Forum menu
SQUIRREL!!
Absolute bobbins dazh
An election asap is pretty much the last chance to stop brexit
Because otherwise Johnson will put his deal back & with some amendments his Labour allies (flint, etc) will see it passed
When do we talk about Orange Unicorns. Lib Ds all weekend and again this morning pushing hard that they will win a majority and revoke A50. I assume they are not delusional, just cynical.
Combined with never doing an alliance with Corbyn even on a 2ns ref - but some guff about reaching out to like my need MPs across Parly
A plan to maximise LD votes and MPs with stopping Brexit as banner headline but actually opposing the only likely way to do it - Labour led Govt, prob with support from SNP, LDs and 2nd ref
A plan to maximise LD votes and MPs with stopping Brexit as banner headline but actually opposing the only likely way to do it – Labour led Govt
Some of us have said all along that the libdems didn't care about stopping brexit and were only interested in increasing the number of their MPs so they could get back into govt with the tories. That's exactly how this is panning out. Remainers need to wake up, the libdems are not on their side.
his Labour allies (flint, etc)
Yes, the Tony Blair fan club, enabling brexit along with their Lib Dem friends. It will be the irony of ironies if brexit goes through as a result of the votes of MPs who claim to be anti-brexit. It's going to be the political sell-out to beat all others.
One thing that I hadn’t thought of is that Bercow retires this week. He has been a key player. I’m sure that in the interests of fairness Corbyn will want a staunch leaver as speaker.
I’m sure that in the interests of fairness Corbyn will want a staunch leaver as speaker.
You might need to elaborate on this? What conspiracy theory is at play in your head?
Aren't there about 400 applicants for the speaker's position?
I reckon Mark Francois will get it
Can any of the remainer Corbyn haters on here explain to me how Swinson's sellout stops Johnson ramming through his hard brexit? If Binners et al are right that labour cannot win, then the alternative is Johnson and a hard brexit with no chance of a 2nd Refendum. Does that look like Swinson is pursuing a remain agenda? Looks like the opposite to me so that she can gain a few more MPs.
Aren’t there about 400 applicants for the speaker’s position?
Quite a few.
The Speaker really does seem like a bit of a crap idea nowadays. It means four constituencies arent properly represented.
I don’t hate Corbyn, and I don’t hate Swinson either, I just don’t rate either of them very highly, but I’ll give it a go @dazh…
There will be an election at some point… Johnson is trying to get his WA legislation through parliament first… two opposition parties are saying we should have the election before the legislation (if we’re not having a referendum before the legislation).
I’m not even sure if this move is genuinely designed to get us an earlier election, or rather to put pressure on Johnson by separating his demand for the legislation to be passed from his calls for a December election. Perhaps also to put pressure on Tory rebels looking at losing their seats, and some in Labour still pushing against a referendum, to back the moves that SNP & LibDems keep making as regards referendum before election amendments.
Labour are wise to avoid a 2019 election, but they need to do so in a way that isn’t fuelling Johnson’s “chicken” narrative… and it could well be that what at first looks a crazy move form the SNP & LibDems could be one way of fighting back against that claim, while also trying to block Johnson getting his Brexit this year.
We’ll end up with a 2020 election. Johnson will have the most seats after that. SNP and LibDems are after more seats at the upcoming election, and hoping Johnson doesn’t get a majority.
Isn't it just a case of simple arithmatic?
The Lib Dems want an election because they will increase their number of MP's
The SNP want an election because they will increase their number of MP's
The Tory's want an election because they think it will deliver them a majority
The Labour party most definitely don't want an election as they'll be losing lots of seats to all the above.
As for potential coalitions... any statements about who you will and won't work with will go out of the window half a millisecond after a hung parliament with no overall majority
If we *don't* have an election before the latest extension expires, what is going to be different?
We'll just have a re-run of what's just happened sometime in January, with exactly the same outcome.
The Lib Dems want an election because they will increase their number of MP’s
Exactly my point. So the lib dems are abandoning any pretence at stopping brexit in favour of gaining more MPs and hopefully being part of a future coalition with the tories. Glad we cleared that up.
I think you’re confusing Harold Wilson with Joseph Stalin. This country has always been a capitalist country, even in the days when the state owned a whole raft of industries which labour aren’t proposing to re-nationalise now. It always will be a capitalist country, and labour have never said that they’re going to change that. If you seriously think the labour party will turn this country into soviet russia or east germany then you need to do some reading of history. Or you’re just being ridiculously stupid.
I was *responding* to the term 'democratic socialism'. I didn't raise the term 'democratic socialism' in this thread or in relation to Labour. I don't *think* the person who originally brought up was using it specifically in relation to Labour either. (...and I think I'm going to hit the report button on the ad hom..)
Remainers need to wake up, the libdems are not on their side.
They're the only party with a remain policy. That's as close to being on the remainers side as you can get!
Exactly my point. So the lib dems are abandoning any pretence at stopping brexit in favour of gaining more MPs and hopefully being part of a future coalition with the tories. Glad we cleared that up.
What are you on about dazh?
If Johnson doesn't get his GE on 12th he puts his bill back down & labour leavers vote it through (CU amendment won't get thru as erg etc will block it so will be some weak committment to level playing field, that flint etc are desperate to hide behind)
Labour are wise to avoid a 2019 election, but they need to do so in a way that isn’t fuelling Johnson’s “chicken” narrative
They've been totally outplayed there. Jez has spent the last year or so demanding an election. (Hansard in September showed he'd already asked for one 16 times in the House in 2019).
"Yeah, just not now" is going to be easily ridiculed in our age of politics by soundbite.
One of the greatest successes of the political right has been to conflate Marxism, Communism and Maoism with Socialism. The fact that the Nordic countries are profoundly socialist and offer paid childcare, free education, subsidised public transport etc passes most people by. Naturally, the tax burden is higher but it doesn't seem to harm their respective economies.
People seem shocked to learn that the starting rate of tax was 30% and the top tax rate 60% during the early years of the Thatcher government.
Back on topic. The SNP and Lib Dem tactic behind pushing for an early election on the 9th is simple - they're trying to highlight Boris' chicanery, they know full well that Johnson's team won't agree to an election on the 9th Dec. Make no mistake, it's about closing down Johnson's avenues towards a defacto "no deal".
Exactly my point. So the lib dems are abandoning any pretence at stopping brexit in favour of gaining more MPs and hopefully being part of a future coalition with the tories. Glad we cleared that up.
I don't think it's that clear cut. That's far too simplistic a view.
This election is going to be like no other. There is now virtually no such thing as a safe seat. The votes are going to split 5 ways and deliver some weird old results in a wide range of constituencies. You're assuming that it'll be a 2 party coalition. It's quite possible that this is going to blow the whole idea of working majorities out of the window. If that happens there's going to have to be some serious horse-trading going on between all the parties and they're, somewhat ironically, going to have a to adopt a more European way of doing things
As for potential coalitions… any statements about who you will and won’t work with will go out of the window half a millisecond after a hung parliament with no overall majority
This.
...but we can be pretty sure the Libdems will make the first condition of any deal with a party the removal of Corbyn/Boris and we can be 100pc sure that a party in some kind of power on a 'stop Brexit' mandate won't be able to do anything that makes Brexit more likely.
Also I don't accept the premise that the Lib Dems can't win. They're polling neck and neck with Labour and they will appeal to the 50pc of the electorate who voted remain while the 50pc who voted leave are split between Tories and BP.
A sovereign country can’t run out of cash either.
It can if it needs imports, obvs.
Historically once you take all the means of production, distribution, and exchange into state ownership
NO-ONE is proposing that. That is literally a straw man argument. Stop it.
I also struggle to see how people are persuaded to vote against parties that would give them things like free childcare. Who enjoys paying for childcare?
the Nordic countries are profoundly socialist
No they're not.
Socialism is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
All the Nordic countries have tons of private enterprise.
free childcare.
*Free*
I don’t *think* the person who originally brought up was using it specifically in relation to Labour either.
You could always read what I actually typed:
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer……
we’ve never needed a decent democratic socialist government as much as we do now.The last Labour manifesto, you know, the only one that was independantly costed was just fine in my eyes.
The addition of scrapping private education is just the icing on the cake.And what’s wrong with direct action?
By all means let’s have Starmer as leader.
As long as he pledges to push through a democratic socialist manifesto containing the key points of the previous one.
I was using the term in relation to the Labour Party.
A democratic political party, born of socialist principles.
However, I really should have known better by now.....
That is literally a straw man argument.
Explain how.
I also struggle to see how people are persuaded to vote against parties that would give them things like free childcare. Who enjoys paying for childcare?
I had this dilemma at the last election. Free childcare is a powerful bribe for me - I pay over £1500 a month on childcare and it's crippling. But it all came down to do I believe for one second that Labour could deliver that? And the answer was no, it's not affordable. Now if Labour want to pay me 36,000 up-front for two years worth and guarantee I'd personally be no worse of in other ways I'd willingly vote for them. ...and yes that does all sound silly, which is why some people vote against parties who offer free childcare - it's not credible.
I was using the term in relation to the Labour Party.
Ok, sorry. Maybe you can address Dezb and Molgrip's objections - I'm getting flack that should be aimed at you.
But it all came down to do I believe for one second that Labour could deliver that? And the answer was no, it’s not affordable.
Ever heard the phrase 'never look a gift horse in the mouth'? So you would reject a policy that will directly and massively benefit you because of your doubts that it will happen, even though your rejection of that would ensure that is the case? The mind bogges!
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Key word in your quote is regulated. Private enterprise is fine but it needs to be regulated for the interest of society.
All the Nordic countries have tons of private enterprise.
They also have state owned industries so, by your approach, they cant count as capitalist either.
Which is correct. They are a mixed economy with (although its been changes) a tendancy towards the socialist side of things. Also as Kerley points out they have lots of regulation.
You seem to be taking a very simplistic and purist view of socialism excluding anything but the most pure version as socialism whilst sticking everything else under the capitalism banner which is just as inaccurate.
Ever heard the phrase ‘never look a gift horse in the mouth’? So you would reject a policy that will directly and massively benefit you because of your doubts that it will happen, even though your rejection of that would ensure that is the case?
Yes. For a bribe to work it has to be credible. Seriously, if a party offered you and a massive number of other voters £36,000 over two years to vote for them, would that have any effect on your vote? Of course not, you'd just think nah, can't be done.
...and I'm bribe-able. Many other voters would think that 36k would be better off going to a disabled person and not vote for it for that reason.
Lots of reasons to shun the pork barrel.
They also have state owned industries so, by your approach, they cant count as capitalist either.
Yup. So what? I'm arguing they're not socialist. I'm not saying they're capitalist. They mixtures, like the UK.
Ok, sorry. Maybe you can address Dezb and Molgrip’s objections – I’m getting flack that should be aimed at you.
No you're getting flack for being stubborn, obtuse and refusing to answer questions.
For a bribe to work it has to be credible.
If at this point in time we didn't have 'free' education up to 18 years old, you'd be arguing it wasn't possible and unaffordable. Same with the health service. Yet clearly both are, because they both exist. The same is true with childcare, higher education and other existing or potential state-provided services. Yes they have to be paid for, but the state has funding methods at it's disposal which the private sector doesn't, and also the economies of scale. you get much more value for money from the taxes you pay than anything you spend privately. The only people who tell us this isn't possible are the small amount of people who stand to lose out because they lose the profits they otherwsie would gain.
No you’re getting flack for being stubborn, obtuse and refusing to answer questions.
You brought up socialism *in relation to Labour*. I didn't. That's what got them all hot under the collar!
What question am I'm refusing to answer?
What's wrong with direct action?
And regards to being obtuse, please answer daz's points above.
Free childcare is a powerful bribe for me – I pay over £1500 a month on childcare and it’s crippling.
Free childcare is much more than just a financial help. Mostly it's the women who end up staying home to look after kids - because they take their maternity leave and then before you know it they're the ones who become the primary caregiver and so it goes on. This all goes into the general murky pot of sexist attitudes. So we have millions of women who are economically under-active and their earning potential is diminished. But more than that - their economic output is diminished. There are many women who could be productive assets to the economy who are forced to take part time low-skilled work. That's not to mention the single parents who can't go out to work because who's going to look after the kids and how the hell do they afford childcare? So they sit at home not working and not developing skills. Maybe women end up being trapped in poor relationships because they can't afford to leave?
Free childcare would have a massive knock-on effect all through society, not just for women. It'd boost our economy significantly in the long run IMO.
But it all came down to do I believe for one second that Labour could deliver that? And the answer was no, it’s not affordable.
It's not affordable now, it's not acheivable in the short term. But three or four Labour administrations on the trot, it wouldn't seem so far fetched.
If at this point in time we didn’t have ‘free’ education up to 18 years old, you’d be arguing it wasn’t possible and unaffordable. Same with the health service. Yet clearly both are, because they both exist. The same is true with childcare, higher education and other existing or potential state-provided services. Yes they have to be paid for, but the state has funding methods at it’s disposal which the private sector doesn’t, and also the economies of scale. you get much more value for money from the taxes you pay than anything you spend privately. The only people who tell us this isn’t possible are the small amount of people who stand to lose out because they lose the profits they otherwsie would gain.
Maybe I misunderstood the policy then, I thought they were just going to pay for childcare in existing providers in the same (underhand) way the existing (not) free entitlement does(n't).
They are a mixed economy with (although its been changes) a tendancy towards the socialist side of things.
Social democracy.
It’s not affordable now, it’s not acheivable in the short term.
Indeed.
They mixtures, like the UK.
I must be missing your argument then. What are you trying to argue with regards to PJMs point?
Free childcare would have a massive knock-on effect all through society,
There is also some interesting evidence around how it would impact the current demographic decline in those countries which have adopted it on a large scale.
What are you trying to argue with regards to PJMs point?
See the post in which I replied to it.
See the post in which I replied to it.
I have. I am not sure what your objection is. Do you expect everything to be qualified?
So we’re back on for Dec 12th then. There’s almost no chance the Lib Dem’s will be able to resist the temptation of having a few moe MPs. The most important election in decades at a time which guarantees the lowest possible turnout. You couldn’t make it up.
Thought they voted against the 12th.
Anytime in December would be a crazy time to have an election. But will we be out of the EU by Xmas if we don’t have an election though? I still think the election will be in 2020, but I don’t know what’s going on in Westminster… official talks between Johnson and Corbyn (and Cummings and Milne) to get the Withdrawal Agreement legislation timetable sorted seemed to be genuine, even if they failed… could there be more going on between the two biggest parties to ‘get Brexit done’ before an election? The SNP first, and then the LibDems, seem spooked, for sure. On the surface their current moves look very odd.
The most important election in decades at a time which guarantees the lowest possible turnout. You couldn’t make it up.
While the optics for turn-out are bad, I was listening to a discussion the other day that said they stack up worse for “typical” Labour voters than “typical” Tory. It’s a shit time for an election though, that’s true.