Paid Members JNLister Posted September 5, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted September 5, 2019 I do wonder how successful the "Corbyn's scared of an election" attacks will be electorally. Yes, they might land with some people now, but it's going to be a bit of a redundant point once an election is actually happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted September 5, 2019 Moderators Share Posted September 5, 2019 Yeah. It's not like the whole 'May is too shook to debate' thing which worked because she is not good at campaigning. Corbyn loves that shit (as long as it's not campaigning for the Remain vote....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfoote Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 I wonder if deep down. Boris is glad of the delay to an election. Given his chosen date was changed, due to someone not checking the Jewish calendar. Corbyn may relish campaigning, but I think so does Boris. Re: the amendment from Kinnock to bring May's deal back to the chamber. Many seemed to think it was a fuck up, but is it not more plausible the Gov refused to put up tellers for a division, allowing it through by "a technicality"; giving BJ a ready made excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chilly McFreeze Posted September 5, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted September 5, 2019 34 minutes ago, bigfoote said: I wonder if deep down. Boris is glad of the delay to an election. Given his chosen date was changed, due to someone not checking the Jewish calendar. Corbyn may relish campaigning, but I think so does Boris. Re: the amendment from Kinnock to bring May's deal back to the chamber. Many seemed to think it was a fuck up, but is it not more plausible the Gov refused to put up tellers for a division, allowing it through by "a technicality"; giving BJ a ready made excuse. Actually it was being reported the teller 'mistake' by the Government was to try and get an amendment added that would force Labour to vote down the bill entirely. But Labour's lawyers didn't deem it legally significant so the skullduggery failed anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted September 5, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted September 5, 2019 Another theory is the Government hoped the Lords would take out the amendment, which would have added an extra day where it had to go back to the Commons for approval rather than go straight into law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted September 5, 2019 Moderators Share Posted September 5, 2019 Is there any other legal tricks they can pull now to try to chew the clock out to the start of the suspension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted September 5, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted September 5, 2019 What a shambles. If this was cricket, the Tories are taking 3 minutes over every delivery and Labour are leaving most of them and taking the occassional single. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 2 hours ago, JNLister said: I do wonder how successful the "Corbyn's scared of an election" attacks will be electorally. Yes, they might land with some people now, but it's going to be a bit of a redundant point once an election is actually happening. It would have probably been effective if Johnson wasn't being so transparent. He was practically begging Corbyn for an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted September 5, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted September 5, 2019 Clickbait listicle shit notwithstanding, Buzzfeed UK does some excellent politics explainers. This is today's on the utterly batshit range of what happens next options:Â https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/i-saw-14000605-brexit-futures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Re: Corbyn. Nice to see four years of endless media bombardment hasn't gone to waste. Cameron was the first one to suggest that he "just go. " Alas, Dipshit Dave followed his own advice after the referendum and left the country to swim for 3+ years in a river of shit that he created. Then we had the chicken coup, unfortunately for the PLP it didn't quite work out as they hoped. May pissed her majority into the tip after starting out 25 points ahead in the polls, had to bribe the DUP to stay in power and was finally made to "just go" by her own party a few months back when her deal got fucked off by the commons three times. Now he's against Johnson, who leads a minority government, can't get anything through parliament, and is being publicly humiliated on a daily basis by people on all sides, not least by one man - Corbyn - who added 3.5 million votes to the Labour total in 2017. So, given Corbyn's political toxicity to the electorate really hasn't changed since day 1, I take umbrage with the idea that he needs to "just go." I dunno if he can win an election outright, or if he'd end up in a coalition. I think he's trying to show that you can take on Murdoch, Rothermere, the BBC, and the rest, suffer years of sustained media-driven abuse and still reach the millions of people marginalised by a decade of austerity, wage repression, rising poverty and cuts to public spending, and maybe come out on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 He's outlasted two (as of typing) PM's and I've lost count how many party leaders. And he's only been party leader four years. Mental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 46 minutes ago, hallicks said: Re: Corbyn. Nice to see four years of endless media bombardment hasn't gone to waste. Cameron was the first one to suggest that he "just go. " Alas, Dipshit Dave followed his own advice after the referendum and left the country to swim for 3+ years in a river of shit that he created. Then we had the chicken coup, unfortunately for the PLP it didn't quite work out as they hoped. May pissed her majority into the tip after starting out 25 points ahead in the polls, had to bribe the DUP to stay in power and was finally made to "just go" by her own party a few months back when her deal got fucked off by the commons three times. Now he's against Johnson, who leads a minority government, can't get anything through parliament, and is being publicly humiliated on a daily basis by people on all sides, not least by one man - Corbyn - who added 3.5 million votes to the Labour total in 2017. So, given Corbyn's political toxicity to the electorate really hasn't changed since day 1, I take umbrage with the idea that he needs to "just go." I dunno if he can win an election outright, or if he'd end up in a coalition. I think he's trying to show that you can take on Murdoch, Rothermere, the BBC, and the rest, suffer years of sustained media-driven abuse and still reach the millions of people marginalised by a decade of austerity, wage repression, rising poverty and cuts to public spending, and maybe come out on top. Sure.  But the alternative story there is that over 4 years of the most self-destructive, incompetent, minority government in anyone's lifetime, he's managed to get precisely nowhere in the polls.  Being a lovely cuddly magic grandpa means nothing if you can't form a government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Loki said: Sure.  But the alternative story there is that over 4 years of the most self-destructive, incompetent, minority government in anyone's lifetime, he's managed to get precisely nowhere in the polls.  Being a lovely cuddly magic grandpa means nothing if you can't form a government. They weren't a minority government when he took over. Biggest increase in labour vote since 1945 is nowhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Yes, yes it is. Â In 1997 Tony Blair won 418 seats on a 10% swing from Tory to Labour. Â 2017 Corbyn managed a 10% swing and won 262 seats. Â Corbyn's appeal is large, but narrow, and that doesn't win elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Anyone can win an election with the approval of Uncle Rupe, as proven by every single one between 1979-2015. First time an approved candidate didn't win outright was against Corbyn. Maybe he won't win the next one, but it'll be because so-called "leftist" media outlets like the guardian shat the fucking bed when presented with pea-sized amount of socialism as much as anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.