it will put that on hold yet again. Parliament has voted to get on with that, to address and potentially pass Johnson's deal, or amend it as necessary - he cannot be allowed to continue the pretence that it's everyone else that is stopping it - it's him. His hole, he dug it. Make him suffer the consequences of his lying and cheating. Opposition parties have the high ground here. "We voted to let Johnson's deal be debated, to let Brexit proceed on it's way and he's pulled it in favour of trying to get re-elected. He's not "getting on with it"".

4. Labour's self interest - they'll get walloped because they are an utterly shambolic clueless mess, with nothing but a satirical parody of a Brexit policy. Have an election( which they'll lose), then get a long extension from the EU (which they won't grant) then re-open all the EU negotiations, then when that's done have a special, oh so Jeremy Corbyn, special party conference thing to decide and vote amongst themselves whether they like what they will have just spent 5 or 6 months negotiating with the EU , or whether actually, they don't like it... then hold a referendum, where they either will or won't recommend acceptance of their own deal. Just gruesomely awful, beyond laughable. Shoot me now.

Even the effwit Corbyn can't be daft enough to fall for Johnson's latest wheeze to get what he wants. Or at least his carers shoudl step in if he is.

A typical thoughtful post blandy, even if I completely disagree. I hope you understand that I appreciate it, but I don't have time to engage in detail for the time being. 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The only way for the Labour leadership to prevent that is to take their argument to the country

Holy F***! We're doomed

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The logical outcome of 'not holding an election' for the reasons you outline in your second paragraph is that we can't hold an election until 2022, and have to ask the EU for about a dozen extensions in the meantime.

No, it isn't. There has already been talk of passing a 'notwithstanding the FTPA' bill which was why I said yesterday that it would be interesting to see what kind of device the Government would use to press for an Election.

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's no reason to think Johnson will break his word on December 12th anyway. Not because he's honest, but because he stands nothing to gain.

There is absolutely every reason to think Johnson will break his word because he does, consistently and often for no good reason.

But, as Blandy pointed out in his response to you, there could be a reason:

Parliament votes for an election under FTPA;

EU grants an extension until 15th Nov (if WAB Passed) and until 31st Jan if not;

WAB gets voted down in third reading or pulled or a sufficiently altered WAB gets passed that it means they're not ratifying the agreement;

Government mumbles shit aboout trying to get the agreement changed or trying to get it back through Parliament in original state thus announces that election is postponed until a later date;

New Speaker doesn't permit SO24 debates to take control of the order paper therefore no new 'Benn Act';

Gov announces election on Feb 6th.

 

Now the chances of the above are very small but they are still there and, even if it's for some other reason (say they want to make sure the election is in University holidays), the fact of the matter is voting for an election under the FTPA will be giving the choice of the date to an inveterate liar who spent pretty much all of the time he was in Parliament over the last week or two promising as many people as possible everything he could even when those things were patently untrue or when one thing competed with another.

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

I don't agree here. Labour do have a clear Brexit policy, which is simply 'we would like to renegotiate and then have a referendum, but if not we think there should be a referendum anyway'. 

Do whatever happens there should be a referendum.

Does Corbyn activlly support a referendum? Is that his main argument line? 

[Mic09]

20 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, it isn't. There has already been talk of passing a 'notwithstanding the FTPA' bill which was why I said yesterday that it would be interesting to see what kind of device the Government would use to press for an Election.

There is absolutely every reason to think Johnson will break his word because he does, consistently and often for no good reason.

But, as Blandy pointed out in his response to you, there could be a reason:

Parliament votes for an election under FTPA;

EU grants an extension until 15th Nov (if WAB Passed) and until 31st Jan if not;

WAB gets voted down in third reading or pulled or a sufficiently altered WAB gets passed that it means they're not ratifying the agreement;

Government mumbles shit aboout trying to get the agreement changed or trying to get it back through Parliament in original state thus announces that election is postponed until a later date;

New Speaker doesn't permit SO24 debates to take control of the order paper therefore no new 'Benn Act';

Gov announces election on Feb 6th.

 

Now the chances of the above are very small but they are still there and, even if it's for some other reason (say they want to make sure the election is in University holidays), the fact of the matter is voting for an election under the FTPA will be giving the choice of the date to an inveterate liar who spent pretty much all of the time he was in Parliament over the last week or two promising as many people as possible everything he could even when those things were patently untrue or when one thing competed with another.

So is there any way that Corbyn will be happy that there is no risk of "no deal"? 

The way I see it, there is always a risk of that happening? 

As things stand, according the law, that is the default outcome in 6 days time.

[magnkarl]

Corbyn's Labour had its chance when he was on the up. Sadly times have changed and everyone's realised what an idiot he is. He could've probably contested an election closely in his "no student loans"-phase, however he's now lost support even amongst his most rabid supporters. There's no coherency and no clear voice that can penetrate the bickering wall of inaction that is Labour's leadership, they're too busy trying to figure out how it all went to hell while they were busy organising a sing-along at Glasto.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

So is there any way that Corbyn will be happy that there is no risk of "no deal"?

I don't know. Why don't you contact him and ask him yourself?

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's no reason to think Johnson will break his word on December 12th anyway. Not because he's honest, but because he stands nothing to gain. After years of his party being bitterly divided, he finally gets them all together to agree on something (at significant cost to his relationship with the DUP), and he throws it away to play some stupid trick to try to leave without a deal, which Parliament would obviously block anyway? I don't see it.

A couple of other things here: how does Parliament obviously block leaving without a deal? and if they vote for the 12th Dec and the WAB passes (thus ratifying the agreement), we could be leaving the EU on Nov 30th as per the following (or earlier if the extension only goes to mid Nov):

In the middle of an election campaign, with no Parliament. Not a great idea.

[Mic09]

16 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't know. Why don't you contact him and ask him yourself?

Soz for engaging with a person outspoken on the Brexit matter on a discussion forum.

I'll try Corbyn, but he probably won't know what to say.