Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if Labour secures an early election it is hard to see how

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if Labour secures an early election it is hard to see how the party wins It

The main objective of Labour, we are told, during this period of extreme uncertainty over Brexit is to secure an early General Election. To do that it will need to win enough backing for a confidence motion that defeats the government that is not rescinded within two weeks.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,809
    First.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    edited January 7
    Indeed especially as the latest Yougov has the Tory lead up from 2% in 2017 to 6% as Labour Remainers move to the LDs
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,591
    FPT:

    Re the Golden Globes - it seems bizarre to me that Bohemian Rhapsody was in the Drama category while The Favourite was in the Comedy/Musical section.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,591
    After May's deal was initially agreed with the EU I thought it quite likely Labour would abstain and allowing the deal to progess is, after all, probably their best chance of securing a GE.

    But given their vehemence in opposing it to date it is going to take a major climbdown for them to officially abstain now.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 906
    I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

    As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

    But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,775

    I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

    As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

    But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.

    Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.

    Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,035

    After May's deal was initially agreed with the EU I thought it quite likely Labour would abstain and allowing the deal to progess is, after all, probably their best chance of securing a GE.

    But given their vehemence in opposing it to date it is going to take a major climbdown for them to officially abstain now.

    Jacob, John, Bill and the rest have authorised them to vote against. If the government can't convince its own party why on earth should the Opposition, of all groups, be convinced?

    Talk of "national interest" falls down when the entire Tory Party disagrees about what that constitutes.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394

    After May's deal was initially agreed with the EU I thought it quite likely Labour would abstain and allowing the deal to progess is, after all, probably their best chance of securing a GE.

    But given their vehemence in opposing it to date it is going to take a major climbdown for them to officially abstain now.

    They're incredibly naive if they think they'll benefit politically from a No Deal turning out badly. If there's a No Deal and it turns out badly people I think people will be pretty impartial about sharing the blame among politicians of all parties.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,370

    I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

    As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

    But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.

    Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.

    Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.
    Morning all,

    There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,277
    Very worrying indeed,the actions and the response.

    Serving Brit soldier 'attacked by 15 men' and hit by car in New Year's Day horror

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/serving-brit-soldier-attacked-15-13802646
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

    As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

    But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.

    Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.

    Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.
    Morning all,

    There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.
    Indeed. Neither party are acting in the national interest.

    BTW a big thanks to @Corporeal for his interesting thread headers yesterday.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,257
    edited January 7
    My guess is that the next election will be about which party or leader you most want to vote against. At the moment I'd say it's neck and neck. The Tories are loathed for being riven by division and their pitiful leadership. Labour for having a leadership which is threatening to take them back to their dark past.

    The sooner the election the better Corbyn's chances. Though there are huge reservations about his leadership they are just about trumped by the madness of the Tories.

    If the election arrives after brexit has resolved itself and the Tories have regrouped (and Corbyn is still leader) I wouldn't give them a snowball in Hell's chance
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,370
    The inevitable public inquiry into this chaos will be eleven on the popcorn scale:

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Why do you think it will pass?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,591

    Very worrying indeed,the actions and the response.

    Serving Brit soldier 'attacked by 15 men' and hit by car in New Year's Day horror

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/serving-brit-soldier-attacked-15-13802646

    'Worrying' is a strange adjective to use; 'awful', 'despicable', surely.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536

    The inevitable public inquiry into this chaos will be eleven on the popcorn scale:

    After the next general election I'm sure we'll see a lot of hard-faced men who had done very well out of the chaos.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,591
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    I could cope with that... economy survives, government could start addressing the real issues, we could all move on.

    But as Cyclefree asks how does the Deal pass?

    Also, how does the government survive with a pissed-off DUP?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    FPT: F1: good news!

    My first blog of 2019 is up. It is a lengthy ramble containing no tips.

    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/01/an-early-look-at-how-2019-f1-titles.html
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    The inevitable public inquiry into this chaos will be eleven on the popcorn scale:

    After the next general election I'm sure we'll see a lot of hard-faced men who had done very well out of the chaos.
    Perhaps - as consolation for the rest of us - we could have a windfall tax on the money they have made. Plus a special surcharge on all those MPs who voted for the No Deal Withdrawal Act, the surcharge to be doubled every time the MP said in public that they were against No Deal.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,984

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    All options lead to recriminations (With May's deal producing the least) so far as I can tell within the Tories. They might do too within Labour, but my analysis suggested the Labour vote is far less contingent on Brexit than the Tory vote (It was in GE17 anyhow).

    So net, the more disruption/upheaval the worse it is for the Tories.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,277

    Very worrying indeed,the actions and the response.

    Serving Brit soldier 'attacked by 15 men' and hit by car in New Year's Day horror

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/serving-brit-soldier-attacked-15-13802646

    'Worrying' is a strange adjective to use; 'awful', 'despicable', surely.
    I agree but the circumstance of the event is worrying,a brit soldier in his own country, his own town getting attacked because he is a British soldier is worrying indeed.

  • kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Damp Squid? An acquaintance of the Black Swan?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394
    edited January 7
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.

    Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    Cyclefree said:

    I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

    As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

    But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.

    Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.

    Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.
    Morning all,

    There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.
    Indeed. Neither party are acting in the national interest.

    BTW a big thanks to @Corporeal for his interesting thread headers yesterday.
    Seconded - having three in a row was being truly spoiled.

    Interesting to note that it’s not just Corbyn on the Labour side. At the weekend, Madleson had adopted the rhetoric of the ERG on May’s deal, talking about being ‘slaves’ to Brussels. Clearly he’s getting there from a quite different perspective, but it demonstrates that what might be thought of as the reasonable centre is appealing to unreason in their pursuit of Remain.

    I don’t see much hope at all for May’s deal outside of a referendum. I suspect the wider public are perhaps less uncompromising than their elected representatives.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,536
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    All options lead to recriminations (With May's deal producing the least) so far as I can tell within the Tories. They might do too within Labour, but my analysis suggested the Labour vote is far less contingent on Brexit than the Tory vote (It was in GE17 anyhow).

    So net, the more disruption/upheaval the worse it is for the Tories.
    For this reason I see no incentive for Labour to deviate from the five stage approach that they have as policy.

    A policy of abstention looks like a surefire way to split Labour too, and on this occasion the rebel MPs could expect support from a large part of the membership.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,785

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Do the voters care though? I mean, they used to, but the rules seem to have changed...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,257
    Corbyn spells division. After the Brexit fiasco Years the electorate will vote for an easy life. I can't see that being Cobyn .
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961
    edited January 7

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    All options lead to recriminations (With May's deal producing the least) so far as I can tell within the Tories. They might do too within Labour, but my analysis suggested the Labour vote is far less contingent on Brexit than the Tory vote (It was in GE17 anyhow).

    So net, the more disruption/upheaval the worse it is for the Tories.
    For this reason I see no incentive for Labour to deviate from the five stage approach that they have as policy.

    A policy of abstention looks like a surefire way to split Labour too, and on this occasion the rebel MPs could expect support from a large part of the membership.

    Yep - abstention would destroy Corbyn. So here’s hoping!!!

  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 248
    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,734
    Regarding a GE. I honestly think if there was any danger of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM the electorate would make sure he doesn't win.

    He came uncomfortably close in 2017 and I think his 40% vote share only happened because lots of voters didn't really think he had a chance and slung him a vote to hedge against a potential (and undesirable) large Tory majority.

    I base this on zero science but I just don't see much serious appetite for a Corbyn premiership outside of around 500,000 hard core, anti-capitalist zealots.

    I also reckon if Yvette Cooper or Hilary Benn were in charge of Labour they'd be 10% ahead in the polls.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 7
    Cyclefree said:

    Why do you think it will pass?

    I'm thinking* that MPs will eventually realize that it offers the only negotiated exit from the European Union that is available, or ever will be, and that sufficient of them, once they do realize that, will acquiesce.

    * There is a bit of hoping mixed in with that 'thinking', I freely admit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    I have though for a while that No Deal is quite likely - and it that context, I don’t think it impossible that the EU might agree an extension for the purpose of a referendum. The more likely it becomes without a referendum, the more likely their agreement.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614

    Yellow vests episode 8, France continues its descent in to farce. Former boxing heavyweight champion being sought after giving a gendarme a right hook

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2019/01/06/01002-20190106ARTFIG00193-gilets-jaunes-le-boxeur-de-gendarme-activement-recherche-par-la-police.php

    Manny Antoinette thinks about getting heavy with the protests and ordering a security clampdown

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2019/01/06/01002-20190106ARTFIG00168-gilets-jaunes-macron-tente-par-une-reponse-securitaire.php
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.

    Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.

    There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,370
    Fenster said:

    Regarding a GE. I honestly think if there was any danger of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM the electorate would make sure he doesn't win.

    He came uncomfortably close in 2017 and I think his 40% vote share only happened because lots of voters didn't really think he had a chance and slung him a vote to hedge against a potential (and undesirable) large Tory majority.

    I base this on zero science but I just don't see much serious appetite for a Corbyn premiership outside of around 500,000 hard core, anti-capitalist zealots.

    I also reckon if Yvette Cooper or Hilary Benn were in charge of Labour they'd be 10% ahead in the polls.

    I agree they would be 10 ahead under a different leader.

    One of the paradoxes though is that Jezza is not popular, but many of his policy ideas are. It seems the public quite like nationalisation, student fee changes, massive funding of public services by taxing bankers and corporate fat cats etc etc.

    It is at least possible he will stagger over the line based on the manifesto rather than the man.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Mr. Chris, could be revocation, followed by a 'confirmatory' referendum.

    But May's tin-eared, pig-headed, stubborn, cackhanded approach is likely to find the worst possible option and somehow contrive to make it even dafter.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,731
    Roger said:

    Corbyn spells division. After the Brexit fiasco Years the electorate will vote for an easy life. I can't see that being Cobyn .

    I think that is an unusually superficial analysis. MPs might want an easier life. I suspect the electorate will want an improved life which Corbyn offers.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.

    Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.

    There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.

    Would those Scottish seats matter if he got a large overall majority in England - if there was a complete implosion of the Tories?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961
    Eighteen of the 64 seats Labour needs to win for a majority of one after the next general election are in Scotland. Three of its 10 most vulnerable seats are located there, too.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394
    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.
    I must admit I'm not entirely confident about my reasoning on this point.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,984
    Cyclefree said:

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Its that an advance on Mr Sick Squid?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    Barnesian said:

    Roger said:

    Corbyn spells division. After the Brexit fiasco Years the electorate will vote for an easy life. I can't see that being Cobyn .

    I think that is an unusually superficial analysis. MPs might want an easier life. I suspect the electorate will want an improved life which Corbyn offers.
    Corby may well offer it but can he deliver it? A chaotic Brexit will not make it at all easy for any government to offer an easy life.

    Take those banks which Labour will want to tax heavily to pay for its commitments. Very popular, no doubt. But will those banks stay here to be taxed heavily when (a) they need to have a base within the EU; (b) the EU will be doing everything possible to encourage them to move; and (c) being here would mean heavy corporate and personal taxes and a hostile environment?

    Ditto with other sectors.

    So to raise revenues others will need to be taxed, people who thought that others would be paying the taxes for all the nice promises Corbyn was making and who suddenly realise that those promises will be unfulfilled and/or that they will have to pay much more tax and/or that their job has now migrated to Bulgaria or Poland or the Netherlands or wherever.

    Whoever is in charge, a messy Brexit is not likely to mean an easy life for anyone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    I notice also (FWIW) that Johnson has fully nailed his colours to the No Deal mast.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.

    Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.

    There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.

    Would those Scottish seats matter if he got a large overall majority in England - if there was a complete implosion of the Tories?

    There is a complete Tory implosion already!

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,936

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.

    Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.

    There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.

    Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,167
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?

    If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    The polling is very clear that this would be electorally disastrous for them.
    Corbyn wants an election above anything else, but even he is not that stupid.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Roger said:

    Corbyn spells division. After the Brexit fiasco Years the electorate will vote for an easy life. I can't see that being Cobyn .

    I think that is an unusually superficial analysis. MPs might want an easier life. I suspect the electorate will want an improved life which Corbyn offers.
    Corby may well offer it but can he deliver it? A chaotic Brexit will not make it at all easy for any government to offer an easy life.

    Take those banks which Labour will want to tax heavily to pay for its commitments. Very popular, no doubt. But will those banks stay here to be taxed heavily when (a) they need to have a base within the EU; (b) the EU will be doing everything possible to encourage them to move; and (c) being here would mean heavy corporate and personal taxes and a hostile environment?

    Ditto with other sectors.

    So to raise revenues others will need to be taxed, people who thought that others would be paying the taxes for all the nice promises Corbyn was making and who suddenly realise that those promises will be unfulfilled and/or that they will have to pay much more tax and/or that their job has now migrated to Bulgaria or Poland or the Netherlands or wherever.

    Whoever is in charge, a messy Brexit is not likely to mean an easy life for anyone.
    So to raise revenues others will need to be taxed, people who thought that others would be paying the taxes for all the nice promises Corbyn was making and who suddenly realise that those promises will be unfulfilled and/or that they will have to pay much more tax and/or that their job has now migrated to Bulgaria or Poland or the Netherlands or wherever.

    this is what has been happening for the last 20 years irrespective of Corbyn
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,936
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?
    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 424

    From the article:

    "One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move."

    I know we currently live in a mad world and anything can happen, but how does that work? If there were a GE under these circumstances surely Lab would be torn to bits. Also for the DUP regardless of any GE result they would still be stuck with a Brexit they don't like.

    Or of course something I just can't image would happen - Monster Raving majority.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
    And why would they give it? Indeed, why would they bother talking to Britain at all? They have spent two years negotiating with it and its Parliament behaves like a demented baby at the end. Assuming Corbyn is head of a minority government dependant on SNP votes, why would the EU have any faith that Parliament would agree to whatever Corbyn might bring back?

    Plus the EU will have its own concerns about a Corbyn government and will surely want to tie it down to minimise the harm it could do to EU interests so it will have a number of new red lines of its own to impose, I expect.

    I would expect a Corbyn government to be in a Brexit swamp of its own pretty soon after taking power. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Labour supporters about how the EU would see a Labour government as some bright new dawn etc. I rather think the EU now sees a Britain which is in a complete mess about what it wants, utterly divided, and with two main parties also divided and more concerned with their own political ambitions than with finding a way through and coming to a workable realistic agreement with the EU. In those circumstances I would expect them to concentrate on doing what is best for the EU and sod Britain.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    Nigelb said:

    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    The polling is very clear that this would be electorally disastrous for them.
    Corbyn wants an election above anything else, but even he is not that stupid.

    Running away, sitting on their hands or whatever would be seen as a complete abdication of responsibility.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,167
    Nigelb said:

    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    The polling is very clear that this would be electorally disastrous for them.
    Corbyn wants an election above anything else, but even he is not that stupid.

    Link? Evidence for the last phrase of your post :)
  • kjhkjh Posts: 424
    Nigelb said:

    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    The polling is very clear that this would be electorally disastrous for them.
    Corbyn wants an election above anything else, but even he is not that stupid.

    Great minds? Or possibly equally deranged ones!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,167
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
    And why would they give it? Indeed, why would they bother talking to Britain at all? They have spent two years negotiating with it and its Parliament behaves like a demented baby at the end. Assuming Corbyn is head of a minority government dependant on SNP votes, why would the EU have any faith that Parliament would agree to whatever Corbyn might bring back?

    Plus the EU will have its own concerns about a Corbyn government and will surely want to tie it down to minimise the harm it could do to EU interests so it will have a number of new red lines of its own to impose, I expect.

    I would expect a Corbyn government to be in a Brexit swamp of its own pretty soon after taking power. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Labour supporters about how the EU would see a Labour government as some bright new dawn etc. I rather think the EU now sees a Britain which is in a complete mess about what it wants, utterly divided, and with two main parties also divided and more concerned with their own political ambitions than with finding a way through and coming to a workable realistic agreement with the EU. In those circumstances I would expect them to concentrate on doing what is best for the EU and sod Britain.
    Agree with that. We can't be far from the point at which the EU will be delighted to see the back of us.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855
    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?

    If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
    It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?

    The reality is that the EU will be interfering in our affairs but that is a consequence not of its malign intent but on Britain's utter failure to order its own affairs. If Parliament cannot decide, literally cannot decide, and has to ask the EU for the time needed to get a referendum together then it can hardly complain (though doubtless the usual suspects will do so) that others take charge.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.


    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
    And why would they give it? Indeed, why would they bother talking to Britain at all? They have spent two years negotiating with it and its Parliament behaves like a demented baby at the end. Assuming Corbyn is head of a minority government dependant on SNP votes, why would the EU have any faith that Parliament would agree to whatever Corbyn might bring back?

    Plus the EU will have its own concerns about a Corbyn government and will surely want to tie it down to minimise the harm it could do to EU interests so it will have a number of new red lines of its own to impose, I expect.

    I would expect a Corbyn government to be in a Brexit swamp of its own pretty soon after taking power. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Labour supporters about how the EU would see a Labour government as some bright new dawn etc. I rather think the EU now sees a Britain which is in a complete mess about what it wants, utterly divided, and with two main parties also divided and more concerned with their own political ambitions than with finding a way through and coming to a workable realistic agreement with the EU. In those circumstances I would expect them to concentrate on doing what is best for the EU and sod Britain.
    Agree with that. We can't be far from the point at which the EU will be delighted to see the back of us.
    After four years of Farage and his crew of dodgers and chancers too!
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,936
    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 18,370
    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    LoveFilm Franks thinks so. He is launching new party straight after Brexit. Professional pols need not apply.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,775
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
    And why would they give it? Indeed, why would they bother talking to Britain at all? They have spent two years negotiating with it and its Parliament behaves like a demented baby at the end. Assuming Corbyn is head of a minority government dependant on SNP votes, why would the EU have any faith that Parliament would agree to whatever Corbyn might bring back?

    Plus the EU will have its own concerns about a Corbyn government and will surely want to tie it down to minimise the harm it could do to EU interests so it will have a number of new red lines of its own to impose, I expect.

    I would expect a Corbyn government to be in a Brexit swamp of its own pretty soon after taking power. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Labour supporters about how the EU would see a Labour government as some bright new dawn etc. I rather think the EU now sees a Britain which is in a complete mess about what it wants, utterly divided, and with two main parties also divided and more concerned with their own political ambitions than with finding a way through and coming to a workable realistic agreement with the EU. In those circumstances I would expect them to concentrate on doing what is best for the EU and sod Britain.
    Thats a key point. Unless Corbyn has a clear majority, it's questionable if he can get HIS deal through parliment. Even if he does, the party would be split over putting that vote to a new referendum.

    The SNP/Lib Dems would continue to push for a new referendum. The Tories would vote everything down...

    Labour being in charge doesn't solve the issue, and a general election, unless it leads to a large majority for one of the main parties doesn't either...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394
    Cyclefree said:

    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?

    If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
    It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?
    Well, I can imagine circumstances in which allowing a referendum with a No Deal option could actually make No Deal less likely than refusing a referendum.

    But if No Deal happened in the former circumstances, they would bear responsibility for having enabled it, and being politicians I think they would find that possibility bery unattractive.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,850
    Cyclefree said:

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    If they have, could they please let Labour know.....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    edited January 7

    Damp Squid? An acquaintance of the Black Swan?

    Yes, they are dead opposites and thus bosom pals.

    The Damp Squid says the deal passes, no GE, no Ref, no change of PM, no nothing.

    The Black Swan says we crash out with no deal, then a GE, Corbyn landslide, negotiates to rejoin, holds rejoin vs remain outside Ref, expects to win it easily but doesn't, it's 50/50, a tie.

    I think with Brexit there will be more squid than swan.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,287
    Cyclefree said:

    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?

    If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
    It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?

    ...
    Precisely because of that.
    A referendum might be the only way to defeat No Deal - but to do so, it would have to be an option on the ballot.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,167
    Cyclefree said:

    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?

    If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
    It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?

    The reality is that the EU will be interfering in our affairs but that is a consequence not of its malign intent but on Britain's utter failure to order its own affairs. If Parliament cannot decide, literally cannot decide, and has to ask the EU for the time needed to get a referendum together then it can hardly complain (though doubtless the usual suspects will do so) that others take charge.
    Can't argue with what you say, I just don't see it helping future healing or relationships!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    LoveFilm Franks thinks so. He is launching new party straight after Brexit. Professional pols need not apply.
    No thanks to yet more political parties.

    Sortition is the answer. Who can believe that a hundred citizens chosen at random to handle this issue and appropriately advised would have made such an unholy mess of it as the House of Commons has?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,146
    The outcome of an early election will be a Lab/SNP government, and the SNP will certainly be in no mood for Labour's nonsensical unicorns.

    The price of SNP acquiescence will be a deal/remain referendum and the government campaigning for remain.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,936
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    :D :D Raw amateurs in the extreme.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.

    Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.

    Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.

    There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.

    Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.

    The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
    And why would they give it? Indeed, why would they bother talking to Britain at all? They have spent two years negotiating with it and its Parliament behaves like a demented baby at the end. Assuming Corbyn is head of a minority government dependant on SNP votes, why would the EU have any faith that Parliament would agree to whatever Corbyn might bring back?

    Plus the EU will have its own concerns about a Corbyn government and will surely want to tie it down to minimise the harm it could do to EU interests so it will have a number of new red lines of its own to impose, I expect.

    I would expect a Corbyn government to be in a Brexit swamp of its own pretty soon after taking power. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Labour supporters about how the EU would see a Labour government as some bright new dawn etc. I rather think the EU now sees a Britain which is in a complete mess about what it wants, utterly divided, and with two main parties also divided and more concerned with their own political ambitions than with finding a way through and coming to a workable realistic agreement with the EU. In those circumstances I would expect them to concentrate on doing what is best for the EU and sod Britain.
    Thats a key point. Unless Corbyn has a clear majority, it's questionable if he can get HIS deal through parliment. Even if he does, the party would be split over putting that vote to a new referendum.

    The SNP/Lib Dems would continue to push for a new referendum. The Tories would vote everything down...

    Labour being in charge doesn't solve the issue, and a general election, unless it leads to a large majority for one of the main parties doesn't either...
    Exactly: if the deal is not voted through, a referendum where the choices are clear or revocation or No Deal are the only options. One is within Britain's control; the other isn't and the third is "uncharted territory" where we will be dependant on the kindnesses of strangers.

    Now about "Taking Back Control" .......
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 47,008
    Mrs C, *raises an eyebrow*

    Sounds like a DVD an MP's spouse might claim on expenses.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,146
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.

    How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.

    How does this happen?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,088
    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,936
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?

    If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
    It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?

    ...
    Precisely because of that.
    A referendum might be the only way to defeat No Deal - but to do so, it would have to be an option on the ballot.
    I have come to the conclusion that:

    1. The country is still utterly divided
    2. There is no time to organise a referendum
    3. Another referendum is the gateway to a series of Never-end'ems

    So we have our No-Deal default or Revoke. That is all the choice we have. Subsequent elections will be messy no matter what we choice because of point (1) above.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 1,394

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.

    How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.

    How does this happen?
    Honestly, in many cases, is it not a matter of low intelligence rather than low information?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,984
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I'm not sure a GE before the shape/success/failure of Brexit emerges is a good idea for Labour.

    If they get one before April, questions will be asked about their stance on it so far, what they'll do if elected - and that scrutiny means they will start to 'own' the issues arising.

    Leaving TMay to deliver what they believe will be a messy Brexit draws a line under 'what's to be done about the WA?', leaves her holding the baby, dodges scrutiny for Corbyn's fence-sitting thus far etc etc.

    I take Alistair's point that the Tories may implode and let JC through, but I'd say he has everything to gain from bringing down the government after six weeks of queues at Dover, when, for the first time and somewhat unexpectedly, he will be on a no-score draw in the "can run a competent government" column.

    It's also possible that despite the piss and wind, Brexit will pass peacefully and successfully, and TM will emerge as the saviour of the UK, sail peacefully into retirement and leave to trounce Corbyn in the ensuing bounce-fuelled election. (Though, if I were a betting man etc etc)

    If Labour won a GE after a chaotic Brexit, his government would be consumed with dealing with it. It would suck the oxygen out of his government. Does anyone have any idea how Labour would deal with it?
    I think he heads to the EU and asks for a CU to be honest.
    And why would they give it? Indeed, why would they bother talking to Britain at all? They have spent two years negotiating with it and its Parliament behaves like a demented baby at the end. Assuming Corbyn is head of a minority government dependant on SNP votes, why would the EU have any faith that Parliament would agree to whatever Corbyn might bring back?

    I would expect them to concentrate on doing what is best for the EU and sod Britain.
    Billions of reasons, if anyone thought May was supine (She wasn't) then Corbyn will hand the EU over whatever they want for a Customs Union I think. It also closes off Brexit as much as can be as an issue for him so he can focus on Making Britain Great Again.

    Tldr; Money. Lots of it.

    He might also have Indy Ref two to organise if he is in a minority with the SNP !
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,146
    edited January 7

    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).

    The only thing working against the idea is it that it's a completely, suicidally stupid thing for Labour to do.

    Not, of course, that Labour is opposed to suicidial stupidity when the mood takes.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,267

    One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.

    I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).

    There seems to be a wonderful optimism that the deal that will pass despite there still being no real evidence that it will.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 671
    Chris said:

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    If there is to be another Referendum I can see just the 2 possible formulations:

    The Government has negotiated a treaty under which the UK will leave the European Union. Should parliament now ratify that treaty? YES / NO

    Or,

    Should the UK leave the European Union under the treaty negotiated by the government or should the UK remain a member of the European Union? LEAVE / REMAIN

    There will not IMO be any of this 2 stage or 3 option preference monkey business.

    (Betting PS: The top one settles on Betfair as No 2nd Referendum since it is not IN/OUT)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,850

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.

    How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.

    How does this happen?
    Since Brexit, there's been a lot of talk by Remainers about "low-information voters".

    These voters

    1) found the sweet spot for a coalition in 2010,

    2) found a sweet spot to give the LibDems the heave-ho without letting Miliband get into power with SNP help in 2015 and

    3) found the sweet spot to bugger up May's plans for world domination without giving the keys to Downing Street to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017.

    Some might say these same voters are actually very, very canny.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,855

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.

    How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.

    How does this happen?
    Curiosity and humility are much undervalued qualities. The truly intelligent person realises how much they don't know and how much they need to learn and is always learning throughout their life.

    Then there are others who think that because they have lots of degrees and high-paying jobs they know everything and are the bees knees and brilliant and entitled to everything they have when, as for pretty much all of us, luck and good fortune (our parents/where/when we were born etc) played a much bigger role than they will ever credit. Many of these are in Parliament.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,892
    The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,378
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.

    I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:

    The deal will pass.
    No early general election.
    May survives as PM.
    Stands down in 2021.

    With heartfelt apologies.

    Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?

    No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.

    Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.

    A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.

    An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
    The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.

    Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.

    A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.

    An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?
    The problem with revocation is that the behaviour of a number of high profile Remainers over the last 2 years (giving them impression that they just want to overturn the referendum because they didn’t like the result) has eroded trust.

    Revocation will be seen as cancelling Brexit. And you know there is no way Parliament would ever reauthorise Article 50
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    Where I would agree with Mike is that Labour are not in a good place in terms of leadership, polling, coherence or unity. Under any normal circumstances he would stand as much chance as the Tories did under William Hague.

    Where I disagree with him is that it is at all likely that a goverment that crashes into a GE having lost a VonC can win. The only time I can remember a government falling that way was 1979. Callaghan was reasonably popular as @Corporeal showed us yesterday, Thatcher was every bit as divisive as Corbyn (if vastly more competent), but the government lost a VonC and was out of power for 18 years.

    Those Tories who are voting against the deal and the transitional arrangements that it offers are really playing with fire. Their political careers may well be over before anyone is really interested in what they have to say about anything ever again. It's cold out there in opposition. I think that some of them have forgotten that.

    As for Fat Pan's contribution on R4 this morning, as a former party Chairman he really should know better. He said the first priority is to put May's "miserable little deal out of its suffering." He hasn't come close to working through the implications of that either for the country or his party.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,167
    edited January 7
    We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.

    We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.

    While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal, revocation and crashing out.

    There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for.
    We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer.
    We voted in 2016 in a referendum.
    We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans.
    Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,850

    The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.

    No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,146
    Chris said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.

    How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.

    How does this happen?
    Honestly, in many cases, is it not a matter of low intelligence rather than low information?
    Possibly, but I don't think that explains it fully.

    I mean there's people like the honourable member for North West Bullshitshire and the Sage of Mid-Beds, who are clearly just unsalvageably dim.

    And then you've got other Brexiteers, who really don't actually seem stupid to me at all, and therefore I have to conclude that their imperviousness to basic reality is deliberate. And that I don't understand.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,961

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:


    They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.

    They are all idiots.

    Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.
    I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night..... ;)
    And not even amateurs in the best sense.

    There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.

    How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.

    How does this happen?

    Lack of intellectual curiosity, laziness and confirmation bias.

This discussion has been closed.