General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Danzy

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I'd say there are a lot of loonies in his ear.

But I reckon the BBC have been downright prejudiced to him today. I noticed earlier on another channel Boris getting heckled and then snubbed in Warwickshire, but on the report an hour ago on BBC news it was mysteriously a sent.

However, they then cut to Corbyn in Scotland and and gave full voice to some looney cleric heckling him - and hardly has Corbyn speaking at all.

That did seem a bit overt. Am I missing something?

No, that is bout right I'd say.

A Dub in Glasgo

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I'd say there are a lot of loonies in his ear.

But I reckon the BBC have been downright prejudiced to him today. I noticed earlier on another channel Boris getting heckled and then snubbed in Warwickshire, but on the report an hour ago on BBC news it was mysteriously a sent.

However, they then cut to Corbyn in Scotland and and gave full voice to some looney cleric heckling him - and hardly has Corbyn speaking at all.

That did seem a bit overt. Am I missing something?

No, this is the BBC we are talking about. The same BBC who made the 'mistake' that meant Johnson was not shown on his remembrance day gaffe. This is the BBC which edited a question and answer session from Nick Robinson to Alex Salmond which appeared to show that Salmond did not answer the question except he did, the BBC have been misleading people for years

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because Marxist Stalinist 1970s tax increases did we mention the 1970s and Stalin yada yada.

I agree that attacking Labour for all of this nonsense is ridiculous, and that the conservatives are lying through their teeth. I think it a bit extreme to talk about abolishing private schools, but aside from that JC is credible to me on the economy.

Unfortunately he is not credible on the most fundamental issue of this election - Brexit

And his lack of ability to work with other anti Brexit parties in the election makes me ill

Can anyone explain to me what benefit there is in running against Dominic Grieve in this election? I would love to hear an actual argument FOR LABOUR running in beacons-field

For that matter, how does running against the Indy Group, OR the Lib Dems help stop brexit??

Pragmatism is needed here - and as its not to late to change course, i really hope we see AN OUNCE of co-operation in ousting the Tory Party

“If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

- Churchill

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right now the Tory party are the enemy of anyone who wants to stop austerity, and preferably halt Brexit in its tracks - crossing my fingers that a sensible decision is made, but not optimistic

And before anyone says the Lib dems et al are just as un-cooperative - please remember this

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820

A Dub in Glasgo

ITV now facing legal action from both the Lib Dems and the SNP


https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1194660798272090113

Bannasidhe

liamtech wrote: »

I agree that attacking Labour for all of this nonsense is ridiculous, and that the conservatives are lying through their teeth. I think it a bit extreme to talk about abolishing private schools, but aside from that JC is credible to me on the economy.

Unfortunately he is not credible on the most fundamental issue of this election - Brexit

And his lack of ability to work with other anti Brexit parties in the election makes me ill

Can anyone explain to me what benefit there is in running against Dominic Grieve in this election? I would love to hear an actual argument FOR LABOUR running in beacons-field

For that matter, how does running against the Indy Group, OR the Lib Dems help stop brexit??

Pragmatism is needed here - and as its not to late to change course, i really hope we see AN OUNCE of co-operation in ousting the Tory Party

- Churchill

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right now the Tory party are the enemy of anyone who wants to stop austerity, and preferably halt Brexit in its tracks - crossing my fingers that a sensible decision is made, but not optimistic

And before anyone says the Lib dems et al are just as un-cooperative - please remember this

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820

Can I ask you a favour?
Could you not bold whole sentences? It feels like being shouted at tbh. Maybe just bold a word or two...

I gave a reason why Labour would run against Grieve. Grieve may be a Remainer but he is still a Tory and there is no reason to believe he is not in favour of all the other Tory policies.

Brexit may be a big issue - but it is not the only (I bolded that just for you) issue and there are an awful lot of other big issues that urgently need to be addressed.

Labour have put before the electorate a choice - more Tory economics (and food banks, still less police than in 2008, underfunded health/education, promised houses never built, etc etc) or invest in the UK. Those are big issues.
They are not Brexit related. They are related to which political ideology forms government.

They are also planning on letting the electorate decide on Brexit. A (softer) Deal or Remain.

What is so difficult to understand?

hotmail.com

Always nice to see politicians getting roasted by the public. Boris getting a battering in Yorkshire.

Danzy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or perhaps some fear that we are being to resemble the evil we are fighting.

In old tv shows they used say, "don't do it, you'll he just as bad as him" etc etc.

It made me want to shoot the tv.

Joe_ Public

liamtech wrote: »

I agree that attacking Labour for all of this nonsense is ridiculous, and that the conservatives are lying through their teeth. I think it a bit extreme to talk about abolishing private schools, but aside from that JC is credible to me on the economy.

Unfortunately he is not credible on the most fundamental issue of this election - Brexit

And his lack of ability to work with other anti Brexit parties in the election makes me ill

Can anyone explain to me what benefit there is in running against Dominic Grieve in this election? I would love to hear an actual argument FOR LABOUR running in beacons-field

For that matter, how does running against the Indy Group, OR the Lib Dems help stop brexit??

Pragmatism is needed here - and as its not to late to change course, i really hope we see AN OUNCE of co-operation in ousting the Tory Party

- Churchill

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Right now the Tory party are the enemy of anyone who wants to stop austerity, and preferably halt Brexit in its tracks - crossing my fingers that a sensible decision is made, but not optimistic

And before anyone says the Lib dems et al are just as un-cooperative - please remember this

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50398820

Ok, but i take it you are aware the lib dems are still intending to field a candidate in Canterbury?

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree; it's very central to the upcoming election.

What politics Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell hold is not an unsignificant issue. It has geopolitical implications. Personally, I think these reasons alone should disqualify Corbyn and his acolytes from attaining high office. To use John McDonnell's words, the Labour Party is, for him, a "vehicle" for more fundamental change - or, what he really means, fundamentalist socialism.

I don’t think Corbyn would be a good PM. I don’t think he’s suited to a leadership role. I’d also have grave concerns about the anti-Semitism that has grown under his watch.

But I couldn’t look myself in the mirror and vote for the Tories. They have destroyed the UK. Corbyn cannot possibly be any worse. I feel sorry for UK voters that this pair are their only real choices for their next PM.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can I ask you a favour?
Could you not bold whole sentences? It feels like being shouted at tbh. Maybe just bold a word or two...

I gave a reason why Labour would run against Grieve. Grieve may be a Remainer but he is still a Tory and there is no reason to believe he is not in favour of all the other Tory policies.

Brexit may be a big issue - but it is not the only (I bolded that just for you) issue and there are an awful lot of other big issues that urgently need to be addressed.

Labour have put before the electorate a choice - more Tory economics (and food banks, still less police than in 2008, underfunded health/education, promised houses never built, etc etc) or invest in the UK. Those are big issues.
They are not Brexit related. They are related to which political ideology forms government.

They are also planning on letting the electorate decide on Brexit. A (softer) Deal or Remain.

What is so difficult to understand?

I shall address each of your concerns in order.

1. Starting with your referencing to my use of Bold Type Font. It is clearly meant to highlight specifically important points in my posts. as it has just done so. I have a tendency, as has been pointed out to me in the past, to ramble a bit. This comes from my college days when i was the student who never failed to meet the word count. In fact i had the opposite problem of frequently having to reduce my work to fit within the constraints set upon it.

2. I fundamentally disagree with you that the other issues are a valid reason for standing against Grieve. While certainly Corbyn would like the election to be about other issues (economics, minimum wage, ending austerity, policing, etc all perfectly accepted as important issues btw)- this election is about Brexit. It is the issue, by default. It is a Fact that if the Tory party have a majority of seats in the next parliament, the game is up. And it will remain up for as long as Boris Johnson maintains that majority, so the game will in fact be up for the second round of negotiations with the EU. This is catastrophic, and for anyone who favors a softer brexit, or more likely remain, this is the outcome that must be avoided.

3. It is entirely likely that a remain alliance/Rainbow coalition of Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, Greens, Indy Group, Unite for Remain Former Tories, et al, could come into coalition together; Stop Brexit via a second ref; and then pragmatically admit that they stand for different things. They could then, if they must, have it out in another election, or work on a supply demand basis for as long as possible. Each party could get some of their manifesto pledges passed, all safe and secure in the knowledge that Brexit is done.

This election is about Brexit. Its about the UK as a structural Union, having been made flammable by the disastrous referendum in 2016, and repeated attempts to lite the match for the past 12 months

• the Tory's are saying 'Let it Burn'- the new house will be better anyway
• The Lib Dems, SNP, et al are screaming for said house to be immediately rendered Inflammable
• Labour under Corbyn want to chat and discuss among there divided party (some are for the fire, some against, some want a different type of fire, some say 'what fire?') - while disagreeing that rendering the Union inflammable is a good idea, etc etc while they point to other issues (gardening, the shed, the weather, neighbors)- while all the time the clock is ticking and the smoke is starting to rise

This is about Brexit - A Conservative Win and the Game is up - there will be no more votes defeated in the house of commons - no more Benn Acts, or Letwin Amendments - the Torys will have a majority and they can do as they please - so standing against a former One Nation Conservative who is for remain, is grossly irresponsible

Now i ask you - what is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Happy to debate as always

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok, but i take it you are aware the lib dems are still intending to field a candidate in Canterbury?

Yes and this could so easily have been avoided - all it required was pragmatism - One Lib dem stands down for Canterbury's Remain Labour MP - One Labour MP stands down against any of the 20 odd Lib Dem MP's -

So a compromise, as opposed to a pact - perfectly sensible policy that Corbyn wont allow

Enzokk

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the people of Yorkshire and notoriously blunt as Boris discovered today, but i mean he did not cause these floods!
and who in their right mind buys a house in a place called Fishlake. the clue is in the name.

Are you blaming the flood victims? Is that what you have had to stoop to, to defend Johnson? The people of Yorkshire may not have time for him, it is maybe something to do with the face he didn't think the flooding was an emergency and only showed up 6 days after it happened. But sure, let's blame the people living there.

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the people of Yorkshire are notoriously blunt as Boris discovered today, but i mean he did not cause these floods!
and who in their right mind buys a house in a place called Fishlake. the clue is in the name.

Much of the flooding is down to planners "managing" the rivers, putting flood defences in one town simply means the water must go elsewhere, as well as allowing to build on flood plains.

Ireland has the same problem.

Bannasidhe

liamtech wrote: »

I shall address each of your concerns in order.

1. Starting with your referencing to my use of Bold Type Font. It is clearly meant to highlight specifically important points in my posts. as it has just done so. I have a tendency, as has been pointed out to me in the past, to ramble a bit. This comes from my college days when i was the student who never failed to meet the word count. In fact i had the opposite problem of frequently having to reduce my work to fit within the constraints set upon it.

2. I fundamentally disagree with you that the other issues are a valid reason for standing against Grieve. While certainly Corbyn would like the election to be about other issues (economics, minimum wage, ending austerity, policing, etc all perfectly accepted as important issues btw)- this election is about Brexit. It is the issue, by default. It is a Fact that if the Tory party have a majority of seats in the next parliament, the game is up. And it will remain up for as long as Boris Johnson maintains that majority, so the game will in fact be up for the second round of negotiations with the EU. This is catastrophic, and for anyone who favors a softer brexit, or more likely remain, this is the outcome that must be avoided.

3. It is entirely likely that a remain alliance/Rainbow coalition of Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, Greens, Indy Group, Unite for Remain Former Tories, et al, could come into coalition together; Stop Brexit via a second ref; and then pragmatically admit that they stand for different things. They could then, if they must, have it out in another election, or work on a supply demand basis for as long as possible. Each party could get some of their manifesto pledges passed, all safe and secure in the knowledge that Brexit is done.

This election is about Brexit. Its about the UK as a structural Union, having been made flammable by the disastrous referendum in 2016, and repeated attempts to lite the match for the past 12 months

• the Tory's are saying 'Let it Burn'- the new house will be better anyway[/B]
• The Lib Dems, SNP, et al are screaming for said house to be immediately rendered Inflammable
• Labour under Corbyn want to chat and discuss among there divided party (some are for the fire, some against, some want a different type of fire, some say 'what fire?') - while disagreeing that rendering the Union inflammable is a good idea, etc etc while they point to other issues (gardening, the shed, the weather, neighbors)- while all the time the clock is ticking and the smoke is starting to rise

This is about Brexit - A Conservative Win and the Game is up - there will be no more votes defeated in the house of commons - no more Benn Acts, or Letwin Amendments - the Torys will have a majority and they can do as they please - so standing against a former One Nation Conservative who is for remain, is grossly irresponsible

Now i ask you - what is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Happy to debate as always

As a lecturer I feel like I am being shouty lectured at when whole sentences are in bold

We fundamentally disagree what this GE is about then.

I understand the frustration of people who feel that due to Brexit the UK is spiralling out of control as government is no longer governing. It is not taking care of the day to day running of the country which is it's primary job.

The Tories want to make the GE all about Brexit because their record at running the country is abysmal. Letting them do that is allowing them to dictate the game plan.
They should be called out on it. Every single Tory candidate should have their record as a government and the effects of austerity (a policy they are now apparently abandoning) put to them and be called upon to explain it.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a lecturer I feel like I am being shouty lectured at when whole sentences are in bold

We fundamentally disagree what this GE is about then.

I understand the frustration of people who feel that due to Brexit the UK is spiralling out of control as government is no longer governing. It is not taking care of the day to day running of the country which is it's primary job.

The Tories want to make the GE all about Brexit because their record at running the country is abysmal. Letting them do that is allowing them to dictate the game plan.
They should be called out on it. Every single Tory candidate should have their record as a government and the effects of austerity (a policy they are now apparently abandoning) put to them and be called upon to explain it.

Well i am happy to agree to disagree. And what i failed to say in my post was that i genuinely am not a shouter, when it comes to political disagreement - heated yes - rude behavior and abuse, absolutely not - and im sorry you feel that way its not by design

I would say that in fairness, other parties are primarily campaigning on Brexit too - granted manifestos are being released, and pledges are being brought forth for scrutiny - agendas are definitely at play, and the SNP are clearly running for their IndyRef2. Lib Dems wanna surplaint Labour it seems, which is something i would not like to see; For me Lib Dem is to the Right of Blair-ite New Labour, and thats beyond the pale for me. And as for NI, well its divisive

I think it just proves an election wont solve these problems. Tom Watson said it right - a Referendum first followed by an election

I think in that situation you and I would be singing in unison from the same sheet

Happy to chat

quokula

liamtech wrote: »

Well i am happy to agree to disagree. And what i failed to say in my post was that i genuinely am not a shouter, when it comes to political disagreement - heated yes - rude behavior and abuse, absolutely not - and im sorry you feel that way its not by design

I would say that in fairness, other parties are primarily campaigning on Brexit too - granted manifestos are being released, and pledges are being brought forth for scrutiny - agendas are definitely at play, and the SNP are clearly running for their IndyRef2. Lib Dems wanna surplaint Labour it seems, which is something i would not like to see; For me Lib Dem is to the Right of Blair-ite New Labour, and thats beyond the pale for me. And as for NI, well its divisive

I think it just proves an election wont solve these problems. Tom Watson said it right - a Referendum first followed by an election

I think in that situation you and I would be singing in unison from the same sheet

Happy to chat

How exactly could Labour call a referendum without winning an election and getting a majority for one. It was typical of the moving goal posts that “moderates” like Watson tried to use at every opportunity to undermine the leadership.

And I don’t understand your previous stance of blaming Corbyn for the Lib Dem’s attempt to sabotage the remain candidate in Canterbury, against their own local party’s wishes.

The fact is that Labour have the only sensible position on Brexit, stances like the impossible second-referendum-while-Boris-is-still-prime-minister-somehow or the Lib Dem’s flat out refusal to work with Labour and attempts to dismiss their actual workable policy of a second referendum instead of outright revoking without a mandate are nothing more than cynical traps that don’t stand up to any scrutiny.

Bannasidhe

liamtech wrote: »

Well i am happy to agree to disagree. And what i failed to say in my post was that i genuinely am not a shouter, when it comes to political disagreement - heated yes - rude behavior and abuse, absolutely not - and im sorry you feel that way its not by design

I would say that in fairness, other parties are primarily campaigning on Brexit too - granted manifestos are being released, and pledges are being brought forth for scrutiny - agendas are definitely at play, and the SNP are clearly running for their IndyRef2. Lib Dems wanna surplaint Labour it seems, which is something i would not like to see; For me Lib Dem is to the Right of Blair-ite New Labour, and thats beyond the pale for me. And as for NI, well its divisive

I think it just proves an election wont solve these problems. Tom Watson said it right - a Referendum first followed by an election

I think in that situation you and I would be singing in unison from the same sheet

Happy to chat

I would have preferred a referendum first tbh.
But it didn't pan out that way.

Now we have a GE where the Tories want to make it all about Brexit.
My instinct is to not let them.

But apart from that we are indeed on the same hymn sheet.

(and thanks for not bolding anything - it really did make your post easier on the eye )

Joe_ Public

liamtech wrote: »

Yes and this could so easily have been avoided - all it required was pragmatism - One Lib dem stands down for Canterbury's Remain Labour MP - One Labour MP stands down against any of the 20 odd Lib Dem MP's -

So a compromise, as opposed to a pact - perfectly sensible policy that Corbyn wont allow

So they could get together and maybe come to an agreement on 20-30 seats they could leave, but that would require 2 to tango and i haven't seen anything from corbyn or swinson to think that might happen. Its fair enough to blame corbyn if you want, but when a big part of the others campaign is attacking both opposition leaders, wont that make it even harder to contemplate any kind of pact? In fairness they're not really much of a fit in terms of policy anyway. Couldnt see any post election arrangement lasting very long under the current set up.

liamtech

quokula wrote: »

How exactly could Labour call a referendum without winning an election and getting a majority for one. It was typical of the moving goal posts that “moderates” like Watson tried to use at every opportunity to undermine the leadership.

And I don’t understand your previous stance of blaming Corbyn for the Lib Dem’s attempt to sabotage the remain candidate in Canterbury, against their own local party’s wishes.

The method for stopping Brexit democratically is to have a second referendum. If the UK has a different Voting System an election could in theory solve this. But FPTP cannot. And sadly i predict that on election night

• A majority of the Electorate will have voted for Remain & Labour Candidates
• But the Torys will win the night and have an insurmountable Majority

The Game will be up, no more Benn Acts or Letwin Amendments - Brexit will be done

You are probably correct that Watson was trying to move the goal posts - where we differ is that i believe he was right to do so

• If JC's Labour had backed the peoples vote there was a slim chance of a second ref- by way of a government of National Unity, with someone, anyone, as an interim PM. SNP, LIB DEM, PLAID, INDY GROUP, and the Tory remainers could have backed it - even if the National Gvt didnt stay in, they could have legislated for a long extension, and then for a ref - If it collapsed then and we had this election, the Torys would have to campaign to STOP THE PEOPLES VOTE! Not a position they would get much traction for
• Even If it was defeated and the election was the only way, a move to back Peoples Vote, would have made a pact more likely - Swinson and Corbyn would have been more closely aligned. Corbyn Refusing (i would argue due to his wish to leave the EU) has nearly destroyed the possibility of co-operation

You may well blame both Corbyn and Swinson for the lack of co-operation, but Swinson is Co-operating with a great number of MP's who back remain - Corbyn isnt co-operating with anyone - and im sorry if that sounds tough to accept but right now (Wednesday evening) - thats a fact

The fact is that Labour have the only sensible position on Brexit, stances like the impossible second-referendum-while-Boris-is-still-prime-minister-somehow or the Lib Dem’s flat out refusal to work with Labour and attempts to dismiss their actual workable policy of a second referendum instead of outright revoking without a mandate are nothing more than cynical traps that don’t stand up to any scrutiny

If you think Labour's Brexit stance is sensible, thats your business. But with the momentum for a second ref becoming clear, refusing to co-operate with Remain in Parliament is grossly irresponsible. When 51-55% of the electorate vote for Remain candidates, but the Torys have a majority, i feel you will realize the truth

As For Swinson - here is a thought

Corbyn wants to renegotiate and possibly get Soft Brexit, then a Ref- Swinson wants to Revoke - the option in between those two stances is a Compromise

2nd Referendum - Leave Remain - and if necessary a third Ref on the nature of the Deal (soft, hard, CM, CU, etc)

Corbyn's principles wont allow him to change his mind on this, and as he is running the Labour party, his principles are the Labour party's principles

Its a mistake

ninebeanrows

The current trend overall has hallmarks of the last poll where May underachieved and we ended up with a hung parliment.

Think something similar will happen here. CON 35 LAB 30 LIB 15 percent type finish.

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So they could get together and maybe come to an agreement on 20-30 seats they could leave, but that would require 2 to tango and i haven't seen anything from corbyn or swinson to think that might happen. Its fair enough to blame corbyn if you want, but when a big part of the others campaign is attacking both opposition leaders, wont that make it even harder to contemplate any kind of pact? In fairness they're not really much of a fit in terms of policy anyway. Couldnt see any post election arrangement lasting very long under the current set up.

You dont think a Lib Dem candidate standing down (even if he's to be replaced) was an olive branch - an invitation to negotiate on some marginal seats that they could talk around??? because i do

Corbyn Didnt even respond to it

quokula

Interesting that you bring up a government of national unity and again try to blame Corbyn even though Labour SNP and Greens were all on the same page in bringing one together and the Lib Dem’s vetoed it because they refused to work with Corbyn.

I agree a second referendum would decide Brexit but it just wasn’t possible with the make up of parliament and Tom Watson knew that full well. It’s worth noting that the majority of the Tory rebels, even the most Europhile like Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart, were in favour of a deal, not in favour of a second referendum.

Trying to undermine Labours policy of doing the right thing by saying “yeah, well, you should do it before being elected even though that’s impossible” was such a transparently cheap trick.

Joe_ Public

liamtech wrote: »

You dont think a Lib Dem candidate standing down (even if he's to be replaced) was an olive branch - an invitation to negotiate on some marginal seats that they could talk around??? because i do

Corbyn Didnt even respond to it

I dont think so, no. From every report I've read, it sounds very much like a local initiative that had absolutely zero endorsement from hq, unless they're playing some kind of weird subliminal political game. Dont really think a corbyn response was warranted in the circumstances to be honest.

quokula

liamtech wrote: »

You dont think a Lib Dem candidate standing down (even if he's to be replaced) was an olive branch - an invitation to negotiate on some marginal seats that they could talk around??? because i do

Corbyn Didnt even respond to it

It was, and Lib Dem HQ came down hard on him for doing so. Why would Corbyn comment on internal Lib Dem politics?

I used to be a member of the Lib Dem’s and get a lot of their campaign material. The majority of it is built around attacking Labour, followed by mildly attacking Boris, followed by promoting their own policies.

Labours material is vastly more positive, focussing mostly on their own policies while also of course being critical of the governments record. I’ve never seen them reciprocate the Lib Dem attacks nor have I seen them try to convince tactical voters in Lib Dem Tory marginals to vote Labour using dishonest graphs.

So given they haven’t responded to the frequent poor form from the Lib Dem’s, I’ll forgive them for not screaming how thankful they are that one Lib Dem tried to do the right thing before the party shut it down within a few hours.

liamtech

quokula wrote: »

Interesting that you bring up a government of national unity and again try to blame Corbyn even though Labour SNP and Greens were all on the same page in bringing one together and the Lib Dem’s vetoed it because they refused to work with Corbyn.

I agree a second referendum would decide Brexit but it just wasn’t possible with the make up of parliament and Tom Watson knew that full well. It’s worth noting that the majority of the Tory rebels, even the most Europhile like Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart, were in favour of a deal, not in favour of a second referendum.

Trying to undermine Labours policy of doing the right thing by saying “yeah, well, you should do it before being elected even though that’s impossible” was such a transparently cheap trick.

The Lib Dems refused to work with Corbyn because he doesnt want to stop brexit - he wants to drag it out for another 6 months to a year by redesigning it as a Socialist Brexit - Corbyn's far left militant tendancy nature made him difficult to deal with.

As to your comment on Tory Europhiles, yes i did say it was a slim chance. However had Corbyn remained Leader of the Labour Party, but with a compromise Candidate as PM, the slim chance widens slightly. Again, Corbyn just kept repeating the same, robotic stance.

It is the precedent that the leader of the opposition should become PM if the Government of the day fails to command a majority

And of course precedent means everything to republican, marxist, revolutionary, militant, Jeremy Corbyn

Finally, the 'right thing to do', is anything and everything necessary to stop Boris Johnson getting a large majority in the next election. - and by failing to co-operate with other Anti-Tory/Anti-Brexit parties and MP's is arguably Fatal

quokula

liamtech wrote: »

The Lib Dems refused to work with Corbyn because he doesnt want to stop brexit - he wants to drag it out for another 6 months to a year by redesigning it as a Socialist Brexit - Corbyn's far left militant tendancy nature made him difficult to deal with.

As to your comment on Tory Europhiles, yes i did say it was a slim chance. However had Corbyn remained Leader of the Labour Party, but with a compromise Candidate as PM, the slim chance widens slightly. Again, Corbyn just kept repeating the same, robotic stance.



And of course precedent means everything to republican, marxist, revolutionary, militant, Jeremy Corbyn

Finally, the 'right thing to do', is anything and everything necessary to stop Boris Johnson getting a large majority in the next election. - and by failing to co-operate with other Anti-Tory/Anti-Brexit parties and MP's is arguably Fatal

So a minute ago you were arguing for a second referendum, but now you say it’s right not to work with Labour to achieve that.

It’s hard to find a coherent position from your posts beyond the dislike of Marxist Corbyn as you just called him.

liamtech

quokula wrote: »

It was, and Lib Dem HQ came down hard on him for doing so. Why would Corbyn comment on internal Lib Dem politics?

I used to be a member of the Lib Dem’s and get a lot of their campaign material. The majority of it is built around attacking Labour, followed by mildly attacking Boris, followed by promoting their own policies.

Labours material is vastly more positive, focussing mostly on their own policies while also of course being critical of the governments record. I’ve never seen them reciprocate the Lib Dem attacks nor have I seen them try to convince tactical voters in Lib Dem Tory marginals to vote Labour using dishonest graphs.

So given they haven’t responded to the frequent poor form from the Lib Dem’s, I’ll forgive them for not screaming how thankful they are that one Lib Dem tried to do the right thing before the party shut it down within a few hours.

There have been more than a few who have reached out to Labour.

Including labours own MP's btw

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-election-brexit-party-remain-corbyn-farage-conservative-tory-a9199096.html

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/lib-dem-labour-alliance-in-doubt-1-6371754

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019-jeremy-corbyn-20867570

liamtech

quokula wrote: »

So a minute ago you were arguing for a second referendum, but now you say it’s right not to work with Labour to achieve that.

It’s hard to find a coherent position from your posts beyond the dislike of Marxist Corbyn as you just called him.

Im pretty coherent actually. Stop Brexit ASAP by way of Second Referendum, and Stop a Tory Majority. Point two LEADS INEXORABLY to Point one

I would have preferred a second ref, but we are where we are

And as for hating Corbyn - its difficult. If you wanna check my forum posts going back weeks you will see its reluctant. But each day Jeremy makes a buffoon of himself, by refusing to co-operate, or get off his fence, i dislike him more. He is a disappointment due to his stance on Brexit.

but now you say it’s right not to work with Labour to achieve that.

I want Labour to work with everyone to stop Brexit and the Torys - but it requires co-operation - Jeremy seems to think everyone else should stand aside - is that what you are suggesting??

Rjd2

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

The current trend overall has hallmarks of the last poll where May underachieved and we ended up with a hung parliment.

Think something similar will happen here. CON 35 LAB 30 LIB 15 percent type finish.

I think so as well.

Johnson has to have a near flawless month or either hope Corbyn is absolutely awful. I have issues with Jez but he is a decent campaigner.

Boris if Scotland and London is out of play still has to win a lot of tight seats for a majority. Is it possible?

Yep of course,,but the 4/7 with bookies is madness. You can find a much safer 4/7 in the premier league next weekend rather than sweating on that for the next month. :P

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

Much of the flooding is down to planners "managing" the rivers, putting flood defences in one town simply means the water must go elsewhere, as well as allowing to build on flood plains.

Ireland has the same problem.

Interestingly the Express has gone with the old traditional Bonkers Brussels Bureaucracy as being ultimately responsible for the flooding.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1204008/EU-news-UK-flood-weather-latest-Yorkshire-flooding-East-Midlands-latest-update

I shall miss these headlines when the time eventually comes when they can no longer use them.