General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only time Johnsos did not lie is when the JCBs were heading for the third runway at Heathrow Airport. He had an urgent appointment elsewhere.

Yet another dodge of my question.

Ironic how, if I allegedly "dodge" a question, it's repeatedly pulled up!

The courageous Labour voter is the one who admits that Labour are lying.

When Johnson deflects by pointing the finger of blame at Labour, the argument here goes that "Johnson is deflecting...".

Yet deflection and dodge is what I've encountered thus far.

I'll be fascinated to see if anyone cogently and honestly answers my question.

AllForIt

I don't quite understand why the same ppl who are accusing the BBC of bias are also saying that Boris is chicken sh*t to face the BBC's Andrew Neil. It wasn't that long ago he did an interview with him anyways.

Also , today's interview with Marr, another BBC show, it seemed almost personal with Marr as if he hates Boris's guts. I thought Boris handled him very well considering, remained totally calm throughout. Boris wasn't allowed to get a word in edgewise.

sid waddell

On the ITV debate, Rishi Sunak said the reason the London Bridge terrorist couldn’t be given an indeterminate sentence was because the ECHR overrided British law.

That is a lie.

A Dub in Glasgo

AllForIt wrote: »

saying that Boris is chicken sh*t to face the BBC's Andrew Neil. It wasn't that long ago he did an interview with him anyways.

Johnson is running scared. Was Johnson PM when he did the Neil interview?

It is a simple bait-and-switch from the Tories

fly_agaric

CelticRambler wrote: »

Reminder 1: Brexit hasn't even started yet! All you're seeing and hearing and (possibly) getting fed up with is the conversation that should have happened before the UK triggered Article 50 so that the UK could reach the Brexit starting line.

To be honest I was not considering the internal politics or never ending "conversations" of the UK, or what contortions might occur there after it finally leaves and tries to re-orient itself in the world.

Was more concerned about effect this whole Brexit "process" has had on the EU + here. I think people somewhat underestimate the opportunity cost of the time and effort it has sucked up + continues to waste.

An inconclusive UK election means it might be carrying on for some time yet.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Reminder 2: Theresa May tried to lock her own MPs in a room until they came up with a unified plan of action. When they emerged, they couldn't even agree amongst themselves what colour smoke was coming out of the chimney …

More's the pity.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

On the ITV debate, Rishi Sunak said the reason the London Bridge terrorist couldn’t be given an indeterminate sentence was because the ECHR overrided British law.

That is a lie.

Not according to the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/18/strasbourg-judges-indeterminate-sentences-unlawful

Infini

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet another dodge of my question.

Ironic how, if I allegedly "dodge" a question, it's repeatedly pulled up!

The courageous Labour voter is the one who admits that Labour are lying.

When Johnson deflects by pointing the finger of blame at Labour, the argument here goes that "Johnson is deflecting...".

Yet deflection and dodge is what I've encountered thus far.

I'll be fascinated to see if anyone cogently and honestly answers my question.

All of them are lying to some degree or another the problem is you seem to believe Boris is the best person here when in fact he's the biggest shítpeddler besides that bollocks Farage who have been driving the whole UK into the ground over this issue.

Right now one has to decide not who is good or who is bad but wether Jeremy is the LESSER of 2 evils here. I personally think Jeremy is somewhat weak, his indecision over Brexit expecially has been poor and rather opaque and this is why he's such an unpopular leader. That being said I'd rather see Corbyn have an actual shot at the Premiership than see Boris get a majority because quite honestly he WILL make an utter bollocks of things, his supporters and his party arent just simple liar's they're outright trolls running active misinformation campaigns and there's certainly Russian influence considering the dodgy and shady funding over the last few years. Brexit is an active con job and deserves to be thrown in the bin along with the political and professional careers of everyone involved in pushing it for such a blatent excercise in stupidity and self interest over the national interest.

The conservative's have been in power 10 years and they've utterly wrecked the place and they're stiill not done. Labour have not and personally despite all the flaws are probably better than the PoshKIP party which has devoured the conservatives from the inside out.

Strazdas

Aegir wrote: »

Not according to the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/18/strasbourg-judges-indeterminate-sentences-unlawful

The ECHR cannot order a British court to release a prisoner, they have absolutely no authority to do so.

They can issue a ruling on their interpretation of the law but a British court or the British state would be totally free to ignore the ruling (just as the ECHR and EU have no authority to 'force' the UK to do anything at all).

sid waddell

Aegir wrote: »

Not according to the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/18/strasbourg-judges-indeterminate-sentences-unlawful

Incorrect.

It's in the blog post by The Secret Barrister that Boris Johnson literally plagiarised for a Twitter thread.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/11/30/10-thing-you-should-know-about-the-london-bridge-attacker-and-early-release/

A lot has changed since 2008. IPPs have now gone. The failure of the prison system to make available to prisoners the rehabilitative programmes they needed to take to secure their release, due to the horrendous overcrowding, was a genuine Kafkaesque nightmare, which the European Court of Human Rights in 2012 declared was unlawful. The coalition government responded by abolishing IPPs in 2012 (although not for prisoners still serving those sentences), and introducing new Extended Determinate Sentences. It is worth emphasising, to rebut nonsense published by Breitbart contributors today, that the ECtHR ruling on IPPs had nothing whatsoever to do with the Court of Appeal decision in Khan’s case. The Court of Appeal could have lawfully upheld the IPP if it wanted. It was not forced, either by government or by the ECtHR, to change the sentence.

Rjd2

Using Long Bailey and Richard Burgeon on high profile debates is lunacy when you have Keir Starmer. RIGHT. THERE.

I see sheep

Rjd2 wrote: »

Using Long Bailey and Richard Burgeon on high profile debates is lunacy when you have Keir Starmer. RIGHT. THERE.

I think Richard Burgeon is genuine, KS is a bit too 'polished', and (if JC has a bad result and leaves) he definitely won't be the next leader.

ArmaniJeanss

Starmer seems very underused, don't think I've seen him on TV at all.
From his twitter he has been out and about campaigning in some marginal seats but to me it doesn't seem the best use of him.

ArmaniJeanss

Used Richard Burgon because he is a born-and-bred Yorkshireman I'd say, with that county being a key part of the Red Wall. Important to show that the party is more than a London Remain cabal, which is sometimes thrown at them.

Unfortunately he's not very good though.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's about bringing poverty into sustainable levels.

Clearly, you still need nannies and cleaners and so forth, and with a managed poverty policy like mine, you can eliminate vast swathes of poverty whilst also bringing in a managed migration policy if there are any gaps within market sectors.

Sustainable poverty?

If we got rid of poverty, would that not be even more sustainable for society. Less of a gap between the top and bottom. Reduced expenditure on crime and healthcare. Which means Less taxes.

Seems to be a very left wing attitude with a dash of Ayn Rand.

Honestly, I don't what sort of reaction you're trying to elicit here, but I'm pretty happy with the European social democratic model. And hope that we get more Scandy as the years progress.

I wouldn't say I'm alone here.

hometruths

I see sheep wrote: »

I think Richard Burgeon is genuine, KS is a bit too 'polished', and (if JC has a bad result and leaves) he definitely won't be the next leader.

Why don't you think he will be the next leader?

Joe_ Public

Keir Starmer gives the impression to me of someone playing the strategic long game. Doing his job very capably and without fuss and if it comes to it that they need someone who might be capable of uniting both wings of the party, if that can actually be achieved, then he could well be the outstanding candidate.

BonnieSituation

schmittel wrote: »

Why don't you think he will be the next leader?

Because he'll be tarnished by the failure. Right now he's got no JC on him.

BonnieSituation

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Keir Starmer gives the impression to me of someone playing the strategic long game. Doing his job very capably and without fuss and if it comes to it that they need someone who might be capable of uniting both wings of the party, if that can actually be achieved, then he could well be the outstanding candidate.

This is pretty much what I was getting at above.

ancapailldorcha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This

Mod: No more of these one word posts please. Use the thanks button instead.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Keir Starmer gives the impression to me of someone playing the strategic long game. Doing his job very capably and without fuss and if it comes to it that they need someone who might be capable of uniting both wings of the party, if that can actually be achieved, then he could well be the outstanding candidate.

Agree. I think he is personally playing a blinder, and cannot really see how any JC failure would stick to him any more than other potential candidates.

I think if Starmer had taken over as leader anytime since 2017 Labour would be looking at a Blairesque landslide victory now. All others things being equal.

Except of course they would not have been equal since Tories would not have gone round in circles for two years and Boris Johnson would not now be leader never mind favourite to win a General Election.

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Keir Starmer gives the impression to me of someone playing the strategic long game. Doing his job very capably and without fuss and if it comes to it that they need someone who might be capable of uniting both wings of the party, if that can actually be achieved, then he could well be the outstanding candidate.

I suspect the Cobyn base of the party is a little suspicious of him as leadership talk follows him everywhere. If Labour need the Lib Dems to form a government highly likely they will want Keir to replace Jez.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

Agree. I think he is personally playing a blinder, and cannot really see how any JC failure would stick to him any more than other potential candidates.

I think if Starmer had taken over as leader anytime since 2017 Labour would be looking at a Blairesque landslide victory now. All others things being equal.

Except of course they would not have been equal since Tories would not have gone round in circles for two years and Boris Johnson would not now be leader never mind favourite to win a General Election.

He did only become an mp in 2015 so while not unprecedented, it would have represented a rapid rather unlikely rise. To be fair corbyn did reenergise the party and its hard to have seen a "right" wing candidate from the party doing that so i think that can be corbyns legacy. Rebecca long bailey is sometimes spoken of as a candidate of the left, but struggle myself to see her as leader. Starmer seems shrewd and not tsinted by association to either side so woukd seem compelling choice to me.

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

I suspect the Cobyn base of the party is a little suspicious of him as leadership talk follows him everywhere. If Labour need the Lib Dems to form a government highly likely they will want Keir to replace Jez.

Yeah, I'd say thats likely. And i doubt Starmer would want to fall out with them too so he's plotting a careful route. I'm not so sure about the idea of labour jettisoning corbyn at the behest of lib dems, dont see that happening quite frankly.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He did only become an mp in 2015 so while not unprecedented, it would have represented a rapid rather unlikely rise. To be fair corbyn did reenergise the party and its hard to have seen a "right" wing candidate from the party doing that so i think that can be corbyns legacy. Rebecca long bailey is sometimes spoken of as a candidate of the left, but struggle myself to see her as leader. Starmer seems shrewd and not tsinted by association to either side so woukd seem compelling choice to me.

If I recall correctly some Labour MPs were urging him to stand against Corbyn leadership challenge, but he decided himself he was too recently elected an MP.

I understand the points about Corbyn's legacy, and have heard it expressed that he himself feels that way. i.e even if he has to stand down after losing the election, and a Corbynista is the new leader he will see that as a win.

Nonsense in my opinion but many will disagree I'm sure!

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, I'd say thats likely. And i doubt Starmer would want to fall out with them too so he's plotting a careful route. I'm not so sure about the idea of labour jettisoning corbyn at the behest of lib dems, dont see that happening quite frankly.

Yeah I think last few weeks have put them in their place somewhat.

I know Swinson said similar about Boris, but I think a second ref from either of those 2 would be enough for them.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

If I recall correctly some Labour MPs were urging him to stand against Corbyn leadership challenge, but he decided himself he was too recently elected an MP.

I understand the points about Corbyn's legacy, and have heard it expressed that he himself feels that way. i.e even if he has to stand down after losing the election, and a Corbynista is the new leader he will see that as a win.

Nonsense in my opinion but many will disagree I'm sure!

Your correct on that i think. He did have a high profile coming in as an mp so probably wasnt as out of bounds as i suggested. Think he took the sensible approach anyway, his time will come sooner rather than later.

I dont entirely disagree about corbyn. Not getting into government will be a loss and more than likely the end of the journey. I've found it fascinating to see a left wing surge like that again, only recall it from my youth, but hard to know if uk and its firmly right wing establishment will ever allow it. Maybe corbyn made enough mistakes himself to scupper it anyway, but they wanted to make sure by setting out to destroy him just in case. Thats my reading of it anyway.

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah I think last few weeks have put them in their place somewhat.

I know Swinson said similar about Boris, but I think a second ref from either of those 2 would be enough for them.

The cracks were appearing a couple of weeks back when ed davey and others started talking about potential deals with johnson. But could johnson possibly offer them a second ref? I can't for the life of me see that happening. If the choice came down to supporting corbyn to stop brexit, I'm not sure the party would stand behind swinson refusing to play ball.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The cracks were appearing a couple of weeks back when ed davey and others started talking about potential deals with johnson. But could johnson possibly offer them a second ref? I can't for the life of me see that happening. If the choice came down to supporting corbyn to stop brexit, I'm not sure the party would stand behind swinson refusing to play ball.

A few weeks ago I felt the Lib Dems would have a very good election (but Swinson was a weak link), and I thought potential Labour cabinet members would push Corbyn out if that was a Lib Dem price of coalition government.

Changed my mind a bit now!

Swinson a far weaker link than I imagined, and it will be she who could be pushed out as Corbyn's price!

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

A few weeks ago I felt the Lib Dems would have a very good election (but Swinson was a weak link), and I thought potential Labour cabinet members would push Corbyn out if that was a Lib Dem price of coalition government.

Changed my mind a bit now!

Swinson a far weaker link than I imagined, and it will be she who could be pushed out as Corbyn's price!

They had momentum for sure, quite shocking how quickly it seems to have unravelled. Would davey have done any better? Female candidate probably seemed a good thing at the time. Leadership material not exactly brimful in any party right now - i hear talk of chuka but he might not even get elected.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They had momentum for sure, quite shocking how quickly it seems to have unravelled. Would davey have done any better? Female candidate probably seemed a good thing at the time. Leadership material not exactly brimful in any party right now - i hear talk of chuka but he might not even get elected.

I actually think if Chuka had been leader they would have run an immeasurably better campaign and he personally would have been elected fairly comfortably.

Chuka Ummana would have been a tremendous choice for a strategy of winning as many votes/seats as possible in a GE but a terrible choice from an internal party politics point of view.

And therein lies the problem with all the parties, they all put internal party politics first, (realpolitik I know), way before what might be in the best interests of the country.