politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour has to face up to the blindingly obvious – the Corbyn b

DecrepitJohnL said:

Which is a point grasped at least by Corbyn, who is offering Article 50 extension and an immediate election with purdah. Alternative suggestions that involve hanging around to run referenda can't fly.

Yes. You need an election to provide a mandate for the 2nd referendum. Cannot and will not happen otherwise. Unicorn.

GNU under anyone but Corbyn is also a unicorn. Labour will block it.

One can argue the rights and wrongs of all of this, but them's the facts.

Stopping Brexit means PM Corbyn.

Sorry.

AlastairMeeks said:

Chris said:

AlastairMeeks said:

anothernick said:

Mysticrose said:

Jo Swinson is right. It's better to be crystal clear about what is not palatable now rather than in 3 weeks time.

Corbyn is not someone you want negotiating or dealing with anything to do with Brexit. The man has vacillated so much on Brexit that the very dictionary definition of the word 'dither' needs to be re-written.

So if it was either agree to a temporary Corbyn premiership, with LD conditions attached, or watch Johnson push through no deal which would it be?

It's only a choice if Jeremy Corbyn refuses to help stop a no deal Brexit under a different temporary Prime Minister. Why would he?

And so ad infinitum.

An endless procession of third-rate politicians, saying "No, you compromise," to one another, until 11pm on 31 October.

It's not circular. There's a big difference between regarding one potential candidate as unacceptable and regarding it as imperative that only one candidate (yourself) is chosen.

It's not just one candidate that's unacceptable.

Every candidate will be unacceptable to someone.

Alistair said:

AlastairMeeks said:

El_Capitano said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Chris said:

IanB2 said:

NickPalmer said:

IMO Mike is fundamentally wrong - I live in the sort of seat where the LibDems really need Labour tactical votes and could well win. Up to recently I've known half a dozen Labour voters (two of them members) who were quietly going to do it. None of them are Corbyn fans. They are all alienated by Swinson's tactics, which seem to them to be putting party realignment (which they are at best ambiguous about) before stopping No Deal Brexit (which they are passionate about). She needs to at least seem to be open to a deal with all the Stop No Deal MPs, and when she rejects up to 200 of them out of hand, she is throwing away tactical "Bollocks to Brexit" votes in any election by the bucketload.

It's yet another game of who blinks. Things might look very different as deadline day approaches.

The other side of the coin is that - if Labour is determined to stop no deal and if they accept the GOMOO is simply a letter-writing government - it shouldn't need to be Corbyn (who has hardly been leading the charge) as PM. The Tories supporting such an arrangement are making the biggest sacrifice, and the Tories achieved the biggest minority vote in the last GE, so some elder Tory who is leaving politics would be a reasonable choice.

As you say, it shouldn't really matter who it is. It's all very well saying the Tories are making the biggest sacrifice, but those Tory MPs and the minor parties have been loudly telling us for months that No Deal will be catastrophic and must be averted. If they really want to stop it, they can. But they are going to need the support of Labour MPs who may be more ambivalent. That's the advantage of Corbyn.

But they need to coalesce behind someone. Anyone. Sylvia Hermon?

I had Lady Sylvia Hermon added to the Betfair market for exactly this reason. Sadly no one has laid her at 1000 for me yet.

A more serious proposition is Ian Blackford.

I’m not sure the Lib Dems would support the man who defenestrated Charles Kennedy.

The Lib Dems can't be too picky. They can reasonably oppose Jeremy Corbyn. They need to show a lot of flexibility after that.

They are absolutely furious that the SNP defeated Kennedy. In fact many SLab people share their fury. He is a non starter.

They don't like it up em, sore sore losers.

Burgessian said:

Alistair said:

AlastairMeeks said:

El_Capitano said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Chris said:

It's yet another game of who blinks. Things might look very different as deadline day approaches.

The other side of the coin is that - if Labour is determined to stop no deal and if they accept the GOMOO is simply a letter-writing government - it shouldn't need to be Corbyn (who has hardly been leading the charge) as PM. The Tories supporting such an arrangement are making the biggest sacrifice, and the Tories achieved the biggest minority vote in the last GE, so some elder Tory who is leaving politics would be a reasonable choice.

As you say, it shouldn't really matter who it is. It's all very well saying the Tories are making the biggest sacrifice, but those Tory MPs and the minor parties have been loudly telling us for months that No Deal will be catastrophic and must be averted. If they really want to stop it, they can. But they are going to need the support of Labour MPs who may be more ambivalent. That's the advantage of Corbyn.

But they need to coalesce behind someone. Anyone. Sylvia Hermon?

I had Lady Sylvia Hermon added to the Betfair market for exactly this reason. Sadly no one has laid her at 1000 for me yet.

A more serious proposition is Ian Blackford.

I’m not sure the Lib Dems would support the man who defenestrated Charles Kennedy.

The Lib Dems can't be too picky. They can reasonably oppose Jeremy Corbyn. They need to show a lot of flexibility after that.

They are absolutely furious that the SNP defeated Kennedy. In fact many SLab people share their fury. He is a non starter.

The idea that Blackford is the answer is laughable. He is, rightly, loathed by the LibDems for the campaign he led against Charles Kennedy.

See: https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-wilson-i-couldn-t-let-blackford-re-write-history-about-kennedy-1-4776936


Ha Ha Ha , spoilt brats cannot take a beating, a pox on them. Hopefully wiped out next time, lying cheating nomarks.

Mysticrose said:

kinabalu said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Which is a point grasped at least by Corbyn, who is offering Article 50 extension and an immediate election with purdah. Alternative suggestions that involve hanging around to run referenda can't fly.

GNU under anyone but Corbyn is also a unicorn. Labour will block it.

Quite simply 100% wrong.

Most Labour MPs can't stand Corbyn and would be delighted to have a GONU under an alternative leader.

Corbyn and Corbyn loyalists have enough numbers to constitute a veto, so it doesn't matter if most Labour MPs are happy with someone else, if Corbyn says No, it's a No.

I think this is a reason not to go for a *Labour* grandee, as they may be an internal threat to Corbyn. Better to go with Ken Clarke, for reasons given upthread, or better Sylvia Hermon, who would have the added benefit of reorienting the narrative around the NI peace process and away from general dissatisfied Remainia.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1161925694886223873

Come on Ken.

Roger said:

Currystardog said:

Scott_P said:

AndyJS said:

Corbyn supporters are more interested in getting their man into Downing Street than stopping a no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1161915099935858689

This just demonstrates that everything around Brexit is a blame game. You may not like him but at least Boris is doing something positive. Everyone else just wants to talk about what they are not prepared to do to get Brexit through.

LOL! The arsonist accusing the building of being made of wood!

What does this mean?

Mysticrose said:

Paristonda said:

At this point, what is clear is that Boris and No Deal are stoppable. If they fail to be stopped it will be because Labour and Lib Dems failed to compromise with each other (SNP and PC are less of an issue here).

I think it's quite obvious Swinson isn't going to throw her lot in with Corbyn at this stage. Likewise Corbyn isn't going to agree now to standing aside for a Gonu.

But if push comes to shove, one will have to back down. Swinson has less to lose by backing down - she will be punished at the ballot box more by not stopping no deal than by propping up Corbyn (although it will potentially cost them a lot of tory remainer votes at an upcoming election). Corbyn has less incentive to back down - brexit happens on someone else's watch. Yet if he is seen as the reason it happened he risks being blamed as much as the tories for the chaos.

Swinson has the slight advantage though, in that her test comes first. Once she VONCs Corbyn and a Gonu figure is proposed, Corbyn vetoing it will be seen as an act of petty spite. Hard to predict final outcome though.

This is exactly why the option has to be a Remainer tory, in my view. Someone they can both stomach without it threatening their position. There are various candidates other than Ken Clarke. Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles for example. Justine Greening would be great. But Clarke is the standout for me, not least because he's in the sunset of his career. He's not a long term threat to anyone. He can do the job and stand down. What a way to go!

As Casino said downthread, in order to build a parliamentary majority to find a way out of the mess it is necessary to bring on board groups of MPs that are not dyed in the wool remainers. The most significant group that is currently "uncommitted" if you like is those Labour MPs representing leave constituencies who think that not leaving does not respect the referendum and a few Corbyn loyalists like Ian Lavery. Corbyn can bring those people with him and if they join together with Tory remainers and the smaller parties they will form a pretty solid majority - probably more than 350 MPs. But if this group does not come on board it is much less clear that a majority can be found.

Mysticrose said:

This is exactly why the option has to be a Remainer tory, in my view. Someone they can both stomach without it threatening their position. There are various candidates other than Ken Clarke. Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles for example. Justine Greening would be great. But Clarke is the standout for me, not least because he's in the sunset of his career. He's not a long term threat to anyone. He can do the job and stand down. What a way to go!

Yes he's definitely one of the best options. Other than him it would have to be someone from a very minor party that doesn't pose a threat to anyone. Ken Clarke also a great choice in terms of selling it to be the public as a good idea. Well liked, moderate, well known etc. Ken Clarke as Gonu PM and no deal brexit stopped seems like the kind of disney happy ending that we are most definitely not on track for however so I'm sure we will somehow end up with no deal brexit and Mark François as PM soon enough!

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1161925694886223873

Come on Ken.

Shadsy says "Thanks for topping up the Christmas fund...."

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Slackbladder, I heard about that a short time ago.

I think a major problem, beyond the obvious, was that the backlash involved lots of people giving what amounted to free publicity for alternatives, like Harry's, or Dollar Shave Club. So even if someone weren't hugely irked with the 'boys playfighting is toxic masculinity' nonsense, they've got plenty of info on alternatives and people just try new things.

Two other factors, besides cheaper competitors, is pressure to drop the traditionally higher prices charged to women, and the blindingly obvious fact that a lot more men have beards.

Fwiw, I've recently heard a couple of people raving about the new Philips OneBlade.

Currystardog said:

Roger said:

Currystardog said:

Scott_P said:

AndyJS said:

Corbyn supporters are more interested in getting their man into Downing Street than stopping a no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1161915099935858689

This just demonstrates that everything around Brexit is a blame game. You may not like him but at least Boris is doing something positive. Everyone else just wants to talk about what they are not prepared to do to get Brexit through.

LOL! The arsonist accusing the building of being made of wood!

What does this mean?

"Boris is at least doing something positive'.

Boris got us into this F*cking mess.

Get a grip!

AlastairMeeks said:

The whole point of this government would be a single-item government. If it ever happened, the person would need to be seen to be dragged to the chair like the Speaker.

Now there's an idea. I wonder if it's occurred to him as well?

Slackbladder said:

If corbyn gets in as PM as 'caretaker' does anyone really think there won't be pressure to do things in other areas which he has power to?

Thats the main reason it should not, and cannot be him.

A moment's thought tells you it is not viable.

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say that, dreary as the rain is for those wanting summer skies, it is a marvel for my garden which is flourishing. I have planted lots of bananas and cannas and other exotics and they are going gangbusters!

It is all roses and peonies and English cottage garden in the first half of the year. Then I get into my sultry Mediterranean mood which keeps everything going until the first frosts.

There - I’m sure that’s cheered everyone up .

And now, work.

Amazingly, I'm actually getting olives in my garden.

Corbyn's proposal of a temporary government, led by a caretaker PM who happens to be himself, looks to me like a mistake. The reason for this is very simple: it's clearly an idea of some merit in itself, but by using the terms 'caretaker' and 'interim', promising not to implement any Labour policies as this caretaker PM, he has surely left himself open to a completely unanswerable argument: if we're going to have a caretaker PM, supported across parties, surely that person has to be someone who is NOT going to be fighting the next election as leader of one of the parties?

In fact, it's obvious that the best candidate for such a temporary post would be someone who is not even standing as an MP at the next election, so as to be completely untainted by any consideration of personal ambition or partisan calculation. Add to that the fact that Corbyn is one of the most divisive figures in parliament, doesn't even have the confidence of his own MPs, and is the last person that LibDems, independent and Tory MPs might wish to see in No 10, this initiative looks like at best a silly stunt, and probably a trap for himself. He has no answer to the question of why the caretaker PM he proposes shouldn't be a genuine caretaker.

Mr. JohnL, don't know enough to say for certain on the products, but women do have different skin to men (slightly). Softer, less tough. Which is more pleasant but I'd guess also more prone to cutting with razorblades.

That *could* be a legitimate explanation for different prices. I've not attempted to shave a woman with my Mach 3, though, so I cannot confirm this.

Here's why it wont happen in a single tweet:

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1161907558963208192

felix said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

But the stunt is about maximum publicity, and whether you approve or not, has succeeded in that aim - we've been dissecting it continuously on here in a manner far beyond anything a single boot trip justifies.

I think the argument is that "day to day green measures", while not an irrelevance, go nowhere near what is required to address the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2.
Assuming the scientists are correct (or even assuming a 20% probability they are, given the consequences), we have scant decades to completely re-engineer the globe's energy systems. That is simply not going to happen without the governments of world's largest economies adopting it as a priority, and directing the spending 2-3% of GDP every year for the next three decades to fund it.

That political will is not going to come from within the existing system, absent some very heavy prodding.

+ 1

I sense the anti-Greta sentiment is driven by a feeling that she is a jumped up teenager getting beyond her station.

"Young people speaking their minds" is fine - so long as they don't.

No - it's fine as long as they are prepared to accept scrutiny without reverting to the 'I'm only a child and therefore cannot be questioned' response.

Greta is to be admired for getting involved. But the sailing to NY is a silly ill-advised stunt. It would have been far more powerful for her to make the speech remotely and make a pointed remark at the start of it that too many people make excuses for why it is necessary to travel to conferences when in a large number of such cases remote communication works just as well.

It would also have embarrassed the important bigwigs keen to be jumping on her bandwagon.

Practical proposals which people can use every day are not the complete answer to climate change but they are something that all of us can do every single day. I'd like to see far more of this than we do and if the young want to make helpful suggestions in this area more power to them.

Sailing on an expensive yacht is not a practical or helpful suggestion. Probably the amount of carbon wasted by all those journalists going to see her in Portsmouth and all the people coming to see her in NY when she arrives plus the carbon used to build the bloody thing will be as great as a flight to NY.

I think the bottom might have fallen out of the market for jezfest merch.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say that, dreary as the rain is for those wanting summer skies, it is a marvel for my garden which is flourishing. I have planted lots of bananas and cannas and other exotics and they are going gangbusters!

It is all roses and peonies and English cottage garden in the first half of the year. Then I get into my sultry Mediterranean mood which keeps everything going until the first frosts.

There - I’m sure that’s cheered everyone up .

And now, work.

Amazingly, I'm actually getting olives in my garden.

I have figs every year.

Alistair said:

felix said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

But the stunt is about maximum publicity, and whether you approve or not, has succeeded in that aim - we've been dissecting it continuously on here in a manner far beyond anything a single boot trip justifies.

I think the argument is that "day to day green measures", while not an irrelevance, go nowhere near what is required to address the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2.
Assuming the scientists are correct (or even assuming a 20% probability they are, given the consequences), we have scant decades to completely re-engineer the globe's energy systems. That is simply not going to happen without the governments of world's largest economies adopting it as a priority, and directing the spending 2-3% of GDP every year for the next three decades to fund it.

That political will is not going to come from within the existing system, absent some very heavy prodding.

+ 1

I sense the anti-Greta sentiment is driven by a feeling that she is a jumped up teenager getting beyond her station.

"Young people speaking their minds" is fine - so long as they don't.

No - it's fine as long as they are prepared to accept scrutiny without reverting to the 'I'm only a child and therefore cannot be questioned' response.

The 'scrutiny' mostly seems to be wishing her dead?

That was a vile comment by Banks.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538881566756864

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538933072830464

The railways have been nationalised, just to foreign states not UK.

Slackbladder said:

Roger said:

Slackbladder said:

Roger said:

Roger said:

geoffw said:

Roger said:

OllyT said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

Fascinating header Alastair.

He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.

Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use

What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.

HYUFD .

Ary all.

Roger, I do enjoy your effusions, mostly, and reading this article I thought of you. Perhaps you have a view on the idea that the most capitalist of activities has become a slave to right-on nostrums.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/just-do-it-the-advertising-industry-should-embrace-its-right-wing-roots/

Thanks for that. He's right that advertising should be at the cutting edge of the of the time but he's wrong to think that to day's zeitgeist is right wing populism. In fact the mood of the age is extreme political correctness and these are our new parameters. If you look at ads from as recently as five years ago some of the sexism makes you wince.

That Saatchi arrived on the scene at the same time as Thatcher and both profited by promoting rampant consumerism tells you nothing other than Saatchis knew how to reflect the the mores of the age not that advertising is a promoter of right wing Thatcherite values.

OT. The other day I posted this in reply to geoffw.

Yesterday I noticed these two rulings under the new ASA code on gender stereotyping

https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/14/first-adverts-banned-under-new-gender-stereotype-rules-10562595/

On the other hand, Get woke, go broke seems to be a real thing:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/the-cost-of-gillettes-wokeness-revealed-a-noncash-writedown-of-12-billion/news-story/0338fd150d366ca2c759f6889f4bbc33

It won't let me view it.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/31/gillettes-toxic-masculinity-ad-haunts-pg-as-shavin/

Another link for the 'issue'

They were my thoughts exactly. So typical of P&G. They try once in a blue moon to do something different and get it wrong. Their advertising over a vast product range is just painting by numbers.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn's proposal of a temporary government, led by a caretaker PM who happens to be himself, looks to me like a mistake. The reason for this is very simple: it's clearly an idea of some merit in itself, but by using the terms 'caretaker' and 'interim', promising not to implement any Labour policies as this caretaker PM, he has surely left himself open to a completely unanswerable argument: if we're going to have a caretaker PM, supported across parties, surely that person has to be someone who is NOT going to be fighting the next election as leader of one of the parties?

In fact, it's obvious that the best candidate for such a temporary post would be someone who is not even standing as an MP at the next election, so as to be completely untainted by any consideration of personal ambition or partisan calculation. Add to that the fact that Corbyn is one of the most divisive figures in parliament, doesn't even have the confidence of his own MPs, and is the last person that LibDems, independent and Tory MPs might wish to see in No 10, this initiative looks like at best a silly stunt, and probably a trap for himself. He has no answer to the question of why the caretaker PM he proposes shouldn't be a genuine caretaker.

If Corbyn wants to be PM, caretaker or otherwise, he can do it by having his Party win an election - and then not being defenestrated or losing a VONC.

Once we've had Brexit.

nichomar said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Slackbladder said:

If corbyn gets in as PM as 'caretaker' does anyone really think there won't be pressure to do things in other areas which he has power to?

Thats the main reason it should not, and cannot be him.

That applies to everyone. That is why, as Corbyn at least makes clear, it must be extension and election only (with purdah rules). Calls for six-month caretaker governments to run referenda or negotiate with the EU are naive or cynical attempts to sabotage GNU and keep Boris in place (and their own TIG/CUK/LD seats safe till 2022).

You could have a referendum within 6 weeks if you get agreement on the question or you just rerun the same enabling bill as passed in 2015 with an amendment to have written into law the outcome. I don’t think it will happen and it will be extension then election if they can get their act together.

I think it safe to say there would not be agreement on the question, so would need to go through the full consolation by the Electoral commission.

https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn's proposal of a temporary government, led by a caretaker PM who happens to be himself, looks to me like a mistake. The reason for this is very simple: it's clearly an idea of some merit in itself, but by using the terms 'caretaker' and 'interim', promising not to implement any Labour policies as this caretaker PM, he has surely left himself open to a completely unanswerable argument: if we're going to have a caretaker PM, supported across parties, surely that person has to be someone who is NOT going to be fighting the next election as leader of one of the parties?

In fact, it's obvious that the best candidate for such a temporary post would be someone who is not even standing as an MP at the next election, so as to be completely untainted by any consideration of personal ambition or partisan calculation. Add to that the fact that Corbyn is one of the most divisive figures in parliament, doesn't even have the confidence of his own MPs, and is the last person that LibDems, independent and Tory MPs might wish to see in No 10, this initiative looks like at best a silly stunt, and probably a trap for himself. He has no answer to the question of why the caretaker PM he proposes shouldn't be a genuine caretaker.

Good point. By defining the role as caretaker only Corbyn has undermined the case for it to be him and no one else, but the fact is that in order to build a parliamentary majority to stop no deal it is essential that the Corbynistas are brought on board. It is absurd for the LDs to pretend otherwise. Coprbyn is going to play a much more significant part in the process than they might wish and they will have to work with him, perhaps not as PM but certainly in a position of considerable power and influence.

Jonathan said:

Ed Milliband?

You might have stopped posting but at least you haven't lost your sense of humour

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538881566756864

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538933072830464

The railways have been nationalised, just to foreign states not UK.

Depends what we mean by "nationalised".

The government can own something but it be functionally private, or it can own something and run it fundamentally quite unlike a private company.

Jon's just trolling .... tralaa.

No expectation of being taken seriously on the Indy.

Such excitement on this board.
We seem to be assuming that a VONC is a fait accompli.

Is it?

Edit: I have assumed since Boris’s victory that it is the most likely of several unlikely possibilities.

Oh!!!!!

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1161930090458038272

anothernick said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn's proposal of a temporary government, led by a caretaker PM who happens to be himself, looks to me like a mistake. The reason for this is very simple: it's clearly an idea of some merit in itself, but by using the terms 'caretaker' and 'interim', promising not to implement any Labour policies as this caretaker PM, he has surely left himself open to a completely unanswerable argument: if we're going to have a caretaker PM, supported across parties, surely that person has to be someone who is NOT going to be fighting the next election as leader of one of the parties?

In fact, it's obvious that the best candidate for such a temporary post would be someone who is not even standing as an MP at the next election, so as to be completely untainted by any consideration of personal ambition or partisan calculation. Add to that the fact that Corbyn is one of the most divisive figures in parliament, doesn't even have the confidence of his own MPs, and is the last person that LibDems, independent and Tory MPs might wish to see in No 10, this initiative looks like at best a silly stunt, and probably a trap for himself. He has no answer to the question of why the caretaker PM he proposes shouldn't be a genuine caretaker.

Good point. By defining the role as caretaker only Corbyn has undermined the case for it to be him and no one else, but the fact is that in order to build a parliamentary majority to stop no deal it is essential that the Corbynistas are brought on board. It is absurd for the LDs to pretend otherwise. Coprbyn is going to play a much more significant part in the process than they might wish and they will have to work with him, perhaps not as PM but certainly in a position of considerable power and influence.

To hear Swinson, you'd think the LibDems were something more than the rounding error on democracy....

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538881566756864

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538933072830464

The railways have been nationalised, just to foreign states not UK.

Depends what we mean by "nationalised".

The government can own something but it be functionally private, or it can own something and run it fundamentally quite unlike a private company.

I thought Brexit meant we were leaving the EU - not being owned by EU governments !

Roy c Paine b Hazlewood 0 (Eng 0-1)

Good job England bat deep....

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1161925694886223873

Come on Ken.

The odds on Corbyn are shocking.

anothernick said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn's proposal of a temporary government, led by a caretaker PM who happens to be himself, looks to me like a mistake. The reason for this is very simple: it's clearly an idea of some merit in itself, but by using the terms 'caretaker' and 'interim', promising not to implement any Labour policies as this caretaker PM, he has surely left himself open to a completely unanswerable argument: if we're going to have a caretaker PM, supported across parties, surely that person has to be someone who is NOT going to be fighting the next election as leader of one of the parties?

In fact, it's obvious that the best candidate for such a temporary post would be someone who is not even standing as an MP at the next election, so as to be completely untainted by any consideration of personal ambition or partisan calculation. Add to that the fact that Corbyn is one of the most divisive figures in parliament, doesn't even have the confidence of his own MPs, and is the last person that LibDems, independent and Tory MPs might wish to see in No 10, this initiative looks like at best a silly stunt, and probably a trap for himself. He has no answer to the question of why the caretaker PM he proposes shouldn't be a genuine caretaker.

Good point. By defining the role as caretaker only Corbyn has undermined the case for it to be him and no one else, but the fact is that in order to build a parliamentary majority to stop no deal it is essential that the Corbynistas are brought on board. It is absurd for the LDs to pretend otherwise. Corbyn is going to play a much more significant part in the process than they might wish and they will have to work with him, perhaps not as PM but certainly in a position of considerable power and influence.

I think you and Richard are trying to apply logic to the argument. What if I told you Corbyn and his narrow band of hard core followers would like nothing better than a Tory No Deal Brexit ?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. JohnL, don't know enough to say for certain on the products, but women do have different skin to men (slightly). Softer, less tough. Which is more pleasant but I'd guess also more prone to cutting with razorblades.

That *could* be a legitimate explanation for different prices. I've not attempted to shave a woman with my Mach 3, though, so I cannot confirm this.

They call it the “pink tax” - similar products but marketed at women being more expensive.

An amusing take on the subject (with some occasional bad language, it’s a late night comedy show):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N0jpQfI3wEw

rottenborough said:

Oh!!!!!

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1161930090458038272

But there normal schedule of bookable tickets for the days after that. Could it be an IT glitch or maintenance work?

MattW said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538881566756864

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538933072830464

The railways have been nationalised, just to foreign states not UK.

Depends what we mean by "nationalised".

The government can own something but it be functionally private, or it can own something and run it fundamentally quite unlike a private company.

Jon's just trolling .... tralaa.

No expectation of being taken seriously on the Indy.

Cue Labour's election video of the Saj writing monthly cheques to Angela Merkel and President Macron (who are the only two most voters recognise).

On deeper matters, it is odd that we have never adopted the model of national stakes in private companies. Here an entity is either nationalised or privatised.

williamglenn said:

Chris said:

anothernick said:

Mysticrose said:

Paristonda said:

At this point, what is clear is that Boris and No Deal are stoppable. If they fail to be stopped it will be because Labour and Lib Dems failed to compromise with each other (SNP and PC are less of an issue here)

I think it's quite obvious Swinson isn't going to throw her lot in with Corbyn at this stage. Likewise Corbyn isn't going to agree now to standing aside for a Gonu.

But if push comes to shove, one will have to back down. Swinson has less to lose by backing down - she will be punished at the ballot box more by not stopping no deal than by propping up Corbyn (although it will potentially cost them a lot of tory remainer votes at an upcoming election). Corbyn has less incentive to back down - brexit happens on someone else's watch. Yet if he is seen as the reason it happened he risks being blamed as much as the tories for the chaos.

Swinson has the slight advantage though, in that her test comes first. Once she VONCs Corbyn and a Gonu figure is proposed, Corbyn vetoing it will be seen as an act of petty spite. Hard to predict final outcome though.

This is exactly why the option has to be a Remainer tory, in my view. Someone they can both stomach without it threatening their position. There are various candidates other than Ken Clarke. Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles for example. Justine Greening would be great. But Clarke is the standout for me, not least because he's in the sunset of his career. He's not a long term threat to anyone. He can do the job and stand down. What a way to go!

As Casino said downthread, in order to build a parliamentary majority to find a way out of the mess it is necessary to bring on board groups of MPs that are not dyed in the wool remainers. The most significant group that is currently "uncommitted" if you like is those Labour MPs representing leave constituencies who think that not leaving does not respect the referendum and a few Corbyn loyalists like Ian Lavery. Corbyn can bring those people with him and if they join together with Tory remainers and the smaller parties they will form a pretty solid majority - probably more than 350 MPs. But if this group does not come on board it is much less clear that a majority can be found.

Precisely this.

All this positioning is premature in one sense. At the moment the majority of Tory MPs either think Boris Johnson's tactics will work, or think they need to be given a chance. At some point before the end of October, it will become clear that Johnson has failed. That's when we'll get a real sense of the possibilities in parliament.

But will be too late ! Johnson has one thing on his side. Tory Remainers will die wondering...some will do anything to become a Cabinet Minister.

Gardenwalker said:

Yorkcity said:

Corbyn now backing McDonnell on not blocking a Scottish Indepence referendum.
Makes sense to me , whatever Watson and Swinson say.

I wonder if this is tactically sound but strategically disastrous.

I think this is good politics. If the ultimate result is Scottish Independence, then so be it. If Scots want independence, they should have it.

Endillion said:

anothernick said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn's proposal of a temporary government, led by a caretaker PM who happens to be himself, looks to me like a mistake. The reason for this is very simple: it's clearly an idea of some merit in itself, but by using the terms 'caretaker' and 'interim', promising not to implement any Labour policies as this caretaker PM, he has surely left himself open to a completely unanswerable argument: if we're going to have a caretaker PM, supported across parties, surely that person has to be someone who is NOT going to be fighting the next election as leader of one of the parties?

In fact, it's obvious that the best candidate for such a temporary post would be someone who is not even standing as an MP at the next election, so as to be completely untainted by any consideration of personal ambition or partisan calculation. Add to that the fact that Corbyn is one of the most divisive figures in parliament, doesn't even have the confidence of his own MPs, and is the last person that LibDems, independent and Tory MPs might wish to see in No 10, this initiative looks like at best a silly stunt, and probably a trap for himself. He has no answer to the question of why the caretaker PM he proposes shouldn't be a genuine caretaker.

Good point. By defining the role as caretaker only Corbyn has undermined the case for it to be him and no one else, but the fact is that in order to build a parliamentary majority to stop no deal it is essential that the Corbynistas are brought on board. It is absurd for the LDs to pretend otherwise. Coprbyn is going to play a much more significant part in the process than they might wish and they will have to work with him, perhaps not as PM but certainly in a position of considerable power and influence.

It's very simple. It's because he has everyone over the Commons over a barrel. He wins either way: either he gets a Tory-sponsored No Deal and resulting chaos which he can benefit from politically, or he gets to be PM immediately while it all gets sorted out. Meanwhile, he controls the critical voting bloc needed to secure Confidence in anyone bar Boris Johnson as PM.

He doesn't particularly care if No Deal happens, but everyone else does. SO he can legitimately say, "here are my demands, take them or leave them. If You're not prepared to make me PM then clearly you don't think No Deal is as bad an outcome as you say."

It's exactly the right strategy, especially as any other approach legitimises the view that he's not fit to be PM. It'll probably lead to No Deal.

Edit: No Deal is actually a double win for him, because he gets both chaos and the chance to blame it on the LDs.

Precisely.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Oh!!!!!

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1161930090458038272

But there normal schedule of bookable tickets for the days after that. Could it be an IT glitch or maintenance work?

Scheduled brickwork on the line?

surbiton19 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Yorkcity said:

Corbyn now backing McDonnell on not blocking a Scottish Indepence referendum.
Makes sense to me , whatever Watson and Swinson say.

I wonder if this is tactically sound but strategically disastrous.

I think this is good politics. If the ultimate result is Scottish Independence, then so be it. If Scots want independence, they should have it.

The Labour leadership is all about triangulation to destroy the Lib Dems I think.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Oh!!!!!

https://twitter.com/adamparsons/status/1161930090458038272

But there normal schedule of bookable tickets for the days after that. Could it be an IT glitch or maintenance work?

To be fair to Eurostar, I wouldn’t have opened bookings on that date either, until I had a pretty good idea of what the necessary arrangements need to be.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538881566756864

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1161538933072830464

The railways have been nationalised, just to foreign states not UK.

Depends what we mean by "nationalised".

The government can own something but it be functionally private, or it can own something and run it fundamentally quite unlike a private company.

Trenitalia? Really? Sounds like naughty bits floating through Nottingham....

Richard_Nabavi said:

Given the problems with the proposal of a temporary government, I continue to believe that the legislative route is much more likely. It would be extremely hard for Corbyn to oppose it (and of course Labour did support Cooper-Boles). It's also very much in Labour's interests: leaving Boris as an impotent PM, in office but not in power, unable to prevent his flagship 'do-or-die' pledge from being broken, and with Farage free to join in the rock-throwing, would be a pretty good scenario for Labour in the GE which would inevitably follow soon afterwards.

But the view is that it would be a money motion and hence reserved to government, or alternatively not binding simply making Bozo's job procedurally or politically difficult. Hence GOMOO being top of the agenda.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Given the problems with the proposal of a temporary government, I continue to believe that the legislative route is much more likely. It would be extremely hard for Corbyn to oppose it (and of course Labour did support Cooper-Boles). It's also very much in Labour's interests: leaving Boris as an impotent PM, in office but not in power, unable to prevent his flagship 'do-or-die' pledge from being broken, and with Farage free to join in the rock-throwing, would be a pretty good scenario for Labour in the GE which would inevitably follow soon afterwards.

Agreed.

Chris said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Chris said:

AlastairMeeks said:

anothernick said:

Mysticrose said:

Jo Swinson is right. It's better to be crystal clear about what is not palatable now rather than in 3 weeks time.

Corbyn is not someone you want negotiating or dealing with anything to do with Brexit. The man has vacillated so much on Brexit that the very dictionary definition of the word 'dither' needs to be re-written.

So if it was either agree to a temporary Corbyn premiership, with LD conditions attached, or watch Johnson push through no deal which would it be?

It's only a choice if Jeremy Corbyn refuses to help stop a no deal Brexit under a different temporary Prime Minister. Why would he?

And so ad infinitum.

An endless procession of third-rate politicians, saying "No, you compromise," to one another, until 11pm on 31 October.

It's not circular. There's a big difference between regarding one potential candidate as unacceptable and regarding it as imperative that only one candidate (yourself) is chosen.

It's not just one candidate that's unacceptable.

Every candidate will be unacceptable to someone.

Well that gives it legs. The hunt for the candidate who is not unacceptable to anyone. It might also draw attention away from Johnson's tedious attention seeking