politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The past three months have been tough for both main leaders bu

Deuxieme.

Fourth like TIG

fpt

DavidL said:

CD13 said:

If I were negotiating on behalf of the EU. I would feel no compulsion whatsoever to move on the backstop or anything. We're in a strong position with the UK Parliament on our side. Why would I give on anything? They will veto a no-deal themselves.

Even better, they'll beg for a delay, the very thing we want if (and we do) we'd prefer them to stay in an eventual humiliating climb-down.

Even the fanatical Remainers realise this but they don't care, and for the MPs, it shows the voters who's in charge. When even sensible Remainers, such as Mr Meeks was once, liken voting for an option in a democratic referendum to a death cult such as ISIS, we know all their critical faculties have been scrambled.

They need pity, I suppose, rather than condemnation, but it's a sad indictment on British democracy. Maybe it isn't such a loss after all. The Chelsea of politics.

Indeed. Throughout the process the remainer majority has sought to undermine the UK position with the objective of leaving the UK with no viable option but to remain. The next stage is to remove no deal from the table completely. After all, that removal is bound to help May get any changes she is asking for to the backstop isn't it? All sensible people go into negotiations with the possibility of saying anything other than yes removed, stands to reason.

Breakfast time, David, you need some calories in you.

For all Theresa May's undoubted failings, only a complete moron would even contemplate inflicting or allowing no deal on their country. OK for disappointingly idiotic PB-ers to fantasise about it, but not if you are PM or in any way connected to government.

There's a very clear outline of the legal issues surrounding the order to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship at the "Law and Lawyers" blog:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2019/02/shamima-begum-and-law.html

It concludes:
"Given the obvious doubt over whether she holds any alternative citizenship it would appear that the deprivation order is probably unlawful. It is likely that this will be tested in the courts - very probably by SIAC."

Chris said:

There's a very clear outline of the legal issues surrounding the order to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship at the "Law and Lawyers" blog:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2019/02/shamima-begum-and-law.html

It concludes:
"Given the obvious doubt over whether she holds any alternative citizenship it would appear that the deprivation order is probably unlawful. It is likely that this will be tested in the courts - very probably by SIAC."

One thing I hadn't appreciated is that until 2002 the law didn't allow anyone who was British by birth to be deprived of their citizenship.

SquareRoot said:

Premier

A league that Fulham look set to be out of next season

MikeSmithson said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

The evidence is that Corbyn's antisemitism hurts LAB with more than the Jewish community. Look at the timing of the movements in Corbyn's ratings

Yep. I know from my own conversations with acquaintances, friends etc that the issue with anti-semitism has cut through and is a factor in people's thinking about Jezza.

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

The evidence is that Corbyn's antisemitism hurts LAB with more than the Jewish community. Look at the timing of the movements in Corbyn's ratings

Yep. I know from my own conversations with acquaintances, friends etc that the issue with anti-semitism has cut through and is a factor in people's thinking about Jezza.

Well it certainly is in my household. However FPTP means it doesn't reflect in the vote. The local Labour MP is far more positive than Corbyn in response to anti-semitism and Brexit so the vote was never going elsewhere.

She's not one of his mates though so maybe swelling her majority helps a bit.

MikeSmithson said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

The evidence is that Corbyn's antisemitism hurts LAB with more than the Jewish community. Look at the timing of the movements in Corbyn's ratings

That's interesting. I would be interested in some polling as I'm sure the build up of the peoples' vote (plus of course everything else about Jezza) might be coexisting factors.

Peter_the_Punter said:

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

Premier

A league that Fulham look set to be out of next season

There's nothing worse than a smug Burnley supporter over breakfast.... ;-)

@SquareRoot is a life-time Fulham supporters

MikeSmithson said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

MikeSmithson said:

SquareRoot said:

Premier

A league that Fulham look set to be out of next season

There's nothing worse than a smug Burnley supporter over breakfast.... ;-)

@SquareRoot is a life-time Fulham supporters

We all have our cross to bear, Mike.

Happily my own team is well in the running from promotion and with luck may even make it back into the Football League proper next season.

Gardenwalker said:

Chris said:

Gardenwalker said:

Chris said:

Chris said:

There's a very clear outline of the legal issues surrounding the order to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship at the "Law and Lawyers" blog:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2019/02/shamima-begum-and-law.html

It concludes:
"Given the obvious doubt over whether she holds any alternative citizenship it would appear that the deprivation order is probably unlawful. It is likely that this will be tested in the courts - very probably by SIAC."

One thing I hadn't appreciated is that until 2002 the law didn't allow anyone who was British by birth to be deprived of their citizenship.

It’s a disgraceful law that should be rescinded. Typical of New Labour’s authoritarian bent.

Well, there were three steps in an authoritarian direction - two by New Labour, and one by Theresa May as Home Secretary in a Lib Dem/Con coalition.

Just reading that link now.

Apparently,

The Home Secretary may make an order to deprive a person of British citizenship status...[where h/she] considers that deprivation “is conducive to the public good”, and would not make the person stateless.

Further, according to subsequent policy guidance,

‘Conducive to the public good’ means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours.

The meaning of the vague phrase "unacceptable behaviours" is not made clear.

Considering it can go to judicial review I would have thought the context would mean it has to be in the same league as those. I don't think downloading a torrent file would count.

I'm still fuming about that article by Rev Giles Fraser seeking to attack Remainers over the treatment of their parents in infirm old age. I'm fuming with myself for being riled by clickbait as well.

TOPPING said:

.... only a complete moron would even contemplate inflicting or allowing no deal on their country....

But the problem being is that No Deal could never be taken off the table, and what you are effectively saying is that no country could ever leave the EU once inside.

No Deal, whilst I agree far, far from ideal, cannot be 'not an option' because if it were then the EU could simply impose any conditions they feel like and say, "If you don't like it, then No Deal for you."

Additionally, everyone (and I do mean everyone) who proposed the referendum, voted Leave, advocated Leave, voted to trigger Article 50 are all morons by your standard. That's a lot of people to call a moron.

So David Cameron, 17.4 million people and all 498 MPs are morons. You might be right about the first and the last, but I'd struggle to say the middle group are.

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

Chris said:

Gardenwalker said:

Chris said:

Chris said:

There's a very clear outline of the legal issues surrounding the order to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship at the "Law and Lawyers" blog:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2019/02/shamima-begum-and-law.html

It concludes:
"Given the obvious doubt over whether she holds any alternative citizenship it would appear that the deprivation order is probably unlawful. It is likely that this will be tested in the courts - very probably by SIAC."

One thing I hadn't appreciated is that until 2002 the law didn't allow anyone who was British by birth to be deprived of their citizenship.

It’s a disgraceful law that should be rescinded. Typical of New Labour’s authoritarian bent.

Well, there were three steps in an authoritarian direction - two by New Labour, and one by Theresa May as Home Secretary in a Lib Dem/Con coalition.

Just reading that link now.

Apparently,

The Home Secretary may make an order to deprive a person of British citizenship status...[where h/she] considers that deprivation “is conducive to the public good”, and would not make the person stateless.

Further, according to subsequent policy guidance,

‘Conducive to the public good’ means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours.

The meaning of the vague phrase "unacceptable behaviours" is not made clear.

Considering it can go to judicial review I would have thought the context would mean it has to be in the same league as those. I don't think downloading a torrent file would count.

It's the sui generis principle, isn't it, Philip? The unacceptable behaviour has to be along the lines of the other misbehaviour identified by the preceding words.

So you are ok to pin that picture of Mao back on your wall.

TheValiant said:

TOPPING said:

.... only a complete moron would even contemplate inflicting or allowing no deal on their country....

But the problem being is that No Deal could never be taken off the table, and what you are effectively saying is that no country could ever leave the EU once inside.

No Deal, whilst I agree far, far from ideal, cannot be 'not an option' because if it were then the EU could simply impose any conditions they feel like and say, "If you don't like it, then No Deal for you."

Additionally, everyone (and I do mean everyone) who proposed the referendum, voted Leave, advocated Leave, voted to trigger Article 50 are all morons by your standard. That's a lot of people to call a moron.

So David Cameron, 17.4 million people and all 498 MPs are morons. You might be right about the first and the last, but I'd struggle to say the middle group are.

ha! No I don't think everyone who voted Leave is a moron. But I do think that many people had not understood fully the degree to which the UK, these past 40 years, had become integrated with the EU.

Such No Dealers are treating it as a pick up your bags and go situation whereas there are contingencies and contingencies upon contigencies. Add in NI also, which has its own micro-history, again tied into the EU, and it's not that you can't leave ever, but that before you decide you want to leave you need to understand what's in play.

At the moment, what's in play is that for the UK, to leave without a deal it would be turmoil. And hence no sensible politician could choose that option.

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

Corbyn is a serial bungler who has an entirely undeserved reputation for being merely mediocre because his opponent ran a dismal, abysmally awful campaign in 2017.

Watching video of him sucking up to Venezuelans or the IRA or whoever I can't believe he's got as far as he has.

TOPPING said:

TheValiant said:

TOPPING said:

.... only a complete moron would even contemplate inflicting or allowing no deal on their country....

But the problem being is that No Deal could never be taken off the table, and what you are effectively saying is that no country could ever leave the EU once inside.

No Deal, whilst I agree far, far from ideal, cannot be 'not an option' because if it were then the EU could simply impose any conditions they feel like and say, "If you don't like it, then No Deal for you."

Additionally, everyone (and I do mean everyone) who proposed the referendum, voted Leave, advocated Leave, voted to trigger Article 50 are all morons by your standard. That's a lot of people to call a moron.

So David Cameron, 17.4 million people and all 498 MPs are morons. You might be right about the first and the last, but I'd struggle to say the middle group are.

ha! No I don't think everyone who voted Leave is a moron. But I do think that many people had not understood fully the degree to which the UK, these past 40 years, had become integrated with the EU.

Such No Dealers are treating it as a pick up your bags and go situation whereas there are contingencies and contingencies upon contigencies. Add in NI also, which has its own micro-history, again tied into the EU, and it's not that you can't leave ever, but that before you decide you want to leave you need to understand what's in play.

At the moment, what's in play is that for the UK, to leave without a deal it would be turmoil. And hence no sensible politician could choose that option.

Alongside that, no one has been able to work out the consequences of No Deal nor how we would play things in a No Deal world.

For example, do we go for maximum tariffs to ensure we can negotiate trade deals with everyone or do we go unilaterally for zero / low tariffs and assume countries will treat our imports the way we are treating their exports (they won't BTW but it seems to be what a lot of No Deal zealots seem to believe).

It's so long since we had a decent and credible Labour opposition that we have forgotten what one looks like. In the lead up to 1997, though, Labour set the agenda and the government reacted. May did what she did yesterday because she does not fear Corbyn in any way at all.

Fishing said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

Corbyn is a serial bungler who has an entirely undeserved reputation for being merely mediocre because his opponent ran a dismal, abysmally awful campaign in 2017.

Watching video of him sucking up to Venezuelans or the IRA or whoever I can't believe he's got as far as he has.

Funny, I'm in the reverse position with video of pols sucking up to the House of Saud or the DUP, and believing that's intrinsically linked to where they've got.

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1099953873740070912

I don't think they'd be discussing the trade part during the extension either? That's nothing to do with it either way.

Basically they're hoping that either the British will decide on TMay's deal, decide not to do Brexit or decide on some other coherent, workable thing they want to do that they can get through Parliament that keeps the Irish border open. All these are better for everyone than crashing out with No Deal, but the British don't seem to be in a position to do any of them before the current deadline, so it seems like an obviously sensible thing to do, no?

The Guardian article states "Replacing the 21-month transition period with extra time as a member state would allow the UK and the EU to develop their plans for the future relationship with the aim of making the contentious Irish backstop redundant."

Future relationship I would argue is only about 2 things, trade relationship (including Irish border) and political relationship. They are interlinked. One of the main problems that the last set of negotiations had is not talking future trade deal.

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

What you need to remember is that Corbyn is only interested in communicating with the Labour members whose support he needs to continue. His focus is on them - relentlessly. He does not really care what anyone else thinks. And the Labour members whose support he needs will be absolutely fine with his response.

TGOHF said:

If there is an extension longer than 4-6 weeks then the Uk should insist on electing MEPs to send to Strasbourg.

Would focus some EU minds.

The U.K. wouldn’t need to insist, we would pretty much be legally obliged to.

It’s worth delaying just to see how such EU elections would turn out.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1099953873740070912

As Gardenwalker puts it though, a 21 month extension doesn't do anything except allow us to faff around some more.

There is no scheduled UK General Election during this period, and a 2nd Referendum is far from certain. Giving us 21 more months could produce nothing.

Whilst I voted Leave, still support Leave and would prefer a softish EEA leave position, I realise that just giving us 21 months, no questions asked is rubbish. If they agree an extension they need to do it with a string attached. Either a 2nd Referendum during this period (though what would that question be?) or more likely a General Election to try and break the logjam in Parliament.

And I'd dread to think what would happen in the EU Parliamentary elections in May.

edmundintokyo said:

The backstop exists because TMay wanted a way to avoid making that decision yet so she could keep the ERG and the DUP on board simultaneously. (It didn't work, because although they may be bonkers, neither of these groups was born yesterday.)

1750 in the first case, 1690 in the second.

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

What you need to remember is that Corbyn is only interested in communicating with the Labour members whose support he needs to continue. His focus is on them - relentlessly. He does not really care what anyone else thinks. And the Labour members whose support he needs will be absolutely fine with his response.

Corbyn really is not Machiavelli. For the past 30-odd years he has kept the green benches warm as a licensed dissident of no significance whatsoever until thrust into the leadership by Buggins turn. Occam's Razor suggests that a tin-eared response is because he is tin-eared and not because he has carefully weighed factions and consequences.

Corbyn is briefed on what to say. The key thing is to retain control of the party. Lose that and everything is lost.

saddo said:

edmundintokyo said:

ralphmalph said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1099953873740070912

I don't think they'd be discussing the trade part during the extension either? That's nothing to do with it either way.

Basically they're hoping that either the British will decide on TMay's deal, decide not to do Brexit or decide on some other coherent, workable thing they want to do that they can get through Parliament that keeps the Irish border open. All these are better for everyone than crashing out with No Deal, but the British don't seem to be in a position to do any of them before the current deadline, so it seems like an obviously sensible thing to do, no?

The Guardian article states "Replacing the 21-month transition period with extra time as a member state would allow the UK and the EU to develop their plans for the future relationship with the aim of making the contentious Irish backstop redundant."

Future relationship I would argue is only about 2 things, trade relationship (including Irish border) and political relationship. They are interlinked. One of the main problems that the last set of negotiations had is not talking future trade deal.

I think we all know they're not really going to make the backstop redundant, this depends on non-existent technology that the British can't even describe, let alone implement. If you're going to avoid a hard border you have to either align the regulations (customs union etc) or put the border in the Irish Sea. The backstop exists because TMay wanted a way to avoid making that decision yet so she could keep the ERG and the DUP on board simultaneously. (It didn't work, because although they may be bonkers, neither of these groups was born yesterday.)

This sentence you're talking about is a face-saver for the British.

The backstop is massively important for the EU. Given every other member country has a land border with the EU, establishing precedent with the UK that if you "leave", you can only "leave" on EU terms and permission, effectively prevents any state ever trying to leave.

That doesn't work, because any other would-be exiter would want its border to be either open or closed, both of which are possible according to well-established patterns. The backstop is specific to the British situation, where as well as a member state needing it to be open, the British need their borders to be simultaneously open and closed.

TheValiant said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1099953873740070912

As Gardenwalker puts it though, a 21 month extension doesn't do anything except allow us to faff around some more.

There is no scheduled UK General Election during this period, and a 2nd Referendum is far from certain. Giving us 21 more months could produce nothing.

Whilst I voted Leave, still support Leave and would prefer a softish EEA leave position, I realise that just giving us 21 months, no questions asked is rubbish. If they agree an extension they need to do it with a string attached. Either a 2nd Referendum during this period (though what would that question be?) or more likely a General Election to try and break the logjam in Parliament.

And I'd dread to think what would happen in the EU Parliamentary elections in May.

I can see the Brexit party doing well but the Tories and Labour will need to have a consistent policy which is going to be impossible for them.

Who your typical Remain voter votes for is an impossible question with TIG not being organised yet do you just vote Lib Dem?

TIG can fight the European elections if this mooted extension transpires. That might not have been their Plan A but the voting system might help them get at least one big name elected. It worked for Ukip.

AlastairMeeks said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

What you need to remember is that Corbyn is only interested in communicating with the Labour members whose support he needs to continue. His focus is on them - relentlessly. He does not really care what anyone else thinks. And the Labour members whose support he needs will be absolutely fine with his response.

Corbyn really is not Machiavelli. For the past 30-odd years he has kept the green benches warm as a licensed dissident of no significance whatsoever until thrust into the leadership by Buggins turn. Occam's Razor suggests that a tin-eared response is because he is tin-eared and not because he has carefully weighed factions and consequences.

I agree. I'm also doubtful whether this is going down well with the Labour members who are less vocal on Twitter.

It depends how many non-Cultists and non-twitter ranters are left. I suspect that the idea that they can't win under Jezza may be gaining ground with this forgotten part of the membership. But would be good to have some input from those more in touch.

I hate Oscars boxing day, a whole day of sweeping up hungover luvvies still congratulating each other on being super awesome whilst they ignore abuse and molestation in the hope of another gig.
Hey ho.

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

In yesterday's Times Dominic Lawson reports something said by the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, who met Corbyn at the meeting arranged last year to try and repair relations. He was told by someone close to the leadership that "they were convinced the perception of anti-semitism would play well for them electorally, that the Jews were part of the 'few' and, as oppressors, deserved no protection". The Chairman thought that crazy but, it was reported "as this awful saga drags on and on, maybe that person was right after all."

Who knows. But there does certainly seem to be a strain of Far Left thinking which views Jews as rich, white, capitalist oppressors and therefore not a group against anyone can, a fortiori, be racist. If that is how you view the world, easy to see how anti-semitism develops unchecked and very hard to see how you can stop it as it would involve more than not saying horrible things to or about Jews but changing your whole political views.

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

What you need to remember is that Corbyn is only interested in communicating with the Labour members whose support he needs to continue. His focus is on them - relentlessly. He does not really care what anyone else thinks. And the Labour members whose support he needs will be absolutely fine with his response.

Corbyn really is not Machiavelli. For the past 30-odd years he has kept the green benches warm as a licensed dissident of no significance whatsoever until thrust into the leadership by Buggins turn. Occam's Razor suggests that a tin-eared response is because he is tin-eared and not because he has carefully weighed factions and consequences.

I am no fan of Corbyn, but you are all quite wrong. His strategic position on Brexit remains logical. He has found a way of uniting the older, white working class leave vote, with the younger, radical left. Under FPTP, this is an effective strategy.

By casting opposition to Brexit is a cast as a neoliberal, capitalist project, associated with new labour and the 'progressive' wing of the conservative party, this reinforces this unlikely political alliance. Furthermore, by forcing the tories to own Brexit, and in particular the economic chaos of a hard brexit, he stands to achieve the long term goal of destroying the tories, as the intractible contradictions and inconsistencies in Brexit will lead him (or someone else from the hard left) to power, as the main alternative, thanks to FPTP.

Poor ratings are not going to deter anyone from this view, as they are likely to be temporary. Plus, there is the experience of 2017.

The reality is that many of us don't believe in socialism, but these people do. They want this disruption, because they think that it leads to a rise in consciousness, which leads to socialism.

edmundintokyo said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1099953873740070912

As Gardenwalker puts it though, a 21 month extension doesn't do anything except allow us to faff around some more.

There is no scheduled UK General Election during this period, and a 2nd Referendum is far from certain. Giving us 21 more months could produce nothing.

Whilst I voted Leave, still support Leave and would prefer a softish EEA leave position, I realise that just giving us 21 months, no questions asked is rubbish. If they agree an extension they need to do it with a string attached. Either a 2nd Referendum during this period (though what would that question be?) or more likely a General Election to try and break the logjam in Parliament.

And I'd dread to think what would happen in the EU Parliamentary elections in May.

I can see the Brexit party doing well but the Tories and Labour will need to have a consistent policy which is going to be impossible for them.

Who your typical Remain voter votes for is an impossible question with TIG not being organised yet do you just vote Lib Dem?

It feels like an opportunity to dry-run an alliance with the LibDems. The LibDem brand is death so wouldn't they rather run as No Brexit, even if they have to split the seats with TIG? Getting some MEPs would give TIG some much-needed money and organizational heft.

Thinking a bit more it's possible that TIG would win all the seats. To most people a Euro election would just be a proxy for a Referendum but there would be multiple parties on the leave side against what I suspect would be a single Remain party.

david_herdson said:

Off-topic, the cat who's my avatar here died on Saturday after being hit by a car. he was a very special, lovable and characterful animal. I'll probably be a bit quiet on here for a day or so.

Sad to hear that, David. Cats and cars really don't get on. Lost two that way, and it was very upsetting both times. Condolences, and see you back soon, I hope.

dyedwoolie said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

In yesterday's Times Dominic Lawson reports something said by the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, who met Corbyn at the meeting arranged last year to try and repair relations. He was told by someone close to the leadership that "they were convinced the perception of anti-semitism would play well for them electorally, that the Jews were part of the 'few' and, as oppressors, deserved no protection". The Chairman thought that crazy but, it was reported "as this awful saga drags on and on, maybe that person was right after all."

Who knows. But there does certainly seem to be a strain of Far Left thinking which views Jews as rich, white, capitalist oppressors and therefore not a group against anyone can, a fortiori, be racist. If that is how you view the world, easy to see how anti-semitism develops unchecked and very hard to see how you can stop it as it would involve more than not saying horrible things to or about Jews but changing your whole political views.

They suffer from the traditional formal logic fail
Some men are cowards
Socrates is a man
Therefore
Socrates is a coward

As my grandmother used to say: now is not the time for logic.

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Off-topic, the cat who's my avatar here died on Saturday after being hit by a car. he was a very special, lovable and characterful animal. I'll probably be a bit quiet on here for a day or so.

Oh no David, that's terrible news

Very sorry to hear that, David. My condolences.

TOPPING said:

dyedwoolie said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

In yesterday's Times Dominic Lawson reports something said by the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, who met Corbyn at the meeting arranged last year to try and repair relations. He was told by someone close to the leadership that "they were convinced the perception of anti-semitism would play well for them electorally, that the Jews were part of the 'few' and, as oppressors, deserved no protection". The Chairman thought that crazy but, it was reported "as this awful saga drags on and on, maybe that person was right after all."

Who knows. But there does certainly seem to be a strain of Far Left thinking which views Jews as rich, white, capitalist oppressors and therefore not a group against anyone can, a fortiori, be racist. If that is how you view the world, easy to see how anti-semitism develops unchecked and very hard to see how you can stop it as it would involve more than not saying horrible things to or about Jews but changing your whole political views.

They suffer from the traditional formal logic fail
Some men are cowards
Socrates is a man
Therefore
Socrates is a coward

As my grandmother used to say: now is not the time for logic.

Wisdom comes with age and the good china

SquareRoot said:

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Off-topic, the cat who's my avatar here died on Saturday after being hit by a car. he was a very special, lovable and characterful animal. I'll probably be a bit quiet on here for a day or so.

Oh no David, that's terrible news

V sorry to hear your sad news DH

Same here. Cats are beautiful amazing creatures

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

In yesterday's Times Dominic Lawson reports something said by the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, who met Corbyn at the meeting arranged last year to try and repair relations. He was told by someone close to the leadership that "they were convinced the perception of anti-semitism would play well for them electorally, that the Jews were part of the 'few' and, as oppressors, deserved no protection". The Chairman thought that crazy but, it was reported "as this awful saga drags on and on, maybe that person was right after all."

Who knows. But there does certainly seem to be a strain of Far Left thinking which views Jews as rich, white, capitalist oppressors and therefore not a group against anyone can, a fortiori, be racist. If that is how you view the world, easy to see how anti-semitism develops unchecked and very hard to see how you can stop it as it would involve more than not saying horrible things to or about Jews but changing your whole political views.

I thought Lansman (bonkers "Cons members are old hence not on social media hence not as visibly racist" line aside) was relatively sensible this morning on R4. But he had no response to Jezza's support for the Islington mural. And indeed it is difficult to see anything other than anti-semitism in that episode and as @ralphmalph has noted, there are sound politically advantageous reasons for such anti-semitism.

Although I'm sure @TheJezziah will explain to us exactly why this is not so.

Chris said:

Chris said:

There's a very clear outline of the legal issues surrounding the order to deprive Shamima Begum of British citizenship at the "Law and Lawyers" blog:
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2019/02/shamima-begum-and-law.html

It concludes:
"Given the obvious doubt over whether she holds any alternative citizenship it would appear that the deprivation order is probably unlawful. It is likely that this will be tested in the courts - very probably by SIAC."

One thing I hadn't appreciated is that until 2002 the law didn't allow anyone who was British by birth to be deprived of their citizenship.

Not quite. Prior to 1948 a woman marrying a foreigner lost her British citizenship automatically and immediately.

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

eek said:

edmundintokyo said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1099953873740070912

As Gardenwalker puts it though, a 21 month extension doesn't do anything except allow us to faff around some more.

There is no scheduled UK General Election during this period, and a 2nd Referendum is far from certain. Giving us 21 more months could produce nothing.

Whilst I voted Leave, still support Leave and would prefer a softish EEA leave position, I realise that just giving us 21 months, no questions asked is rubbish. If they agree an extension they need to do it with a string attached. Either a 2nd Referendum during this period (though what would that question be?) or more likely a General Election to try and break the logjam in Parliament.

And I'd dread to think what would happen in the EU Parliamentary elections in May.

I can see the Brexit party doing well but the Tories and Labour will need to have a consistent policy which is going to be impossible for them.

Who your typical Remain voter votes for is an impossible question with TIG not being organised yet do you just vote Lib Dem?

It feels like an opportunity to dry-run an alliance with the LibDems. The LibDem brand is death so wouldn't they rather run as No Brexit, even if they have to split the seats with TIG? Getting some MEPs would give TIG some much-needed money and organizational heft.

Thinking a bit more it's possible that TIG would win all the seats. To most people a Euro election would just be a proxy for a Referendum but there would be multiple parties on the leave side against what I suspect would be a single Remain party.

That would be fun but sadly the voting system used in the Euros is non-retarded.

Grrr forgot that it used a proportional vote system. I still suspect any Non-Brexit party would walk away with 45%+ of the total vote...

I don't think I'd go that far but I could see something like:

Conservative: 25%
Labour: 20%
Brexit Party: 25%
Brexit isn't very good alliance: 30%

ralphmalph said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The Guardian had an article over the weekend that in simple terms framed it as, Labour working class voters respond to "rich Jews control the financial markets" whilst the so called intelligent Labour voters respond to the Palestinian being victimised line.

It is I think all too easy to view the anti-semitism as some horrible efflorescence which if it could only be scraped off would leave the rest of the Corbyn project untouched and able to stand alone. I think that is to misunderstand what is going on. Anti-semitism isn't some deplorable sideshow; it arises intrinsically from how parts of the Far Left view the world. The faults of capitalism are down to oppression by classes of people, the rich, moneyed classes who control events using their money from the shadows; a lot of these people are Jews; their loyalty is suspect; things that go wrong are down to conspiracies by others; etc. Some of this derives from a Far Left view but it also repeats and repackages some very old tropes about Jews which are common on the right e.g. re George Soros. Add in a load of nonsense about Jews and colonialism and oppression being something that only white people are capable of against people who are not white and you provide the perfect breeding ground for the spread of anti-semitism.

The hope of some in Labour is that you can get rid of the anti-semitism but keep the rest of the Far Left project. The fear of others is that the two are inextricably linked. If you get rid of the world view which gives succour to this anti-semitism the whole thing starts to crumble and make no sense. I am inclined to the latter view. But I can understand why some in Labour, some on the decent mainstream left, are clinging to the former view. I think though that the time has come (has long passed, in fact) for them to realise and act on the fact that it is Corbyn and the views he believes in which are the problem. Not the solution.

TheJezziah said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Brexit was always going to be very difficult for Jeremy Corbyn. He hasn't helped himself. He still isn't helping himself.

The tin-eared response to the defections isn't going to improve his ratings either. Labelling accusations of anti-Semitism as opportunistic and politically-motivated looks terrible to most people when they can be illustrated so abundantly with examples.

But politically astute. Who cares about a few hundred thousand jews? Where are they the swing factor in a marginal?

In yesterday's Times Dominic Lawson reports something said by the Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, who met Corbyn at the meeting arranged last year to try and repair relations. He was told by someone close to the leadership that "they were convinced the perception of anti-semitism would play well for them electorally, that the Jews were part of the 'few' and, as oppressors, deserved no protection". The Chairman thought that crazy but, it was reported "as this awful saga drags on and on, maybe that person was right after all."

Who knows. But there does certainly seem to be a strain of Far Left thinking which views Jews as rich, white, capitalist oppressors and therefore not a group against anyone can, a fortiori, be racist. If that is how you view the world, easy to see how anti-semitism develops unchecked and very hard to see how you can stop it as it would involve more than not saying horrible things to or about Jews but changing your whole political views.

The other part of the conspiracy being all these people who I assume must then pretend to be against Corbyn helping spread the message blaming Corbyn for anti semitism because they want the left to succeed. Here was me thinking the likes of the Mail and the Sun were enemies...

Pathetic. You really need to come up with a new more credible line of defence, than the childish "it's a smear against Jeremy". Own up to it. Corbyn has been in charge when there has been an unprecedented surge in anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and he has done nothing about it, so it is reasonable to assume he is either anti-Semitic or is a useful idiot to those that are. By supporting him and the other odious hate filled persons that surround him you are an apologist for anti-Semitism.

It doesn't matter if Labour's BINO plan can be negotiated. It isn't what we voted for. Next.

We seemed to get a series of polls over the weekend showing Labour was suddenly about 8% behind the Tories who, though not exactly rocketing away, are holding their ground. Mike puts a lot of emphasis on the leader ratings and it seems to me likely that the trend shown in the thread header has led to the change in voting preferences.

Corbyn had poor ratings before the 2017 campaign where he picked up a good deal whilst May collapsed in the opposite direction. Whilst this could in theory happen again it seems to me that the anti-Semitism and his attitude to the Tiggers along with his equivocation on Brexit has damaged him far more than the disgraceful history with the IRA, Hamas and sundry other terrorists ever did. I think if Labour want to close the polling gap and take the lead they need a new leader.