Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nothing up my sleeve

12346»

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    @Byronic is correct: Corbyn's position on various make him unacceptable to all Tories and a large number of others who are keen on a GoNAfaE. (Note the correct capitalisation. I had previously capitalise the last 'fa', but EiT showed me the error my ways.)

    So: at the start of the 14 day period following a VoNC, Brexiteer Corbyn is faced with two choices:

    1. Accept some moderate figure (perhaps a Conservative MP who is planning on not standing in the imminent election) at temporary PM. This maximises the chance of getting an extension.

    2. Allow the clock to run out and get No Deal Brexit in the middle of the inevitable General Election.

    Both of these are possibilities. Corbyn will, of course, hang tough for the first part of the 14 days, but will eventually have to select between the two.

    The risk with one is that he'll (a) have installed someone other than himself as PM, and (b) will then lose seats in the ensuing General Election.

    The risk with two is (a) he will be blamed for imposing a "Tory No Deal Brexit" on the country, and (b) he will likely have united the Conservative + BXP vote in the upcoming election.

    The other problem with two is that neither he, nor any of us, know exactly how No Deal Brexit plays out. I've done my video, and I highly doubt medicine or food will be affected. But what if there were widespread job losses, petrol prices rose 20%, and it was clear the UK is entering a recession? Does that work in his favour as the principle opponent of the Tories? Or is he blamed as an enabler of it?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    edited August 2019

    The standard of discussion on this August Forum which is seldom indifferent has soared to new heights in the past day or so with the Admirable Alastair leading a thoughtful and generally well-informed debate. Thanks to all contributors. I personally have contributed little, partly because of feeling a little out of my depth. I have lurked diligently however in an attempt to get my head around the psychodrama of Brexit and I think I am able to assess now the overall state of play as it now stands. Would I be right in thinking it can be summarised pretty much as follows.....

    Nobody is entirely sure what happens next because a) nobody can be entirely sure about the intentions of many of the key players and b) the Parliamentary and constitutional rules under which the drama is to be played out are themselves unclear in certain important areas.

    The best guess as to what happens next goes along the lines that....
    i) Boris is VONC'd
    ii) Parliament tries to form a Government
    iii) It probably succeeds, if only on a temporary basis and for a limited period
    iv) It probably has Corbyn at its Head, but possibly someone else
    v) Boris resigns and Corbyn becomes PM, probably with a limited mandate
    vi) He asks the EU for an extension and it is probably granted
    vii) He seeks Parliament's consent for a GE, and obtains it
    viii) There is a General Election.

    There are so many conditionals in the above scenario that countless others have to be countenanced, but that seems to me the most likely way forward, and perhaps about the least damaging in a situation in which no outcomes are good, but some are a lot worse than others.

    Sorry if others have gone over this all already but just how far out am I?

    OK, back to lurking.....and the cricket. (I think the Aussies are going to win.)

    A good summary. But you miss out a second vote. Corbyn would only get the confidence of the House (if it ever gets that far) if he promises a 2nd Brexit referendum.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    dixiedean said:

    IanB2 said:

    If a clear majority of our elected representatives, with the sympathies of the Speaker and backed by a majority of the public and an even larger majority of the Lords, can’t find some way of stopping something hugely damaging happening given three months to do it, then either there is something wrong with the system and/or they are incompetents of the first order.

    Imagine everything was the same, except that the leader of the Labour Party was Ed Miliband, or a similar mainstream figure. I think it is certain that a number of Conservative MPs would have crossed the floor and the government would have fallen, at any one of many moments over the last year or so.

    While Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party potential Tory rebels face having to pay a higher political price to prevent no deal. I am not surprised that they are reluctant to pay that price, but I do wish that they would be honest and stop posturing over being prepared to do anything to stop Brexit, when they clearly are not prepared to do what is necessary.
    The problem with that is that EdM was regarded by the Tories as a far from mainstream figure. Indeed, he was a Marxist with a dangerous far left Socialist agenda. Of energy price caps, more police and a pay rise for the public sector, and other anti business stuff worthy of the Soviet Union.
    That was true in 2015, but hasn't a price cap been implemented by the Tories now?

    A crucial difference is that I think Miliband would have attempted to reach out to encourage defections. He would have been prepared to flatter, to make emollient moves to reassure potential defectors about what they would be signing up to. Remember his speech about Disraeli? Corbyn isn't interested.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    dixiedean said:

    IanB2 said:

    If a clear majority of our elected representatives, with the sympathies of the Speaker and backed by a majority of the public and an even larger majority of the Lords, can’t find some way of stopping something hugely damaging happening given three months to do it, then either there is something wrong with the system and/or they are incompetents of the first order.

    Imagine everything was the same, except that the leader of the Labour Party was Ed Miliband, or a similar mainstream figure. I think it is certain that a number of Conservative MPs would have crossed the floor and the government would have fallen, at any one of many moments over the last year or so.

    While Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party potential Tory rebels face having to pay a higher political price to prevent no deal. I am not surprised that they are reluctant to pay that price, but I do wish that they would be honest and stop posturing over being prepared to do anything to stop Brexit, when they clearly are not prepared to do what is necessary.
    The problem with that is that EdM was regarded by the Tories as a far from mainstream figure. Indeed, he was a Marxist with a dangerous far left Socialist agenda. Of energy price caps, more police and a pay rise for the public sector, and other anti business stuff worthy of the Soviet Union.
    That was true in 2015, but hasn't a price cap been implemented by the Tories now?

    A crucial difference is that I think Miliband would have attempted to reach out to encourage defections. He would have been prepared to flatter, to make emollient moves to reassure potential defectors about what they would be signing up to. Remember his speech about Disraeli? Corbyn isn't interested.
    Well, yes. I deliberately chose 3 policies which were labelled dangerous that the Tories have now implemented.
    Were Ed M still LOTO, he'd still be being branded as a Trot, and disparaged as a threat to the nation. Couldn't see any Tories going over in the face of such hyperbole.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    Byronic said:

    Some Lab members have been radicalised by Corbyn into becoming anti-Semitic says report:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/04/jeremy-corbyns-leadership-has-radicalised-labour-members-attacking/

    This has actually happened to a friend of mine. He's gone from being a jolly, Old Left kind of guy, frustrated by Blairites but generally good-natured, to a weird ultra-lefty who, after three pints, will rant about Jews and Zionists, in the most vile way. And all this has happened since Corbyn. And he's a big fan of Corbyn.

    His anti-Semitism is so bad his brother has stopped talking to him, and won't have him in the house. Very very sad. And odd.
    Does your friend frequent a Muslim barber by any chance?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,634

    Roger said:

    I kept a quote by your doppelganger SeanT during Israel's invasion of Gaza when 2200 Gazeans were killed by the Israelis. I kept it because it was very well described and full of righteous anger. Had Corbyn written it using the same criteria he would at this moment be the ex leader of the Labour Party and damned for ever as an anti-semite.

    An ex-leader, but enjoying his seven-figure income from fiction? Although I can't see the Labour Party manifesto is ever going to make him that sort of money....
    It's happened before. Remember the one about the three blokes and the virgin shacked up in Bethlehem? Sold like hot cakes. God knows how many editions and translations. As for the play....it makes The Mousetrap look like a flop.

    Talking of which have have you seen 'Marianne and Leonard'?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    England's bowlers without Anderson are utterly useless.

    They can't even get Matthew Wade out.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    IanB2 said:

    If a clear majority of our elected representatives, with the sympathies of the Speaker and backed by a majority of the public and an even larger majority of the Lords, can’t find some way of stopping something hugely damaging happening given three months to do it, then either there is something wrong with the system and/or they are incompetents of the first order.

    Imagine everything was the same, except that the leader of the Labour Party was Ed Miliband, or a similar mainstream figure. I think it is certain that a number of Conservative MPs would have crossed the floor and the government would have fallen, at any one of many moments over the last year or so.

    While Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party potential Tory rebels face having to pay a higher political price to prevent no deal. I am not surprised that they are reluctant to pay that price, but I do wish that they would be honest and stop posturing over being prepared to do anything to stop Brexit, when they clearly are not prepared to do what is necessary.
    The problem with that is that EdM was regarded by the Tories as a far from mainstream figure. Indeed, he was a Marxist with a dangerous far left Socialist agenda. Of energy price caps, more police and a pay rise for the public sector, and other anti business stuff worthy of the Soviet Union.
    That was true in 2015, but hasn't a price cap been implemented by the Tories now?

    A crucial difference is that I think Miliband would have attempted to reach out to encourage defections. He would have been prepared to flatter, to make emollient moves to reassure potential defectors about what they would be signing up to. Remember his speech about Disraeli? Corbyn isn't interested.
    Well, yes. I deliberately chose 3 policies which were labelled dangerous that the Tories have now implemented.
    Were Ed M still LOTO, he'd still be being branded as a Trot, and disparaged as a threat to the nation. Couldn't see any Tories going over in the face of such hyperbole.
    Grieve said in August 2018 that he'd leave the Tory party if Johnson took over but has now backtracked. R4 recently played the statement back at him.

    He's caught between two people that he views as respectively a wrecker and an extremist. What can he do?

    Price regulation of gas and electricity was routine in the USA for 100 years; what's special about us reintroducing it? The UK regulated prices after gas and elec were privatised, from around 1986 to 2002. It was the retail de-regulation that both parties probably now regret.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    IanB2 said:

    If a clear majority of our elected representatives, with the sympathies of the Speaker and backed by a majority of the public and an even larger majority of the Lords, can’t find some way of stopping something hugely damaging happening given three months to do it, then either there is something wrong with the system and/or they are incompetents of the first order.

    Imagine everything was the same, except that the leader of the Labour Party was Ed Miliband, or a similar mainstream figure. I think it is certain that a number of Conservative MPs would have crossed the floor and the government would have fallen, at any one of many moments over the last year or so.

    While Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party potential Tory rebels face having to pay a higher political price to prevent no deal. I am not surprised that they are reluctant to pay that price, but I do wish that they would be honest and stop posturing over being prepared to do anything to stop Brexit, when they clearly are not prepared to do what is necessary.
    The problem with that is that EdM was regarded by the Tories as a far from mainstream figure. Indeed, he was a Marxist with a dangerous far left Socialist agenda. Of energy price caps, more police and a pay rise for the public sector, and other anti business stuff worthy of the Soviet Union.
    That was true in 2015, but hasn't a price cap been implemented by the Tories now?

    A crucial difference is that I think Miliband would have attempted to reach out to encourage defections. He would have been prepared to flatter, to make emollient moves to reassure potential defectors about what they would be signing up to. Remember his speech about Disraeli? Corbyn isn't interested.
    Well, yes. I deliberately chose 3 policies which were labelled dangerous that the Tories have now implemented.
    Were Ed M still LOTO, he'd still be being branded as a Trot, and disparaged as a threat to the nation. Couldn't see any Tories going over in the face of such hyperbole.
    The difference being that the large numbers of people who do not bind themselves to a party would have seen clearly that this was a bit of party political smearing and would not have paid it so much attention. With Corbyn the problem is that, even if the Tory attacks are just party political smearing, they also ring true with large numbers of the non aligned and, more importantly, also with many within the Labour party.

    So I agree with OblitusSumMe. A Labour leader other than Corbyn and the whole dynamic of this issue would be very different and the Government may well have fallen long before Boris got anywhere near Number 10.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Australia must be favourites once the target goes over 200.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    What do we make of the fact that Leo Varadkar reportedly wants an all Ireland regime for food and agriculture, and the DUP have suggested that Johnson asks for a backstop time limit in return? Seems like the germs of a deal to me. Varadkar would surely not be asking for something without being prepared to give something.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/calls-for-brexit-backstop-time-limit-as-fear-grows-that-no-deal-is-inevitable-1.3976840
  • AndyJS said:

    Australia must be favourites once the target goes over 200.

    Favorites now. England have had it. Aussie bowlers all fit and one of them is one of the best spinners in the world.

    Regulars readers will know what I think of the Test Selectors, so won't be surprised that I think that whoever decided to play an unfit bowler should resign. No chance of it happening though, if only because there's a whole bunch of them and none of them ever own up to making a decision.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    A cricket novice might look at the scores and say that England are winning because they got the highest score so far of 374. The problem is they were batting second and it's famously difficult to chase down scores in the fourth innings.
  • leslie48leslie48 Posts: 33
    Without feeble and extreme Corbyn the country would be in a better position - as we would have a real political alternative. As it is this man with Johnson creates a perfect storm of extremes, incompetence and dogma. Thanks Labour you really are a load of deluded twits and the damage to our country of having this man as your candidate for PM will do more damage to you than your long exclusion from power from 1979-1997. Your annihilation by angry voters will come at the GE probably late this yr.
  • Byronic said:

    The standard of discussion on this August Forum which is seldom indifferent has soared to new heights in the past day or so with the Admirable Alastair leading a thoughtful and generally well-informed debate. Thanks to all contributors. I personally have contributed little, partly because of feeling a little out of my depth. I have lurked diligently however in an attempt to get my head around the psychodrama of Brexit and I think I am able to assess now the overall state of play as it now stands. Would I be right in thinking it can be summarised pretty much as follows.....

    Nobody is entirely sure what happens next because a) nobody can be entirely sure about the intentions of many of the key players and b) the Parliamentary and constitutional rules under which the drama is to be played out are themselves unclear in certain important areas.

    The best guess as to what happens next goes along the lines that....
    i) Boris is VONC'd
    ii) Parliament tries to form a Government
    iii) It probably succeeds, if only on a temporary basis and for a limited period
    iv) It probably has Corbyn at its Head, but possibly someone else
    v) Boris resigns and Corbyn becomes PM, probably with a limited mandate
    vi) He asks the EU for an extension and it is probably granted
    vii) He seeks Parliament's consent for a GE, and obtains it
    viii) There is a General Election.

    There are so many conditionals in the above scenario that countless others have to be countenanced, but that seems to me the most likely way forward, and perhaps about the least damaging in a situation in which no outcomes are good, but some are a lot worse than others.

    Sorry if others have gone over this all already but just how far out am I?

    OK, back to lurking.....and the cricket. (I think the Aussies are going to win.)

    A good summary. But you miss out a second vote. Corbyn would only get the confidence of the House (if it ever gets that far) if he promises a 2nd Brexit referendum.
    Thank you Bryonic. I tend to view 2nd Ref and GE as pretty much the same thing. Personally I have always favoured the former but there's never been the numbers in Parliament for it, so I tend to see GE as the more likely route.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    leslie48 said:

    Without feeble and extreme Corbyn the country would be in a better position - as we would have a real political alternative. As it is this man with Johnson creates a perfect storm of extremes, incompetence and dogma. Thanks Labour you really are a load of deluded twits and the damage to our country of having this man as your candidate for PM will do more damage to you than your long exclusion from power from 1979-1997. Your annihilation by angry voters will come at the GE probably late this yr.

    There’s a whole new thread about that.
  • rcs1000 said:

    @Byronic is correct: Corbyn's position on various make him unacceptable to all Tories and a large number of others who are keen on a GoNAfaE. (Note the correct capitalisation. I had previously capitalise the last 'fa', but EiT showed me the error my ways.)

    So: at the start of the 14 day period following a VoNC, Brexiteer Corbyn is faced with two choices:

    1. Accept some moderate figure (perhaps a Conservative MP who is planning on not standing in the imminent election) at temporary PM. This maximises the chance of getting an extension.

    2. Allow the clock to run out and get No Deal Brexit in the middle of the inevitable General Election.

    Both of these are possibilities. Corbyn will, of course, hang tough for the first part of the 14 days, but will eventually have to select between the two.

    The risk with one is that he'll (a) have installed someone other than himself as PM, and (b) will then lose seats in the ensuing General Election.

    The risk with two is (a) he will be blamed for imposing a "Tory No Deal Brexit" on the country, and (b) he will likely have united the Conservative + BXP vote in the upcoming election.

    The other problem with two is that neither he, nor any of us, know exactly how No Deal Brexit plays out. I've done my video, and I highly doubt medicine or food will be affected. But what if there were widespread job losses, petrol prices rose 20%, and it was clear the UK is entering a recession? Does that work in his favour as the principle opponent of the Tories? Or is he blamed as an enabler of it?

    Personally I would never vote Labour again, even if No Deal turns out to be relatively benign, but that's just me.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    leslie48 said:

    Without feeble and extreme Corbyn the country would be in a better position - as we would have a real political alternative. As it is this man with Johnson creates a perfect storm of extremes, incompetence and dogma. Thanks Labour you really are a load of deluded twits and the damage to our country of having this man as your candidate for PM will do more damage to you than your long exclusion from power from 1979-1997. Your annihilation by angry voters will come at the GE probably late this yr.

    It's interesting how Labour reacted to the shock loss (for them) of the 2015 general election. They decided to replace Ed Miliband with a left-wing leader, when the real problem with Ed was incompetence rather than that he was a raging moderate.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    leslie48 said:

    Without feeble and extreme Corbyn the country would be in a better position - as we would have a real political alternative. As it is this man with Johnson creates a perfect storm of extremes, incompetence and dogma. Thanks Labour you really are a load of deluded twits and the damage to our country of having this man as your candidate for PM will do more damage to you than your long exclusion from power from 1979-1997. Your annihilation by angry voters will come at the GE probably late this yr.

    I don't exactly think so, due to tribalism and most voters worrying more about NHS, house rents, poor schools, student loans, etc than Brexshit. But they'll lose ~50 seats versus what Thornberry, Miliband E or someone on the Labour centre-left might have got. Nothing in the 2017 manifesto was at all left-wing by Attlee or Wilson's standards.

    Corbyn mirrors what would have happened if Benn senior had become leader. At the time I found Benn persuasive - he had a 'silver tongue' - but he was well to the left of Livingstone who, after all, showed moderation in London 35 years ago and again in London 15 years ago.
  • alednamalednam Posts: 175
    Jacob Rees-Mogg acknowledged that the government’s opponents probably had the numbers to defeat it in a vote of no confidence. Indeed. What he didn't say was that as Leader of the Commons, he'd have a big role in determining the date of an election ensuing [eventually, thanks to FTPA] from a no-confidence vote.
  • leslie48leslie48 Posts: 33

    leslie48 said:

    Without feeble and extreme Corbyn the country would be in a better position - as we would have a real political alternative. As it is this man with Johnson creates a perfect storm of extremes, incompetence and dogma. Thanks Labour you really are a load of deluded twits and the damage to our country of having this man as your candidate for PM will do more damage to you than your long exclusion from power from 1979-1997. Your annihilation by angry voters will come at the GE probably late this yr.

    I don't exactly think so, due to tribalism and most voters worrying more about NHS, house rents, poor schools, student loans, etc than Brexshit. But they'll lose ~50 seats versus what Thornberry, Miliband E or someone on the Labour centre-left might have got. Nothing in the 2017 manifesto was at all left-wing by Attlee or Wilson's standards.
    I agree the pitiful state of our public services, inequalities , crime rate, threadbare healthcare, housing etc will impact many voters but I think the issue always relates to 'swing voters' in marginal seats. 2017 was peak time for Corbyn & he lost the GE. Third Parties are back from London to Scotland and Wales etc., When London and Welsh voters desert Corbyn you know its all up.

    The old tribalism has gone especially away from the north and just on personality, ability, performance let alone his politics he ain't going to pick up seats like Watford, Stevenage, Harlow, Milton Keynes, Swindon, Corby, Telford, Worcester, Dudley, Nuneaton etc., His polling is dire among the swing voters needed especially over 45s,55s,65s and aspiring lower middle class or skilled working class tradesmen /White Van Man.

This discussion has been closed.