Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson is putting the CTF band together the last tim

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited October 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Boris Johnson is putting the CTF band together the last time they worked together he was massively overstated in the polls

The Times reported earlier on this week that

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 30,975
    First! Unlike Boris....
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    A classy polemic by USA Today.

    "Trump has managed to insert himself, and his signature brand of contempt and malice, into the most important institution in American government that he had not yet soiled. We already knew that everything Trump touches becomes debased, putrescent. Now his poison touch has infected the Supreme Court, and its venomous effects on the court may persist long after his presidency, even perhaps for as long as his new 53-year-old justice serves."

    avanaugh-confirmed-ugly-win-trump-and-republicans-column/1547362002/
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    edited October 7
    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    The article, as they usually are, is well written and interesting but I'm not sure I can really get on board with the conclusion. Boris being overstated in the London Mayoral race 6 years ago isn't really all that indicative to me that the Conservative party under him would be similarly overstated. There may be other good reasons.

    Even if he is someone who would make the Conservative party overstated in polls that is a quite minor flaw. On purely electoral terms then Boris winning or drawing whilst being overstated is still better than a rival candidate who might be very accurately judged but draws or loses.

    I'm not sure if Boris is the best choice electorally or not but if he is then this flaw is unimportant.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,225

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
    What on earth does Tony Blair have to do with polling or anyone’s electoral prospects nowadays?

    I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.

    ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’

    Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,225
    edited October 7
    God save us and bless us, we’ve got some odd posts this morning!

    Later Edit......The one that astounded me has been removed!!!!!
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    edited October 7

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
    What on earth does Tony Blair have to do with polling or anyone’s electoral prospects nowadays?

    I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.

    ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’

    Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
    I don't want that to come across as any kind of defence of Boris.

    You get a holier than thou attitude from some centrists who like to pretend that everyone either side of them is bad whilst they are purer than the driven snow. Which is a bit hypocritical when mixed in with a rant about closeness to a US president who is a bad person.

    One of the causes of the collapse of the centre is a complete lack of self awareness from some in the centre.

    If you wanted an on topic post then my first post is probably more what you are looking for...

    Edit: In regards to Boris prospects I'm slightly negative on them. I do think they have been harmed somewhat but I still wouldn't rule him out. If he gets to the members he has a good chance but I do struggle to see the Conservative MPs putting him on the final ballot.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,463
    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,857
    edited October 7
    Packaging up tarnished yesterday's man?

    Back then, he was capable of being all things to all people, everybody's friend.

    Back then, it was at least possible to imagine he might one day be able to step up to the responsibility of senior government office.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: quite an eventful race. Be interesting to see how much I forget to include in the write up.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
    What on earth does Tony Blair have to do with polling or anyone’s electoral prospects nowadays?

    I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.

    ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’

    Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
    It's actually quite revealing. He may have been gone for over a decade, but it's the Blairites rather than the Tories that the Corbynites are after.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
    What on earth does Tony Blair have to do with polling or anyone’s electoral prospects nowadays?

    I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.

    ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’

    Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
    It's actually quite revealing. He may have been gone for over a decade, but it's the Blairites rather than the Tories that the Corbynites are after.
    Don't they see that as a theoretical distinction?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    ydoethur said:

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
    What on earth does Tony Blair have to do with polling or anyone’s electoral prospects nowadays?

    I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.

    ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’

    Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
    It's actually quite revealing. He may have been gone for over a decade, but it's the Blairites rather than the Tories that the Corbynites are after.
    Don't they see that as a theoretical distinction?
    In terms of spleen vented, it's clear that to them Blairites are far worse.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    ydoethur said:

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
    What on earth does Tony Blair have to do with polling or anyone’s electoral prospects nowadays?

    I get the impression that Boris’ ship has sailed; a bit like the late Tony Benn when he failed to be elected as Deputy Leader and indeed temporarily lost his seat in Parliament.

    ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken on the flood leads on to fortune.........And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.’

    Boris chickened out after the Referendum, made a bog of being FS and that is going to be that.
    It's actually quite revealing. He may have been gone for over a decade, but it's the Blairites rather than the Tories that the Corbynites are after.
    Don't they see that as a theoretical distinction?
    In terms of spleen vented, it's clear that to them Blairites are far worse.
    No man shall be so odious and disdained as the traitor, who hath sold his Party to a Straunger?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    IanB2 said:

    Packaging up tarnished yesterday's man?

    Back then, he was capable of being all things to all people, everybody's friend.

    Back then, it was at least possible to imagine he might one day be able to step up to the responsibility of senior government office.

    Seen as his supporters aren't here...

    On the flip side he is the only Conservative (JRM maybe) that has any kind of celebrity to him. Boris can draw a crowd by being Boris. He is one of the few with passionate supporters.

    I am tempted by the idea of facing of against him as a Labour supporter but I think it is a tough one to judge, he would likely rally people for the Conservatives and put them off the Conservatives.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,186
    ydoethur said:



    No man shall be so odious and disdained as the traitor, who hath sold his Party to a Straunger?

    On the other hand and as Bauvard observed: If you can't change the world then change yourself. The world needs traitors.
  • Boris is a good laugh on a panel show, but he ain't no Prime Minister. Then again, of the current crop of politicians of all sides, who is?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,463
    Corbyn v Boris would be an interesting GE.
    What would the so called centrist third way people do ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:



    No man shall be so odious and disdained as the traitor, who hath sold his Party to a Straunger?

    On the other hand and as Bauvard observed: If you can't change the world then change yourself. The world needs traitors.
    Indeed yes. Where would the United States be without Washington?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    Yorkcity said:

    Corbyn v Boris would be an interesting GE.
    What would the so called centrist third way people do ?

    The pressure (and opportunity) for a new centrist party would then be immense. A good 50% of the population would find either unacceptable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    Boris is a good laugh on a panel show, but he ain't no Prime Minister. Then again, of the current crop of politicians of all sides, who is?

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,575
    edited October 7
    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    40 or so MP headbangers does not the party make.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Though we do need to note that BoJo was running then as a liberal Conservative, advocating such things as an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile Ken was the incumbent, and thereby Boris got the "kick them out" vote that affects long standing tired regimes.

    Then we have the interesting Quasi AV system for London that forces choice between the top two parties. That will not apply to a GE.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099

    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

    Would be nice if you spent a little less time attacking your own side.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    F1: post-race analysis here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/japan-post-race-analysis-2018.html

    Contains spoilers and mild regret.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,225
    edited October 7
    A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again.
    It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099
    Yorkcity said:

    Corbyn v Boris would be an interesting GE.
    What would the so called centrist third way people do ?

    Depends entirely on the circumstances. We do know that 40% for Corbyn is achievable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    Roger said:

    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.

    It's a tough one. Let's start with the similarities. Both are incompetent. Both are where they are due to family links rather than talent. Both have performed poorly in executive office. Both are brilliant campaigners. Both are darlings to their party bases and anathema to the other side. Both are dishonest and populistic in approach. Neither has any grasp of basic economic or geopolitical reality. Both are widely rumoured to have voted in the referendum against their own official campaigns. Both are essentially Londoners and are profoundly ignorant of the rest of the country.

    Now the differences. Boris is selfish, arrogant, greedy and utterly ruthless. Corbyn isn't selfish or greedy, and he has shown no inclination to unnecessary butchery, but he is malicious and vindictive. In all likelihood Boris would struggle to put together a cabinet. Corbyn has already failed to do so, but in the event of winning an election might be able to tempt some waverers back to the front line. Boris is undoubtedly intelligent, but has no empathy and lacks judgement. Corbyn is very far from intelligent, but his ability to tug people's emotions is rivalled only by Blair's. Boris has a sense of humour and the ability to make jokes off the cuff disarming his opponents. I'm struggling to think of a time I've seen him really angry in public. Corbyn is rather pompous and quickly gets rattled when people probe the weaknesses of his arguments, displaying a fiery temper.

    To be honest, I don't think there's a lot to choose between them. Therefore, in the fairly unlikely event that Boris won the leadership, it might come down to the fact that nobody would expect him to hold it for long as the Tories would defenestrate him at the first reasonable excuse. Meanwhile, we have already seen that Corbyn cannot be removed without his co-operation. Therefore, we would be stuck with PM Corbyn but might not have to put up with PM Johnson for long.

    I think that might be enough to tip the balance, but what an awful choice. It would make Clinton v Trump look like Gladstone v Disraeli.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,102
    Roger said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
    According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.

    Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    edited October 7

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    Foxy said:

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Though we do need to note that BoJo was running then as a liberal Conservative, advocating such things as an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Meanwhile Ken was the incumbent, and thereby Boris got the "kick them out" vote that affects long standing tired regimes.

    Then we have the interesting Quasi AV system for London that forces choice between the top two parties. That will not apply to a GE.

    In 2012 Johnson was the incumbent and the Tories were in power.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    edited October 7

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


    As a word isn't 'propaganda' rather redolent of the early 20th Century? As it happens, I'm more interested in analysis than pushing any particular party. I'm not keen on any of them, and genuinely don't now how I'll vote at the next election - though for the record, I voted Labour in every GE from 1983 onwards.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Surely the aim is not to justify, merely to obscure?

    In many ways it's a tribute to Blair. Second only to Thatcher in his influence on modern politics.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    F1 fact: if Force India had kept their points upon takeover, they'd be ahead of Renault, and best of the rest. Again.

    Shocking that a team that finished 4th in two consecutive years and had the pace to do so a third time almost went under due to financial pressure.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    Jonathan said:

    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

    Would be nice if you spent a little less time attacking your own side.

    I am not on Jezziah’s side. I oppose all forms of racism equally and unreservedly. I believe that sustainable wealth redistribution is dependent on sustainable wealth creation. We have very little in common beyond the fact we’d never vote Tory.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,186
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.

    It's a tough one. Let's start with the similarities. Both are incompetent. Both are where they are due to family links rather than talent. Both have performed poorly in executive office. Both are brilliant campaigners. Both are darlings to their party bases and anathema to the other side. Both are dishonest and populistic in approach. Neither has any grasp of basic economic or geopolitical reality. Both are widely rumoured to have voted in the referendum against their own official campaigns. Both are essentially Londoners and are profoundly ignorant of the rest of the country.

    Now the differences. Boris is selfish, arrogant, greedy and utterly ruthless. Corbyn isn't selfish or greedy, and he has shown no inclination to unnecessary butchery, but he is malicious and vindictive. In all likelihood Boris would struggle to put together a cabinet. Corbyn has already failed to do so, but in the event of winning an election might be able to tempt some waverers back to the front line. Boris is undoubtedly intelligent, but has no empathy and lacks judgement. Corbyn is very far from intelligent, but his ability to tug people's emotions is rivalled only by Blair's. Boris has a sense of humour and the ability to make jokes off the cuff disarming his opponents. I'm struggling to think of a time I've seen him really angry in public. Corbyn is rather pompous and quickly gets rattled when people probe the weaknesses of his arguments, displaying a fiery temper.

    To be honest, I don't think there's a lot to choose between them. Therefore, in the fairly unlikely event that Boris won the leadership, it might come down to the fact that nobody would expect him to hold it for long as the Tories would defenestrate him at the first reasonable excuse. Meanwhile, we have already seen that Corbyn cannot be removed without his co-operation. Therefore, we would be stuck with PM Corbyn but might not have to put up with PM Johnson for long.

    I think that might be enough to tip the balance, but what an awful choice. It would make Clinton v Trump look like Gladstone v Disraeli.
    Good summary. A Boris vs Jez GE campaign is exactly the sort of bloodsport and tragicomic theatre that the common shitmunchers like. See also: Love Island and that recent Bearded Tinker vs Mad Dagestani (who looks fucking nails, I'll grant) MMA thing that I don't really understand.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    Jonathan said:

    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

    Would be nice if you spent a little less time attacking your own side.
    I made an effort to put some centrists, I didn't mention Blairites but I would have also used the same qualifier there.

    Many people who come under the label Blairite, centrist or any other similar label the criticisms are not aimed at because they are not guilty of them.

    For example Fox (at least I think it was) criticised some in the remain (or peoples vote) campaign the other day. Not because he hates them, but because he felt the criticism is justified.



  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099

    Jonathan said:

    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

    Would be nice if you spent a little less time attacking your own side.

    I am not on Jezziah’s side. I oppose all forms of racism equally and unreservedly. I believe that sustainable wealth redistribution is dependent on sustainable wealth creation. We have very little in common beyond the fact we’d never vote Tory.

    I wasn’t talking to you. :-)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

    Would be nice if you spent a little less time attacking your own side.

    I am not on Jezziah’s side. I oppose all forms of racism equally and unreservedly. I believe that sustainable wealth redistribution is dependent on sustainable wealth creation. We have very little in common beyond the fact we’d never vote Tory.

    I wasn’t talking to you. :-)

    Fair enough!!

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,256

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


    As a word isn't 'propaganda' rather redolent of the early 20th Century? As it happens, I'm more interested in analysis than pushing any particular party. I'm not keen on any of them, and genuinely don't now how I'll vote at the next election - though for the record, I voted Labour in every GE from 1983 onwards.
    Democracy doesn't work unless voters make a considered judgement. So well done for doing it properly. I usually come down on the Labour side but I have voted for all five of the serious national parties except UKIP at some point. I can't see myself ever voting Conservative again though. But I'll keep an open mind.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    Jonathan said:

    My ire is for hypocrites.

    Ranting about a man being close to a terrible US president whilst you were a supporter of and voter for Tony Blair is hypocritical.

    That some in the centre can't even acknowledge that is part of the self awareness I was talking about.

    Would be nice if you spent a little less time attacking your own side.
    I made an effort to put some centrists, I didn't mention Blairites but I would have also used the same qualifier there.

    Many people who come under the label Blairite, centrist or any other similar label the criticisms are not aimed at because they are not guilty of them.

    For example Fox (at least I think it was) criticised some in the remain (or peoples vote) campaign the other day. Not because he hates them, but because he felt the criticism is justified.



    Just by way of a reminder this is what you said:

    'Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention'


    While we're on the subject, why the quote marks round 'dastardly'? I don't recall Blair ever calling it that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,857
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.

    It's a tough one. Let's start with the similarities. Both are incompetent. Both are where they are due to family links rather than talent. Both have performed poorly in executive office. Both are brilliant campaigners. Both are darlings to their party bases and anathema to the other side. Both are dishonest and populistic in approach. Neither has any grasp of basic economic or geopolitical reality. Both are widely rumoured to have voted in the referendum against their own official campaigns. Both are essentially Londoners and are profoundly ignorant of the rest of the country.

    Now the differences. Boris is selfish, arrogant, greedy and utterly ruthless. Corbyn isn't selfish or greedy, and he has shown no inclination to unnecessary butchery, but he is malicious and vindictive. In all likelihood Boris would struggle to put together a cabinet. Corbyn has already failed to do so, but in the event of winning an election might be able to tempt some waverers back to the front line. Boris is undoubtedly intelligent, but has no empathy and lacks judgement. Corbyn is very far from intelligent, but his ability to tug people's emotions is rivalled only by Blair's. Boris has a sense of humour and the ability to make jokes off the cuff disarming his opponents. I'm struggling to think of a time I've seen him really angry in public. Corbyn is rather pompous and quickly gets rattled when people probe the weaknesses of his arguments, displaying a fiery temper.

    To be honest, I don't think there's a lot to choose between them. Therefore, in the fairly unlikely event that Boris won the leadership, it might come down to the fact that nobody would expect him to hold it for long as the Tories would defenestrate him at the first reasonable excuse. Meanwhile, we have already seen that Corbyn cannot be removed without his co-operation. Therefore, we would be stuck with PM Corbyn but might not have to put up with PM Johnson for long.

    I think that might be enough to tip the balance, but what an awful choice. It would make Clinton v Trump look like Gladstone v Disraeli.
    An interesting and insightful post. Although getting rid of Tory leaders, especially when in power, isn't as easy as once it was.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


    As a word isn't 'propaganda' rather redolent of the early 20th Century? As it happens, I'm more interested in analysis than pushing any particular party. I'm not keen on any of them, and genuinely don't now how I'll vote at the next election - though for the record, I voted Labour in every GE from 1983 onwards.
    I use the word propaganda quite freely, I almost feel it is more honest then using words like spin or getting into details about selectively choosing information. Basically presenting information in a certain way to benefit a certain view.

    Basically put it is hard to argue firstly that the left/Corbynistas care more about attacking the Blairites than the Tories whilst also arguing those people should stay and continue to undermine the left/Corbynistas to get rid of them.

    The obvious result would be that the left/Corbynistas would need to actually fight the Blairites in order to try and defeat the Tories, ignoring those trying to bring you down internally (as you proposed) would only help the Tories electorally.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    Mrs Foxy was at a WI event last night, and hers is a fairly traditional "Jam and Jerusalem" one. She was much surprised when the conversation turned to Brexit how Tory matron after matron just wanted it to go away. No love of the EU, but rather sick of hearing of it day in, day out, and sick of the Brexiteers in particular.

    With a Blind Brexit imminent, and interminable arguing afterwards over FTA and Customs Union, they are going to be sicker of it still.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


    As a word isn't 'propaganda' rather redolent of the early 20th Century? As it happens, I'm more interested in analysis than pushing any particular party. I'm not keen on any of them, and genuinely don't now how I'll vote at the next election - though for the record, I voted Labour in every GE from 1983 onwards.
    I use the word propaganda quite freely, I almost feel it is more honest then using words like spin or getting into details about selectively choosing information. Basically presenting information in a certain way to benefit a certain view.

    Basically put it is hard to argue firstly that the left/Corbynistas care more about attacking the Blairites than the Tories whilst also arguing those people should stay and continue to undermine the left/Corbynistas to get rid of them.

    The obvious result would be that the left/Corbynistas would need to actually fight the Blairites in order to try and defeat the Tories, ignoring those trying to bring you down internally (as you proposed) would only help the Tories electorally.
    I think we've identified the heart of the problem: your loose use of language.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677
    edited October 7
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.

    It's a tough one. Let's start with the similarities. Both are incompetent. Both are where they are due to family links rather than talent. Both have performed poorly in executive office. Both are brilliant campaigners. Both are darlings to their party bases and anathema to the other side. Both are dishonest and populistic in approach. Neither has any grasp of basic economic or geopolitical reality. Both are widely rumoured to have voted in the referendum against their own official campaigns. Both are essentially Londoners and are profoundly ignorant of the rest of the country.

    Now the differences. Boris is selfish, arrogant, greedy and utterly ruthless. Corbyn isn't selfish or greedy, and he has shown no inclination to unnecessary butchery, but he is malicious and vindictive. In all likelihood Boris would struggle to put together a cabinet. Corbyn has already failed to do so, but in the event of winning an election might be able to tempt some waverers back to the front line. Boris is undoubtedly intelligent, but has no empathy and lacks judgement. Corbyn is very far from intelligent, but his ability to tug people's emotions is rivalled only by Blair's. Boris has a sense of humour and the ability to make jokes off the cuff disarming his opponents. I'm struggling to think of a time I've seen him really angry in public. Corbyn is rather pompous and quickly gets rattled when people probe the weaknesses of his arguments, displaying a fiery temper.

    To be honest, I don't think there's a lot to choose between them. Therefore, in the fairly unlikely event that Boris won the leadership, it might come down to the fact that nobody would expect him to hold it for long as the Tories would defenestrate him at the first reasonable excuse. Meanwhile, we have already seen that Corbyn cannot be removed without his co-operation. Therefore, we would be stuck with PM Corbyn but might not have to put up with PM Johnson for long.

    I think that might be enough to tip the balance, but what an awful choice. It would make Clinton v Trump look like Gladstone v Disraeli.
    An interesting and insightful post. Although getting rid of Tory leaders, especially when in power, isn't as easy as once it was.
    If Boris was forced on an unwilling Parliamentary party, a succesful No Confidence vote at the first decent excuse would prevent him standing again. An interesting scenario.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,372
    Theresa May’s pitch to Labour supporters isn’t a pitch to Labour supporters. It’s a pitch to Tory Remainers that no matter how awful they might consider the current government the alternatives might be worse without saying so directly.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.

    Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677

    Theresa May’s pitch to Labour supporters isn’t a pitch to Labour supporters. It’s a pitch to Tory Remainers that no matter how awful they might consider the current government the alternatives might be worse without saying so directly.

    Yes, and LD voters, though these are unlikely to vote for the party of Brexit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    Yorkcity said:

    Corbyn v Boris would be an interesting GE.
    What would the so called centrist third way people do ?

    There aren't that many of them, despite the claims, so whatever they do it'll likely not prove that important.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


    As a word isn't 'propaganda' rather redolent of the early 20th Century? As it happens, I'm more interested in analysis than pushing any particular party. I'm not keen on any of them, and genuinely don't now how I'll vote at the next election - though for the record, I voted Labour in every GE from 1983 onwards.
    I use the word propaganda quite freely, I almost feel it is more honest then using words like spin or getting into details about selectively choosing information. Basically presenting information in a certain way to benefit a certain view.

    Basically put it is hard to argue firstly that the left/Corbynistas care more about attacking the Blairites than the Tories whilst also arguing those people should stay and continue to undermine the left/Corbynistas to get rid of them.

    The obvious result would be that the left/Corbynistas would need to actually fight the Blairites in order to try and defeat the Tories, ignoring those trying to bring you down internally (as you proposed) would only help the Tories electorally.
    I think we've identified the heart of the problem: your loose use of language.
    It isn't a misuse of the word, simply a slightly more inclusive usage than the average person. A quick double check online showed definitions matching my use. It allows you to easily acknowledge that it occurs on all sides as everyone partakes in it rather than develop a mindset that your opponents are the only ones who do so.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 691

    A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again.
    It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.

    As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    The, as it now seems, likely Brexit deal will be an interesting test of that. I very much doubt Corbyn will be able to get all his MPs to vote it down (there'll be a lot of abstentions), which means he'll have lost the chance of a GE, and the moderates will have a further three years to get rid of him.
    Based on their last 2 years of success I am not exactly worried...

    Also doesn't this kind of kill your propaganda lines?

    Accusing the left of just wanting to get the Blairites whilst plotting the Blairites attempt to overthrow the left from the party.

    Isn't it just a little lacking in.... self awareness?


    As a word isn't 'propaganda' rather redolent of the early 20th Century? As it happens, I'm more interested in analysis than pushing any particular party. I'm not keen on any of them, and genuinely don't now how I'll vote at the next election - though for the record, I voted Labour in every GE from 1983 onwards.
    People who voted labour all their lives, even represented the party in parliament for decades, are finding out they are not really labour according to some people now, it's quite fascinating.

    The Tories aren't immune from that phenomenon, but one side is not as much in the ascendancy, though it is cleAR which side is the biggest.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,677
    kle4 said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Corbyn v Boris would be an interesting GE.
    What would the so called centrist third way people do ?

    There aren't that many of them, despite the claims, so whatever they do it'll likely not prove that important.
    Vote for the party mot likely to mean that neither Boris nor Jezza could form a majority government. That may vary with geography and local politics.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 1,728
    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
    I suspect Mogg is the only Tory that would contrive to lose to Corbyn and even that would be close. Corbyn really is their ace card. Ironically with a different leader and the same policies Labour would have a decent shout but Corbyn just has far too much baggage and far too many skeletons in his cupboard. Unfortunately it will take another election defeat for that to register with the cult.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    Jezziah

    OK. I noted your use of the more loaded term, 'propaganda', over a more neutral one, 'position', say. You also described my analysis that moderates would try to get rid of Corbyn as something I had 'proposed'. That is just not the same thing.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    edited October 7

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.

    Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.

    Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with the point. Although it probably sums up the problem with some (not you or many others Johnathon) centrists, everyone else is evil but don't question us isn't the world's greatest sales pitch.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,395
    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
    According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.

    Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
    Opinium trashed Boris v TM yesterday
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.

    Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.

    Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with your hypocritical criticism of Boris.

    And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202

    Theresa May’s pitch to Labour supporters isn’t a pitch to Labour supporters. It’s a pitch to Tory Remainers that no matter how awful they might consider the current government the alternatives might be worse without saying so directly.

    Why on earth would anyone who is opposed to xenophobic, hard right, English nationalism vote Tory? It’s like asking those opposed to all forms of racism to vote Labour.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    I don't buy that. People may say they just want it over with but that won't prevent strong reactions against actions to conclude thus phase if they are seen as negative.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    The problem would be that a deal that offers the prospect of ending the whole saga would be what the majority of voters (whether they were remain or leave) want. So voting it down, and thereby precipitating a GE, would not put Labour in a strong position going into an election called because of Brexit.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552
    edited October 7

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.

    Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.

    Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with your hypocritical criticism of Boris.

    And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.

    Only a couple of posts back I pointed out that it was your criticism of Boris I was pointing out as hypocritical.

    "Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"

    Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,186
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,395
    On Ridge on Sunday, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of M15, comments on Corbyn and how he has enthusiastically associated with groups and interests who are not friends of the UK and warning of his political past
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 1,728

    Mr. Nashe, that should be so.

    But Labour MPs will keep wibbling and keep supporting Corbyn. Tribal loyalty will keep them in line, and fear of kinder, gentler politics will help keep Conservative support strong too.

    There would be a golden opportunity for a new party, but the prime membership would have to come from the left, and they won't do it.

    Our electoral system is a blunt instrument that makes new parties very difficult to establish. UKIP and SNP were only able to flourish because of PR elections.

    Sadly Westminster politics will be all about gaining control of either of the 2 main parties. This fact has not been lost on the extremes of politics - the left have taken over Labour and there is a fair chance that the Tories become UKIP Mark 2 - I read this morning that Aaron banks is funding an attempt to deselect Sarah Wolleston in Totnes.

    There are going to be an increasing number of party political orphans - I didn't vote at the last GE for the first time in my life and I doubt I will be voting at the next one.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,202

    Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.

    Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.

    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.

    Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.

    Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with your hypocritical criticism of Boris.

    And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.

    Only a couple of posts back I pointed out that it was your criticism of Boris I was pointing out as hypocritical.

    "Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"

    Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....

    Yep, you’re making no sense at all. Are you saying that pointing out Corbyn is an anti-Semite and that Johnson is a friend to racists makes me hypocritical because I am an anti-Semite who is a friend to racists?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,420

    Boris is a good laugh on a panel show, but he ain't no Prime Minister. Then again, of the current crop of politicians of all sides, who is?

    Isn't that a little bit like saying "Syphilis? That's my favorite Std."
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045
    Extirpate the centrists!! Liquidate the kulaks as a class!!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    The problem would be that a deal that offers the prospect of ending the whole saga would be what the majority of voters (whether they were remain or leave) want. So voting it down, and thereby precipitating a GE, would not put Labour in a strong position going into an election called because of Brexit.
    I think it's what a lot of people say they want but if a GE should occur many things will change quickly. Many might be mad at Labour , but would they lose the remainer vote? They won't lose their tribal vote. And they kept remsiners last time even though they were for leave People would need to ask even if they were ok with a deal purely to end it, now they have been asked do they want the Tories to press on.

    The Tories will probably be very chaotic and unsure what to even campaign on- no good asking for a majority to confirm the deal labour just shot down, since the local candidate might not back it and I doubt they can get rid of all the ERG crowd.

    And of course there might not be a GE. Other options open up. But I cannot see why most labour mps would not obey the whip to vote against.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,874
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
    If that is all you require of your MP, let’s just replace them with a computer algorithm.

    A simple computer script will be much more economical. No expenses, no salary, no fuss.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552

    Jezziah

    OK. I noted your use of the more loaded term, 'propaganda', over a more neutral one, 'position', say. You also described my analysis that moderates would try to get rid of Corbyn as something I had 'proposed'. That is just not the same thing.

    Okay the word propose might be wrong, you aren't the original architect of the idea, it is an idea you actively approve of might be a better way of putting it.

    Given that you actively approve of the idea of Blairites bringing down the Labour leadership rather than fighting the Tories isn't it then at least somewhat misleading to make a criticism of the Corbynistas based on them apparently being more interested in attacking the Blairites than the Tories.

    If they think along the lines of what you hoped for (and your accusation of Corbynistas is accurate) then it is something both sides are equally guilty of. If it is something they have actively been doing already then surely the Corbynista do need to fight them in order to defeat the Tories?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 1,728
    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
    According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.

    Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
    Their was an Opinion poll in the Observer this morning taken after the Tory party conference:-

    "Among voters at large, almost twice as many (32%) think May is the best person to run the Conservative party compared with Johnson, who is preferred by 17%.

    Among Tory voters, the gap between the two is far more clearly in May’s favour, with 62% thinking she is best to lead the party, compared with 15% who believe Johnson would be better.

    When asked about their individual qualities, voters prefer May to Johnson on almost all counts, with Conservative voters again backing her by higher margins than supporters of all parties"

    Doesn't support your frequently aired view about the popularity of Johnson does it? I think comparisons with the liberal Johnson that ran for Mayor of London years ago are past their sell-by date, we all know a great deal more about him these days and most people don't like what they see.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,395
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
    Sometimes the national interest is more important than party politics. If TM comes back with a deal the country will breath a sigh of relief and, as all the polls show, any political moves by anyone to act in purely narrow party interests will be deeply unpopular
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654

    On Ridge on Sunday, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of M15, comments on Corbyn and how he has enthusiastically associated with groups and interests who are not friends of the UK and warning of his political past

    Everyone has heard it before and the voters do not care or see it as a positive, at least enough do for him to get 40%. He can win now by simply going backwards less than the Tories. That's not certain by any means, and certainly his negatives should continue to be mentioned, but it's not very important anymore
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552


    Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.

    Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.

    “Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.

    Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.

    Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.

    Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with your hypocritical criticism of Boris.

    And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.

    Only a couple of posts back I pointed out that it was your criticism of Boris I was pointing out as hypocritical.

    "Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"

    Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....

    Yep, you’re making no sense at all. Are you saying that pointing out Corbyn is an anti-Semite and that Johnson is a friend to racists makes me hypocritical because I am an anti-Semite who is a friend to racists?

    I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?

    It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.

    This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,045


    Jezziah

    OK. I noted your use of the more loaded term, 'propaganda', over a more neutral one, 'position', say. You also described my analysis that moderates would try to get rid of Corbyn as something I had 'proposed'. That is just not the same thing.

    Okay the word propose might be wrong, you aren't the original architect of the idea, it is an idea you actively approve of might be a better way of putting it.

    Given that you actively approve of the idea of Blairites bringing down the Labour leadership rather than fighting the Tories isn't it then at least somewhat misleading to make a criticism of the Corbynistas based on them apparently being more interested in attacking the Blairites than the Tories.

    If they think along the lines of what you hoped for (and your accusation of Corbynistas is accurate) then it is something both sides are equally guilty of. If it is something they have actively been doing already then surely the Corbynista do need to fight them in order to defeat the Tories?
    I passively, rather than actively approve the idea. Tell me, have you ever read 'Politics and the English Language' by the writer formerly known as Eric Blair (no relation)? I think it would do you some good.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,500
    Mr. T, the far left has taken over Labour. Not the left.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,395
    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Roger said:

    I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.

    For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon

    I totally agree.
    However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn.
    As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
    My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
    According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.

    Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
    Their was an Opinion poll in the Observer this morning taken after the Tory party conference:-

    "Among voters at large, almost twice as many (32%) think May is the best person to run the Conservative party compared with Johnson, who is preferred by 17%.

    Among Tory voters, the gap between the two is far more clearly in May’s favour, with 62% thinking she is best to lead the party, compared with 15% who believe Johnson would be better.

    When asked about their individual qualities, voters prefer May to Johnson on almost all counts, with Conservative voters again backing her by higher margins than supporters of all parties"

    Doesn't support your frequently aired view about the popularity of Johnson does it? I think comparisons with the liberal Johnson that ran for Mayor of London years ago are past their sell-by date, we all know a great deal more about him these days and most people don't like what they see.
    Good post
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,492
    edited October 7
    My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they can say it was really close but it was her fault.

    In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.

    Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.

    Chequers is completely off the table.

    Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.

    The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.

    May's problems will then be:

    1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us.
    2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only.
    3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.

    My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,552


    Jezziah

    OK. I noted your use of the more loaded term, 'propaganda', over a more neutral one, 'position', say. You also described my analysis that moderates would try to get rid of Corbyn as something I had 'proposed'. That is just not the same thing.

    Okay the word propose might be wrong, you aren't the original architect of the idea, it is an idea you actively approve of might be a better way of putting it.

    Given that you actively approve of the idea of Blairites bringing down the Labour leadership rather than fighting the Tories isn't it then at least somewhat misleading to make a criticism of the Corbynistas based on them apparently being more interested in attacking the Blairites than the Tories.

    If they think along the lines of what you hoped for (and your accusation of Corbynistas is accurate) then it is something both sides are equally guilty of. If it is something they have actively been doing already then surely the Corbynista do need to fight them in order to defeat the Tories?
    I passively, rather than actively approve the idea. Tell me, have you ever read 'Politics and the English Language' by the writer formerly known as Eric Blair (no relation)? I think it would do you some good.
    Actively would have been a misuse as well admittedly, unless I can count comments indicating your support on PB as active support (bit of a stretch maybe)

    Although quibbles about the use of the word passive or active does not invalidate the rest of my point or the original use of the word propaganda.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,395
    kle4 said:

    On Ridge on Sunday, Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of M15, comments on Corbyn and how he has enthusiastically associated with groups and interests who are not friends of the UK and warning of his political past

    Everyone has heard it before and the voters do not care or see it as a positive, at least enough do for him to get 40%. He can win now by simply going backwards less than the Tories. That's not certain by any means, and certainly his negatives should continue to be mentioned, but it's not very important anymore
    Maybe but just adds to the narrative of Corbyn's past
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,186

    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
    Sometimes the national interest is more important than party politics. If TM comes back with a deal the country will breath a sigh of relief and, as all the polls show, any political moves by anyone to act in purely narrow party interests will be deeply unpopular
    The deal has been finely calibrated for the interests of the tory party with no fucks given for those of the nation. Defeating it is act of the purest patriotism and those who would defend it need to look inward and consider their own fealty and motives.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    edited October 7
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
    No you don't. The idea even oppositions exist only to destroy the government is very childish. Its no different to arguing someone should back what they say is a calamitous deal or arrangenent or whatever because whats the point of being a tory mp if you dont automatically back the government.

    If they genuinely that think what the vote will be on us bad anyone should vote against. If they think it is the best that can be had they should vote for. And both apply to both parties. They don't exist as representatives to automatically follow a party line to take down the other at every opportunity. The shadow cabinet know that better than most being no stranger to rebellion as a point of principle. And if it is on principle it will apply even if there are consequences such as government defeat, for Tories, or government survival, for labour.

    However, given so many people in the right agree whatever they might get a vote on will be terrible I don't think labour will find it hard to defend thinking the same, and will therefore mostly vote against. They don't need to justify it as a way to collapse the government.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,654
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.

    On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
    Yes, over with - or cancelled!
    Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
    No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
    If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
    Sometimes the national interest is more important than party politics. If TM comes back with a deal the country will breath a sigh of relief and, as all the polls show, any political moves by anyone to act in purely narrow party interests will be deeply unpopular
    The deal has been finely calibrated for the interests of the tory party with no fucks given for those of the nation. Defeating it is act of the purest patriotism and those who would defend it need to look inward and consider their own fealty and motives.
    Even a deal designed to get through the Tories might also be in the interests of the nation. It might not. I believe labour will easily be able to justify voting against it. But the idea no one would be able to justify such a deal, say because they think no deal would be even worse than a tory government with a deal, seems over the top. No one could do that?

    Obviously parties exist to take power and believe their side being in power is itself a noble aim. But rebellions happen for a reason and people can be perfectly justified in doing so even if short term it props up someone they don't like. Would someone fearing no deal is a catastrophe therefore be clearly saying labour should not be in power? If course not.

    But maybe sometimes attaining power has to wait. Not least since voting down a deal doesn't guarantee they get power.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,395

    My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they can say it was really close but it was her fault.

    In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.

    Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.

    Chequers is completely off the table.

    Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.

    The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.

    May's problems will then be:

    1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us.
    2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only.
    3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.

    My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.

    I am not at all sure speculating on what may or may not evolve over the next few weeks is going to have any effect on so many polarised opinions. As far as I am concerned I am just going to wait for TM and the EU to announce the deal or no deal.

    It is interesting just how poorly Boris is viewed in todays Opinium and how much support TM seems to have over him
This discussion has been closed.