advertisement


Vast Brexit thread merge part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
So few things to enjoy at this stage, but did like this. Crace on form.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/29/brexit-reduced-to-a-petty-squabble-classic-dom

A flavour.

"Johnson had opened on auto-pilot. Labour had blocked Brexit by forcing him to have a massive sulk once MPs had insisted on having more than three days to debate his withdrawal agreement. The extension to the end of January would cost the UK an extra £1bn per month. Both statements blatantly untrue, but sure to be dragged out in every stump speech throughout the election campaign until enough people – possibly even Boris himself, if his lack of conscience allowed – came to accept as fact.

As so often, Johnson then began to get bored with saying the same stuff he had said the day before and the day before that. So he just ad-libbed. The Commons chamber is really only an extension of the Oxford Union for him, with Tory backbenchers merely fawning acolytes. If anything, his contempt for his own MPs exceeds that for the opposition. There was no apology for breaking a commitment he had made to leave – “do or die” – by 31 October. Just a long moan about how difficult Brexit had become. It was the most passionate argument in favour of remain anyone was to make all day."
 
myles said:
Whether or not 16 year olds are equipped or suitable to receive the right to vote is a discussion for another day, but how can it be fair to introduce a new cross section of society just to influence a vote - because that's what is being suggested here, isn't it?
By all means they should debate this when the whole Brexit debacle is over, not before.
Click to expand...
Sounds like another case of more democracy being undemocratic.

That age group will arguably be affected more and certainly for longer than any other. I can't think of anyone more deserving.

Rest easy though, it won't be happening. I believe that in line with your reasoning these things need to be sorted 6 months prior to an election to prevent them being used in a political manner (for an entirely political election to sort out a deeply political event).
 
SteveS1 said:
So few things to enjoy at this stage, but did like this. Crace on form.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/29/brexit-reduced-to-a-petty-squabble-classic-dom

A flavour.

"In his dreams – those private moments he spends in front of the mirror, serenading the person he loves best – the prime minister is the master orator. The man with the golden voice who can charm all those with whom he comes in contact. The reality is that he struggles for coherence, his voice barking out subconscious pleas for help via morse code. A speaker who can just about scrape by as a feelgood after-dinner turn, recycling the same tired gags, but lacks the sincerity and concentration to survive sustained scrutiny. The only thing he really cares about is himself.

Johnson had opened on auto-pilot. Labour had blocked Brexit by forcing him to have a massive sulk once MPs had insisted on having more than three days to debate his withdrawal agreement. The extension to the end of January would cost the UK an extra £1bn per month. Both statements blatantly untrue, but sure to be dragged out in every stump speech throughout the election campaign until enough people – possibly even Boris himself, if his lack of conscience allowed – came to accept as fact.

As so often, Johnson then began to get bored with saying the same stuff he had said the day before and the day before that. So he just ad-libbed. The Commons chamber is really only an extension of the Oxford Union for him, with Tory backbenchers merely fawning acolytes. If anything, his contempt for his own MPs exceeds that for the opposition. There was no apology for breaking a commitment he had made to leave – “do or die” – by 31 October. Just a long moan about how difficult Brexit had become. It was the most passionate argument in favour of remain anyone was to make all day."
Click to expand...
Yes, his well described ‘character failings’ aside, he is an utterly dreadful speaker. The hectoring, staccato trips off into the rhetorical undergrowth make him sound like the petulant adolescent who’s been caught out again. He’s going to be even worse on the campaign trail, which is great.

what you see is what you get,



 
Early days of the campaign and I'm smelling 'dither and delay' as this year's 'strong and stable'. Quite a stench coming off that one so I expect it to feature strongly.

Perhaps also an early whiff around 'the people's policies', which sounded unnaturally clumsy when used by Matt Hancock so likely they've been directed to chuck it in frequently.

'The people's policies' means let's forget about the Brexit mess which we've totally caused and concentrate on reversing the cuts which we've totally caused.

They really are shameless.
 
Woodface said:
He was elected 3 times, if only Corbyn could be as average.
Click to expand...

It's important to recognise the politics is dynamic. In 97 the Tories and melted like the Wicked Witch of the West as a result of their divisions over Europe and their total sleaze. Frankly anybody would have won in 97, certainly I think John Smith would have won convincingly, and without the removal of Clause IV from the rulebook. It's an entirely different prospect today, Labour has not recovered completely from the End of the Blair/Brown era in the eyes of the 'public', especially the older generations, and the way that they allowed the blame for the worldwide recession to stick to the Labour Party. Corbyn's had the additional problem of having to fight the stinking remnants of that era i.e., those MPs who remain in the PLP, thanks to Blair's rigid control of the selection process. The polarisation that's happened over Brexit hasn't allowed space for a more thoughtful solution to gain support over the simplistic black and white. I certainly don't think a new Blair would go onto beat BJ.
 
I'll vote Labour, but they won't get a majority. The combination of Tory newspapers and biased broadcaster, plus the many racists and nationalists in the country, ensures this.

The Lib-Dems keep saying they won't do a deal with Corbyn. They don't however say they won't do a deal with Johnson, if there is a hung Parliament. I reckon they want to gain a few more seats and to get into a coalition with the Tories, if they can amend his Brexit deal a bit. Swinson is Aunty Austerity at heart and is, to be frank, ugly.

Jack
 
gavreid said:
It's important to recognise the politics is dynamic. In 97 the Tories and melted like the Wicked Witch of the West as a result of their divisions over Europe and their total sleaze. Frankly anybody would have won in 97, certainly I think John Smith would have won convincingly, and without the removal of Clause IV from the rulebook. It's an entirely different prospect today, Labour has not recovered completely from the End of the Blair/Brown era in the eyes of the 'public', especially the older generations, and the way that they allowed the blame for the worldwide recession to stick to the Labour Party. Corbyn's had the additional problem of having to fight the stinking remnants of that era i.e., those MPs who remain in the PLP, thanks to Blair's rigid control of the selection process. The polarisation that's happened over Brexit hasn't allowed space for a more thoughtful solution to gain support over the simplistic black and white. I certainly don't think a new Blair would go onto beat BJ.
Click to expand...
I remember feeling at the time that Labour would never be in power again, I recall the day Major was elected as a particular low. Smith may well have won, I really liked him but you have to give TB credit for his victories.

I've tended to support whoever Labour have as leader but have liked Corbyn the least.
 
TheDecameron said:
Blair is one of the EUluminati, which explains why EV is so activated at the mention of him.
Click to expand...
He's a big chem-trails/lizard people/hollow earth man, ET, loves a good conspiracy theory. Anyone ever seen him and Icke in the same room together? I rest my case.
 
A rather splendid blog post by David Allan Green copied below,
He states quite correctly that the current parliament has actually been very effective by reflecting the differences in opinion and lack of majority for pretty much any or no kind of Brexit. Will of the people is and always has been a fiction used by the unscrupulous for their own ends.


"The United Kingdom is not leaving the European Union tomorrow, by automatic operation of law or otherwise.
The United Kingdom will be having a general election instead, on 12 December 2019 (assuming the current Bill before parliament is enacted).
There is now an Article 50 extension in place until 31 January 2019, although the United Kingdom can depart earlier if the withdrawal agreement is concluded.
What can those with an interest in the law and policy aspects of Brexit make of this general election?

Firstly, it shows that the priority for the current government is not to "get Brexit done".
The government had recently obtained a second reading from Members of Parliament for its Withdrawal Agreement Bill.
This was a significant moment, as it meant that the House of Commons, for the first time since the 2016 referendum, had voted positively in respect of Brexit.

Until then there had been a majority for avoiding No Deal but not for any positive version of a Deal.
A Withdrawal Agreement Bill given a second reading is more likely than not to proceed to a third reading, although there would no doubt have been amendments.
A reasonable period of time would have been needed for proper scrutiny, say of about a month or so.
With a fair parliamentary wind, all the stages of the Bill could have been completed by, say, mid-December.
In other words, there could realistically have been a Withdrawal Amendment Act in place by the date of the general election.
But this government, which supposedly wants to "get Brexit done", has chosen to have a general election instead, and so will lose valuable weeks in which the Bill could have been scrutinised and Brexit achieved.

This demonstrates that the current government's priority cannot be to "get Brexit done".

Second, it means the end of the parliament elected in 2017.
This will be a shame, as it has been a parliament that has become unafraid to stand up to the executive and feisty in its independence.
The people may have voted for Brexit in 2016 but the people also voted in 2017 for Brexit to be delivered by means of a hung parliament.
Both were, in their ways, the "will of the people".
And if the contention is that the people somehow got their vote wrong in 2017 and should have returned a parliament with an overall majority, then one can also contend that their 2016 vote should be revisited too.

Nobody can predict the result of the next general election, but it would appear that many of the strongly independent elements (and individuals) in this current parliament will not be in place.
The 2017-19 parliament will be missed.

And third, it is probably sensible that there is now a general election, despite the points made above.
The 2017-19 parliament had gone as far as it could go.
The current parliament may be commendably irreverent, but it is not in a position to do the one thing which is now required with Brexit, regardless of one's perspective on its merits.
The current parliament cannot address the fundamental problem of Brexit: that is, whether the current Deal is the appropriate means of giving effect to the 2016 mandate, or whether that mandate needs revisiting?
And by implication: does there need to be a referendum, to confirm (or reaffirm) either/or the 2016 mandate and the Deal?
The MPs elected in 2017 are not in the position to ask this question let alone answer it, as they are trapped by their 2017 election promises.
There are not the numbers for a referendum - and there are not the numbers for anything other than support the current Deal on offer.
The 2017-19 parliament was exactly what was needed following the 52:48 referendum result - forcing politicians to compromise and work with other parties.
But a new parliament is needed to look at Brexit afresh and ask if the current Deal is the best way forward.
The December general election result may be a Conservative majority, or there may be a majority for parties that support a further referendum in some form (or even straight revocation).

And for Remainers, a general election is a risk - but a risk to be set aside the near-certainty that the current House of Commons which has passed the current Withdrawal Agreement Bill in principle will eventually pass it overall.
The December election in other words is the Remainers' last chance.
That the current government even wants to give Remainers this opportunity is rather odd".
 
jackbarron said:
I'll vote Labour, but they won't get a majority. The combination of Tory newspapers and biased broadcaster, plus the many racists and nationalists in the country, ensures this.

The Lib-Dems keep saying they won't do a deal with Corbyn. They don't however say they won't do a deal with Johnson, if there is a hung Parliament. I reckon they want to gain a few more seats and to get into a coalition with the Tories, if they can amend his Brexit deal a bit. Swinson is Aunty Austerity at heart and is, to be frank, ugly.

Jack
Click to expand...

Good man ;) It's going to be close. Labour can't win comfortably given the strength of the SNP but the Tories only have to be prevented from gaining a majority. Labour could operate a minority Government because the SNP couldn't vote it down and retain credibility, the cost to Labour will be to enable a 2nd referendum (on Scotland) of course. Where that goes wrong is if the Lib Dems make gains at the expense of Labour and re-join the Tories, I don't think that could happen, but I'm sure people don't realise just how bad the lib-dems have become. The way to prevent the possibility is not to vote lib-dem as you quite rightly say...
 
My local MP - a Tory - will walk the vote come the GE; this leaves me completely disenfranchised by a futile system during the UK's most significant political period for generations. Great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top