Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
If the LDs held the balance of power they could take control of the parliamentary agenda and force through revoke or EUref2 even if Boris stayed token PM, they would not need to and would not put Corbyn in power
Partner thinks. Boris has no interest in Prime Ministering. May loved to Prime Minister, far too much for everyone's good. Boris is like a toddler who sees another with a toy they love. He covets it, snatches it away with tears and tantrums, then neither knows nor cares why he wanted it in the first place.
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
I think on reflection she’d be quite happy with a majority-less Corbyn government in power. I doubt she’d join a formal coalition (neither would the SNP) but an informal confidence-and-supply arrangement “in the national interest” while Brexit gets sorted by a consensus of the non-Tory MPs would be quite attractive I’d say. Corbyn would be unable to actually do anything to bring about real existierender Sozialismus but would get the flak for anything that goes wrong. Meanwhile it might even be possible to sneak through a PR Act or two.
Salmond tried to put some sort of sensible precaution on the referendum by giving each nation in the UK a veto and was told condescendingly by Liddington "Don't worry it's only advisory"
Cameron may well have been thoroughly outsmarted by the ERG when he set up the ref but why should the country put itself through hell because he was stupid?
Everyone should abide by the rules agreed upon in advance. It was accepted by both sides before the referendum that the result would be implemented. If you change the rules after ypu have lost then the whole system starts falling apart.
This goes for changing the rules on standing order and proroguing parliament for long periods too.
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
If the LDs held the balance of power they could take control of the parliamentary agenda and force through revoke or EUref2 even if Boris stayed token PM, they would not need to and would not put Corbyn in power
They couldn't do any of those things without Corbyns support. So, who would take control of the Parliamentary agenda?
The deal could be amended to include a second EU ref . So could blow up in Bozos face.
If Leavers are so confident that they are still in the majority, why are they so frit by a second referendum?
Is it because they might lose?
Its because they believe in democracy which involves actually acting on the result of a vote rather than just ignoring it.
Nope. You guys know you have failed and you’re scared of that being found out.
I am scared of what this country will become when millions of people realise democracy is a fraud.
Why should you accept a democratic vote again? I for one would refuse to accept a Corbyn government as the legitimate Government and would begin hard headed resistance the very next day
By asking for another election? That’s what always happens. That is normal.
There is a load of rubbish being spouted here. No one is saying you should never have another vote. What people are saying is that you implement the result of the election/referendum before you ask again. The Conservatives did not win in 1970, to be told by the Queen, "Hang on, I really don't like you Mr. Heath. Let's give it six months, have another vote just to check. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson is staying as Prime Minister."
I do not recall EEC referendum in 1978, 1981, 1984 and so on, just to check. Hell, if we're going down this route, can I please have my AV referendums for 2014 and 2017 ran please? (Calm down TSE) We need to check. We can't be sure. I demand another go at AV. In fact, I demand two goes. Of course, once I win, I'll wait 41 years before asking again. Only fair.
This why Rejoin is the most sensible, legitimate position.
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
If the LDs held the balance of power they could take control of the parliamentary agenda and force through revoke or EUref2 even if Boris stayed token PM, they would not need to and would not put Corbyn in power
They couldn't do any of those things without Corbyns support. So, who would take control of the Parliamentary agenda?
They could with the majority of Labour MPs (most of whom hate Corbyn anyway), the SNP, the Greens and Plaid
The Labour Brexit policy could work, whereas Johnson's, to the extent we know what it is, definitely won't.
Recognising Brexit is bogged down at the same 50/50 as the referendum result, the new Labour government offers the Remain option along with the best Leave option to the public for final decision. The Labour government will happily implement whichever the public decides. "Best" Leave option is the one that causes the least disruption, is rapidly implementable, and meets obligations to Northern Ireland.
This policy is for the situation where the public wants to get Brexit over with and move onto other things.
IMO, Labour should just offer May's deal as the Leave option in a referendum (to be held within a year of Labour being elected). The idea of this dragging on for years more, as Labour do a full-blown renegotiation, is not going to be an easy sell.
Agreed. Pointless too since most would campaign against it. Just pick May's deal, which is unpopular anyway, and get to it.
How is supposed to reverse the result of the first referendum when it asks a different question?
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
I think on reflection she’d be quite happy with a majority-less Corbyn government in power. I doubt she’d join a formal coalition (neither would the SNP) but an informal confidence-and-supply arrangement “in the national interest” while Brexit gets sorted by a consensus of the non-Tory MPs would be quite attractive I’d say. Corbyn would be unable to actually do anything to bring about real existierender Sozialismus but would get the flak for anything that goes wrong. Meanwhile it might even be possible to sneak through a PR Act or two.
Glad someone agrees with me at least. She would be in the position to extract concessions. Something the Clegg LDs woefully failed at. PR is the obvious one, Labour being more amenable than the Cameron Tories ever were. Likewise, Indyref 2. Plus, a referendum is a huge point of coalescence. It really is a no brainer. Corbyn gets to be PM. Gets an excuse not to establish Socialism. LDs and SNP get their referendum. Labour backbenchers don't frighten any horses. Boris has done the spadework on spending.
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
I think on reflection she’d be quite happy with a majority-less Corbyn government in power. I doubt she’d join a formal coalition (neither would the SNP) but an informal confidence-and-supply arrangement “in the national interest” while Brexit gets sorted by a consensus of the non-Tory MPs would be quite attractive I’d say. Corbyn would be unable to actually do anything to bring about real existierender Sozialismus but would get the flak for anything that goes wrong. Meanwhile it might even be possible to sneak through a PR Act or two.
Glad someone agrees with me at least. She would be in the position to extract concessions. Something the Clegg LDs woefully failed at. PR is the obvious one, Labour being more amenable than the Cameron Tories ever were. Likewise, Indyref 2. Plus, a referendum is a huge point of coalescence. It really is a no brainer. Corbyn gets to be PM. Gets an excuse not to establish Socialism. LDs and SNP get their referendum. Labour backbenchers don't frighten any horses. Boris has done the spadework on spending.
The LDs would block indyref2 too.
Plus Corbyn will never agree to PR as it would destroy any chance of socialism, whereas under FPTP he could get a Labour majority on just 35% of the vote
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
I think on reflection she’d be quite happy with a majority-less Corbyn government in power. I doubt she’d join a formal coalition (neither would the SNP) but an informal confidence-and-supply arrangement “in the national interest” while Brexit gets sorted by a consensus of the non-Tory MPs would be quite attractive I’d say. Corbyn would be unable to actually do anything to bring about real existierender Sozialismus but would get the flak for anything that goes wrong. Meanwhile it might even be possible to sneak through a PR Act or two.
Glad someone agrees with me at least. She would be in the position to extract concessions. Something the Clegg LDs woefully failed at. PR is the obvious one, Labour being more amenable than the Cameron Tories ever were. Likewise, Indyref 2. Plus, a referendum is a huge point of coalescence. It really is a no brainer. Corbyn gets to be PM. Gets an excuse not to establish Socialism. LDs and SNP get their referendum. Labour backbenchers don't frighten any horses. Boris has done the spadework on spending.
The LDs would block indyref2 too.
Plus Corbyn will never agree to PR as it would destroy any chance of socialism, whereas under FPTP he could get a Labour majority on just 35% of the vote
You think? Cross Party talks have been going on for a while now, while the government has made a virtue out of choosing sides. If you set up us v them, sometimes them may surprise.
Swinson would hold the balance of power and veto him
You keep saying that. What evidence is there for that statement? Would she support Boris? Because, if she doesn't, and she would have to carry her party, remember, not just MPs, then she wouldn't be vetoing anything.
Quite a few people, for and against the LDs, get pretty adamant Swinson would not back Corbyn. Holding the balance of power is probably a nightmare for her in that regard.
She would have to choose. Past performance is no guide, etc, etc,...
I think on reflection she’d be quite happy with a majority-less Corbyn government in power. I doubt she’d join a formal coalition (neither would the SNP) but an informal confidence-and-supply arrangement “in the national interest” while Brexit gets sorted by a consensus of the non-Tory MPs would be quite attractive I’d say. Corbyn would be unable to actually do anything to bring about real existierender Sozialismus but would get the flak for anything that goes wrong. Meanwhile it might even be possible to sneak through a PR Act or two.
Glad someone agrees with me at least. She would be in the position to extract concessions. Something the Clegg LDs woefully failed at. PR is the obvious one, Labour being more amenable than the Cameron Tories ever were. Likewise, Indyref 2. Plus, a referendum is a huge point of coalescence. It really is a no brainer. Corbyn gets to be PM. Gets an excuse not to establish Socialism. LDs and SNP get their referendum. Labour backbenchers don't frighten any horses. Boris has done the spadework on spending.
The LDs would block indyref2 too.
Plus Corbyn will never agree to PR as it would destroy any chance of socialism, whereas under FPTP he could get a Labour majority on just 35% of the vote
You think? Cross Party talks have been going on for a while now, while the government has made a virtue out of choosing sides. If you set up us v them, sometimes them may surprise.
A Tory and Brexit Party deal is more likely than a LD and Corbyn Labour one at present
Goodness gracious...Lib Dems Down, Labour 1 point behind...
As ever, best to look at the No Deal/anti-No Deal party split, rather than the individual party scores IMO. This poll is at the top end for the anti-No Dealers, but within the regular range.
The Tory+Brexit and Lab+LD+Green totals are virtually unchanged since the last poll, but there has been a movement to Labour.
That’s pretty much my point. On the big picture nothing much has changed - all pollsters show this. What seems unknowable right now is how that will play out in a GE. Which of the two blocs will have a more motivated, more geographically efficient vote? The Tory path to a majority still looks the easiest, but there has clearly been no surge to them in the last week or so, contrary to many expectations.
The Tory lead with Comres tonight is exactly the same 1% margin they had with Comres on eve of poll in 2015 before they won a majority
That was in line with what other pollsters were predicting in 2015.
This poll implies a swing from Con to Lab of 0.75% since 2017 with 8 Labour gains - offset by losses to SNP and LDs.
Don't forget first time incumbency.
Where would that arise in respect of the projected 8 Labour gains from the Tories?
It would arise in 10th Labour target seat Stoke on Trent South and all but 1 of the 13 Tory seats in Scotland
But in none of the 8 projected Labour gains! The forecast looks far too low re - SNP given the big fall in both the Tory and Labour vote shares - 45 - 50 seats seems more likely.
After berating loyal Conservatives as “basically Lib Dems”, it turns out that HYUFD thinks that Lib Dems are basically Conservatives.
No but neither are they Corbynite Marxists either
What if, holding the balance of power, they force the Labour party to nominate a PM other than Corbyn, and he/she proves popular?
The LDs say that in theory, in reality they prefer to keep Corbyn in place as Labour leader but out of power so the LDs have more chance of overtaking Labour as the main alternative to the Tories.
In any case Corbynism is in control of the NEC and Labour membership, it is not going anywhere soon
Goodness gracious...Lib Dems Down, Labour 1 point behind...
As ever, best to look at the No Deal/anti-No Deal party split, rather than the individual party scores IMO. This poll is at the top end for the anti-No Dealers, but within the regular range.
The Tory+Brexit and Lab+LD+Green totals are virtually unchanged since the last poll, but there has been a movement to Labour.
That’s pretty much my point. On the big picture nothing much has changed - all pollsters show this. What seems unknowable right now is how that will play out in a GE. Which of the two blocs will have a more motivated, more geographically efficient vote? The Tory path to a majority still looks the easiest, but there has clearly been no surge to them in the last week or so, contrary to many expectations.
The Tory lead with Comres tonight is exactly the same 1% margin they had with Comres on eve of poll in 2015 before they won a majority
That was in line with what other pollsters were predicting in 2015.
The polls are slightly disappointing for the Tories at the moment, there's no doubt about that. There has been a small swing to Labour compared to a few weeks ago.
The polls are slightly disappointing for the Tories at the moment, there's no doubt about that. There has been a small swing to Labour compared to a few weeks ago.
Not with Yougov and Opinium, they give 10%+ Tory leads, they might be right the others wrong and gold standard Survation still has a 5% Tory lead
Goodness gracious...Lib Dems Down, Labour 1 point behind...
As ever, best to look at the No Deal/anti-No Deal party split, rather than the individual party scores IMO. This poll is at the top end for the anti-No Dealers, but within the regular range.
The Tory+Brexit and Lab+LD+Green totals are virtually unchanged since the last poll, but there has been a movement to Labour.
That’s pretty much my point. On the big picture nothing much has changed - all pollsters show this. What seems unknowable right now is how that will play out in a GE. Which of the two blocs will have a more motivated, more geographically efficient vote? The Tory path to a majority still looks the easiest, but there has clearly been no surge to them in the last week or so, contrary to many expectations.
The Tory lead with Comres tonight is exactly the same 1% margin they had with Comres on eve of poll in 2015 before they won a majority
That was in line with what other pollsters were predicting in 2015.
After berating loyal Conservatives as “basically Lib Dems”, it turns out that HYUFD thinks that Lib Dems are basically Conservatives.
No but neither are they Corbynite Marxists either
What if, holding the balance of power, they force the Labour party to nominate a PM other than Corbyn, and he/she proves popular?
Bask in the reflected glory and try to hold on with incumbency.
I think they'd definitely see replacing Corbyn as a win.
However, it's only one of their various goals and is probably only moderately important to them, whereas preventing it is highly important to Corbyn. And Corbyn has the ability to trade away other stuff, so I think he probably stays.
Any news on whether Jared in Sheffield Hallam is actually going to resign in Sep as promised or has the lure of a few more months of money and privileges proved too tasty
Any news on whether Jared in Sheffield Hallam is actually going to resign in Sep as promised or has the lure of a few more months of money and privileges proved too tasty
He wrote to the Chancellor on the first day back after recess asking for his ' resignation ' to be delayed for a few weeks. If he's suggested a new date I haven't seen it reported.
My reading of it is behind each poll is a roundabout not a swing. For example to say voters swing from LD to Lab if gap widens between them could be blind to LD picking up Tory votes.
The talk on here has been LD hurting Labour on polling day more than BRX hurt Tories. But the LDs are going to hurt The Conservatives on Election Day, Swinson will appeal more to the hestletine and Clarke supporters, moderates bruised and upset with Boris, than to traditional Labour voters. These people will switch, but most currently being counted as conservative.
Back to the NI-only backstop. The genius of Boris's strategy is that he no longer needs the DUP's votes to protect his majority, because he doesn't have a majority.
Back to the NI-only backstop. The genius of Boris's strategy is that he no longer needs the DUP's votes to protect his majority, because he doesn't have a majority.
This could pass, with a confirmatory ref attached. Would be hard for Labour MPs to oppose.
DUP and presumably the Spartans would vote against.
Back to the NI-only backstop. The genius of Boris's strategy is that he no longer needs the DUP's votes to protect his majority, because he doesn't have a majority.
This could pass, with a confirmatory ref attached. Would be hard for Labour MPs to oppose.
DUP and presumably the Spartans would vote against.
Back to the NI-only backstop. The genius of Boris's strategy is that he no longer needs the DUP's votes to protect his majority, because he doesn't have a majority.
This could pass, with a confirmatory ref attached. Would be hard for Labour MPs to oppose.
DUP and presumably the Spartans would vote against.
Yes - something needs to be done to address the “democratic deficit” of regulation from Brussels with no NI input - but if that is acceptable to the people of NI as a lesser of two evils, so be it, and the DUP and Spartans can Foxtrot Oscar - the latter without the whip and barred from the GE.
There is a load of rubbish being spouted here. No one is saying you should never have another vote. What people are saying is that you implement the result of the election/referendum before you ask again. The Conservatives did not win in 1970, to be told by the Queen, "Hang on, I really don't like you Mr. Heath. Let's give it six months, have another vote just to check. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson is staying as Prime Minister."
(Snip)
Attempts have been made to implement the result. That's what we've spent the last three years doing. There were negotiations, May got a deal, and parliament has rejected it several times.
Sadly, the referendum result has proved to be unimplementable. This was mainly because leave promised every voter everything in order to win - and those promises are utterly incompatible. They also gave Farage an almost god-like position of being able to nod his head to say whether 'Brexit', when it is delivered, is really Brexit. Hence the complicating factor of the BXP.
Of the MPs who voted against the deal, there were remainer MPs - such as the Lib Dems and SNP - who were very unlikely to vote for any deal. Then there are the hardcore ERGers, for whom any deal appears to be betrayal. And then there are those who were persuadable, but voted against the deal because of the party whip (e.g. many in Labour).
I have little problem with the hardcore remainers voting it down: that's their belief - even if you think they're wrong. If their constituents disagree with them, they'll suffer at the next election. You can also argue that they're speaking for the 16 million who voted remain.
The ERGers and Brexiteers share much of the blame. They voted against a deal many of them would have accepted a few years ago, a deal that gave them leave. It's classic bait-and-switch. Worse, before the votes they were on the airwaves trashing the deal, giving others cover to vote against. Some did so not because of their belief that the deal was bad, but for their own political ends.
Finally, there are those (e.g. in Labour) who voted against because their party told them to - and despite the various flavours of unicorn farts their leadership promises, would probably have voted for a deal identical to May's deal if it had been presented by *their* leadership.
All in all, the 2016 referendum result appears to be unimplementable. It has caused harm to the country, our standing in the world, and our relationships with our neighbours. No-deal does not respect the referendum campaigns or result, and certainly does not respect the 2017 manifestos.
Yet no deal appears to be the quickest way out. Bait and switch, indeed.
The nonsensical thing about the alleged move towards looking to revive the NI only backstop as an alternative to the U.K. backstop is that the latter is a UK requested compromise in response to what the EU wanted. So an option under May’s deal would be to abandon the U.K. backstop at the end of the transition period in favour of NI only and the EU would have no problem with that.
Therefore May’s deal is actually Transition period with U.K. OR NI backstop (UK chooses if no trade agreement by end of transition). Alternative simply takes away the choice. Thereby weakening U.K. negotiating position in trade deal talks.
Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.
Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”
Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.
Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.
Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”
Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.
Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
Salmond tried to put some sort of sensible precaution on the referendum by giving each nation in the UK a veto and was told condescendingly by Liddington "Don't worry it's only advisory"
Cameron may well have been thoroughly outsmarted by the ERG when he set up the ref but why should the country put itself through hell because he was stupid?
Everyone should abide by the rules agreed upon in advance. It was accepted by both sides before the referendum that the result would be implemented. If you change the rules after ypu have lost then the whole system starts falling apart.
This goes for changing the rules on standing order and proroguing parliament for long periods too.
The rules (law) said MPs did not have to do anything following the referendum.
Re: another referendum. There are also sorts of problems with it, but it is wrong to suggest that a referendum of, say, Remain vs May’s deal would be a rerun. It would not, because the original referendum did not offer a specific proposition. One can even find comments from prominent Brexiteers at the time suggesting a further referendum to ratify a deal might be needed.
Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”
Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.
Remainers would boycott such a referendum. Ridiculous.
Whole point of a 2nd referendum is to at least move on, either the WA and more Brexit wrangling as we agree the future relationship or stop it with revoke. (And yes the debate in the country wouldn't end - but I can't see any scenario where that doesn't happen - and at least we have a functioning economy as we argue)
The deal could be amended to include a second EU ref . So could blow up in Bozos face.
If Leavers are so confident that they are still in the majority, why are they so frit by a second referendum?
Is it because they might lose?
Its because they believe in democracy which involves actually acting on the result of a vote rather than just ignoring it.
Nope. You guys know you have failed and you’re scared of that being found out.
I am scared of what this country will become when millions of people realise democracy is a fraud.
Why should you accept a democratic vote again? I for one would refuse to accept a Corbyn government as the legitimate Government of this country even if it won enough seats to form a government and would begin hard headed resistance the very next day as would most of the right I suspect. It would be as close to all out war as we get in peacetime
To actually stop him entering No 10 would be constitutionally outrageous though.
The deal could be amended to include a second EU ref . So could blow up in Bozos face.
If Leavers are so confident that they are still in the majority, why are they so frit by a second referendum?
Is it because they might lose?
Its because they believe in democracy which involves actually acting on the result of a vote rather than just ignoring it.
Nope. You guys know you have failed and you’re scared of that being found out.
I am scared of what this country will become when millions of people realise democracy is a fraud.
Why should you accept a democratic vote again? I for one would refuse to accept a Corbyn government as the legitimate Government of this country even if it won enough seats to form a government and would begin hard headed resistance the very next day as would most of the right I suspect. It would be as close to all out war as we get in peacetime
To actually stop him entering No 10 would be constitutionally outrageous though.
Comments
Boris is like a toddler who sees another with a toy they love. He covets it, snatches it away with tears and tantrums, then neither knows nor cares why he wanted it in the first place.
This goes for changing the rules on standing order and proroguing parliament for long periods too.
Con 31.2%
Lab 26.0%
LD 18.0%
BRX 14.0%
Greens 4.0%
SNP 3.8%
Baxter:
Con 324, Lab 231, SNP 39, LD 34, PC 3, Greens 1.
Corbyn gets to be PM. Gets an excuse not to establish Socialism. LDs and SNP get their referendum. Labour backbenchers don't frighten any horses. Boris has done the spadework on spending.
It's not great is it.
Plus Corbyn will never agree to PR as it would destroy any chance of socialism, whereas under FPTP he could get a Labour majority on just 35% of the vote
Remain voting Newcastle more deprived than Leave voting Sunderland.
The problem with logic is that it lets you argue persuasively from a false premise.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tories-brexit-alexander-temerko-dominic-cummings-boris-johnson_uk_5d77cc39e4b0fde50c2e0b54
In any case Corbynism is in control of the NEC and Labour membership, it is not going anywhere soon
I think they'd definitely see replacing Corbyn as a win.
However, it's only one of their various goals and is probably only moderately important to them, whereas preventing it is highly important to Corbyn. And Corbyn has the ability to trade away other stuff, so I think he probably stays.
The talk on here has been LD hurting Labour on polling day more than BRX hurt Tories. But the LDs are going to hurt The Conservatives on Election Day, Swinson will appeal more to the hestletine and Clarke supporters, moderates bruised and upset with Boris, than to traditional Labour voters. These people will switch, but most currently being counted as conservative.
Would be hard for Labour MPs to oppose.
DUP and presumably the Spartans would vote against.
Sadly, the referendum result has proved to be unimplementable. This was mainly because leave promised every voter everything in order to win - and those promises are utterly incompatible. They also gave Farage an almost god-like position of being able to nod his head to say whether 'Brexit', when it is delivered, is really Brexit. Hence the complicating factor of the BXP.
Of the MPs who voted against the deal, there were remainer MPs - such as the Lib Dems and SNP - who were very unlikely to vote for any deal. Then there are the hardcore ERGers, for whom any deal appears to be betrayal. And then there are those who were persuadable, but voted against the deal because of the party whip (e.g. many in Labour).
I have little problem with the hardcore remainers voting it down: that's their belief - even if you think they're wrong. If their constituents disagree with them, they'll suffer at the next election. You can also argue that they're speaking for the 16 million who voted remain.
The ERGers and Brexiteers share much of the blame. They voted against a deal many of them would have accepted a few years ago, a deal that gave them leave. It's classic bait-and-switch. Worse, before the votes they were on the airwaves trashing the deal, giving others cover to vote against. Some did so not because of their belief that the deal was bad, but for their own political ends.
Finally, there are those (e.g. in Labour) who voted against because their party told them to - and despite the various flavours of unicorn farts their leadership promises, would probably have voted for a deal identical to May's deal if it had been presented by *their* leadership.
All in all, the 2016 referendum result appears to be unimplementable. It has caused harm to the country, our standing in the world, and our relationships with our neighbours. No-deal does not respect the referendum campaigns or result, and certainly does not respect the 2017 manifestos.
Yet no deal appears to be the quickest way out. Bait and switch, indeed.
https://aelkus.github.io/theory/2019/09/06/boydw
Therefore May’s deal is actually Transition period with U.K. OR NI backstop (UK chooses if no trade agreement by end of transition). Alternative simply takes away the choice. Thereby weakening U.K. negotiating position in trade deal talks.
Ridiculous.
Perhaps a compromise would be to a have a referendum which only offers a deal as an option, but leaves the alternative (no deal/remain/a different deal) undetermined. Ie. “Do you agree to leaving the EU under the terms of the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement?”
Wouldn’t solve anything if the deal was rejected but would give the public a chance to bring the thing to an end. And if they chose not to then we would have all bought into the continued chaos.
https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1171650314317041664?s=20