The EU Referendum Hokey Cokey

[YoungWillz 18,967]

Meantime, if you are driving by any ditches on Sunday, have a quick look for the PM.....

[Deathray 2,933]

Corbyn on BBC News saying that he will vote for an election if the extension is granted. 

[Bibliogryphon 8,623]

Head of the Civil Service said last week that the latest the election should be held in the year is 12th December because around Christmas many polling stations would not be available. 

 

I don't understand everyone's problem with Corbyn. He comes across as a decent bloke. Why does he generate such vitriol?

[TQR 12,063]

 

D’you know, this could be genuine and it wouldn’t surprise me anymore.

[Deathray 2,933]

He's sending an unsigned letter asking for the extension.

 

Along with signed letters asking for the EU to reject the extension request.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50112924

[TQR 12,063]

39 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

I don't understand everyone's problem with Corbyn. He comes across as a decent bloke. Why does he generate such vitriol?

I’m sure he is a decent bloke (if you ignore his defence of the IRA, Hamas and the like. Oh, and his ignorance of Anti-semitism within his party). But he’s not offering an effective opposition. He’s done nowhere near enough to prevent the shambles we’re in/heading for right now. He has not listened to the people. He has not listened to vast amounts of his party. He needs to step aside. We need someone who can really oppose what Johnson et al is doing to our country. Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and the like.

[TQR 12,063]

2 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

He's sending an unsigned letter asking for the extension.

 

Along with signed letters asking for the EU to reject the extension request.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50112924

What a child. Petulant fucking child.

[Deathray 2,933]

Seems the EU are going to grant it anyway.

Which is great news, means we can have an election before the January deadline (which is what he really is doing this for; optics for that general election).

 

The numbers are there for a VoNC and subsequent GE even if Boris doesn't vote for one (which he will):

 

Lab 245

SNP 35

LD 19

DUP 10 (now they've been shafted)

TIG 5 

Plaid 4 

Green 1

Ex-Labour Indies 2

 

Total: 319

 

We've got 12 weeks to have a general election and pass some form of Brexit deal because this current shitshow of a parliament can't.

 

Get the extension confirmed within the next few days, call the election. 

[Paul Bearer 5,640]

General election?    Hmmmmmmm. 

[YoungWillz 18,967]

4 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Head of the Civil Service said last week that the latest the election should be held in the year is 12th December because around Christmas many polling stations would not be available. 

 

I don't understand everyone's problem with Corbyn. He comes across as a decent bloke. Why does he generate such vitriol?

 

3 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:

I’m sure he is a decent bloke (if you ignore his defence of the IRA, Hamas and the like. Oh, and his ignorance of Anti-semitism within his party). But he’s not offering an effective opposition. He’s done nowhere near enough to prevent the shambles we’re in/heading for right now. He has not listened to the people. He has not listened to vast amounts of his party. He needs to step aside. We need someone who can really oppose what Johnson et al is doing to our country. Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and the like.

 

This is an interesting analysis.

 

Corbyn's job has not been to oppose for months imo. As soon as Bawjaws looked like an evasive, blibbering, lying, law-breaking toerag, and had no majority, his job was to make himself and his party look electable. Let's not forget that despite Cameron being revealed as a total cunt who penetrated pork, Theresa May as a home secretary who was prepared to send the vans round effectively saying "go home paki" while deporting British citizens, George Osborne as Chancellor keeping his money offshore, etc etc, they got elected with a small majority. As I recall, Cameron and his ilk would have been at uni at the same time as I was, and I recall the Young Conservatives calling for the execution of Nelson Mandela - wouldn't surprise me if a number of the 2010 Tory government had their participation in that little scumbag operation covered up as soon as they got the keys to the castle.

 

History's a problem for Corbyn. For example, there was Kinnock, being a strong leader rooting out Militant Tendency and where did that get him? Party divided and all that.

 

Corbyn's problem should be his future, not his past. There's no doubt he's an effective campaigner on bread and butter issues. That's what a General Election should look like. Past Labour leaders would have swept people like Bawjaws aside easily.

 

Both major parties look divided, both look unelectable, both are really not fit for 21st century Britain, in or out of the EU. They both need a grand old kicking at the polls. But who will give that kicking to them? I'm sorry to say it's the public who look on with horror at Westminster and what it has become, then stick their cross in a box with one or the other. Then wonder why the shitshow continues.

 

I say as always, use your vote, and think hard before that cross goes down.

[Sean 5,997]

8 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:

What a child. Petulant fucking child.

Why would he sign it.It is parliament asking for the letter not him?He said he wouldn't sign it and they haven't called a motion of no confidence to set up an interim government or call an election.For the record he is a twat just don't see why he should sign it.He sent it which he had to do.

[Sean 5,997]

I have said it before and will say it again.The country is ungovernable for a generation.They can't hold off a general election any longer.Hung parliament's simply cannot function in a constitutional crisis .Especially when all the leaders are weak.

[Sean 5,997]

I think Labour really don't want a general election at the moment.They would lose leave seats to the Tories in the north and Wales and remain seats in the south and Scotland.They have been standing in the middle of the road and can see traffic approaching from both sides.

[Sean 5,997]

5 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

 

 

This is an interesting analysis.

 

Corbyn's job has not been to oppose for months imo. As soon as Bawjaws looked like an evasive, blibbering, lying, law-breaking toerag, and had no majority, his job was to make himself and his party look electable. Let's not forget that despite Cameron being revealed as a total cunt who penetrated pork, Theresa May as a home secretary who was prepared to send the vans round effectively saying "go home paki" while deporting British citizens, George Osborne as Chancellor keeping his money offshore, etc etc, they got elected with a small majority. As I recall, Cameron and his ilk would have been at uni at the same time as I was, and I recall the Young Conservatives calling for the execution of Nelson Mandela - wouldn't surprise me if a number of the 2010 Tory government had their participation in that little scumbag operation covered up as soon as they got the keys to the castle.

 

History's a problem for Corbyn. For example, there was Kinnock, being a strong leader rooting out Militant Tendency and where did that get him? Party divided and all that.

 

Corbyn's problem should be his future, not his past. There's no doubt he's an effective campaigner on bread and butter issues. That's what a General Election should look like. Past Labour leaders would have swept people like Bawjaws aside easily.

 

Both major parties look divided, both look unelectable, both are really not fit for 21st century Britain, in or out of the EU. They both need a grand old kicking at the polls. But who will give that kicking to them? I'm sorry to say it's the public who look on with horror at Westminster and what it has become, then stick their cross in a box with one or the other. Then wonder why the shitshow continues.

 

I say as always, use your vote, and think hard before that cross goes down.

I am starting to question the point in voting.

[TQR 12,063]

5 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

Corbyn's job has not been to oppose for months imo. As soon as Bawjaws looked like an evasive, blibbering, lying, law-breaking toerag, and had no majority, his job was to make himself and his party look electable.

 

Corbyn's problem should be his future, not his past. There's no doubt he's an effective campaigner on bread and butter issues. That's what a General Election should look like. Past Labour leaders would have swept people like Bawjaws aside easily.

 

Both major parties look divided, both look unelectable, both are really not fit for 21st century Britain, in or out of the EU. They both need a grand old kicking at the polls. But who will give that kicking to them? I'm sorry to say it's the public who look on with horror at Westminster and what it has become, then stick their cross in a box with one or the other. Then wonder why the shitshow continues.

 

I would argue that appearing electable and offering effective opposition to Johnson go hand in hand in this instance, however he's done neither of those things. If Johnson was driving a bus with all of us on it into a burning, collapsing building, all Corbyn would do is complain that buses should be nationalised. We've got bigger issues we want you to oppose, Jeremy.

 

Look at yesterday's antics in Commons. Keir Starmer delivered the storming speech, the contumely, the comprehensive demolition of this bullshit deal Johnson's taking credit for. That speech was one that Corbyn could and would never deliver. The opposition is coming from various corners of his party, not from him, and that makes him an ineffectual leader. If he cared about the country, from the huge questions thrown up about our future to the bread and butter issues he appears he might be clued up on, he would step aside and let someone else lead his party into a more likely GE success. 

 

The Tories have lurched right, Labour left. The Tories have a gibbering wreck leading them, Labour a soggy cabbage. Neither are even on flirting terms with being fit to govern. And yet, we are still too much of a two-party state for anyone else to have a vague hope of getting the governing side of the chamber.

 

[Sean 5,997]

13 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

 

I would argue that appearing electable and offering effective opposition to Johnson go hand in hand in this instance, however he's done neither of those things. If Johnson was driving a bus with all of us on it into a burning, collapsing building, all Corbyn would do is complain that buses should be nationalised. We've got bigger issues we want you to oppose, Jeremy.

 

Look at yesterday's antics in Commons. Keir Starmer delivered the storming speech, the contumely, the comprehensive demolition of this bullshit deal Johnson's taking credit for. That speech was one that Corbyn could and would never deliver. The opposition is coming from various corners of his party, not from him, and that makes him an ineffectual leader. If he cared about the country, from the huge questions thrown up about our future to the bread and butter issues he appears he might be clued up on, he would step aside and let someone else lead his party into a more likely GE success. 

 

The Tories have lurched right, Labour left. The Tories have a gibbering wreck leading them, Labour a soggy cabbage. Neither are even on flirting terms with being fit to govern. And yet, we are still too much of a two-party state for anyone else to have a vague hope of getting the governing side of the chamber.

 

Corbyn would never do a speech like Starmer as he is a Bennite at heart and as hostile to the EU as Kate Hoey and Dennis Skinner.He has had to champion the possibility of a further referendum to appease his MPs and membership.This makes him a careerist and not a man of principle as he and his supporters are keen to portray him as.

[Sean 5,997]

I think the two party system isn't dead but it will be strained.With the SNP dominating Scottish politics and the Lib Dems growing in popularity amongst remainers and the possibility of Farages Brexit Party gaining traction should the Tories be seen  concede any further in the minds of Brexiteers we could see the two parties both returning with less seats than they have now.I think Labour has the greatest risk of losing seats at present but a week is a long time in politics.

[msc 17,729]

I think the next election will produce a hung parliament, too. Its not beyond the Tories to spin the situation to their advantage, but currently it looks like they'd lose a chunk of their Scottish seats, a number of their London seats and their Remain held seats in the South with a Lib Dem challenge (ie Cheltenham). As Ed Miliband showed, it's really difficult to win a majority when you start the campaign at circa minus -20 seats wise and need to make it up.

 

Not that Corbyn seems likely to gain much either. But then, one of those two will through our First Past the Post System.

[Deathray 2,933]

Most projections currently run us to a Tory majority government.

 

If we somehow ended up with a 3rd hung parliament in 10 years then it really is time that parliament got together and voted in some form of proportional representation. 

[TQR 12,063]

52 minutes ago, Sean said:

Corbyn would never do a speech like Starmer as he is a Bennite at heart and as hostile to the EU as Kate Hoey and Dennis Skinner.He has had to champion the possibility of a further referendum to appease his MPs and membership.This makes him a careerist and not a man of principle as he and his supporters are keen to portray him as.

 

Corbyn would never do a speech like Starmer because he's not capable of doing so even in a (rare) situation where he believes a word he's saying. 

 

At the end of the day, if the majority of the Labour party membership wants a 2nd referendum, that's what he needs to deliver, and if he doesn't believe in it, then he's lost his party, it's just a sad fact. Labour aren't exactly unanimous on this issue but a hell of a lot closer to it than the Tories. And yet, he doesn't present the Labour party as one of unity, because he's incapable of doing that as well. You're right, he's not a man of principle, because if he was, he'd say bollocks, I don't replicate the views of the majority of the party, I'll step aside.

[TQR 12,063]

2 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

Most projections currently run us to a Tory majority government.

 

If we somehow ended up with a 3rd hung parliament in 10 years then it really is time that parliament got together and voted in some form of proportional representation. 

 

Looks like the only (nearly) sensible way of doing things.

 

Particularly now there's such a gulf between the Tories and the Labour that the Centre ground is gathering momentum. If three parties or more were in the mix, we'd never form a government.

[Sir Creep 7,011]

12 hours ago, The Quim Reaper said:

I’m sure he is a decent bloke (if you ignore his defence of the IRA,...

That’s a virtue, mate.

[Deathray 2,933]

35 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

 

Looks like the only (nearly) sensible way of doing things.

 

Particularly now there's such a gulf between the Tories and the Labour that the Centre ground is gathering momentum. If three parties or more were in the mix, we'd never form a government.

 

The problem is that in normal political times a majority government of Labour or Tory is likely to emerge, so they are willing to ride out the dreadful minority government/hung parliament years in order to achieve that. Surely the argument that FPTP delivers stable majority governments is dead in the water now though?

 

We're now approach nearly 15 years without an election delivering that luxury.

 

 

[TQR 12,063]

51 minutes ago, Sir Creep said:

That’s a virtue, mate.

 

No.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

 

The problem is that in normal political times a majority government of Labour or Tory is likely to emerge, so they are willing to ride out the dreadful minority government/hung parliament years in order to achieve that. Surely the argument that FPTP delivers stable majority governments is dead in the water now though?

 

We're now approach nearly 15 years without an election delivering that luxury.

 

 

 

It is becoming quite an abnormality for a government to win an outright majority. Blair won two in the 00's because the Tories were as welcome as a turd in the bath, and David Camoron won a wafer thin one in 2015 because Ed Siliband's campaign was dreadful and Prick Clegg fisted his party to the gall bladder by selling out all their principles. It takes that kind of dire situation in any of the three main parties to avoid a hung parliament. Now we see at least two of them in a dire situation, it's anybody's guess.

[YoungWillz 18,967]

32 minutes ago, The Quim Reaper said:

 

It is becoming quite an abnormality for a government to win an outright majority. Blair won two in the 00's because the Tories were as welcome as a turd in the bath, and David Camoron won a wafer thin one in 2015 because Ed Siliband's campaign was dreadful and Prick Clegg fisted his party to the gall bladder by selling out all their principles. It takes that kind of dire situation in any of the three main parties to avoid a hung parliament. Now we see at least two of them in a dire situation, it's anybody's guess.

I think this is almost fair, but the underlying reason Cameron did so well in 2015 is exactly the point of this thread.

 

Wrapping himself in the Union Flag, off he went to Europe, saying how he was going to be magnificent in coming back with EU reforms (the equivalent of Thatcher re-negotiating the rebate). He came back with virtually nothing. Then he said to himself, I know I'll offer a referendum on the EU at exactly the point he shouldn't because he had just made it look like the EU had humiliated the UK. He thought he' win that because of the Scottish referendum result.

 

The flag waving public, taken in by this apparent snub to the UK's divine right to be right always, grasped at that and voted him in. I'm actually surprised he didn't get a larger majority given how Labour and the LibDems ran their campaigns, but that lack of huge majority showed the weakness of the Tories on austerity and other issues at the time.

 

Now here we are and here are your choices:

 

1. Tory Party Islamophobic, Labour Party Anti-Semitic.

2. Tory Party divided, Labour Party divided.

3. Tory Party deselecting long-standing MPs, Labour Party driving out long-standing MPs.

4. Tory Government borrowing at an all time record, Labour prospectively borrowing at an all time record.

5. Both major parties claiming to be Unionist, yet policies followed by their devolved branch offices differing markedly from their national policies.

 

And so on. Your choice of either is the equivalent of drinking from a cess pool or eating from landfill.