General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To be honest, I'd say that even if he does step down, he will be replaced by someone young of acceptable ideological purity as judged by the party membership.

It's a classic disconnect. The younger membership, cosmopolitan areas and the MP's are overwhelmingly against it. It's areas like the so-called "Red Wall" that are in favor of it hence Corbyn's pitiful fence sitting. MEP's who have appeared on the Remainiacs podcast like Seb Dance have reported being told on the doorstep that neither Remainers nor Brexiters trust Corbyn so he just ended up with the worst of both worlds.

If you can trust the polls, labours share of the remain vote has been rising and continues to rise as lib dems and others get squeezed. So they're doing ok on that front, though maybe could be better. Meanwhile they are still facing an almighty fight on the critical northern/midlands battleground where labour just can't portray themselves as sufficiently brexity and can only hope nhs and other issues sway it.

So i suppose that was the big question. Swing hard to remain and consolidate that remain vote - that is slowly turning towards them anyway - or lean more towards a soft brexit and appeal to the leave areas who might not believe you regardless.

In the circumstances, the middle ground, while always problematic, doesnt seen the worst position to me. They're still in the game anyway.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If you can trust the polls, labours share of the remain vote has been rising and continues to rise as lib dems and others get squeezed. So they're doing ok on that front, though maybe could be better. Meanwhile they are still facing an almighty fight on the critical northern/midlands battleground where labour just can't portray themselves as sufficiently brexity and can only hope nhs and other issues sway it.

So i suppose that was the big question. Swing hard to remain and consolidate that remain vote - that is slowly turning towards them anyway - or lean more towards a soft brexit and appeal to the leave areas who might not believe you regardless.

In the circumstances, the middle ground, while always problematic, doesnt seen the worst position to me. They're still in the game anyway.

I think Labour's best chance in the Red Wall is framing the election as a choice between the NHS and Brexit along with alluding to the Thatcher years. I'm fine with them cannibalizing the Lib Dems if it shrinks the odds of a Tory majority.

quokula

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the thing. What is a Corbyn Brexit? We really don't know. Labour Manifesto talks about having access to the Single Market and a new Customs Union (as though the EU will change their entire system to suit the British, or give them an equal say in Customs policy as the whole 27 EU does), Labour six tests say that Brexit has to be better than remain, which I don't think anyone believes is possible.

Minor correction, their 6 tests say that Brexit has to be no worse than remain. Which also may not be possible but it's been blatantly obvious for a long time that Labour want the least disruptive, softest Brexit possible so they can get on with their domestic programme.

I can understand why Brexiteers like eskimohunt would attack them for this, I can't for the life of me understand why remainers do. They're literally offering the absolute best thing you could possibly hope for as a remainer, with a referendum between remain and a minimally damaging Brexit.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

How is giving more people a chance to engage with the democratic vote on the future of their country rigging things? Unless you know that Leave is a stupid idea that should never win then why are you worried about a 2nd referendum? If it's such a great thing then stand behind it and put it to the public.
If you have such a great idea of what the fantastic Leave deal should look like then put it forward and negotiate it with the EU and then put it to the people to decide.

There is no appetite for a second referendum.

If anything, there is far more appetite for Johnson's Brexit Deal.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Labour's best chance in the Red Wall is framing the election as a choice between the NHS and Brexit along with alluding to the Thatcher years. I'm fine with them cannibalizing the Lib Dems if it shrinks the odds of a Tory majority.

Yes, i think that is the challenge for them. Its tough but not impossible. The thing i dont want to hear is labour candidates like jon ashworth and others privately sounding their doom. They should be out there fighting like mad. That kind of negative corbyn stuff cropped up in 2017 too and a lot of the candidates ripping him won their seats. Some of them will lose this time for sure, but i doubt as many as some are predicting.

johnnyskeleton

quokula wrote: »

Are they though? I wonder if they're dealing with internal politics where they have these high profile defectors who currently hold seats where the Lib Dems stand no chance whatsoever, but they don't want to move lifelong Lib Dem people from their held and target seats, so they've dropped these people into places where the party is third place and has a slim outside chance.

Quite possibly. But again that is their right.

I think the fact that the Lib Dems are mainly taking Labour voters is because of the Brexit divide. Historically it's always been the case that voters float between Lib Dem and Labour far more than the hard divide between the more progressive parties of Lib/Lab/SNP/Greens and the Conservatives/UKIP/Brexit.

Well even if that is the case, I still think Labour's disastrous Brexit party, that convinces few outside of their activists and is antagonistic of both the urban metropolitan liberals and the depressed Northern working class in almost equal measure. In such circumstances, its unfair to blame the Lib Dems for what happens.

You can't really say to the electorate "we are awful, but vote for us anyway because otherwise you'll split the vote" and expect them to respond positively to it.

It's way too late for that, and where both parties are hovering around 25% each there's no chance of tactical votes in the quantity needed. On the other hand, promoting tactical voting did make sense before the Libs started focussing on these constituencies, when Labour held 42%/43%/38% in these three seats and the Libs held 10%/6%/11%

With respect, it sounds to me like you only support tactical voting when it suits Labour. It could easily happen today, if one or other of the candidates were to withdraw and throw their support behind the other. They won't, because they can't agree on which way is equitable, but I would suggest that the most equitable way of doing it is based on the most recent opinion polls, rather than based on the polls at the start of the election.

Labour are campaigning on a second referendum, which is literally the only viable way to stop Brexit. Anyone who wants to remain needs to vote Labour.

I've set out in more detail above in response to Liam what I think of this, but it is dishonest in the extreme of the Labour party to pretend that they are the only way to stop Brexit. As a party they only notionally support remain, and have a massive eurosceptic wing, including, in partiular, their leader.

A second referendum is a good idea, but where Labour's plan fails for remainers is that it gives limited detail as to what the referendum will actually be on i.e. they don't say what their Brexit deal might realistically look like. They have lots of aspirational stuff about a better brexit, a labour brexit etc, but it doesn't withstand the most basic scrutiny.

However, where it fails for Brexiteers is that such little detail as they have provided makes it clear that it will essentially be a hobson's choice for them. Either Brexit in Name Only or Remain. However one may criticise the 2016 referendum, such a referendum would be even more divisive and would lack all legitimacy. In order to defeat a hard brexit with any democratic legitimacy, people would have to have an option to vote for that very thing.

It's like a point made in Current Affairs by a conservative poster recently - a referendum on whether to liberalise the divorce provisions doesn't give an option to anti divorce people. That's all fine for what it does, but it cannot be said to amount to a mandate from the people that they approve of divorce (even though, in reality, most people do so approve).

Again it might seem to make sense in Ireland, but it's hard to overstate how repulsive the idea of cancelling Brexit without going back to the electorate is in the UK, even among remainers.

I agree, although it is perhaps a failing of marketing rather than an actual problem. Lib Dems should've made clear that if they got an absolute majority then that was their democratic mandate, and if they didn't get an overall majority of voters as well as constituencies, they would pledge to a second referendum. It was a grave error on their part, and will cost them a lot outside of the die hard remain constituencies.

It would be seen as a democratic outrage, particularly as no government, even one with a large majority, could conceivably receive as many votes as Brexit did in the referendum. You can disagree with that intellectually, but the weight of public opinion means it would be completely untenable, and a government that tried to do it would be mauled at the next election and most likely replaced by a hard right majority who would be free to claim the mandate from the referendum still stands and to immediately go for no deal.

Indeed. But the exact same points can be made against Labour's second referendum proposal. It's largely ignored in the debates etc, but all the vox pops carried out in northern constituencies show that they don't trust Labour on Brexit.

So Labour in calling for, effectively, a sham referendum, are just as bad as the Lib Dems to most leavers. Hence the Tories are cleaning up.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, i think that is the challenge for them. Its tough but not impossible. The thing i dont want to hear is labour candidates like jon ashworth and others privately sounding their doom. They should be out there fighting like mad. That kind of negative corbyn stuff cropped up in 2017 too and a lot of the candidates ripping him won their seats. Some of them will lose this time for sure, but i doubt as many as some are predicting.

My housemate, a Scouser (who once accidentally kicked Laura Kuenssberg) seems resolute that the Red Wall will hold. I'm not so sure myself. The Economist has been running a series of polls in various spots. They cover one area per week and it seems that the Labour lead is ebbing significantly.

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no appetite for a second referendum.

If anything, there is far more appetite for Johnson's Brexit Deal.

maybe in your little bubble
but a lot of people want a say on the exit agreement

people didn't vote for exiting the single market and customs union

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My housemate, a Scouser (who once accidentally kicked Laura Kuenssberg) seems resolute that the Red Wall will hold. I'm not so sure myself. The Economist has been running a series of polls in various spots. They cover one area per week and it seems that the Labour lead is ebbing significantly.

There is talk of a low turn out in some of these constituencies. But who would that favour? Possibly tories you'd think. I'd be hanging on the undecideds here ultimately swinging towards labour, likely mostly labour voters to begin with anyway, but thats more hope than confidence. If the beast Dennis Skinner gets taken down in bolsover, i will definitely shed a tear for the passing of an era.

liamtech

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the thing. What is a Corbyn Brexit? We really don't know. Labour Manifesto talks about having access to the Single Market and a new Customs Union (as though the EU will change their entire system to suit the British, or give them an equal say in Customs policy as the whole 27 EU does), Labour six tests say that Brexit has to be better than remain, which I don't think anyone believes is possible.

One reading of Corbyn Brexit is that they have effectively full EU membership but without state aid rules. The EU has made it clear that State Aid does not prevent renationalisation of rail, nor does it prevent national infrastructural or sanitation projects such as water etc. So either his objection is theoretical or based on a mistaken view of State Aid rules, or he wants the UK government to take part ownership of all large companies or something radical like that. There is no way in which this is consistent with Single Market or Customs Union rules.

I mean, if he would just say "This is what I want", then at least we could discuss it, but he won't, because as soon as the bird flys out of the cage it will be criticised and derided.

Leaving all that aside, most forms of Brexit proposed by Labour are likely to involve the softest possible Brexit, or Brexit in name only. There will be absolute fury in the UK if they are asked to choose between BRINO or remain. It's entirely unworkable when held up to scrutiny.

What's even more baffling is that, as far as I understand, most of the soft Brexiteers are small c conservatives. The hard brexit types are typically extreme right wing, extreme left wing, or angry protest voters who have been told that their Northern town has been left behind by the EU. None of these people would be happy with Corbyn's Brexit, unless it was a hard left Brexit which would appeal to the tiny amount of Lexiteers, but to no one else.



I'd agree. I sometimes wonder what a post Brexit socialist UK would look like. If it works well, Ireland could emulate it. However, if it doesn't work, we could learn from their mistakes.

The highlighted part is the main stumbling block. He cant tell us because either he doesnt know what it is, and/or, it will be picked apart the moment it is released.

It would be softer than BoJo's no doubt on that - but perhaps not as soft as full CM/CU - anything we say is speculation

Corbyn was against Maastricht so in principle he is opposed to closer union, and the EU proper- Your commentary on his possible misinterpretation of State Aid rules and the relationship to nationalization is also interesting.

See here is the thing, and it relates right back to why Corbyn's brexit policy is potentially 'Election Losing' - we have no idea

Given the fact i am a leftie, and consider Corbyn to be a proper leftie leader, i would probably have more respect for his Euroscepticism - if i knew what it was - which i dont - which is infuriating- and therefore i cannot say with any certainty - my gut is for remain and that wont change unless he has some version of Brexit which everyone has entirely missed, and which is not full alignment with Cu/CM, but which is compatible with the GFA- which is impossible, which makes my head hurt -etc etc

Being without a full concept of what a Corbyn Brexit is, this is a crippling position for the party during an election. and this is why most of the Labour front bench have said they are remain no matter what.

If Labour were being led by a remainer, this would be a completely different election - in my humble opinion

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no appetite for a second referendum.

If anything, there is far more appetite for Johnson's Brexit Deal.

Where do you make that idea up from?

If the Johnson deal was so great then why did he pull it before putting it to parliament? If it's so great why did he need to do a copy and paste of Mays deal? If it's so great then why aren't the Tories polling at over 50%?

More people do not want Johnson as PM than do, and that will be proven on Thursday whatever the result of the election. More people will vote for other parties than will vote for the Tories. As the vast majority of those other parties that people will be voting for represent parties that are campaigning for a second referendum I think that will be fairly conclusive "proof" of their being an appetite for one.

quokula

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With respect, it sounds to me like you only support tactical voting when it suits Labour. It could easily happen today, if one or other of the candidates were to withdraw and throw their support behind the other. They won't, because they can't agree on which way is equitable, but I would suggest that the most equitable way of doing it is based on the most recent opinion polls, rather than based on the polls at the start of the election.

I'm not - I quoted the hard numbers. Given progressive parties A and B, if A has 42% of the vote and B has 10% of it, I advocate tactical voting for A. If B parachutes in a high profile candidate from elsewhere and campaigns like crazy until B has 25% and A has 24%, I'm not opposed to tactically voting for B, but at this point it's already too late because C are going to win comfortably with their 42%, and I will criticise B for that reason.

This has been a pattern with the Lib Dems in the constituencies being discussed. They have also in other constituencies on more than one occasion commissioned / published polls based on dodgy data or methods to encourage tactical voting for them in places where they were actually well behind Labour.

Esher and Walton or Cheltenham for example are constituencies where I would fully advocate tactical voting for the Lib Dems, because it actually makes sense there.

johnnyskeleton

quokula wrote: »

I'm not - I quoted the hard numbers. Given progressive parties A and B, if A has 42% of the vote and B has 10% of it, I advocate tactical voting for A. If B parachutes in a high profile candidate from elsewhere and campaigns like crazy until B has 25% and A has 24%, I'm not opposed to tactically voting for B, but at this point it's already too late because C are going to win comfortably with their 42%, and I will criticise B for that reason.

This has been a pattern with the Lib Dems in the constituencies being discussed. They have also in other constituencies on more than one occasion commissioned / published polls based on dodgy data or methods to encourage tactical voting for them in places where they were actually well behind Labour.

Esher and Walton or Cheltenham for example are constituencies where I would fully advocate tactical voting for the Lib Dems, because it actually makes sense there.

OK, I take that point. But it does go back to the start of the election, when the parties had a chance to agree but didn't. That can't be laid squarely at the feet of the Lib Dems. I also don't think it is too late, as a lot can change in the final week of an election campaign. But one or the other would have to make a concession and effectively or actually withdraw.

Also, while its more a matter of art than science, I wonder even if the Lib Dems hadn't contested those seats at the start, would the Labour party get their votes. I suspect they wouldn't and it would still be 2/3 Tory victories. They might hang on in Kensington.

johnnyskeleton

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There is talk of a low turn out in some of these constituencies. But who would that favour? Possibly tories you'd think. I'd be hanging on the undecideds here ultimately swinging towards labour, likely mostly labour voters to begin with anyway, but thats more hope than confidence. If the beast Dennis Skinner gets taken down in bolsover, i will definitely shed a tear for the passing of an era.

That would indeed be a shame. Not only personally for someone who is an interesting backbencher of real integrity (and a bit of moxy to boot), but also for a seat that has been Labour since the 1950s.

It's mad to think that there are some places in the UK that have had one party elected consistently for such massive lengths of time. Some have been Labour voting for over 100 years!

splinter65

Tegan Noisy Mulch wrote: »

Should Labour not be selling their USP better: the 4-day week.
Hands up if don't want an extra day off every week.

People know they can’t work 1 day less and still get paid the same. So they know that the 8 hour day will become a 10 hour day so they don’t want that. Lots of Labours promises are contingent on the voters not being clever enough to see through the nonsense.

Joe_ Public

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That would indeed be a shame. Not only personally for someone who is an interesting backbencher of real integrity (and a bit of moxy to boot), but also for a seat that has been Labour since the 1950s.

It's mad to think that there are some places in the UK that have had one party elected consistently for such massive lengths of time. Some have been Labour voting for over 100 years!

Yeah, i mean you do have to accept that things change and times move on, but when you know these previously loyal voters are being duped by lies and empty promises, it just makes it all the sadder for me. Got to put yourself in the shoes of voters who have been ignored and taken for granted for decades, but if brexit and a johnson majority is the answer, then its a pretty tragic question to begin with i think.

Shelga

beggars_bush wrote: »

maybe in your little bubble
but a lot of people want a say on the exit agreement

people didn't vote for exiting the single market and customs union

People on Question Time are adamant that they voted to leave the single market and customs union. When you point out that that wasn't on the ballot paper, and that you can 100% legally leave the EU while remaining in the SM/CU, they become apoplectic with rage.

I'm willing to bet that fewer than 10-20% of these people even understand what the customs union and single market are, even now- nearly 4 years after the referendum period.

Why do we all have to pretend like these people had a clue what they were doing, in June 2016? Why are we not allowed to call a spade a spade?

Ironically, these are the people who'll comment on Daily Mail articles and scream about millennial snowflakes.

Not calling them stupid is more important than the fact that they've destroyed their country.

Shelga

Shelga wrote: »

Not calling them stupid is more important than the fact that they've destroyed their country.

You're fully entitled to that view.

I am intimately aware of what the CU/SM is now, and was 3.5-years ago, and I would still opt to Brexit.

In fact, the more I discovered about the CU/SM, the more I wanted to Brexit.
Far from "destroying the UK", the UK has returned to the nation-state which is the same as what Canada is, what Singapore is, what Japan is, and what New Zealand is.

Yet they are not "destroyed countries" by virtue of being a "nation-state".

Once you take hyperbole out of the equation and hysteria out of the argument, you find that the UK is not abandoning Europe, but simply pursuing her global ambitions on the world stage.

That's the vision that I and other Brexiteers hold to, no matter how many times people call us stupid, ill-informed, imperialist-nostalgia seeking, and generally racist and in denial about that fact.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

Ironically, these are the people who'll comment on Daily Mail articles and scream about millennial snowflakes.

Not calling them stupid is more important than the fact that they've destroyed their country.

Well, no. Brexit from the start has been about feelings rather than logic. Brexiters know that they can't make a logical argument for Brexit so they drop canards like "liberal elite" or "biased" so they can excuse the public from thinking about what they've said.

Of course, now that the Brexit elite have their way they are hiding from accountability by continuing to derail the argument with disingenuous counter-arguments when they have to and we can see segments of the population falling for this, particularly on Question Time when they stamp their feet, roaring "Out means out" or something equally vapid.

4068ac1elhodqr

splinter65 wrote: »

People know they can’t work 1 day less and still get paid the same. So they know that the 8 hour day will become a 10 hour day so they don’t want that. Lots of Labours promises are contingent on the voters not being clever enough to see through the nonsense.

Many 8hr days are already 9hr days, you can only push folks so far, a 10hr day would be that break-point (see France). The 32hrs (8x4) would stand.

In brexit-britian if the workforce and legislation demands new conditions, it's the owner's that will have to adjust schedules to suit.

To be fair, they said this would only occur within 10yrs (not overnight), by which time 24/7 shifts would be more commonplace and the ability to respond globally to markets, add in the gig-economy and UBI emmergence.

A similar-ish offer in the US's POTUS20 exists like this as very 'under'-sold.

The 4/5th fav in that race wants to hand every single person $1,000 each and every month across 4yr, for nothing. It's even got a fancy name: 'the freedom dividend'. Free money, let me think....

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Just a quick refresher:

1. This is an anonymous forum; people are entitled to offer up personal details but please don't ask people to reveal same;

2. In any event, what matters is the strength of the argument, not who is saying it.

Also, any issues as to what/why people voted in 2016 are more suitable here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058026597

quokula

splinter65 wrote: »

People know they can’t work 1 day less and still get paid the same. So they know that the 8 hour day will become a 10 hour day so they don’t want that. Lots of Labours promises are contingent on the voters not being clever enough to see through the nonsense.

They are not proposing everyone drops to four days immediately, or ever in many industries.

They are looking at ways to make it that, as automation increases productivity, some of this gets translated to staff's work-life balance rather than simply increased profit margins.

There have been many pilot schemes around the world where it has been shown to work. For example Microsoft:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft-japan-four-day-work-week-productivity

Labour aren't talking about it much because it's contingent on voters thinking about it properly and not just applying an extremely simplistic view to it.

woejus

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fully entitled to that view.

I am intimately aware of what the CU/SM is now, and was 3.5-years ago, and I would still opt to Brexit.

In fact, the more I discovered about the CU/SM, the more I wanted to Brexit.

Question : would you consider yourself more intelligent, or less intelligent, than the average 2016 Brexit voter?

ambro25

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fully entitled to that view.

I am intimately aware of what the CU/SM is now, and was 3.5-years ago, and I would still opt to Brexit.

In fact, the more I discovered about the CU/SM, the more I wanted to Brexit.
Far from "destroying the UK", the UK has returned to the nation-state which is the same as what Canada is, what Singapore is, what Japan is, and what New Zealand is.

Yet they are not "destroyed countries" by virtue of being a "nation-state".

Once you take hyperbole out of the equation and hysteria out of the argument, you find that the UK is not abandoning Europe, but simply pursuing her global ambitions on the world stage.

That's the vision that I and other Brexiteers hold to, no matter how many times people call us stupid, ill-informed, imperialist-nostalgia seeking, and generally racist and in denial about that fact.

Your analogy fails at an elementary level: Canada, Singapore, Japan, NZ are all converging on the EU, hence their recent conclusion of respective FTAs with the EU, all the more so in the face of Trump's isolationism and some degree of instability in the BRICs.

But then you (and topically for the thread, the Conservatives) are proposing for the UK to diverge, when you already enjoy the best FTA possible with the EU, complete with rebate, permanent Schengen & €zone opt-outs and a heap more exceptionalist wins from the club. Someone, here or elsewhere, recently called it 'Germany plus plus', rightly so.

Now you're perfectly entitled to your aspirations for the Brexited UK in terms of 'global ambitions', whatever those may be. But they cannot be economic ones, under any degree of rationality. There is no economic case to Brexit, never was.

As for the use of "destruction"...I guess we'll know, late Thursday night or early Friday morning, exactly how much longer the 'U' is likely to last in 'UK', from the SNP vote at least.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

I can understand why Brexiteers like eskimohunt would attack them for this, I can't for the life of me understand why remainers do. They're literally offering the absolute best thing you could possibly hope for as a remainer, with a referendum between remain and a minimally damaging Brexit.

probably because very few remainers actually believe that Corbyn wants to remain and see his policies as inconsistent with being in any form of custom union.

I voted to remain but personally, I see Brexit as a forgone certainty whoever is in number ten and as much as I dislike Johnson, I dislike the thought of going back to winter of discontent even more.

Letwin_Larry

does anybody know where JRM is hiding?

i haven't seen or heard from him since he started blaming the victims of Grenfell for heeding LFB advice.

beggars_bush

The best thing the Tories could do is hide Boris for two days

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fully entitled to that view.

I am intimately aware of what the CU/SM is now, and was 3.5-years ago, and I would still opt to Brexit.

In fact, the more I discovered about the CU/SM, the more I wanted to Brexit.
Far from "destroying the UK", the UK has returned to the nation-state which is the same as what Canada is, what Singapore is, what Japan is, and what New Zealand is.

Yet they are not "destroyed countries" by virtue of being a "nation-state".

Once you take hyperbole out of the equation and hysteria out of the argument, you find that the UK is not abandoning Europe, but simply pursuing her global ambitions on the world stage.

That's the vision that I and other Brexiteers hold to, no matter how many times people call us stupid, ill-informed, imperialist-nostalgia seeking, and generally racist and in denial about that fact.

The UK is not a nation state - it is a group of Nations (and one divided province) in a Union - which is teetering on the verge of breaking up thanks to Brexit and English nationalism (England being one of the component 'nations')

And as has been pointed out to you several times - many countries are lining up to do business with the EU - leaving a club, which so many countries around the world are keen to gain access to, is cutting ones nose off to spite ones face -

Again Eskimo it seems improbable that you can ever truly explain the benefits of Brexit in realistic terms - as i pointed out to you many weeks ago, several prominent Brexiteers have already acknowledged that Brexit will cause economic damage to the uk for many years to come. you choose to 'not recognize' these people. I wonder do you recognize Jacob Rees Mogg?

Because he has admitted that it could take 50 years to judge whether Brexit has been successful - 50 years to see if he was correct?? hardly a ringing endorsement of Brexit is it??

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-economy-brexit_uk_5b54e3b5e4b0de86f48e3566

Do you remember Lucy Harris - aka, the Brexit party member that acknowledged the UK's economy may take a hit for 30 years post brexit

https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-party-eu-elections-lucy-harris-economy-30-years-8919786

Well she just joined the Conservative party to back Boris

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/05/sad-leave-brexit-party-need-back-boris-party-can-deliver/

Eskimo im sure you will excuse all of this as nonsense, or deny its validity; because as i pointed out to you yesterday (and you failed to respond.... again) you are not in the slightest bit balanced, or capable of adopting an un-biased position.

I have spent the afternoon criticizing Labour and their policy, despite being a remainer, who would support them if given the chance. Forgive me, but you seem to content yourself on materializing here, to defend the torys and/or brexit, when ever another outrage is publicized. This is not debate at all

4068ac1elhodqr

beggars_bush wrote: »

The best thing the Tories could do is hide Boris for two days

Agree he's looking more like an 'Etonian wise(not-wise)-guy' with every passing day.

This is exactly what Labour have been doing with the rather 'brash' Diane Abbot, and what DUP have been doing with slightly 'camera un-friendly' AF: hide them away. Same for JRM, as someone mentioned.

I've a big dog in the garden, but you won't see him unless you jump the high fence, when 100lbs+ of pressure attaches to one's leg.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

does anybody know where JRM is hiding?

i haven't seen or heard from him since he started blaming the victims of Grenfell for heeding LFB advice.

Saw him briefly somewhere last week but very fleeting. In fairness its on both sides, how much of starmer, thornberry, abbott are we seeing on the other side? Saw starmer the other day talking about NI border document but otherwise very little. Could be strategic on labour part, limiting the remainer voices perhaps? Not too sure on that.