- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3028 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 86507
Government asks Queen to suspend Parliament
The government has asked the Queen to suspend Parliament just days after MPs return to work in September - and only a few weeks before the IIIWW deadline.
Boris Johnson said a Queen's Speech would take place after the suspension, on 14 October, to outline his "very exciting agenda". But it means MPs are unlikely to have time to pass laws to stop a no-deal IIIWW on 31 October.
The ride never ends!
|>>|| No. 86513
We've known about this for a long time so I hardly think its worth a new thread, there is obvious need for a new legislative programme to be set. What Boris has done is cut Parliamentary time by 4 days as MPs are heading off for conference season.
It's irrelevant though. Next week Commons will either pass a vote of No Confidence or MPs will have to accept that there is no majority for any position and face the default.
|>>|| No. 86514
Has this been sensationalised by those unfamiliar with parliamentary process? I've read a few articles on this and it's said that parliament was going to enter a recess that week anyway for conference season and most new governments prorogue parliament before the Queen's speech.
|>>|| No. 86515
>I hardly think its worth a new thread
The last two pages or so on /pol/ are primarily various fragmented and piecemeal threads related to IIIWW. I think we've all lost the plot a bit.
|>>|| No. 86516
>there is obvious need for a new legislative programme to be set.
Yes, but it can wait until the instant crisis is dealt with. Quite simply, there is no reason why he couldn't have asked for a prorogration and a new session for the first couple of weeks of November instead.
>What Boris has done is cut Parliamentary time by 4 days as MPs are heading off for conference season.
That's a bit misleading. While it does technically remove an additional four sitting days from the Parliamentary calendar, being prorogued is very different from being in recess. Parliament can be recalled from recess, but prorogation is final.
|>>|| No. 86517
We've been in crisis mode for over 2 years now. Obviously the government does need to establish its legislative programme sharpish given events and the direction it needs to take. I'm surprised you didn't see this coming, especially as The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill 2019 has deliberately bound the governments hands between October and December to avoid this.
>That's a bit misleading.
No it's not. We've been here before and, if MPs have the balls, a Surrogate Parliament can be held. MPs can still pull the pin and do a vote of no confidence with the hope the EU will grant a further extension given we're already out of time.
|>>|| No. 86518
>Obviously the government does need to establish its legislative programme sharpish given events and the direction it needs to take.
Which events would those be? As far as I can tell, nobody without a vested interest in ramming an exit through ASAP has suggested the need for a programme before EU Transfer Deadline Day. In fact, it would seem rather silly given the need to plan for and potentially execute no-deal to suddenly decide to lay out what you're going to do after it.
>No it's not.
Yes, it is. A motion in Parliament would be binding. A motion in a parallel body would be persuasive but not binding. Thanks to the Maybot, Boris has plenty of precedent for disregarding it, and a solid Parliamentary scholar as his Leader to back him up.
|>>|| No. 86519
>As far as I can tell, nobody without a vested interest in ramming an exit through ASAP has suggested the need for a programme before EU Transfer Deadline Day
Hasn't the position from Corbyn over the past couple of years been that IIIWW is a secondary issue, other than an excuse to make a power grab, compared with tackling austerity and other domestic issues?
|>>|| No. 86520
>Hasn't the position from Corbyn over the past couple of years been that IIIWW is a secondary issue, other than an excuse to make a power grab, compared with tackling austerity and other domestic issues?
Right, and how well has that worked out for him in the last 12 months?
|>>|| No. 86522
I'd like to see as a result of the petition a debate next parliament about not ending the previous session.
|>>|| No. 86526
Why don't migrants just wear a hi-vis jacket when trying to enter a country illegally? Aren't you supposed to be able to get in anywhere like that?
|>>|| No. 86528
I read something one time, it might have been on here, about a group of burglars who wore hi-vis jackets before removing someone's front door and clearing the place out; people thought they were workmen so they went completely unchallenged. If a bunch of illegal immigrants came into the county wearing hi-vis jackets and carrying clipboards I doubt anyone would suspect a thing.
|>>|| No. 86531
Grant Shapp's tired eyes say more than I ever could.
|>>|| No. 86535
Just goes to show.
There was a woman on that radio 4 panel show earlier today who said something along the lines of "people who want to stop the third world war- which means, normal people" and I just had to shake my head.
Just encapsulates that perceived moral high ground which has entirely undermined the remain case from the beginning. Remain is outnumbered. Remain has to appeal to people and persuade them, which should be common sense when you're the minority group and you need more support for your cause. But most remainers are happier to belittle and patronise.
Polling like that shows how oblivious they are. People who wanted a second referendum would be in for a rude awakening when it came back as an even bigger Leave victory. The ignorance of people like that is why we're so fucked right now- Instead of mounting an effective and pragmatic campaign to gain a level of control, and push for damage mitigation and contingency planning, they've done basically nothing for three years.
|>>|| No. 86536
You can't win a political campaign by offering the status quo when your opponent has free reign to make up any bullshit and promise they want stick it on the side of a bus and never be held accountable for if it is true.
The only solution is to tell an equal amount of bullshit about the exagerated horrors that the unknown will bring and that we are safer where we are.
|>>|| No. 86537
That wouldn't work and hasn't worked to date.
Many people who voted leave did not do so for economic reasons, citing something like "taking back control" or immigration as their primary concern; the areas voting leave tended to have the greatest change in demographics since 2001.
One of the reasons the remain campaign failed is because they largely ignored this and focused almost exclusively on the economic effects of leaving the EU. The so-called Project Fear heavily backfired in the Scottish independence referendum yet it was complacently adopted for the EU referendum.
The leave campaign, if you ignore the unofficial one run by Are Nige, was a largely positive message even if it was pandering to notions of British exceptionalism about how we can stand on our own two feet. The remain campaign was negative, didn't address the priorities of the people it actually needed to get the message across to and was fixated on why we shouldn't leave rather than the benefits of remaining. A lot of the negative growth forecasts have ended up being revised up as the economy has generally been a lot more resilient than expected since the referendum result, which is now taken as evidence by leave voters that every single piece of bad news, particularly if it is a forecast or includes the words 'if' or 'may', is hyperbolic bollocks so can be easily dismissed.
Insulting them and creating bullshit will only make them more deeply entrenched in their views.
|>>|| No. 86538
The problem with british exceptionalism, and taking back control is that they are intangible feel good positions you can't really dismantle them with logic. They are just hype like the easily duped carried away mobs in the Simpsons.
People will just assume you hate Britain if you argue we aren't exceptional that you hate Britain and become more entrenched, and taking back control is so nebulous in this context as to not mean anything and if it doesn't mean anything you can't argue against it. And you can't argue for how great the status quo is because these people are already dissatisfied with that. So you are stuck telling them either they are mistaken (I.e stupid) or that the results will be really bad.
You can't make a proactive campaign for the status quo.
|>>|| No. 86539
>they are intangible feel good positions you can't really dismantle them with logic
Have you tried? Your posts just oozes of arrogance for positions that ordinary people find hard to articulate. Britain is exceptional because our constitutional makeup built on Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn't mesh at all well with European conceptions of government which we deliberately avoided taking part in designing at the start. Normally people put it in words of bringing power back and in our unique conception of Parliament they are absolutely right, even if you scoff at this, the EU bureaucracy is not a better answer.
If you understood this you can then grasp that Remain was never a status quo position. Britain's interaction with Europe of the past few decades has already bought constitutional tension and if we remain these tensions will need resolving. You could instead argue for greater judicial oversight or that EU immigration at least gives us people of a somewhat similar cultural background but no, you'd rather pretend the European Union is static and not a project.
I suggest reading the attached book. Vernon seems to be what everyone goes off this days when it comes to IIIWW.
|>>|| No. 86543
Remember when the polls said Theresa May would get a majority if she called a snap election?
|>>|| No. 86547
Survation were the most accurate polling company for the 2017 general election by some distance. They were also the most accurate polling company for the Scottish Independence referendum and ran two polls prior to the EU referendum which came out 52% in favour of leave.
As you will see above (>>86534) their polling has found that support for the Tories has gone up since the prorogation was agreed.
|>>|| No. 86548
Why does Tony Blair get uninterupted coverage of another milquetoast, out of touch, non-committal speech on BBC News? He just told people protesting is bad, mmm'kay WHILE HONG KONG IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A GENERAL STRIKE!
|>>|| No. 86550
>Why does Tony Blair get uninterupted coverage [telling] people protesting is bad
Why'd you think?
The beeb is the elite, don't forget.
|>>|| No. 86551
first time poster in this thread.
I've no idea which part of the country you live in, I live in the North Midlands in an area which has seen huge numbers of Eastern European immigrants settle and voted overwhelmingly to leave.
It wasn't dolphin rape that caused this, it was the flooding of the lower end of labour market combined with zero hour contracts and minimum wage which caused this.
Yes its arguable the EU tried to protect this labour market with legislation against zero hour contracts but when your stuck in a job without even the prospect of a permanent contract and earning so little you struggle with even the basics of life and seeing massive immigration saturating the labour market destroying any chance of this changing you start seeing the enshrining of freedom of movement as destroying any chance of a comfortable life.
This has been a labour safe seat going back nearly a century, which I find interesting when compared with the framing of leave/don't leave as a battle between right and left. The people around here aren't particularly political but unsurprisingly they do want a comfortable life and see this prevented by both government and the EU.
This is what is meant by elitism, the political left are traditionally seen to be protectors of the working person, these same people feel betrayed and have done so for years. Vote leave was seen as the only way to improve lives and left wing lovies proclaiming anyone who did so is racist/thick/gammon/lied to etc only encourages this and leaves you seen as elitist.
|>>|| No. 86552
>anyone who did so is racist/thick/gammon/lied to etc
I'm sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.
|>>|| No. 86553
The part you don't seem able to get your head around is that wether it's the truth or not, we're leaving the EU because of it.
Was it really worth pushing us over the edge of what could be the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen, just to keep your seat on your high horse?
|>>|| No. 86554
This is the exact same reasoning as "I'm only alt-right because some Paul Joseph Watsons told me not to say the n-word". Are the working people thick? Do they lack agency? Do they only act in response to the middle classes?
|>>|| No. 86557
>>86556>>86556all those gas plumber s and electricians must be thick, it's not like they deal with complex systems capable of causing death
|>>|| No. 86558
An excess of something causes the price to drop
Potatoes or people this holds true
|>>|| No. 86559
Primary school children can competently play games where you have to arrange pipes from A to B such that their contents don't escape.
|>>|| No. 86562
>Are the working people thick? Do they lack agency? Do they only act in response to the middle classes?
Britain has had a long, long cultural history of deference to the upper classes, and I think the echoes of that still remain to this day. Many people simply are born and raised to trust someone who went to Eton or Oxbridge because surely they must know what they're on about, or to support the monarchy because that what Britain Is All About. We, as a country, have always looked up to the upper classes, aspired towards it, and assumed that they were our betters. Even those who don't really like a posho will still seem to assume they are better qualified to run the country, back when Labour courted proper union lads they still didn't want the fat yorkshire bloke in charge, and indeed ridiculed him for having ideas (and cars) above his station.
We're still very set in our ways in this country, at least the older generations (i.e most of the voting population) and I think that also goes to explain why we do have such a crab bucket mentality in this country too - the lines of class are still clearly marked for many and crossing them is either traitorous or courts extreme jealousy.
Maybe they're thick too, I don't know.
|>>|| No. 86564
What needs to be acknowledged is that pretty much everyone is thick. Most people I know who voted Remain did so because it's what everyone else they knew was planning on doing so they'd rather go with the flow, pretend it's because they're enlightened and avoid being a social pariah; they couldn't articulate why they voted the way they did or the benefits of remaining in the EU unless it was parroting an image they'd seen on social media.
A lot of remain voters were thick. A lot of leave voters were thick. The major difference is that voting remain because you're an airhead is a lot more palatable than voting leave because you hate brown-eyed people.
|>>|| No. 86565
Yeah, a lot of working class people are thick. That's why they work at the checkout in Iceland instead of a design consultancy agency or whatever it is us lot do for a living.
The fact is the left hasn't been saying anything they want to listen to. In the absence of an appealing left, the lesser educated masses have been very easily swayed by far right populism pandering to their fears and insecurities.
How do you people find it so hard to understand that nobody is going to vote for the guy who tells them they're wrong, when there's another guy promising to solve all their problems? People are thick. People are selfish. People vote for the guy who tells them they're right.
This is how the Tories have won for the last decade. It's how Leave won the referendum. It's not rocket science.
|>>|| No. 86567
Because a national economy is exactly that simple. Boy, why don't they just put you in charge so you can fix everything instead of the shower we currently have? With insights like that how can we possibly go wrong?
|>>|| No. 86568
>Don't bother, the best you'll get from him are edgy replies.
If he wants better replies, he'll have to earn them.
|>>|| No. 86569
>The fact is the left hasn't been saying anything they want to listen to. In the absence of an appealing left, the lesser educated masses have been very easily swayed by far right populism pandering to their fears and insecurities.
Are you trying to abdicate any responsibility on the left for abandoning the traditional working class values and groups they used to represent? I mean, voters have said for decades that they don't want immigration, don't like the idea of the EU and whatever else you want to berate people for. Maybe you have just have shit for brains if you won't listen to that.
|>>|| No. 86571
You tell 'em m7. Everyone enjoys your edgy brand of trolling that stops us discussing politics on here.
|>>|| No. 86572
It doesn't stop us those of us who aren't spewing brain-dead pseudointellectual rubbish discussing politics.
|>>|| No. 86573
That's pretty much exactly what I'm criticising the left for in the first place you daft sod.
|>>|| No. 86576
Oh, look, Owen Smith is briefing against the party again, what a suprise...
|>>|| No. 86578
Remember when he tried dubbing himself 'Remoaner-in-Chief' but it never caught on because everyone thinks he's insignificant? Owen Smith's top priority is always Owen Smith.
|>>|| No. 86579
I'm disappointed in the crowds trying to drown out Johnson's speech that they're just chanting "Stop. The. Coup." as it reads, rather than to the tune of The KLF's Doctorin' the TARDIS.
|>>|| No. 86580
Corbyn's present position is that he want's to stop no-deal and subsequently hold a GE. If you're just a person doing person things I can understand not knowing, because for various reason Labour struggle to get their message out. However, if you're a Labour MP pretending not to know you're just playing stupid, which is a risky business for someone like Smith who's already quite thick. Case in point >>86578
|>>|| No. 86581
>Corbyn's present position is that he want's to stop no-deal and subsequently hold a GE
No, the "subsequently" isn't his position. That's the position of most of the rest of his MPs, Owen Smith included.
|>>|| No. 86582
Corbyn's solution for 99.99% of matters is to call for a general election.
|>>|| No. 86583
Screenshot_2019-09-03 Brexit Boris Johnson fails t.png
That simply isn't the case. See pic related.
I don't know if this is Corbyn's thinking on the matter, but we should have had one the moment it was obvious May could not get her deal through Parliament. Instead the Conservatives made a cack-handed play at brinksmanship and only managed to exhaust themselves in the process. The reason no one party can do anything in Parliament regarding IIIWW is in part that none of them are entirely sure what their voters want and, more importantly, none of them have a majority.
The Conservatives have treated the IIIWW process, and by extension to country, with more contempt than I treated my GCSEs, but you can't resit IIIWW.
|>>|| No. 86584
I can entirely believe the following would be a real conversation in the Corbyn household:
>Laura: The upstairs toilet is blocked again!
>Jeremy: Right, the only way out of this is an immediate general election!
|>>|| No. 86585
Conservative MP Phillip Lee has defected to the Liberal Democrats ahead of a showdown between Boris Johnson and Tory rebels over IIIWW.
Dr Lee, the MP for Bracknell, took his seat on the opposition benches as the PM addressed the Commons. His defection means that Boris Johnson no longer has a working majority in the Commons.
|>>|| No. 86586
As far as Boris is concerned, he has a majority of 1.
|>>|| No. 86590
I got an email from my MP saying he's headed in to Parliament today to vote for Hilary Benn's Bill to stop the UK crashing out of the EU with no deal. I'm guessing he's emailed all his constituents with the same thing as I've never expressed anything about it to him. Seems weird.
|>>|| No. 86592
Out of the ordinary sure, but at least it makes you aware of what he stands for. What is probably weirder is that we don't know more about our MPs and what they care about when you think about it.
|>>|| No. 86593
Get on their mailing list and you'll get an opportunity to find out what they want you to think they care about and maybe you'll have an opportunity to meet them and get a feel for what they're really like.
|>>|| No. 86594
I got the forms through to confirm voters roll the other day, too.
It's election time.
|>>|| No. 86595
>I got the forms through to confirm voters roll the other day, too.
They do that every year.
|>>|| No. 86596
The Leader of the House of Commons is pretending to be asleep. I did that once at a "party" when I was 13 and I didn't want to talk to anyone. Utterly embarrassing.
|>>|| No. 86599
Looks like Boris is off to a good start. Played 1, lost 1.
|>>|| No. 86600
So, is this prorogure (prorogation?) still happening then? I'm confused.
|>>|| No. 86601
Unless the legal challenges succeed, or the House passes a Humble Address, yes.
The vote tonight was a repeat of the tactic used to introduce the bill that forced May to request an extension. A similar bill will be introduced tomorrow. The whole thing about threatening de-whipping has almost certainly backfired, since if they carry it out as advertised the rebels will have no incentive to back the government tomorrow, and if they don't carry it out the threat is no longer credible and the rebels will rebel again.
|>>|| No. 86604
I wouldn't go that far. For now they might be, but I couldn't tell you a thing about how a post GE parliament might look, and if enough of these 22 are in safe Tory seats they might not become a long term loss. However, figuring that out is for a me who isn't quite so tired.
|>>|| No. 86605
Some of them are big enough names that they'd easily be competitive running as an independent. If you've voted for Nicholas Soames for the last 30 years and you see his name on the ballot again, it's going to be a tough choice between him and an official Tory candidate.
FWIW, some of them have already been re-selected by their constituency associations, which means that the whips will have missed the boat on de-selecting them.
|>>|| No. 86606
I know the LibDems don't have a brain cell between them, but would they want a bunch of ex-Tories rocking up on their ballots? Slightly off topic I know.
|>>|| No. 86612
Just in case anyone hasn't caught up, in the elected chamber decided not to give us a vote, while in the unelected chamber they've spent most of the evening going through a cycle of having a vote on whether to have a vote, and then having a vote.
|>>|| No. 86613
Also something about Kinnock's amendment. I don't know what's going on any more.
|>>|| No. 86614
The working theory is that Boris did not want evidence of support for an alternative to his own plans on the record. No tellers means no division, so the amendment was adopted by default, whereas if the amendment had passed by division his critics could claim there was a consensus forming in the House when his entire act at the moment relies on the premise that the House is paralysed.
|>>|| No. 86615
There's a business motion currently pending in the Lords, as a counterpart to the one that went through the Commons on Tuesday. Pro-IIIWW Lords have basically mounted a brute-force attack on it.
At the part where there it says that the bill from the Commons should take priority over all other business, there are 20 amendments trying to add exceptions for individual bills.
There are a couple of references to Friday. There are amendments for each of these references to change them to several days next week. There are multiple amendments to change the cut-off time from 5pm to some other time of day.
There are 11 paragraphs. There is an amendment to leave out paragraphs 2-11, and another to leave out 3-11, etc. There are a couple more of this form that also want to add a few words further up.
Right now, they're currently wading through a set of three amendments wanting to put the matter on hold until each of the three court cases currently under way is resolved.
A few more amendment have been added as "manuscript amendments" after the order paper was printed. Once the current batch of MSAs have been dealt with, they'll move on to amendment 3 of 86.
|>>|| No. 86616
If the Lords debate continues until 10:30 AM tomorrow, it'll still technically be Wednesday for parliamentary purposes. It could still be Wednesday on Monday. I am trapped in a nightmare, please send help.
|>>|| No. 86618
That might be a problem, because the business motion calls for things to be brought to a close on Friday.
|>>|| No. 86639
So he's throwing in the towel already? Good grief. What happened to the bloke who was going to just get things done, it's barely been what, a fortnight? Absolute fucking pansy.
You know, I reckon the media and leavers in general are genuinely a bit scared, under the surface, that Corbyn would make a better job of it. Who does the Tory party have left? Rees Mogg?
|>>|| No. 86640
Rees-Mogg doesn't strike me as having much desire for leadership. Prominance, yes, but I don't think he could motivate himself to be a Tory party leader; he simply isn't arsed. I thought the recent declarations that IIIWW could spell the end for the Conservatives were a bit OTT at the time, but really where do they go from here? They've hit peak Tory now and if that doesn't work, as you say, they don't have much left. I suppose they could manage an about turn and have another crack at Cameronism. Nicky Morgan maybe? She doesn't seem overly mental.
|>>|| No. 86641
>So he's throwing in the towel already?
Boris is taking the UK out of the EU against the wishes of a Parliament by any means, up-to and including prison, to deliver his core election pledge. I'm not sure what 'towel' you're referring to.
>Corbyn would make a better job of it
Is that why everyone outside of Labour is constantly referring to him? Nevermind a general election, can you imagine him trying to polish Theresa May's deal as his own and the trying to sell it to his inevitable coalition partners in the SNP. Scotland would be joining the EU before we ever reach a majority on leaving.
At any rate my money is on Gove pulling a party coup. He seems to have gotten much better in recent years and more popular as a kind of moderate candidate between MPs and membership.
|>>|| No. 86642
You ain't got no problem, Boris. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them tories out and wait for the saville, who should be coming directly.
|>>|| No. 86643
Why can't we just admit that this whole shitshow isn't working, and isn't ever going to work, knock the whole thing on the head and get back to the domestic agenda?
|>>|| No. 86644
I think we've already seen enough of that with the Spending Review.
>Two bus driver's sons as successive chancellors, taking the public for a ride must be in our DNA ahahaha!
>That money was Scotland's anyway because the EU said so but you stole it - just think of how much more red-tape the Scottish people deserve
>This is just money the Conservatives took from the police in 2010. Vote Labour and we'll assign a policeman to live in every home.
|>>|| No. 86645
... which was immediately overshadowed by the timetable bill and the election motion.
|>>|| No. 86646
Because it opens the door to ignoring election results and referendums
For shits and giggles ask any Tory or Labour supporters wanting a second IIIWW referendum why they won't rerun the fptp/ proportional representation referendum
|>>|| No. 86648
>Because it opens the door to ignoring election results and referendums
Comedy gold, lad.
On the off chance that you were serious, you know we already set that precedent in 2017, right?
|>>|| No. 86650
The referendum was a terrible mistake - our constitution simply wasn't designed to accommodate them, as we're seeing now. I think the only way out of this impasse is either a three-way referendum on deal/no deal/remain or a people's assembly. As has been said many times, the result of the referendum is only a partial mandate - it says that we should leave, but it doesn't say how.
|>>|| No. 86652
Now that we know the options, it's perfectly reasonable for the electorate to say "actually, we've decided not to bother". The referendum was fundamentally flawed because it lacked a meaningful consultation period on what IIIWW would actually look like; removing the option of remain is just doubling down on that error.
|>>|| No. 86653
This. Also why are we bothering with an election? We already decided in 2010 that the Tories were going to be in charge.
|>>|| No. 86654
The Tories? I thought we decided that some random celtic warchief was going to be king in 38 BC when he fucked that horse.
|>>|| No. 86655
Nah, Claudius beat him in a game of backgammon in 43AD. Doubled the poor bastard out of the game.
|>>|| No. 86659
How exactly is it fair for you to split the winning side's vote down the middle and pit it against the losing side with its vote intact? And what happens when no deal plus deal beats the hypothetically victorious remain?
That sounds like the absolute worst thing you could do to unambiguously resolve the impasse.
|>>|| No. 86660
That depends. Who do you mean by "we" and are you planning to hold it before or after April 2018?
|>>|| No. 86661
>How exactly is it fair for you to split the winning side's vote down the middle and pit it against the losing side with its vote intact?
So you're saying that elections in Scotland aren't fair?
|>>|| No. 86662
He can't make new decisions that alter or go back on old decisions, that's for sure. You know how the old saying goes; you can lead a horse to water but you can't un-fuck it.
|>>|| No. 86663
On the upside, that suits give us a pretext for revoking America's independence. After all, we decided it was British, and we're owed a fuckload of back taxes on all that tea.
|>>|| No. 86666
What the fuck is wrong with people? Apart from Corbyn, we all know what's wrong with him.
|>>|| No. 86668
Ironically, this problem is easily solved with the Alternative Vote system.
|>>|| No. 86669
When I voted in 2017, there were seven candidates on the ballot. There are plenty of other choices.
|>>|| No. 86670
I'll give you four reasons, off the top of my head.
• IIIWW fatigue. Many people are fed up of the current limbo dragging on and simply want it resolved one way or another.
• You don't give people like Boris or Nige the opportunity to paint themselves as victims because they feed off this and thrive.
• The current situation has enabled Boris to pitch it as 'parliament vs. the public'. He's on the side of the public.
• Jeremy flaccid cock Corbyn.
|>>|| No. 86671
>• The current situation has enabled Boris to pitch it as 'parliament vs. the public'. He's on the side of the public.
>• Jeremy flaccid cock Corbyn.
|>>|| No. 86672
Let's be clear. When you have two choices and one of them is a fascist, you're supposed to pick the other one.
|>>|| No. 86673
I thought the Sun were supposed to be tories now? Are they just angry Bojo hasn't torched the jigaboos yet?
|>>|| No. 86674
I don't know but I like their punning today. If he gets his election he'll try to IIIWW through the back door.
|>>|| No. 86676
I'm not sure what local elections in England have to do with this but your concept of non-linear democracy intrigues me. Shall we go back to 1999 EU parliamentary elections and take another stab at the 21st century? The voters will be more informed this time and I'm sure the rest of the world will go along with it.
|>>|| No. 86677
>I'm not sure what local elections in England have to do with this
Nor am I, since nobody mentioned them.
|>>|| No. 86690
Some potential context on the back-channel deal to end the Lords filibuster:
The Times reported that the Rebel Alliance cleared their plans with European Council officials before putting it to the Imperial forces.
Election on the 14th/15th isn't going to happen. It's becoming clear that the opposition won't agree to it unless and until Boris is forced to either request the extension or resign, and even if he resigns with immediate effect his successor will be bound to make the request. If a motion does get passed in Parliament, and there is still to be a Queen's Speech, realistically the election isn't going to happen before December.
|>>|| No. 86691
The first point makes complete sense and that's weird. The European Union locked out the shadow cabinet while negotiations were ongoing because you would be mental to do otherwise. It makes you wonder whether the EU has been in regular contact with friendly voices and at what point that would've started, possibly when BoJo made clear his negotiations were a sham.
>If a motion does get passed in Parliament, and there is still to be a Queen's Speech, realistically the election isn't going to happen before December.
I think this was always going to be on the cards. Leaving in October was an absolutely impossible option in terms of warehousing space for both sides.
|>>|| No. 86692
The EU have been clear that, as things stand, the negotiations are closed. It's now a matter of implementing them. In the same way that the EU would be mental to let the opposition negotiate, they'd be mental to not to talk to the opposition when the government is effectively ignoring them.
Legally speaking, this Monday is the last possible date to bring a motion for an election if you wanted it on the 15th. There are 650 writs that need to be moved, and there is a mandatory five-week minimum election period. With that failing, the Queen's Speech debate typically takes up the entirety of the first week of the new session, though it would be interesting to see what happened if that gets voted down. Assuming it doesn't, the motion for an election would be brought again on the 21st or 22nd of October, and five weeks after that would make the first Thursday possible the 28th November. Thankfully students should still be around, so that particular plan to disenfranchise voters that don't agree with Boris is unlikely to succeed. Some have suggested that many millions of middle-aged adults voted for the first time in 2016 and might not ever vote again if IIIWW isn't delivered by Halloween, and I'm conflicted over this. Part of me thinks it's a shame that a whole sector of the country becomes disengaged with the process, but a more cynical part of me can't help but think that their votes won't be missed.
|>>|| No. 86696
Labour are such a set of fuck ups. They've had every chance to seize power from a helpless and incompetent Tory party and look at them.
The working class of this county deserve better than them. Jeremy Corbyn was great as the idealised figure of a rare politician who actually stands for his beliefs, but he's been a shit leader. The spineless careerists who are so weak and incompetent that they've failed to take down a leader as weak as him should just have fucking hung themselves already, they're beyond a disgrace. And what does the labour party have left beyond that?
Their problem is much the same as the Tories, only worse. At least cruel Etonian bastards like Rees Mogg are actually Tories, and if you vote for him you'll get a Tory. With the likes of Owen Smith or Dianne Abbot on the other side, what are you getting? You're not getting a Labour politician, you're definitely not getting a socialist, you're barely even getting a social democrat. You're getting a fat bint with a chip on her shoulder and a supermarket manager with ideas above his station, respectively.
What hope is there to defeat the Tories in my lifetime?
|>>|| No. 86697
Could you stop trying for force shitty memes please? We've got a crisis on our hands, you know.
|>>|| No. 86698
What the actual fuck are you on about? In what way are Smith and Abbott not social democratic Labour politicians? Did you just want to call Diane Abbott a fat bint?
|>>|| No. 86699
What meme am I forcing?
They're just shit politicians who turn whichever way the wind blows. Are you trying to suggest pricks like them are a better alternative to the Conservative party? Clearly that's why Labour is doing so well in the polls.
Britfags politics is wierd sometimes.
|>>|| No. 86702
Johnson looks like a bewildered alky stood next to the Irish PM.
|>>|| No. 86704
Sorry for double-posting, but I can't get over how shit he is at this. Where's this famous oratory and rhetorical ability I heard about? He sounds thicker than Trump, sans the ability to hype his base, and is actually quite slow and meandering in his speaking. Leo Varadkar looks like he's taken his senile uncle for a walk.
|>>|| No. 86706
I'm not so much suprised as I am shocked. Johnson was supposed to be the Tory big top's ringmaster, but on current form he couldn't whip up a bowl of double cream if you plugged in the electric whisk for him.
|>>|| No. 86707
Why are you shocked?
Maybe you wanted to believe he was some sort of Batman villain, playing up the role of a buffoon and a moron in order to disguise his razor sharp intellect.
But it turns out he really is just a window licker.
|>>|| No. 86712
I explained why I was shocked in the rest of my post: "Johnson was supposed to be the Tory big top's ringmaster". The whole reason he was elected by Conservative MPs was because they thought he was their "break glass to win over base" candidate, but there's just nothing to him.
>Maybe you wanted to believe he was some sort of Batman villain
No, why would I? I've just been watching the PM flounder about for the last week and saw it yet again this morning. Also your sentence was a question and should have ended in a question mark.
|>>|| No. 86713
He's polling well enough for a majority, at least for the moment. There's a big difference between a candidate who can win back BxP supporters and a candidate who's actually competent.
|>>|| No. 86714
Screenshot_2019-09-09 Nick Robinson on Twitter.png
I just wonder how long he can schlep around this tiresome performance of his before even the no-dealers get fed up. Perhaps never because they're nearing a cult-like fanatacism, but if he continues to achieve absolutely nothing and he only gets more popular I might have to phone the mothership to come and take me home. It's not even like he has some grand vision, like I've said, there's nothing to him. He might as well have been a silly wig on a stick during that presser with Varadkar today.
|>>|| No. 86716
Starting to believe that theory that the only ones pushing for IIIWW anymore are the top dogs trying to escape the new anti-money laundering directive the EU is putting into effect in January and that this has been the main problem all along.
|>>|| No. 86718
It's the British populist equivalent of Trump's border wall - costly, useless, almost impossible to realise, but a powerful rallying point for a political tribe. To many IIIWWeers, the symbolic value of IIIWW is infinitely more important than any of the practical implications.
|>>|| No. 86719
It seems like the majority of the public are (still) pushing for it as well.
|>>|| No. 86724
Shit's kicking off in the Commons. Bit of a scuffle around the Speaker's chair, order papers used as placards, Bercow standing up to Black Rod.
|>>|| No. 86727
Why? For being honest? I hate to sound like a cheesy inspirational Instagram post but it's occasionally a perfectly sound idea to say "I don't know".
|>>|| No. 86728
I think it is a perfectly intellectually honest idea. Could you imagine being expected to have a position on something you don't full understand? I doubt many people could explain to you the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy, or the level of daily trade with EU and if it works out as a surplus or a deficit, or even how articles and directives are integrated into UK law and yet they are expected to have a stance that balances all those subjects and concludes if it is beneficial or negative. And then you get some arsehole straight up lying and sticking it on the side of a tour bus and he wins and becomes PM, frankly the number of I don't knows should be a lot higher and >>86721 is the biggest most arrogant idiot of them all for assuming people have to have an opinion. Imagine how much better the world would be if people only had control over decisions they understood.
|>>|| No. 86730
We here both sides accusing the other of lying but where are the actual figures in black and white
Perhaps I'm being naive but shouldn't transparent figures for the EU and UK be in the public domain
|>>|| No. 86732
I think he's got his directives mixed up, and means the one on tax avoidance. ATAD II comes into force in January.
|>>|| No. 86733
They are there is a site called Europa run by the EU that has all the public records a large amount of it for years has been spent pointing out when British papers print absolute bollocks. Who almost certainly have been a key factor in our leaving. The same way that America doesn't have a decent healthcare system because their media has no issue spouting pure lies about the effects of state controlled services.
|>>|| No. 86737
Thanks for doing the reseach I was too lazy to do on my mobile earlier lad, much appriciated.
|>>|| No. 86738
Jeremy Corbyn has promised a further referendum on IIIWW with a "credible Leave option" versus Remain if his party wins the next general election.
He said Labour was "ready" for the campaign, but its "priority" was to stop a no-deal IIIWW. Its manifesto will promise to reach a better IIIWW deal, but is not expected to commit to either Leave or Remain.
Labour still unable to commit to a position on IIIWW. They're going to end up behind the Lib Dems at this rate.
|>>|| No. 86740
How exactly is "let the people decide" not a position?
Stop trying to push this narrative that Labour don't have a position. The Tories want to push ahead and damn the consequences, the LibDems want to tear up the referendum we had in the first place. The Labour position is clearly the most democratic of the lot.
If I was a leaver I'd be voting Labour. Then we can have a second referendum and when it comes back with an even larger majority in favour of leave, despite the chaos of the last three years, every single sanctimonious remainer prick has been well and truly told and can shut their fucking mouths to let us get on with it. If by some miracle it comes back in favour of remain, we can see that people have seen the chaos and changed their minds, very sensibly.
What's not to like.
|>>|| No. 86741
Not saying the papers don't have a transparent agenda but debunking "Euromyths" with a website funded and run by the European Union seems a bit much.
Imagine how much this issue will tear the party apart if they get into government.
>No you can't put this deal to the public because we don't support it
And then the Monster Raving Loony Party will win and implode over whether we're having a Al dente IIIWW or the more populist ready-IIIWW.
How has that been working out for you since 2017?
|>>|| No. 86742
>the LibDems want to tear up the referendum we had in the first place
The LibDems want a second referendum.
|>>|| No. 86743
>the LibDems want to tear up the referendum we had in the first place
And Boris wants to tear up the election we had after that. What's your point?
|>>|| No. 86744
Lib Dems: Second referendum.
Labour: Limbo dragging on for months whilst they attempt to negotiate a new deal with the EU before putting that to a second referendum.
Given those two options, Lib Dems win.
|>>|| No. 86746
>Stop trying to push this narrative that Labour don't have a position.
Their position is currently against no deal. I struggle to understand what sort of deal they want or whether they want another referendum etc.
6 months ago I had absolutely no fucking idea what they wanted. Instead of making solid arguments and getting his position across, Corbyn spent all his time trying to relate to the normal clueless members of the public who don't really know what they want themselves.
Whoevers side you're on, it's an absolute fucking joke that rebels within the Governments own party have been far more instrumental in trying to block IIIWW than the opposition.
|>>|| No. 86749
While no-deal IIIWW may be forbidden by law, what's the punishment? Why won't Boris just do it? Limelight for a while, adoration from enough people to fund him for the rest of his life. Seems like a fair trade? If it gets revoked from under him, same applies. He's got nothing to lose, has he?
All the current flapping is just for show, to get us to that point.
Should I put a bet on?
|>>|| No. 86750
Revoking Article 50 would return us to the status quo membership without negotiations. It wouldn't change anything beyond resetting the clock on the notification period if Lib Dems did it in that order and mean a referendum would be remain/no-deal rather than drawing out negotiations on a third option.
|>>|| No. 86751
I don't suppose there's anything stopping him from proposing a deal that just entirely describes a no-deal scenario, and calling that the deal. "we give nothing, and get nothing" written down and signed is a deal, right?
|>>|| No. 86752
>>86751 Possible, but I don't think that'll work, as it'd still need to be voted on, as it's a deal.
If he just saunters into a meeting, saying 'yeah, I've got a deal, you'll love it', then says 'fuck you, no deal, we're out, no time to do anything else, clock's run out, bring on no-deal IIIWW', smirks and fucks off, is he going to get arrested, jailed, or told he's a naughty boy? Would it being illegal invalidate it, or just get him in trouble of some sort?
Please tell me I'm missing the point here.
|>>|| No. 86753
>I struggle to understand what sort of deal they want or whether they want another referendum etc
He's been supporting a second referendum since at least May, if not longer. That's just as far as my memory goes. The speech I heard from him earlier was pretty explicit about that too.
>Corbyn spent all his time trying to relate to the normal clueless members of the public who don't really know what they want themselves.
Imagine trying to relate to voters. You're right, that's a sure fire way to lose elections if I've ever heard of one.
Now, I'm not the massive Corbynista I'm probably coming across as, I think he's really done a shit job as leader. But people are being very unfair on him and his party's position. They are the opposition and they are being exactly the kind of contrary, obstinate fucks you're supposed to be in opposition.
|>>|| No. 86754
I would assume, and it is an assumption, that the law he'd be breaking wouldn't be "letting IIIWW happen without a deal", but would be something like "ignoring the will of Parliament", and he'd probably be remembered as a massive bastard for the rest of time.
|>>|| No. 86756
>He's been supporting a second referendum since at least May, if not longer.
Your memory only stretches back a month and half?
|>>|| No. 86758
>While no-deal IIIWW may be forbidden by law, what's the punishment?
If Johnson doesn't request the extension, MPs can apply for a court order requiring him to do so. If he fails to comply with that order, he can be convicted of contempt and sentenced to a maximum of two years imprisonment. With the expedient help of a sympathetic judge, all of that could happen with time to spare before the 31st of October deadline.
|>>|| No. 86759
Additionally, if a prosecutor were minded to take it up, there's a very strong case that openly defying the law amounts to misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life, and could be charged against him and anyone else considered to be conspiring with him (including employees not themselves in public office). The last case against him found that he was not considered to have told the 350m lie in his official capacity, but clearly that defence wouldn't be open to him given he's made statements inside and outside the House in his official capacity as PM.
Worth noting that he's also publicly said he doesn't intend to resign, but nowhere near as stridently as his other refusal. That said, May also openly defied Parliament, and Cummings still has an unpurged contempt, so it's possible Boris just sees the potential threats as entirely toothless.
|>>|| No. 86760
Wouldn't this require that all the EU member states meet again and vote? Presuming that Johnson doesn't play ball at the summit.
|>>|| No. 86764
It is very simple really, Liberal democrats have always been the pro-Europe party, they aren't one of the 2 major parties, they can run a manifesto entirely to the effect of 'we will stay in Europe' and if they win, that will be considered a demonstration of the will of the people to stay in Europe, as opposed to where labour and the conservatives win where you can argue all sorts of other reasons and the party lines are all over the place on the issue, the motive for voting Liberal would be very clear, the same way if UKIP won an election it would be self-evident what that meant.
|>>|| No. 86765
>the same way if UKIP won an election it would be self-evident what that meant
In other words, Nige's performance at the last European elections is proof that people want to leave the EU so there's no need for another referendum.
|>>|| No. 86768
To an extent, I can see her thinking. The resultant panic buying would only serve to make any shortages worse which would be fanned by those with a clear agenda in making No Deal sound as bad as possible.
There's probably some middle ground but we're about to go into an election and 'you can see but can't tell anyone' doesn't even work in Cabinet these days.
|>>|| No. 86770
What's your point? Why would the obviousness of people panic buying change the logic of her thinking?
|>>|| No. 86771
So what you're saying is that if we're facing imminent shortages of vital supplies we shouldn't tell people in case they decide to prepare themselves?
|>>|| No. 86772
A document has been published.
The redacted section is thought to be this:
>Tariffs make UK petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability, but UK government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to big financial losses and the closure of two refineries (which are converted to import terminals) with about 2,000 direct job losses. Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions they directly supply. Government analysis of the impact of no-deal on refineries continues.
|>>|| No. 86773
I think what you're saying is that if we're facing imminent shortages of vital supplies, we shouldn't tell people because that would cause an immediate shortage of supplies.
Unless you think the best move a government can make is to shout 'every man for himself' and duck behind a desk.
|>>|| No. 86774
Sorta like when you go into sepsis innit. Your body thinks it's doing the right thing by sending everything it has at the infection but in the end it raises your core temperature and kills you fucking dead mate. So doctors have to get your body to stop being a prick for it's own good.
|>>|| No. 86776
They should at least admit that we may face shortages and rationing may be necessary. It's completely irresponsible to just keep the risk secret and hope that it all blows over.
|>>|| No. 86777
If people are going to panic buy either way, it's probably better that they do it while we're still in a position to restock the shelves.
|>>|| No. 86778
You can, as a government prepare for rationing secretly and quietly. You cannot if you've already told everyone to run out and buy thirty loaves of bread each.
I'm not saying it's pleasant, or even morally correct, but it is, in fact, sensible.
That being said, I don't want it to appear I'm defending the very people that got us to this fucking point in the first place. I truly, genuinely hope that this is a big enough collapse that we finally eat the rich. and the workers can seize the control and ownership of the means of production
|>>|| No. 86779
Once a run on shops starts, it doesn't just stop when everyone's pantry is full, that's not how it works and even with restocking you can't keep up with that sort of demand. I'm old enough to remember how quickly this sort of thing goes downhill, how quickly the queues outside of petrol stations started to form.
|>>|| No. 86780
>Once a run on shops starts, it doesn't just stop when everyone's pantry is full, that's not how it works
When did you become an expert on this sort of thing? If the public has three months' notice, at least some people will get in early, and so the increase in demand is spread, and retailers will already be trying to increase stock levels in anticipation. Throw in the fact that half the population thinks this is just "Project Fear" and really doesn't work out anywhere near as badly as you're making it out to be. Whereas if we just wait until November, even the idiots are panic buying when they realise that they fucked up, and when the shelves are empty we aren't able to find supplies to replace them.
>I'm old enough to remember how quickly this sort of thing goes downhill, how quickly the queues outside of petrol stations started to form.
Whenever we've had petrol rationing, it was precisely because we couldn't restock. During the fuel protests, filling stations couldn't get supplies because the refineries were blockaded.
|>>|| No. 86781
>During the fuel protests, filling stations couldn't get supplies because the refineries were blockaded.
|>>|| No. 86783
No deal wouldn't be an unavoidable happenstance, but a deliberate decision by HM Government. If the Prime Minister wants to tell the public that no deal would be an acceptable outcome, then the public have the right to know the whole truth.
Secretive preparations would be perfectly legitimate if we were preparing for an invasion or a nuclear attack, but the harms of no deal would be entirely self-inflicted. The risk of those harms could be entirely eliminated by either signing the WA or revoking A50. If telling the public the truth about no deal would make no deal more damaging, that's not an argument for secrecy - it's an argument for avoiding no deal.
|>>|| No. 86784
But if they sign the WA or revoke A50 then ATAD2 will apply in the UK and Boris, Jacob and all their mates won't be able to dodge taxes by hiding their money offshore, and we can't have that, can we?
|>>|| No. 86785
Today I went on a walk, when I got back I saw our PM had been diplomogged. What a sorry state.
|>>|| No. 86787
The whole thing was just farcical.
>Let's go outside and do this.
>Oh no, there are hecklers. Can we do this inside?
>We could try, but this is a press event and there's no room inside for all that press.
>Oh, erm ...
>Look, I'm going outside with or without you. Your call.
Who's the "big girl's blouse" again? What an embarrassment.
|>>|| No. 86800
Corbyn suggests UK could be better off after IIIWW if deal is right
When asked whether it was in Britain’s long-term interests to remain in the EU, the Labour leader said: “It depends on the agreement you have with the European Union outside.”
His suggestion that a Labour government could negotiate an exit deal that would be preferable to EU membership – and that he will reserve judgment until those negotiations are complete – will infuriate anti-IIIWW activists.
He said: “We have consistently put forward what I believe to be a credible option, which is based on five pillars – the customs union, the trade relationship, protection of consumer and environmental rights, and of course the Good Friday agreement.” If the EU27 agree to those demands, he said, “that would be a credible offer to put before the British people”.
More than 90 local constituency Labour parties (CLPs) have submitted motions on IIIWW to the conference, most demanding their party support remain. These are due to be hammered out into a “composite” at a late-night meeting on Sunday. But the national executive committee (NEC) is threatening to pre-empt those discussions by tabling its own policy statement – a draft version of which suggests deferring the decision on whether to support remain until a special conference to be held after a Labour government has negotiated a IIIWW deal.
Corbyn made clear that was his position. “We would put both views and say look, this is the best deal we could get; this is the remain and hopefully reform option. These are the choices before you.”
|>>|| No. 86801
>He said: “We have consistently put forward what I believe to be a credible option, which is based on five pillars – the customs union, the trade relationship, protection of consumer and environmental rights, and of course the Good Friday agreement.”
So remaining without voting rights. I get why Labour has been in a tight spot about this but they always seem to suggest the worst possible option based on headlines rather than boring policy changes at the EU-Level such as Common Fisheries. I mean, even if we do end up remaining, there's going to be some very detailed negotiations on our future relationship. That we'll likely fudge completely and do nothing to address the left-behind towns that voted leave.
|>>|| No. 86802
They've created about the worst possible offering. Nobody wants there to be a renegotiation with the EU. Nobody wants this limbo to drag on for months and months.
|>>|| No. 86803
>So remaining without voting rights.
Not as bad as leaving but having to obey all the rules anyway.
But yeah, Labour really need to actually find a clear position on this. (No, Momentumlad, what they've articulated to date is not a clear position.)
|>>|| No. 86804
>Not as bad as leaving but having to obey all the rules anyway.
Who is talking about that?
|>>|| No. 86805
Those in various shades of blue and marple. They don't like to mention the part where we have to obey the rules anyway, because it doesn't fit their narrative.
|>>|| No. 86806
Seems pretty clear-cut that we're taking back control of our fisheries and immigration at the very least in the blue and marple scenarios. That much seems to be agreed in May's deal that the EU refuse to renegotiate on.
|>>|| No. 86808
Well, I guess if we can overfish the North Sea and tell darkies to go home, that must make up for all the other rules we'll still have to obey.
Bless their little cotton socks for thinking we will be able to set our own rules independently of anyone else. If we buy goods from the EU, they'll still be compliant with EU rules, and if we sell goods into the EU, they'll have to comply with those rules. The same goes for any agreement with the US, or China, or whatever other major trading nation we want to deal with. We will be the junior partner, and in no position to make demands.
FWIW, it's entirely their right to refuse to renegotiate, since we initially set the terms. If we want a different agreement, then we have to change the terms of the negotiation. That means the red lines have to either move or become less red.
|>>|| No. 86809
>Well, I guess if we can overfish the North Sea and tell darkies to go home, that must make up for all the other rules we'll still have to obey.
So you agree that we can set our own rules in these areas under blue and marple. Good, I can put the kettle on then.
|>>|| No. 86810
If it tickles your prostate, then sure. I'm not sure what relevance it has though.
|>>|| No. 86811
Labour delegates have voted for Corbyn's fudge rather than outright Remain. Bonkers.
|>>|| No. 86812
Don't worry. Our resident Corbynisti will be along soon enough to tick us off for daring to suggest that Labour don't have a clear IIIWW position despite having just "clearly carried" a motion to not adopt a position.
|>>|| No. 86813
I mean, it's fairly obvious remain is the losing bet for them. All it would achieve is splitting their vote with the Lib Dems, even if it could be assumed that in terms of voting intention remainers out number leavers or even that voters will divide along those lines.
|>>|| No. 86814
The fact it'd be taking a stance against the deal he will have negotiated would be called a sign of weakness by the media, by staying neutral it's a 0 sum answer to a lose lose scenario, remain would split their vote and make his deal seem weak, siding with his deal would make the mostly remain members of the party turn on him. As far as I see it the neutral stance is the only logical response to the situation if he wants to keep his position.
|>>|| No. 86815
If the party takes the position of remain, why would they need to negotiate a deal?
|>>|| No. 86816
Taking a clear Remain stance would all but wipe out the Lib Dems, while taking a clear Leave stance would win back some otherwise loyal Labour supporters who switched to BrexKIP or the Tories over IIIWW. Fence-sitting might be good for Corbyn, but it completely scuppers Labour's chances at the next election. They aren't remainy enough for the remainers, they aren't IIIWWy enough for the IIIWWeers and Corbyn is nowhere near popular enough to side-step the IIIWW issue and win on his own merits.
|>>|| No. 86818
I wonder what words we will learn in the next exciting episode of Parliament? It will be Nobile officium
|>>|| No. 86820
>Taking a clear Remain stance would all but wipe out the Lib Dems, while taking a clear Leave stance would win back some otherwise loyal Labour supporters who switched to BrexKIP or the Tories over IIIWW
I really don't see this.
Supporting remain would be suicide for Labour, but for the lib dems it's their best option to claw back votes they lost in the last two elections. The only question is going to be whether the votes will be too split to win many seats despite a large share of total votes. But I still think the best way forward for the lib-dems is to portray themselves as the only alternative to the red and blue shit show.
|>>|| No. 86831
Who would you have replace him? Diane Abbott's approval rating is about 60/60 at best.
|>>|| No. 86844
I want her to sit on my face and ride me like Shergar, is that the same thing?
|>>|| No. 86846
Wouldn't you find her humming the EU Nathan while riding you off putting?
|>>|| No. 86852
Isn't she the one that laughed at male suicide as an issue on a backbench committee?
|>>|| No. 86858
Imagine Jess cackling with laughter at your muffled screams as she smothers you into unconsciousness with her voluptuous arse cheeks. You drift off into the blackness, before being roused by a stream of hot piss all over your face. As the terror subsides and you start to regain awareness of your surroundings, she slaps you across the face and says "wakey wakey bab, I'm not done with you yet".
|>>|| No. 86862
Would be interesting if it sticks, although I suspect it just means the Liberal Democrats become labour 2.0. A Lab-Con coalition government will be an interesting experiment.
|>>|| No. 86863
>I suspect it just means the Liberal Democrats become labour 2.0
Given the regressions Labour 1.x is suffering, that might not be that bad an idea.
|>>|| No. 86868
Does take incredible courage to lose seven votes on the bounce, piss away a majority and play chicken with the entire UK economy because you're so minted the Moon could crash into Margate and you'd hardly notice, to be fair.
|>>|| No. 86878
He's not even that posh. His branch of the family drifted from nobility, and his father was a farmer in Devon. He had to earn his places at Eton and Oxford. His net worth is only about £1.6m. That's about half of Are Nige, and JRM is around the £100m mark.
Everything about the man is a lie. It's very possible that he's 100% veneer and there really isn't a "real Boris" to be found underneath.
|>>|| No. 86883
Posh or not once he's a former PM he can write a book, Cameron style, get paid to turn up and give a rambling speech at corporate events for silly money and do the same in print for a great number of newspapers around the world. He's not going to have to worry about American drug companies rogering the NHS senseless or his hometown's main employer packing up shop because whatever hard-right yahoo's in charge of trade sold them down the river to the Chinese.
|>>|| No. 86884
>Everything about the man is a lie. It's very possible that he's 100% veneer and there really isn't a "real Boris" to be found underneath.
Does that really differ from David Cameron?
|>>|| No. 86885
I'm more interested in how in the fuck you can look like that and talk like that but still manage an exhaustive string of affairs with women half your age. What's the secret of Bojo's Mojo?
|>>|| No. 86886
I would doubt claims about his net worth being trifling. I think the Eye reported that he got £200k a column for the Telegraph in the last 2 issues, but I'm enjoying a fancy red tonight and can't be arsed checking.
|>>|| No. 86889
It's my answer to all problems of the "romantic" kind, but that's only because I'm totally convinced it's the correct one; confidence. If there's one thing Johnson believes in it's himself, you just have to make sure you don't turn into a complete dickhead in this regard, because that's almost as much of a turn off as rampant insecurity. In my opinion this is best avoided by being jochular and gregarious, which once again, despite his many, many flaws, are traits Johnson seems to possess. I would also consider these traits to fall under the wider umbrella of "confidence".
|>>|| No. 86892
Greatly. There was definitely a "real Dave", who was really rather posh. Fee-payer at Eton, less than 1000 places in line to the throne, got his first job arranged for him. Boris seems to be just a set of Russian dolls where the smallest one is empty.
|>>|| No. 86916
The Beeb just had an interview with some rich old fart and let him get away with "we've got all these regulations and 90% of businesses don't go near Europe" bollocks without even a hint of challenge, such as maybe asking him to explain one of the regulations he thinks harmful and why.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]