-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
BREXIT |OT2.0| A parade of endless victories for Boris Johnson
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
There's only one group of bastards responsible for it, and I can only hope they're remembered for it. How can anyone seriously, with a straight face, say the Tories are the party of fiscal responsibility?
London, the other major cities and young people (i.e. the 'wealth generators') don't predominantly vote Conservative
I see that after my 3 week Era hiatus you're still living in a fantasy world where there's a Labour majority government.
Not yet. Record low was in late 2008 at around 1.02€ – but that was at the height of the global financial crisis, mind you... :-/
Last time the pound dropped below 1.10€ was in summer 2017 in the aftermath of the general election and when negotiations with the EU were hitting some particularly rough spots.
you don't need a majority, you just need to be able to form a government that doesn't include the Tories. I've never once said Labour would win a majority because I don't think they can. Right now there's very few options that lead to an outcome that doesn't involve the Tories dragging us out of the EU without a change in parliament.
In some ways we need some Conservatives right now, sitting with a majority of 1 MP, there has to be at least 5 tory MP's willing to fall on their sword to stop Boris.
I personally think Boris is bluffing, he won't actually do it. If he does he massively overestimates how many No Deal zealots exist to grant him his majority government, and there will be even fewer after even a few days of no deal.
Luckily, my Polish partner received her 3 year work visa for New Zealand a couple of days ago, and I will be soon applying for partnership, so I have finally escaped Brexit, for now....
The lowest GBP has ever been against the Euro was £1=€1.02945 (that was for an extremely short time at depths of the financial crisis in 2009)
The lowest GBP has ever been against the Dollar was £1 = $1.05 in 1985 and that was due not to the pounds weakness but the Dollar becoming extremely overvalued to the point the Federal Reserve and US Government had to step in to devalue it.
His title is "The Lib Dems CHOSE to NOT Stop No Deal!" (note the tabloid capitalisation..)
He then says he's going to show that they don't want to stop No Deal.
He then even says that the Liberal Democrats don't want to stop Brexit full stop.
All his evidence amounts to is that the Liberal Democrats don't want Corbyn to be Prime Minister.
Duh.
When considering the path of a VONC followed by a temporary/emergency/unity government, it is far more logical to have an interim Prime Minister who is viewed as reasonably neutral and widely respected than one that is clearly not neutral and is widely disliked. That Bastani seems to think a government that would last a few weeks is 'an extension of the idea of starting a new centrist party' makes no sense at all.
More over, and I think people should be more conscious of this, is that the Liberal Democrats are far more effective for the left if they stand in the 'centre' and attract Conservatives away from the insanity going on to the right, than they are propping up Corbyn or edging into Labour's political territory. There are far more Liberal Democrat - Conservative marginals than Liberal Democrat - Labour marginals.
Then he brings up the Customs Union indicative vote. It's a pretty stupid argument for two reasons. First, because the very same graph shows that Labour abstentions was the core reason that a second referendum didn't get across the line, and secondly because the Customs Union suggestion: (1) Lacked detail (2) Is basically still Hard Brexit (3) Doesn't solve the Irish issue like a lot of people seem to believe (4) Very likely would have lost once the mass of Conservative abstentions turned into actual votes should it have gone forward.
I mean for fuck's sake. Bastani's argument here is that "The Liberal Democrats don't want to stop Brexit", which he says while chastising them for not rubber stamping what would, at the time of the referendum, have been considered a Medium to Hard Brexit. And you think this is a good video? Holy shit. It's full on gaslighting. The Liberal Democrats have always been against Brexit. Labour and Corbyn have not. Bastani is a spin merchant, and it falls flat as fuck if you go into his video with an ounce of scepticism.
There are lots of groups and individuals trying to stop no deal/stop hard brexit/stop brexit altogether. They aren't all unified behind one banner because they don't all agree with the means or the ends. It's one thing to wish that they were able to unite better, but doing it while saying "AND IT'S THEIR FAULT" is basically just illustrating why it will never happen.
Not sure if this article has been posted already: http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/englands-rentier-alliance/
It gives a good discussion of what the financial motivations could be of the core of the leaver movement.
It gives a good discussion of what the financial motivations could be of the core of the leaver movement.
Incredible.
Also, the announcement looks like it was filmed in the rear stairwell of a generic office building.
I was going to respond to this, but you've covered all my points - he just seems to take any excuse to shit on the LDs (seemingly moreso than the Tories nowadays) and "they secretly don't want to stop Brexit" is an incredibly shitty take, even by his standards.
Disagree, Corbyn is the leader of the opposition not some politician plucked at random by the libdem's, there's nothing logical about it, it's just what you/they prefer.
Brexit enforcer Cummings' farm took €235,000 in EU handouts [The Guardian]
...
...
You can't make this up. More at the link above.
...
...
You can't make this up. More at the link above.
I think you're misrepresenting my position, and the Liberal Democrats' for what it's worth.
I don't care if it's Corbyn or one of the other names that has been proposed so long as they can actually get the job done. I think it's more likely to work with someone other than Corbyn, and I think it's cleaner if it's someone other than Corbyn. Regardless, it's going to be enormously tricky to get any of this done. You may think Corbyn is fine, but there are very few Conservatives (if any) that do, and quite a number of members in other parties who don't. This whole concept is that we have a brief government so that we have time to go to the people. It doesn't stop Corbyn from winning the general election (that's Corbyn's job).
When Corbyn fails to win another election to go along with all of the byelections he has also failed to win and the local and EU results none of this will be his fault. They are already actively blaming the Lib Dems before it even happens as if Labour voters deserting the party has nothing to do with them. It's incredibly annoying but until Parliament returns this is a phony war and to be honest I think all hope rests on Grieve being smarter than Cummings when it comes to Parliiamentary procedure.
I just found the libdems position to be more emotional than logical, calling him a danger to the country and ruling out working with him, the leader of the party you need onside seemed bizarre as a tactic to me.
I don't think it fair to consider it emotional. It's political but fundamentally pragmatic when they want to attract anti Corbyn moderates, of which there are a lot.
The Liberal Democrats want to stop Brexit and I believe they'll work with Labour towards that end, if nothing beyond that. Nothing they've said or done has suggested anything else to me. The fact that there are crossed words flying back and forth between Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP is... because they're competing political parties.
Last edited:
If you are talking strictly about Westminster then this seems PLP level bad politics, Corbyn is the leader of the party he is the leader of the opposition, there is no way to make that work that I can see.
At least dangle the keys to Downing St in front of him, and name a price for it, it just seems easier given the lack of time and numbers in the commons.
To be clear I am basing this of the behaviour of Swinson, I don't know how the rest of the Libdem's feel about her position.
I get where you're coming from, but Corbyn squabbling over who gets to be PM in a unity government that last 2-4 weeks seems like a waste of time during a very critical time. In a unity govt everybody need to be happy and a lot of people in govt quite like Yvette Cooper (me included, Yvette for PM woo!) so why not have her?
If you think you can pull that off in the time given then fair enough, i don't think Corbyn or the left of the party that she ruled out working with will see it as much of a unity government. i just see a very hard brexit coming.
Well it'll be great then to see tribal politics leading to a No Deal brexit.
Genuinely, if there's an opportunity for a Unity government and Corbyn fucks it then he's dead politically.
It isn't a gove that's meant to last for more than a month... the single, implicit aim of which, is to delay Brexit to call for a 2nd ref or a real general election. No other policy, goal, mandate or what have you will be of any import, because the unity gove is simply a means to an end, as such, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant who is "leading" it.
I think he is being given an easy way out by sidelining him, even i can see why he would be reluctant to trust all these people who rule him out. aren't they being just as tribal?
if it doesn't matter who leads it, and the leader will be on a really short leash then why worry about Corbyn being PM, i'm trying to understand the logic.
Practically, yes.
Although politically for Corbyn, as the leader of the largest opposition party, him not leading a Unity government just looks bad for him. I don't care though, I read through the last few pages of this thread and some people were talking about him simply not living up to what he promised. I agree with them completely. He billed himself as a great cooperator, a proponent of gentler politics, and I have not seen any of that from him, he's all cattle and no ranch.
you're bemoaning tribal poltics but it's the party with 13 MPs that apparently can't bite their tongue for one second. It's utterly pathetic on their part to expect someone other than the leader of the oppistion to stand in.
I'm not even arguing about who is best for the job, i'm just talking about the practical issue of setting up another hurdle of insulting the leader of the opposition when the government is full of nutcases about to go kamikaze. i think they believe i'm being pro-corbyn, i'm just talking the politics, the lack of trust, the path of least resistance etc.
Last edited:
About 90% of Lib Dem targets are Tory marginals so it makes sense to attack Labour/Corbyn if you're trying to get those Tory voters back. I don't think anyone really believes there's going to be any sort of unity government anyway so it provides a nice bit of grandstanding.
yeah, i don't think they can get everyone on side to pull it off, i just felt the anyone but Corbyn arguments were making the idea impossible.
Yep, it does if you think the cohort of tory voters you are targetting would rebel at the notion of you supporting a Corbyn admin. The trick for the lib dems is to attack Labour just enough that they get the remainer tories on board but not too much they spook the Labour leaning voters who'll lend them a vote in constituencies where Labour don't have a shot but the Lib Dems do.
(and I'll say that this to anyone in that situation: if you are in a Tory/Lib marginal vote Lib Dem, because ultimately while they'll probably disappoint you, they won't certainly will like a Tory candidate)
I imagine the Lib Dems want to keep done kind of distance from Corbyn, seeing as they're initially targeting marginal Tory seats.
Don't want to get a "Vote Swinson, get Corbyn" thing to deal with.
Don't want to get a "Vote Swinson, get Corbyn" thing to deal with.
It doesn't matter to me personally, and it probably doesn't matter to most remainers personally.
However:
For the Liberal Democrats politically appearing to insert Corbyn into Number 10 is a problem.
For the handful of Tory rebels who all this hinges on, Corbyn is a problem.
For the handful of potential Labour rebels that could scupper it, Corbyn is a problem.
Is the above really more emotional than an insistence from the Labour leadership that it aboslutely must be Corbyn? It amazes me how tolerant people are of Corbyn's stubborness.
Last edited:
As opposed to Jo Swinson, who is being rational and flexible by refusing to work with the leader of the largest opposition party
Jo Swinson, whose voting record is pro austerity, anti environment, pro tuition fees, even voted for the Bedroom tax, FFS even voted against taxs on banker bonuses, is another fraud in a long line of charlatans among the lib dems. Of course she would never support the only leader possible for a unity government in Corbyn.
The idea that anyone other than the leader of the biggest opposition party would not be the leader of a unity government is just preposterous.
The Lib dems don't care about anything other than getting more power. The reason there will not be a unity government is the lib dems are just a bunch of liars and scam artists. Jo Swinson in particular is just a con woman and a liar. She even voted for the pay cap on public sector workers while voted against an increase on income tax on wealthy people, and even fucking voted against increasing tax on bankers bonuses. Swinson is more Tory than some Tories. She's just another fraud, who hates regular people, doesn't care about Brexit and will say or do anything for power.
The idea that anyone other than the leader of the biggest opposition party would not be the leader of a unity government is just preposterous.
The Lib dems don't care about anything other than getting more power. The reason there will not be a unity government is the lib dems are just a bunch of liars and scam artists. Jo Swinson in particular is just a con woman and a liar. She even voted for the pay cap on public sector workers while voted against an increase on income tax on wealthy people, and even fucking voted against increasing tax on bankers bonuses. Swinson is more Tory than some Tories. She's just another fraud, who hates regular people, doesn't care about Brexit and will say or do anything for power.
Last edited:
I feel like somewhere along the road you have completely lost sight of what a unity government is.
What stands in the way of a unity government lead by Corbyn?
Disliked by many independents
Disliked by many of the key Conservative rebels
Disliked by many of the key potential Labour rebels
Disliked by the Liberal Democrats
Disliked by most of the country
What stands in the way of a unity government lead by someone broadly respected (e.g. Clarke, Cooper, Benn, Hermon, Grieve)?
Corbyn and a small group of stubborn Labour MPs
Wake the fuck up. You aren't going to suceed in gaslighting the nation that the Liberal Democrats are responsible.
It's incredible that you would point at the Liberal Democrats as power hungry while defending the notion that Corbyn might point blank refuse to allow anyone but himself to lead a unity government.
As for Swinson's record, I'm not going to defend it because I don't agree with it in most places.
I have a degree of understanding for some of the votes made during the coalition government, and I don't hold the coalition against the Liberal Democrats to the extent most of you do. It's not the government I'd have chosen, but I'm quite tolerant of the notion of political compromise as it's something natural to more proportional voting systems, something I want, and the Liberal Democrats want, and Labour does not. For what it's worth, there are aspects of the Liberal Democrat record in coalition that are unfairly criticised. The most obvious is tuition fees, and the rage against that change is illustrative of how many in this country are happy to take a very strong stance on something they don't remotely understand.
In the end I'm content to vote for a Liberal Democrat in the constituency I live in. They're nowhere near perfect and I'm significantly more left wing than they are. What I will not buy however is this notion that Corbyn good Swinson bad, Labour good Lib Dem bad. It's juvenile as all hell and it is getting this country nowhere. It's always, always, always someone else's fault with you lot.
Last edited:
Woah dude. Perhaps just clam down a little? Gaslighting the entire nation. LOL. You seem like you are getting really worked up.
Maybe, I was not clear. But when did I say Corbyn should point blank refuse to allow anyone but himself? What I did criticise is the Lib Dems and Jo Swinson for being one of the biggest liars and frauds in all of politics, none of which you actually refuted.
Jo Swinson is almost as big a liar as Boris Johnson. She is literally going around the country telling people to their face, she fought against austerity and voted to increase taxes on wealthy people. Some shameless lying, that anyone with internet access can see.
And I also said or meant to, that Corbyn is the most natural leader of a unity government, still being the most popular opposition leader, with the most support of any opposition leader. Is any of that wrong? Technically, someone else could be a unity leader, of course. But the path to getting there will be more difficult. Maybe I am wrong, but Corbyn is still the most natural choice, and if you are truly invested in stopping no deal, is obviously the choice to top a unity government.
But, if anyone is following the Lib Dems even a little knows, they are a bunch of charlatans that are far more interested in power than stopping a no deal. Corbyn on the other hand, while you might think he is mis guided, I don't know how anyone could ever say he is power hungry, and not guided by his principals.
- Status