I'm wondering how many totally cringeworthy and behind the sofa moments we'll have to endure from Jezza.
Keep him away from trains, bacon sarnies, stone masons, Dianne Abbott, the PLP and 40 million voters and he might, just might, avoid falling behind the SNP ....
Has Corbyn had a bang to the head? Is he intellectually sub-normal in some way?
@paulwaugh: PLP debating how party should vote on May motion. I've been told several Lab MPs will abstain tmrw (cos same as voting against)
@paulwaugh: Corbyn tells MPs: we have to support May dissolution motion cos anything else is supporting a Tory govt. "Simple as that"
He really must be a Tory mole. Or the most stupid MP at Westminster (sorry Pete)
For once, Corbyn is right. You cannot possibly say a Tory Government is a wicked thing, crushing the poor and disabled under foot, then vote against a General Election. It may well be that it is a personal tragedy and a disaster for his party. But the response he gave was the only one open to him.
You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5
Ha! I think he's a disaster... I just don't see, here, what he can possibly do. The Fixed Terms Parliament Act was primarily to enable, where a coalition breaks down, an alternative Government to be formed without the outgoing PM preventing that.
For an opposition to a majority Government to say, as SeanT says, "let the baby eating continue until we've got our sh1t together" is ludicrous. Where I depart from Sean is that I don't think it's only because Corbyn is aggressive in his anti Tory rhetoric... same would have been the case in 2008 say had Act been in place then and Tories called upon by new PM Brown.
Put another way, what use is a political party that is unwilling to face the voters?
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
You can (once again) quote the PM's own words.
"No election during Brexit"
All they have to do is abstain. That would leave Tezza up a certain creek without a certain mandate...
I see sky is also pushing this voter fatigue meme...Despite their own polling saying no.
It's like the bbc and sky London liberal elite are out of touch with the public...
Is there any civilised life outside the M25?
Edinburgh?
Only in Morningside !
I stayed in Morningside in the early sixties
I stayed there in early 80s - I used to see the Proclaimers in Morrisons (Safeways back then) - not sure if this enhances or diminishes the areas civilised credentials !!
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
As some of us pointed out when, thread after thread, we were told the FTPA made an early election impossible.....
On a lighter note I've been reading up on witch trials in central Scotland - which it turns out was the witch hunting capital of Europe - you were 4 times more likely to be accused of being a witch in this area than the European average:
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
The PLP decided tonight that the Labour Party slogan in GE 2017 will be- 51 Days To Save The NHS(Northern Heartland Seats). Jezza had argued for Make Venezuela Great Again.
The PLP decided tonight that the Labour Party slogan in GE 2017 will be- 51 Days To Save The NHS(Northern Heartland Seats). Jezza had argued for Make Venezuela Great Again.
I wish I could believe that you made those up, however, given Corbyn's record to date .......
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
It's being screened at your local cinema on Thursday.....
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
This provincial type is seeing it in the cinema thursday.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
It's being screened at your local cinema on Thursday.....
Yes I saw that it's being shown. All booked though and it's a night up West.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
You can (once again) quote the PM's own words.
"No election during Brexit"
All they have to do is abstain. That would leave Tezza up a certain creek without a certain mandate...
Either she says, "Okay, but you can never say I failed to offer the public a choice... I did, and you denied it to them. And I will raise that failure EVERY time you criticise my policies... that you had the chance and bottled it".
Or she repeals the FTPA and says, "Sadly, I had no choice as little Jeremy was running scared and wanted to deny the nation their democratic right."
Exactly. This election surely means a Soft-ISH Brexit. I don't understand why Remainers are so gloomy (apart from those who are adamant eu-Federalists, or those who seriously thought the vote could be reversed)
I deployed precisely that argument to an irascible remainer this afternoon (who will likely vote for us - I mean me - in the May 4th locals but unlikely to do the same in June): she was far from convinced.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
As we have seen, it evidently never was. It was a free option for the government.
It of course had meaning when the government was a coalition.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
The FPTA was a brilliant idea, except it had one eensy teensy weensy flaw, it never prepared for the possibility of a majority government between 2010 and 2020.
Either she says, "Okay, but you can never say I failed to offer the public a choice... I did, and you denied it to them. And I will raise that failure EVERY time you criticise my policies... that you had the chance and bottled it".
Unless the reason she is cutting and running now is before any number of chickens come home to roost. In which case all he has to do is wait her out.
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
It's being screened at your local cinema on Thursday.....
Yes I saw that it's being shown. All booked though and it's a night up West.
Fair enough - I'll let you know what I thought.....
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
Please note that there is a variation to the original programme. Due to the election, the play will now be replaced with "Corbyn and Labour are dead"
I'm disappointed - I was hoping the twitter reaction to John Woodcock saying he was standing again but could not countenance JC being PM would be filled with nothing but outraged bile, but there's a fair amount of praise and respect in there too.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
The FPTA was a brilliant idea, except it had one eensy teensy weensy flaw, it never prepared for the possibility of a majority government between 2010 and 2020.
On a lighter note I've been reading up on witch trials in central Scotland - which it turns out was the witch hunting capital of Europe - you were 4 times more likely to be accused of being a witch in this area than the European average:
It's why Sturgeon is also mistaken and impotently frothing.
The govt and in particular TMay has been accused of lacking a mandate, they are giving the country the opportunity to given them one. Or to give it to someone else.
It is rarely a wrong move and never an egregious one, to give the people the vote.
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
It's being screened at your local cinema on Thursday.....
Yes I saw that it's being shown. All booked though and it's a night up West.
Fair enough - I'll let you know what I thought.....
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
Please note that there is a variation to the original programme. Due to the election, the play will now be replaced with "Corbyn and Labour are dead"
Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.
I'm a remainer but I'm not gloomy because of the effect of the election on Brexit. That seems like a red herring to me - I don't believe that the election will have much of an impact on Brexit at all. (It is a convenient excuse for May to call the election though.) I'm gloomy for the old-fashioned reason that I don't want a Tory govt with a large majority and a free hand to push through its policies. I sincerely hope that the opposition parties won't get distracted by Brexit too much during the campaign, since (apart of course from about 5% of the electorate who will vote LibDem because of it) Brexit won't move many votes, and other things are much more important than the Brexit smokescreen.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
The FPTA was a brilliant idea, except it had one eensy teensy weensy flaw, it never prepared for the possibility of a majority government between 2010 and 2020.
And if it hadn't been for those pesky toffs, we'd have got away with it.....
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
It's the Opposition's job to REPLACE the Government, not to oppose the only possible event that can allow them to replace the Government!
I know Corbyn is a ludicrous chap in so many ways, but even he couldn't pull that line off.
Exactly. This election surely means a Soft-ISH Brexit. I don't understand why Remainers are so gloomy (apart from those who are adamant eu-Federalists, or those who seriously thought the vote could be reversed)
The manifesto will be fascinating. We'll find out where the balance of power lies in government. I expect the brexit stuff will still be fluffy and vague, but on domestic policy there could be some real meat.
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
Maybe not before, but now the FTPA gives an option. Simply do nothing. If May wants an election let her get it organised - it is her problem. Failing that there is Spring 2020 which is when the next one is due.
Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.
What would it take to crash it? Corbyn winning the election? Though I suppose the national grid my struggle with that one.
I'm a remainer but I'm not gloomy because of the effect of the election on Brexit. That seems like a red herring to me - I don't believe that the election will have much of an impact on Brexit at all. (It is a convenient excuse for May to call the election though.) I'm gloomy for the old-fashioned reason that I don't want a Tory govt with a large majority and a free hand to push through its policies. I sincerely hope that the opposition parties won't get distracted by Brexit too much during the campaign, since (apart of course from about 5% of the electorate who will vote LibDem because of it) Brexit won't move many votes, and other things are much more important than the Brexit smokescreen.
A credible Lab leader could make a lot of ground with the NHS in its current state. Regardless of the debate about what the NHS should look like, it is always a potent Lab tool in a GE. A further tragedy for Lab that Jezza renders it null.
It's why Sturgeon is also mistaken and impotently frothing.
The govt and in particular TMay has been accused of lacking a mandate, they are giving the country the opportunity to given them one. Or to give it to someone else.
It is rarely a wrong move and never an egregious one, to give the people the vote.
Except when the dumb fucks use it to leave the EU?
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
It's the Opposition's job to REPLACE the Government, not to oppose the only possible event that can allow them to replace the Government!
I know Corbyn is a ludicrous chap in so many ways, but even he couldn't pull that line off.
Indeed. It would make the remaining three years of this parliament (even more of) an impossibility for him. Thrown back in his face over and over.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
He does have the expenses scandal - he could say that he wants to wait till the cases are brought, so that they aren't swept under the carpet.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
The FPTA was a brilliant idea, except it had one eensy teensy weensy flaw, it never prepared for the possibility of a majority government between 2010 and 2020.
A permanent solution to a temporary problem and an instance of GO being too clever by half.
It's also a bugger of an acronym to get right, for some reason. Contrary to your post it is not the Fixed Perm Tarliament Act.
Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.
What would it take to crash it? Corbyn winning the election? Though I suppose the national grid my struggle with that one.
A lot of traffic, I think if we can cope with GE2015, we can cope with anything,
I think we got 1,200 comments in the hour after the exit poll came out.
On a lighter note I've been reading up on witch trials in central Scotland - which it turns out was the witch hunting capital of Europe - you were 4 times more likely to be accused of being a witch in this area than the European average:
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
Maybe not before, but now the FTPA gives an option. Simply do nothing. If May wants an election let her get it organised - it is her problem. Failing that there is Spring 2020 which is when the next one is due.
Calling a vote is organising one. More to the point standing at a lectern and announcing to the world's media that one is happening is organising one.
If Labour were to vote against an election that had been announced and seek to perpetuate three more years of Tory majority rule instead then they could be polling single figures within a month.
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
Maybe not before, but now the FTPA gives an option. Simply do nothing. If May wants an election let her get it organised - it is her problem. Failing that there is Spring 2020 which is when the next one is due.
Nah. The opposition is, or should be, the next government in waiting. It simply subverts the very essence of British politics, even with Jezza in charge of Lab, for an opposition to pass up the opportunity to oust the government.
Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.
What would it take to crash it? Corbyn winning the election? Though I suppose the national grid my struggle with that one.
Exactly. This election surely means a Soft-ISH Brexit. I don't understand why Remainers are so gloomy (apart from those who are adamant eu-Federalists, or those who seriously thought the vote could be reversed)
The manifesto will be fascinating. We'll find out where the balance of power lies in government. I expect the brexit stuff will still be fluffy and vague, but on domestic policy i'm expecting real meat.
TM will finally have an ideology.
£350m/NHS (probably on fudged figures)?
I'll go;
1/2 Yes 2/1 No
I think May will take the opportunity to scale back promises on spending like the NHS ring fence. Look at what Hammond said about having limited room to manoeuvre at Budget time.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
It's the Opposition's job to REPLACE the Government, not to oppose the only possible event that can allow them to replace the Government!
I know Corbyn is a ludicrous chap in so many ways, but even he couldn't pull that line off.
Except this opposition is not going to be replacing the govt any time soon...
It's why Sturgeon is also mistaken and impotently frothing.
The govt and in particular TMay has been accused of lacking a mandate, they are giving the country the opportunity to given them one. Or to give it to someone else.
It is rarely a wrong move and never an egregious one, to give the people the vote.
Except when the dumb fucks use it to leave the EU?
The EU Ref was not a mistake, as was evidenced by the result.
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
It's the Opposition's job to REPLACE the Government, not to oppose the only possible event that can allow them to replace the Government!
I know Corbyn is a ludicrous chap in so many ways, but even he couldn't pull that line off.
Indeed. It would make the remaining three years of this parliament (even more of) an impossibility for him. Thrown back in his face over and over.
Politics is a rough game and Corbyn seems to have a thick enough hide.
Sky News poll finds 68% support early election. Not sure which company.
Should that give us pause? Surely a lot of that 68 per cent are people whose main reason for wanting an early election is to vote against the government. Otherwise, why bother?
On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
I saw that over Easter: one of my all time favorite plays.
Hills have a market on the size of the Tory Majority:
>100 seats ....... 2.10
<100 seats (or no maj) ..... 1.67
They limited me to £15</p>
Which way did you bet if I may ask ?
On the basis of Betfair Sportsbook pitching the Tories to win 345.5 seats, I went for a < 100 seat Tory Majority which equates to them winning < 375 seats, i.e up to 30 more than the Betfair fulcrum point.
We've talked a lot about potential LD gains from Con, but what about from Labour? From memory they lost approx 20 seats to Labour in 2015. Can some of these be won back?
Sky News poll finds 68% support early election. Not sure which company.
Should that give us pause? Surely a lot of that 68 per cent are people whose main reason for wanting an early election is to vote against the government. Otherwise, why bother?
Sky News poll finds 68% support early election. Not sure which company.
Should that give us pause? Surely a lot of that 68 per cent are people whose main reason for wanting an early election is to vote against the government. Otherwise, why bother?
Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"
Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.
What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!
Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.
Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.
The man's a fool.
Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"
As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.
You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?
It gave Cameron an additional lever to use when his backbenchers came arguing for an early election. That Cameron was blufffing (as Tory and Labour votes would easily make 2/3rds) didn't matter too much, so long as it suited Cameron to stay in coalition. And of course back then the Tories weren't confident about winning outright from their position in government.
I'm a remainer but I'm not gloomy because of the effect of the election on Brexit. That seems like a red herring to me - I don't believe that the election will have much of an impact on Brexit at all. (It is a convenient excuse for May to call the election though.) I'm gloomy for the old-fashioned reason that I don't want a Tory govt with a large majority and a free hand to push through its policies. I sincerely hope that the opposition parties won't get distracted by Brexit too much during the campaign, since (apart of course from about 5% of the electorate who will vote LibDem because of it) Brexit won't move many votes, and other things are much more important than the Brexit smokescreen.
Maybe Brexit will take up so much effort that there won't be much left to spare for other policies. It may not take much of MPs' time but I'd have thought most Departments & their civil servants would be up to their eyes in planning etc.
Sky News poll finds 68% support early election. Not sure which company.
Should that give us pause? Surely a lot of that 68 per cent are people whose main reason for wanting an early election is to vote against the government. Otherwise, why bother?
As one of the 68% who would have voted Tory/Brexit in 2015/16 and will vote LD (probably) there's got to be a few of us.
Comments
Keep him away from trains, bacon sarnies, stone masons, Dianne Abbott, the PLP and 40 million voters and he might, just might, avoid falling behind the SNP ....
Con GAIN Bolsover ....
Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.
But considering this is a betting site.
We could do with the return of someone with a good prediction record.
No, not StuartTruth.
I mean RodCrosby.
"No election during Brexit"
All they have to do is abstain. That would leave Tezza up a certain creek without a certain mandate...
Do punters in Poland discuss UK constituency bets ?
Or anoraks in Austria obsess about May and Corbyn's poll ratings ?
Or are we unique ?
There's a few local alleged witch trial sites - so I thought I'd take a look into the background !!
He(well, a competent leader) could sell that as the Government agreeing with him that they eat babies, and they would vote to stop themselvesHe did test Mike's patience about repeatedly talking about you know what despite being asked nicely on several occasions not to do so.
The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.
51 Days To Save The NHS(Northern Heartland Seats). Jezza had argued for Make Venezuela Great Again.
I'm also registered to vote in Manchester Central, I could vote Tory there..
We get a lot of traffic from America when we do a thread on Trump getting impeached.
If she could say it last week, Jezza could say it this week.
The odds I got on Scottish constituencies in Jan 2015 were just nuts
Gordon 1/7
Coatbridge 3/1
Dundee West 2/5 !!!
Kilmarnock Evens
Even the bets I put on in March were still and nuts odds (SNP -Ayrshire Central - Evens). Don't think we will see those kind of odds this time round
I'm not sure I could cope.
Now of course it's Jezza we're talking about but even still.
Or she repeals the FTPA and says, "Sadly, I had no choice as little Jeremy was running scared and wanted to deny the nation their democratic right."
It of course had meaning when the government was a coalition.
>100 seats ....... 2.10
<100 seats (or no maj) ..... 1.67
They limited me to £15
https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/854435241402011649
The govt and in particular TMay has been accused of lacking a mandate, they are giving the country the opportunity to given them one. Or to give it to someone else.
It is rarely a wrong move and never an egregious one, to give the people the vote.
I know Corbyn is a ludicrous chap in so many ways, but even he couldn't pull that line off.
TM will finally have an ideology.
£350m/NHS (probably on fudged figures)?
I'll go;
1/2 Yes
2/1 No
EDIT 2/1 Betfred
It's also a bugger of an acronym to get right, for some reason. Contrary to your post it is not the Fixed Perm Tarliament Act.
I think we got 1,200 comments in the hour after the exit poll came out.
If Labour were to vote against an election that had been announced and seek to perpetuate three more years of Tory majority rule instead then they could be polling single figures within a month.
https://order-order.com/2017/04/18/woodcock-cant-endorse-corbyn-still-time-stand/
https://order-order.com/2017/04/18/labour-chaos-no-slogan-key-seats-list-or-campaign-budget/
A clever Labour leader would do what at this point?
"We're actors. We're the opposite of people."
https://twitter.com/huffpostuk/status/854436674893484032