I have been following this shambles both on the blog and in the medis but I came to a realisation that I have some fundamental gaps in my understanding.
The election was called by BJ because of an impasse over Brexit correct?
If BJ is elected with a majority will that resolve the impasse? What form of Brexit would transpire.
Does each party have a clear position on Brexit so people know what they will get ? Indeed are the members of each party all committed to a particular position or are they split within their parties?
If that is the case then won’t you end up with a riven parliament again?
I don’t actually know what Corbyn’s position is on Brexit.
Corbyn has been talking about NHS and broadbnd so presumably the election is not just about Brexit. If not how can any party claim a mandate to do anything?
chiz says
The election was called by BJ because of an impasse over Brexit correct?
– correct
If BJ is elected with a majority will that resolve the impasse? What form of Brexit would transpire.
– leave Jan 31st, no real changes during transition, no deal/ WTO rules at the end of 2020
Does each party have a clear position on Brexit so people know what they will get ? Indeed are the members of each party all committed to a particular position or are they split within their parties?
– yes they have clear positions, but no not everyone within parties agree – but this is true of most policy.
If that is the case then won’t you end up with a riven parliament again?
– This is the most likely outcome, and with no majority no Brexit deal is likely to pass
I don’t actually know what Corbyn’s position is on Brexit.
– get a better deal, call a referendum to choose between this deal and remain, then campaign against the deal he’s just agreed
Corbyn has been talking about NHS and broadbnd so presumably the election is not just about Brexit. If not how can any party claim a mandate to do anything?
– After Brexit neither party will be able to deliver the promises they are making on other issues, and they know it.
Junior Wells says
Thanks Chiz
thecheshirecat says
That last sentence sums up the whole sorry state of affairs.
paulwright says
Yup
Twang says
The Lib Dems are united in wanting to remain, and their manifesto was signed off by the IFS as being coherent. Not that it’s doing them any good in the polls, though what I hear “on the doorstep” is much more encouraging than on the news..
dwightstrut says
To be fair, on the Brexit question the positions of the three main parties are clear:
If you want to leave, vote Conservative;
If you want to remain, vote Lib Dem;
If you want to spend a minimum of another six months continuing to bugger around with the question and then be asked to vote again, vote Labour.
Gary says
I don’t think another 6 months is too high a price to pay for getting it right though. Impatience shouldn’t be the motivation behind such a momentous decision. And offering both Leave and Remain back to the people for a final say is both democratic and logical.
Moose the Mooche says
Short version:
The people whose mines were closed down and whose communities were decimated by the Tories are about to vote for them, because voting for someone who you know is a liar and who hates you and will sell you down the river is entirely necessary when you’ve just heard someone speaking Polish in Tesco Extra. Grrrr.
We in the old country show you colonials how you can really spectacularly fuck things up. And we’ve only just begun. This makes the the triumph of Trump look like the fucking Renaissance.
SteveT says
That Tescoes quoted the best one I have heard in the whole of this election campaign.
So good I might steal it.
Junior Wells says
Well if you do introduce a national broadband we can show you how to fuck that up big time.
Moose the Mooche says
That won’t happen. Infrastructure? In England? It’s like you think we’re in the developed world or something.
Tahir W says
One reason why Corbyn has taken the position that he has — apart, that is, from sensibly wanting to appeal to both sides of the Brexit divide — is that he is personally ambivalent about EU membership. And that is because certain parts of Labour’s intended programme may be against EU law. But he is open to remain if it also involves a struggle to reform the EU. There is nothing that is muddled or insincere in any of this; it is just too complex a narrative for the public sphere as presently constituted, with its love of catchy soundbites and childlike storytelling, which, needless to say, favours BJ. Makes him seem like a real bloke in comparison to JC.
Junior Wells says
Ta Tah
Chrisf says
I may be looking at this too simplistically from afar, but surely if this election is because of the Brexit impasse and campaigning is all about “Get Brexit Done”, then doesn’t that warrant a second referendum rather than an election (which should be about a bigger range of issues / policies) ?
What is the problem with going back to the public with a this is the deal / no deal / remain in EU choice ?
thecheshirecat says
I was against the original referendum being held in the first place, so I’ve felt my rational position was to be against a second referendum. But I agree with you, a general election (the clue is in the word ‘general’) shouldn’t be focussed on a single issue. A second referendum on a specific deal, rather than the generality of wanting to leave, but not stating on what terms, would have cleared the air, no matter how close. What we risk now is that the Tories get a majority on the back of a single issue, then claim they’ve got a mandate for everything else they do over the next five years. Bearing in mind how thin their manifesto is on detail, that gives them free rein.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Nick and Co. failed not to give them free rein in 2010, and George The Twat subsequently weilded the Sword Of Austerity so enthusiastically as a result that they managed to piss off, oh, roughly 52% of the electorate.
We’ve been here before, but that lumpen proletariat is too busy watching Game Of Thrones to pay attention, and it’s now time for Round Two: The Boripocalypse. We’re fucked.
Gary says
Obviously the problem with a second referendum was that neither May nor Johnson wanted to be seen as not upholding the 2016 promise to the people, and that’s completely understandable for a leader who wants to be seen as democratic. (Or it would be, if the referendum hadn’t been so ill thought out, dishonestly campaigned and legally dodgy in the first place. But neither May nor Johnson wanted to admit that.)
Tiggerlion says
BJ had just won a vote in the House Of Commons for his withdrawal agreement from the EU. He wanted to rush it through in a few days. The opposition, including MPs who had been in his party a few weeks before, wanted to debate it for a bit longer, perhaps a week. BJ decided this is a blockage and called an election. Bear in mind, if the Tory MPs had all voted for their own policies, Brexit would have been ‘done’ ages ago. One of their own MPs who voted against their previous withdrawal agreement was BJ himself.
The Labour leader plans to be a neutral ‘honest’ broker in a second referendum after he has negotiated a better deal. He won’t be campaigning for or against his deal.
The Lib Dems will cancel Brexit altogether.
No election is simply about one issue. The winning party will push forward their agenda on other issues once they are in. Judging by their manifestos, they all want to spend a lot more. The Tories won’t raise taxes, Labour will tax the richest 5%, Lib Dems will raise income tax by 1% to pay for the NHS and so on.
johnw says
The manifestos usually represent muddled thinking and it seems they’ve all outdone themselves this time. Professional economists suggest none of the figures add up. Outside economics, logistics seem to have been overlooked with one of the main parties apparently pledging to plant 200 trees a minute until 2024. I assume they all work on the principle that few voters ever read them and, given that it appears most people are seeing this as a Brexit election, anything else is just seen add noise anyway.
Tiggerlion says
The great thing is, whoever wins, there’ll be lots of jobs planting trees. Let’s hope there are enough immigrants around to help out.
Apparently, the Lib Dem manifesto is the ‘best costed’.
SteveT says
The Lib Dem manifesto can be perfectly costed – they have no chance of getting anywhere near parliament.
More likely to see Boris Johnson inviting homeless people to his house for Christmas lunch
Tiggerlion says
Manifestos are wish-lists. The parties most likely to win tend to tone them down, use snake-oil language with multiple meanings and make sure any promises have a get-out clause.
Lodestone of Wrongness says
Boris called the election because he couldn’t allow his Brexit deal to be scrutinised by a parliament which was opposed to the possibility of any No Deal scenario. His hope is that he gets elected with a workable majority ( anything into double figures will do) and as a leader of a party now stuffed full of Brexit Robots.
He needs 326 seats but, and this is currently the only light in this dark dark tunnel if Corbyn gets 276 then he should be able to form a coalition government and hence a second referendum. Latest polls show Johnson’s lead down to 9 points but this still gives the fat, lying fucker a majority of around 50.
Let’s pray the polls are once again wrong.
Vulpes Vulpes says
In the land of the mendacious and utterly STUPID, only the intelligent people will wail.
Junior Wells says
Thanks folks.
Now Corbyn. He is saying he doesn’t have a position. Tahir says he is ambivalent about the EU and the argument Tahir proffers is plausible So he has no position but will push for another Referendum and if Brexit gets up he will go in to bat against Belgium for a better deal.
Is that it ? .
Gary says
He’ll get the deal first and then put that on the referendum, alongside Remain. I don’t think it’s so much that he has no position (we know he’s Eurosceptic), more that he thinks the people should have the final say, without the PM telling them what to vote (with his caveat that the Brexit offered must protect workers’ rights etc.). He also wants to be seen as having bigger fish to fry than Brexit (namely a public spending upheaval/Marxist revolution).
Lando Cakes says
Corbyn is a long-time anti-EU bigot, who finds himself leading a pro-EU party. Hence his “ambivalence”. Doesn’t sound very ambivalent here:
https://www.theredroar.com/2019/02/exclusive-corbyn-branded-eu-military-frankenstein-and-trashed-second-irish-referendum-in-unearthed-footage/
retropath2 says
Your initial summary, Junior, is well nigh spot on and certainly a shrewder understanding than most, or my names not Pernok, no, Pinockee, damn, Gepetto.
Gatz says
Johnson and his ERG supporters were thwarted in delivering the Brexit he claimed, and still claims, people ‘wanted’ and ‘voted for’. He was thwarted by both houses of parliament and, via the heroic efforts of Gina Miller, a unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court. All if this meant he was stymied by the rule of law, which didn’t go down well for a prime minister who would have preferred to do whatever he wanted, thank you very much.
Never mind, buried deep in page 48 of the Conservative manifesto is this little gem, designed to overcome all that unpleasant accountability nonsense.
chiz says
The truly astonishing thing about this election is that Labour could lose it. That shouldn’t be possible after 9 years of awful cuts to services and the massive inequality gap, but somehow the main opposition party has managed to manoeuvre itself into a position where too few people can stomach voting for them. It really is the most incredible failure of leadership.
It’s partly because they’ve been forced into an equivocal Brexit position because their vote is split pretty much down the middle for Leave and Remain. It’s also because Labour’s activists have relentlessly attacked moderate supporters – the very people they need to vote for them – as centrists dads, neo-liberals, red tories, gammon and melts, all of which plays really well with your mates on Twitter but kills you in the polls. And then there’s Corbyn, still trailing Johnson – Johnson!- for people’s choice of PM.
It’s not necessarily all over – the Lib Dem vote will collapse, Johnson haemorrhages credibility every time he opens his mouth, and the surge of registrations of young voters isn’t picked up in the polls – but if they do fail to get control of Parliament, Labour will blame the media, the Tory lies, the moderate social democrats and what Moose is suggesting are racist working class people, and refuse to acknowledge that they’d have won with Anyone But Corbyn.
Gary says
There’s no denying the nefarious role and huge influence of the media, though. The anti-Corbyn smears have come from all directions since the day he was elected.
I currently get the impression social media (at least Twitter) is far more favourable towards him than the proper media.
chiz says
I think the tactic of blaming the media is a mistake. It suggests that the coverage is influencing someone, but not you. The inference is that “they” are stupid enough to be taken in by the Daily Mail, while ‘we’ are clever enough to see through it.
If you’re trying to convince someone to change their view, don’t keep calling them an idiot.
Gary says
I was calling anyone who reads the Mail etc. an idiot way before the referendum. But of course you’re right, using that conviction as the basis for discussion isn’t the ideal tactic. And yet, counter-productive as it may be, I still think that the role of the media in shaping certain ideas about Corbyn has to be stated, lies and smear have to be combatted.
BTW, there is a positive article about Corbyn in today’s Guardian. So that’s nice.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/01/the-corbyn-i-know-is-a-rare-thing-warm-decent-and-interested-in-justice
Diddley Farquar says
You’d think the leader of a party who lost the last election (though for his supporters this was considered a great victory), whose party has consistently been behind in the polls plus whose personal rating has consistently been dire, would have got the message that someone else might fare better and stepped aside. Unfortunately he is too self indulgent for such awareness.
Of course the Brexit position is a stroke of genius and not in anyway a fudge to try to satisfy both the leave element (him) and the remain element (the majority of MPs). It’s not his fault the voters don’t get what the Labour policy is and what kind of Brexit they are voting for if they vote Labour. However, the apologists defence of Corbyn will mean diddly-squat if there’s a Tory majority and all that entails.
Tahir W says
Just a little bit of non-ranting perspective here: Labour lost the last three elections, under three different leaders. Just saying. Might not mean anything.
chiz says
That’s not really a fair comparison. 11 years of the last Labour Government is about as long as the voters have ever allowed any Governing party. The longer they go on, the more likely they are to lose. Fucking this one up after nine years of opposition should be almost impossible
Tahir W says
Alright, I’l play: so who should their leader be right now and why?
chiz says
Right now? Corbyn. We are where we are. Two years ago, someone without the history of disloyalty to the party, without his baggage, with a track record of leadership, and with the will to bring the party together rather than drag it into his preferred position of permanent, morally-superior but utterly ineffective opposition. And female.
But, to be fair, I really hope I’m wrong about this.
Diddley Farquar says
The great thing about this site is that you know if you wait long enough someone will come along and give the right answer for you. The answer is someone who sufficient of the electorate consider a credible PM. Yes and a woman.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Who should be the leader right now? Me.
I’d sack or otherwise remove all the idiots in the Party who dither about the EU and make it clear that we have no intention of throwing away 40 years of progress towards peace and stability across Europe, and that we’re staying in and making sure we reform as we go.
I’d declare the 2016 Referendum null and void, as it was only advisory, it was wholely innapropriate, and in any case it was called by that moon-faced posh-boy twat Cameron.
Then I’d propose we re-nationalise the railways and the utilites, just for the hell of it, as they are the core infrastructure elements we really shouldn’t be letting overseas investors milk for dividends. With the possible exception of Wessex Water; hello YTL, you are probably one of the good guys.
Then I’d propose we seize the assets of all the dirty money launderers in The City and throw them out of the country. Russians, Saudis, whoever. Out and don’t come back. Confiscation instead of mute collaboration. Take that you bastards.
Then I’d propose we tell Trump to spin on it and make it clear that we have no interest in aligning ourselves with crypto-fascists, of an orange hue or any other colour.
Then I’d make it policy to bin Trident and spend the dosh on a massive ramp-up of our cyber capabilities. No point in frying some poor sods on the other side of the continent when you can stop their credit cards, smart meters and mobile phones from working instead.
And I’d set out plans to invest huge sums in our own nuclear industry by telling the Chinese and French to eff-off while we revamp our own capabilities to tide us over while we move to renewables.
Then I’d take a couple of days off, wait to get elected and then declare myself President for Life, further declare a Republic and start work on Stage Two of my Great Five Year Plan…
…starting by shutting down FarceBerk and Twatter.
Moose the Mooche says
You could have your own TV channel – Vulpes News.
…er…
Twang says
I see what you did there.
Gatz says
I’m with you at least 80% of the way, which is a significant advance on the other parties. Let’s do this, Foxy policies for a Foxier Britain!
retropath2 says
Another view from abroad….. Oz’s 1st Dog on the Moon.
Quite nuanced, I thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/03/you-know-youre-not-legally-required-to-like-jeremy-corbyn-in-order-to-vote-for-him-right?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0ZpcnN0RG9nT25UaGVNb29uLTE5MTIwMw%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=FirstDogOnTheMoon&CMP=firstdog_email
Tahir W says
See the problem I have with all this personality politics, and the Corbyn smearing in particular, is the danger of a certain loss of perspective. With the tories looking like they may fall short of a majority, the anti-Corbyn argument should not be used as a pretext for thwarting a progressive coalition. This is a time for a resolute front against the blonde bombshell, as at least the SNP seem able to see.
And I still prefer Corbyn to a lying, war-mongering, Thatcheristic fuck like Blair. So there.
chiz says
I know you’re joking, but Corbynites relentlessly laying into supporters of ’97-’03 Labour – which poured resources into housing, education and health – make me wonder if you actually want to win this thing or not.
Tahir W says
There’s no point if it’s just more of the same. Ask the Iraqis. Oh but they’re people in a faraway country that ‘we’ know nothing about.
No I’m certainly not joking.
chiz says
The reason I thought you were joking is that you wrote ‘This is a time for a resolute front’ and ‘lying, war-mongering, Thatcheristic fuck like Blair’ in consecutive sentences
Tahir W says
Yes even the likes of Blair have to be part of it, but not as Labour leader. I suspect that many of you would like a Blair in place of JC though, hence my wanting to sir things a bit, as is my wont.
Vulpes Vulpes says
I don’t seem to be able to interject here to issue an “up” to old chizzers. Even the gorila of 3B knows that eny fule can rant about the Comrade’s brilliance, but without enuff actual election-type votes from the plebs he’s a dead duck in stagnant water – while the Tories sail on regardless, bouyed up by the STUPID vote.
Neilo says
1. I’d declare the 2016 Referendum null and void, as it was only advisory, it was wholely innapropriate, and in any case it was called by that moon-faced posh-boy twat Cameron.
A proposal to remain or leave was put to the people in 2016. The people made a call you didn’t like. Maybe the next government will call another referendum. Maybe they won’t. I don’t see why Cameron’s socio-economic background de-legitimises the decision to call a referendum in the first place. Asserting that people’s actions are informed solely by their background has a whiff of the volkisch about it
2. Then I’d propose we re-nationalise the railways and the utilites, just for the hell of it, as they are the core infrastructure elements we really shouldn’t be letting overseas investors milk for dividends
I agree that certain strategic infrastructure elements are better left in public ownership but many of the investors who hold stakes in utility companies are UK pension funds trying to ensure a dividend for anyone who’s saving for retirement. If you’re proposing a buyback, I suspect that many investors spooked by an expropriating government won’t accept bonds as payments. Good luck raising the billions required to buy out these investors in stock or cash.
3. Then I’d propose we seize the assets of all the dirty money launderers in The City and throw them out of the country. Russians, Saudis, whoever. Out and don’t come back. Confiscation instead of mute collaboration. Take that you bastards.
Are you suggesting expropriation on the grounds of funny accents or weird headdresses? The City of London would be a ghost town in hours. Again, you’re going to have a hard time going to the market to fund your policies if property rights are disregarded in the service of impulsiveness.
4. Then I’d propose we tell Trump to spin on it and make it clear that we have no interest in aligning ourselves with crypto-fascists, of an orange hue or any other colour.
You’ve now got a homegrown regime based on expropriation, suspicion of foreigners, disregard for the rule of law and free trade. You’re only one snazzy uniform away from a victory parade in the Mall,. The difference between your fantasy government and Trump’s administration – apart from fake tan – is that your authoritarian plans are out in the open. Why would you need to pal around with other fascists?
5. Then I’d make it policy to bin Trident and spend the dosh on a massive ramp-up of our cyber capabilities. No point in frying some poor sods on the other side of the continent when you can stop their credit cards, smart meters and mobile phones from working instead.
Agree 100%
6. And I’d set out plans to invest huge sums in our own nuclear industry by telling the Chinese and French to eff-off while we revamp our own capabilities to tide us over while we move to renewables.
Again, no argument here.
7. Then I’d take a couple of days off, wait to get elected and then declare myself President for Life, further declare a Republic and start work on Stage Two of my Great Five Year Plan…
…starting by shutting down FarceBerk and Twatter.
No fan of these companies myself but this is an issue of suppressing free speech. Would you interfere with or shut down any dissenting voices in new or old media?
Diddley Farquar says
It’s only personality politics because Labour look like not winning when they should and analysing why leads to Corbyn.
Tahir W says
Yeah well, no point in rehashing this ad infinitum.
Diddley Farquar says
Well when’s that stopped any of us? Rehashings on the back passages of a redundant culture anyone?
Tahir W says
Alright then. Part of the argument against JC has been that he is a Brexiteer. Secondly, that it’s his fault for Labour trailing in the polls. Well how does an argument with those two propositions as part of it square with the fact that Labour is under threat (we are told) in mainly leave voting constituencies? Something doesn’t quite add up there, does it? Nor does the fact that the remainer LDs are also not doing too well in the polls. Life’s great paradoxes? Faulty arguments somewhere?
chiz says
The problem is that if you ask him a yes / no question on his personal position on Brexit, the most important issue of the day, he won’t give you an honest answer, which means neither side trust him. Even Johnson and Swinson can manage this one.
Mike_H says
Perhaps he feels the waters are muddied enough around the subject without tossing his personal opinion into the pool at this point. Especially as he now says he won’t campaign either way once he’s negotiated the best deal he can and that he’ll abide by the result of a second referendum, whatever the result.
Perhaps his previous anti-EU stance has shifted a bit since 2016 and all that has transpired since.
Tahir W says
Swinson’s toughest decisions may still lie ahead …
chiz says
You can’t ignore personal opinions, Mike, unless you want to let Johnson off for his views on watermelon smiles, letterbox Muslin women and lachrymose Liverpool. Don’t forget that Corbyn said when he became leader that policy would be made by members, not him; unless of course the membership were overwhelmingly for remain, in which case he’d call for A50 to be invoked immediately and never once appear on a Remain or People’s Vote platform.
count jim moriarty says
No, only Swinson will be truthful. Surely everyone knows that Johnson took the leave position purely to take the opposite view to Cameron. It was, as all his actions are, entirely based on personal advancement, and nothing to do with principles, because he has none of those.
Lando Cakes says
Labour is also losing – badly – in pro-Remain Scotland. To the extent that the nationalists (who as recently as 2014 were campaigning to leave the EU) have successfully painted themselves as internationalists. Unbelievable. After what I now fear is going to be a Tory landslide, there will be a reckoning.
Tahir W says
There will undoubtedly be a degree of buyer’s remorse too.
Diddley Farquar says
Anyway my point was that it’s about personality because personality is the issue.
Tahir W says
A bit like Brexit means Brexit, isn’t that? Can’t fault logic like yours. Do you have any other thoughts on this thread that are equally profound?
Diddley Farquar says
Well you bemoan personality politics but unfortunately personality here is key. One wishes it weren’t. No it’s not profound. Shall everyone critique each other’s comments and give points for style and technical merit? Bring back down arrows?
Kaisfatdad says
I am sure that you all knew this, and it is completely irrelevant, but I am fascinated to discover that Mrs Corbyn is a successful Mexican business woman. Well I never!
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/news/a41834/laura-alvarez-jeremy-corbyn-profile/
I’ve been enjoying this thread and nodding my head and agreeing with pretty much everything that Chiz has said. Some wise words there.
Corbyn may have the high moral ground but if he can’t win the election, then it is does not help.
I am hoping that Trump’s arrival in the UK may do some good. His bromance with Boris cannot be an electoral advantage for the Blonde Bombshell.
duco01 says
Here’s Jeremy Corbyn giving his Spanish a bit of an airing…
fentonsteve says
Mrs F says “his Spanish is about as good as yours”. That’s not meant as a compliment.
Kaisfatdad says
Oh dear! Jeremy speaks Spanish as well as I speak Swedish.
What a contrast to that fine chap Mr Johnson who I believe speaks both Ancient Greek and Latin like a native.
Freddy Steady says
Well, if he speaks the languages so well, can’t he just f*** off back to Greek or Latinland, what?
Edit…though I think Vulpes articulates my thoughts a bit better on the Fight or Flight thread.
paulwright says
Or of course the USa, what with him being a native New Yorker.