Brexit!

[lgfualol]

EU agrees to Brexit extension to 31 January. 

 

See you guys in 3 months for the next extension  

[StanSP]

Extension confirmed til end of January. 

Wonder what the extension will be after that

 

Also, what ditch is Boris in, given what his own words were

 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Extension confirmed til end of January. 

Wonder what the extension will be after that

 

Also, what ditch is Boris in, given what his own words were

 

A ditch is the best place for him

[Innovindil]

Frenchies let us down again smh. 

[RoboFox]

 

Poor Mark Francois. Your friend is a pathological liar, but then again you knew that, didn't you? 

 

 

Edited 28 October 2019 by RoboFox

[The Guvnor]

14 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

 

Poor Mark Francois. Your friend is a pathological liar, but then again you knew that, didn't you? 

 

 

Well sorry Mark but vent your anger on those who made it illegal to leave on the 31st by supporting the surrender bill. 

[Guest MattP]

39 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Well sorry Mark but vent your anger on those who made it illegal to leave on the 31st by supporting the surrender bill. 

As we hopefully all will have the opportunity to do at the ballot box soon.

[Finnaldo]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

One of the worst governments in living memory and he can't poll more than 24%. What the hell is wrong with the Labour party putting that bloke in charge, sitting back and seeing him do absolutely nothing and being content with it. Absolutely bizarre. 

 

Someone like Corbyn was necessary for a policy shift back to the left, when he took over they weren't much more than a second Lib Dems with a lick of red paint. But his personal politics and baggage has set them back time and time again. A cabinet with Emily Thornberry and Dianne Abbott is never gonna cut it and having mates like Chris Williamson being a Little Stalin tops off a public relations swamp that makes a manifesto that I'm pretty sure would smash an election with any half charismatic leader especially against the current shambles of a government totally null. 

 

The honourable thing to do would be step down and sponsor a  younger successor which will take forward the key points of his manifesto and actually get tough on any anti-semitic elements that will be a media flashpoint until it's seen to be truly cracked down on and will shepherd the Centrist wing back in line with the rest of the party. But we all know it won't happen and he'll continue to sit on his arse and hand Boris the lifeline he needs.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

One of the worst governments in living memory and he can't poll more than 24%. What the hell is wrong with the Labour party putting that bloke in charge, sitting back and seeing him do absolutely nothing and being content with it. Absolutely bizarre. 

 

I share your dismay.

 

I suppose the historical explanation is:

- 2015: Under a soft left leader (Miliband), Labour went backwards at the election in terms of seats (slight increase in popular vote), partly due to the collapse of the LDs & rise of SNP.....so the mood was for a more radical leader

- 2016: Corbyn was proving a disaster & faced a leadership challenge, but held on comfortably, largely on the back of a big influx of young, idealistic members

- 2017: Although Labour lost the election, the party - and Corbyn personally - performed surprisingly well, giving him some leeway....even though the "success" was due in part to an atrocious effort by May & the Tories

- 2018-19: Labour has trod water against 2 chaotic & fairly unpopular govts, but has not trailed massively in the polls until recently. Throw in the largely pro-Corbyn membership, credit in the bank for 2017 "success" & tricky task of managing party divisions over Brexit and it's easy to see why there's been no further effort to remove him since 2016.

 

53 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Someone like Corbyn was necessary for a policy shift back to the left, when he took over they weren't much more than a second Lib Dems with a lick of red paint. But his personal politics and baggage has set them back time and time again. A cabinet with Emily Thornberry and Dianne Abbott is never gonna cut it and having mates like Chris Williamson being a Little Stalin tops off a public relations swamp that makes a manifesto that I'm pretty sure would smash an election with any half charismatic leader especially against the current shambles of a government totally null. 

 

The honourable thing to do would be step down and sponsor a  younger successor which will take forward the key points of his manifesto and actually get tough on any anti-semitic elements that will be a media flashpoint until it's seen to be truly cracked down on and will shepherd the Centrist wing back in line with the rest of the party. But we all know it won't happen and he'll continue to sit on his arse and hand Boris the lifeline he needs.

 

My main hope is now that, between them, the opposition parties somehow prevent Johnson winning a majority - but Labour doesn't do particularly well, either. That could yet happen as the SNP are likely to remove a dozen Tory MPs in Scotland (& Lab MPs) and Lib Dems a similar number in the South. If Labour perform tolerably well during the election campaign and/or Farage syphons off some of the Tory vote......could happen if Labour lose no more than 20-30 seats to the Tories.

 

That way, Johnson would be prevented from negotiating the ultra-Hard Brexit or No Deal that the likes of the ERG want & from introducing other Hard Right legislation. Meanwhile, Corbyn could be persuaded to stand down - and hopefully Labour would perform much better at the next election, which might well happen within a year!  I might very well be clutching at straws!

 

I do think that the Leftists and Centrists within Labour could combine happily in that scenario. A lot of the discontent relates to Corbyn personally & his sidekicks - and the anti-semitism could and should be addressed with vigour. I reckon most Lab centrists can live with - or are even content with - much of the leftist economic/social policy in the manifesto, knowing that some of it is good policy, much is popular, much is not extreme - & the extreme bits would be ditched through compromise in parliament or encounters with reality, anyway.

 

I don't mind Thornberry. She can come across as irritating, but is quite a competent, if not exceptional performer, I think.

 

 

Edited 28 October 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Someone like Corbyn was necessary for a policy shift back to the left, when he took over they weren't much more than a second Lib Dems with a lick of red paint. But his personal politics and baggage has set them back time and time again. A cabinet with Emily Thornberry and Dianne Abbott is never gonna cut it and having mates like Chris Williamson being a Little Stalin tops off a public relations swamp that makes a manifesto that I'm pretty sure would smash an election with any half charismatic leader especially against the current shambles of a government totally null. 

 

The honourable thing to do would be step down and sponsor a  younger successor which will take forward the key points of his manifesto and actually get tough on any anti-semitic elements that will be a media flashpoint until it's seen to be truly cracked down on and will shepherd the Centrist wing back in line with the rest of the party. But we all know it won't happen and he'll continue to sit on his arse and hand Boris the lifeline he needs.

 

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I share your dismay.

 

I suppose the historical explanation is:

- 2015: Under a soft left leader (Miliband), Labour went backwards at the election in terms of seats (slight increase in popular vote), partly due to the collapse of the LDs & rise of SNP.....so the mood was for a more radical leader

- 2016: Corbyn was proving a disaster & faced a leadership challenge, but held on comfortably, largely on the back of a big influx of young, idealistic members

- 2017: Although Labour lost the election, the party - and Corbyn personally - performed surprisingly well, giving him some leeway....even though the "success" was due in part to an atrocious effort by May & the Tories

- 2018-19: Labour has trod water against 2 chaotic & fairly unpopular govts, but has not trailed massively in the polls until recently. Throw in the largely pro-Corbyn membership, credit in the bank for 2017 "success" & tricky task of managing party divisions over Brexit and it's easy to see why there's been no further effort to remove him since 2016.

 

 

My main hope is now that, between them, the opposition parties somehow prevent Johnson winning a majority - but Labour doesn't do particularly well, either. That could yet happen as the SNP are likely to remove a dozen Tory MPs in Scotland (& Lab MPs) and Lib Dems a similar number in the South. If Labour perform tolerably well during the election campaign and/or Farage syphons off some of the Tory vote......could happen if Labour lose no more than 20-30 seats to the Tories.

 

That way, Johnson would be prevented from negotiating the ultra-Hard Brexit or No Deal that the likes of the ERG want & from introducing other Hard Right legislation. Meanwhile, Corbyn could be persuaded to stand down - and hopefully Labour would perform much better at the next election, which might well happen within a year!  I might very well be clutching at straws!

 

I do think that the Leftists and Centrists within Labour could combine happily in that scenario. A lot of the discontent relates to Corbyn personally & his sidekicks - and the anti-semitism could and should be addressed with vigour. I reckon most Lab centrists can live with - or are even content with - much of the leftist economic/social policy in the manifesto, knowing that some of it is good policy, much is popular, much is not extreme - & the extreme bits would be ditched through compromise in parliament or encounters with reality, anyway.

 

I don't mind Thornberry. She can come across as irritating, but is quite a competent, if not exceptional performer, I think.

 

 

We're in the era of personality politics, it doesn't matter what your policies are half the time, I think most people on the street want to look at the person in charge and think they are relatively normal (as normal as any politician can be). If Labour had gone for David Miliband instead of Ed, I think they would have swept the Conservatives aside several times over. 

[Heathrow fox]

30 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

We're in the era of personality politics, it doesn't matter what your policies are half the time, I think most people on the street want to look at the person in charge and think they are relatively normal (as normal as any politician can be). If Labour had gone for David Miliband instead of Ed, I think they would have swept the Conservatives aside several times over. 

Blair the 2nd.Doubt it

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

We're in the era of personality politics, it doesn't matter what your policies are half the time, I think most people on the street want to look at the person in charge and think they are relatively normal (as normal as any politician can be). If Labour had gone for David Miliband instead of Ed, I think they would have swept the Conservatives aside several times over. 

 

Personality matters - maybe more than in the past. But I find it hard to pin down how it all works. Some successful politicians have charisma, others seem "relatively normal", maybe some tick both boxes. I wouldn't see Boris as "relatively normal", more "extraordinary" - but he undoubtedly has charisma and the ability to persuade people to support him.

 

You might be right about David Miliband. He was more conventionally good-looking than Ed, had a smooth articulacy & was probably one of those who just about ticked both boxes (fairly charismatic & fairly normal), whereas Ed came across a bit young, geeky & awkward - though I quite liked Ed politically.

 

Other factors come into play, though. At the 2015 election under Ed Miliband, Labour increased their vote share & took more Tory seats than they lost to Cameron....but lost the election so badly because they were massacred by the SNP, post-IndyRef, in Scotland, while the Tories picked up dozens of Lib Dem seats in the wake of the coalition. The Tory tactic of suggesting Miliband would be reliant on the SNP also worked - ironic, after 5 years of Tories depending on LDs, then May depending on DUP.

 

Major was probably the most "normal" party leader I can remember. He won, somewhat against the odds in 1992 against a more charismatic, if more grating, opponent in Kinnock - but a lot of people reckon that was down to policy, namely Labour's "tax bombshell" spending plans. Major was then massacred by the charismatic Blair in 1997, but surely the Black Monday collapse & years of Tory scandal & infighting had a big impact, not just personality?

 

May came across comparatively "normal", too, and was streets ahead in the polls before the 2017 election, but bombed after her robotic performances and terrible policy decisions (e.g. social care)

 

Voters' political loyalties are certainly much more changeable now, so maybe that makes personality more influential - but major policies, perceptions of competence, party unity & events still play a part. And personality has mattered for a long time, hasn't it? Even back to Churchill, Wilson, Thatcher? And leaders with little personality have beaten more charismatic leaders due to political circumstances (Attlee v. Churchill in 1945, Heath v. Wilson in 1970).

 

Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on so much! 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

We're in the era of personality politics, it doesn't matter what your policies are half the time, I think most people on the street want to look at the person in charge and think they are relatively normal (as normal as any politician can be). If Labour had gone for David Miliband instead of Ed, I think they would have swept the Conservatives aside several times over. 

This has become a very popular opinion recently and I really don't get it at all.

 

If David Miliband couldn't beat Ed Miliband among a left leaning electorate how was he going to win across the country? It doesn't make sense. 

 

Blairism is dead - he wasn't going to revive anymore than Liz Kendall was.

[SecretPro]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

This has become a very popular opinion recently and I really don't get it at all.

 

If David Miliband couldn't beat Ed Miliband among a left leaning electorate how was he going to win across the country? It doesn't make sense. 

 

Blairism is dead - he wasn't going to revive anymore than Liz Kendall was.

Ed got the backing of the unions - that's the only reason he won. In terms of nouse, leadership, credibility, at the time, David was clearly the better candidate.

Edited 28 October 2019 by SecretPro

[Guest MattP]

Cowards. Complete Cowards.

 

Two years of demanding an election and we get this even after the extension. 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

This has become a very popular opinion recently and I really don't get it at all.

 

If David Miliband couldn't beat Ed Miliband among a left leaning electorate how was he going to win across the country? It doesn't make sense. 

 

Blairism is dead - he wasn't going to revive anymore than Liz Kendall was.

 

Boris Johnson couldn't beat Ed Miliband among a left-leaning electorate, but might well win across the country..... 

 

I agree, though, that any idea that David would have strolled to election victory in 2015 is mistaken. He'd have faced more grumbling within the party - and would have been lambasted by Tory opponents & media, just in a different way, probably through association with Blair's policies, smoothness, unpopular actions like Iraq etc. 

 

14 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Ed got the backing of the unions - that's the only reason he won. In terms of nouse, leadership, credibility, at the time, David was clearly the better candidate.

 

The 60-40 backing of the unions proved critical but was not the only reason he won. He also won the backing of 46+% of MPs/MEPS & 45%+ of party members.

 

As to whether he was the better candidate, that's a matter of opinion. You certainly have a case, but it's only opinion - and we'll never know whether he'd have achieved a better result in 2015.

[st albans fox]

all those getting hung up on boris’ 31st deadline fail to realise that it was intended for both domestic brexiteer consumption and also to ‘frighten’ the EU into making some concessions ... it was all part of the charade. He nearly managed it too .......

 

anyway, going forward, and an FTA with the EU will require us to agree to some regulatory alignment on workers rights and environmental standards ..... if we agree to them now as part of the WAB then we have less negotiating wriggle room and would have to concede more on these matters or something else .... too many politicians and commentators seem to have no experience of playing poker - naive in the extreme ......

 

looking to a GE campaign is interesting - does boris commit to his WAB and risk the brexit party pulling votes away ????

 

i have a feeling that he would do better to try and woo those ‘democrats’ who feel the ref result must be honoured but obviously don’t want a hard brexit or no deal. 

[RoboFox]

Please Brexiters, do twat on a bit more about how Brexit is protecting our NHS. 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Cowards. Complete Cowards.

 

Two years of demanding an election and we get this even after the extension. 

 

 

This is Dianne Abbots doing

[lgfualol]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

Please Brexiters, do twat on a bit more about how Brexit is protecting our NHS. 

 

 

Sadly I don't think many brexiteers would give a toss if the NHS is sold off if it meant we leave the eu.

[SecretPro]

I just realised there are brexiteers in here. Is it a 52/48 split? 

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Sadly I don't think many brexiteers would give a toss if the NHS is sold off if it meant we leave the eu.

Any government who sells off the NHS to the Americans will never be elected again. 

 

It's the closest thing we have to a state religion and one of the reasons it's so poor in comparison to most of Europe. No one dares reform it.

[RoboFox]

25 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

I just realised there are brexiteers in here. Is it a 52/48 split? 

No way.

 

MattP and Leicester_Loyal are the only ones I can think of (certainly recently anyway) and their resilience in the face of the FT remainer onslaught is admirable.
 

But to be fair, not many Brexiters are literate. 
 

Edited 28 October 2019 by RoboFox

[Guest MattP]

What's the catch here?

 

Corbyn can't be making himself look this ridiculous for no reason at all, do the students go back to the safe Tory seats in between the dates? 

[SMX11]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

What's the catch here?

 

Corbyn can't be making himself look this ridiculous for no reason at all, do the students go back to the safe Tory seats in between the dates? 

He would only agree to an election if the Conservatives wouldn't stand