RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Being gutless only works until he's in a position to do something at which point he'd have no mandate

Digby wrote:Nope, they're both pricks, and one doing something to grab some media attention doesn't suddenly validate the other

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Corbyn honours a dead terrorist and this is an ‘issue’. Boris offends Muslim woman - at least the 1ish % who wear a niquab - with tasteless jokes whilst actually supporting their right to wear what the wish and he’s an utter c**t. That seems like the proportionally correct response.
I’d venture that Corbyn is the utter c**t and Boris’s behaviour is an issue, albeit a serious one.

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Puja wrote: While I'd really like to believe a) is true and that the consequences of a Brexit led by this load of donkeys (ie all of our politicians) are actually sinking in, it does feel like wishful thinking research, carried out by people who already know which answer they'd like to see. People have become tribal over Brexit and facts are increasingly bouncing off. We could end up in penury and there'll still be those arguing that it was because we didn't take a hard enough line and let those nasty Europeans run all over us instead of Doing Brexit Right (TM).

B) may be true, but politicians are greedy opportunists with an eye for self-preservation who know that voting against the dreams of their leave constituents will see them turfed out next election. Only 4 voted for the Chequers plan, but that was a mess at the best of times and easy to vote against. How many voted against or abstained from the amendment to stay in the Single Market?

C) is absolutely true and is why what little policy Labour have on the subject (other than "Laugh at the Conservatives") is as soft Brexit as they can get without losing plausible deniability that they would "deliver the will of the people" if voted for in the next election.

Digby's right - it's utterly gutless, but it's the most politic thing to do right now.

Puja

Peat wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

I don't think this is the case and besides, parts of the Labour anti-semitism row were going before Johnson ever opened his mouth.

My guess its more about selling papers and preventing Corbyn from being able to talk about his policies than protecting Boris. I doubt Johnson attracts that much loyalty and affection among the press owners and editors.

Puja wrote: While I'd really like to believe a) is true and that the consequences of a Brexit led by this load of donkeys (ie all of our politicians) are actually sinking in, it does feel like wishful thinking research, carried out by people who already know which answer they'd like to see. People have become tribal over Brexit and facts are increasingly bouncing off. We could end up in penury and there'll still be those arguing that it was because we didn't take a hard enough line and let those nasty Europeans run all over us instead of Doing Brexit Right (TM).

B) may be true, but politicians are greedy opportunists with an eye for self-preservation who know that voting against the dreams of their leave constituents will see them turfed out next election. Only 4 voted for the Chequers plan, but that was a mess at the best of times and easy to vote against. How many voted against or abstained from the amendment to stay in the Single Market?

C) is absolutely true and is why what little policy Labour have on the subject (other than "Laugh at the Conservatives") is as soft Brexit as they can get without losing plausible deniability that they would "deliver the will of the people" if voted for in the next election.

Digby's right - it's utterly gutless, but it's the most politic thing to do right now.

Puja

A) Its not the first set of polling to find the tide has turned and that was before No Deal started looking increasingly likely. I know a lot of Brexit supporters aren't for shifting, but it doesn't take very much to shift things... particularly if we're talking in terms of constituencies going from Yay to Nay.

B) Maaaaybe. Or, if Kate Hooey's managed to survive so long ignoring her constituents, maybe not. Its not like plenty of Labour MPs didn't campaign for Remain then get voted in again by Leave constituencies.

Also, lets be honest, what point to self preservation if it leaves you in the House trying to sort out this mess?

Which brings me to another point about why a second referendum makes sense - a lot of MPs are, allegedly, beginning to view it as a better career move to foist this deal back onto the electorate then try and solve it themselves and get punished when they can't.

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Corbyn honours a dead terrorist and this is an ‘issue’. Boris offends Muslim woman - at least the 1ish % who wear a niquab - with tasteless jokes whilst actually supporting their right to wear what the wish and he’s an utter c**t. That seems like the proportionally correct response.
I’d venture that Corbyn is the utter c**t and Boris’s behaviour is an issue, albeit a serious one.

Once again, point missed. This isn't about the actions of two politicians. Or at least it shouldn't be. It is about the way the press has has rallied round an old boy to move public opinion.

Puja wrote: While I wouldn't be averse to a second referendum (except in the sense that something of this magnitude should never have been decided by the uneducated public in the first place and the only sane reason for putting it back in their hands is in the hope that "the will of the people" can be expressed definitively and we can stop having politicians wanking off about it), surely there's no time for such a thing. It'd take a minimum of 3 months to run a referendum, during which we'd presumably stop negotiating with the EU in case we changed our mind, and if the result was to leave again, then there'd be no time for any deal.

Puja

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Being gutless only works until he's in a position to do something at which point he'd have no mandate

I think the plan is that, with May's brilliant scheme of calling an early election to push the next one till 2020, he won't be in a position to do anything until after everything is completely fucked up and then he'll a) hopefully have a country that's not half in denial and b) be able to blame anything he wants on how terrible the last government made everything.

Basically the last thing he wants is power while everything's still 52/48.

Puja

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote: While I wouldn't be averse to a second referendum (except in the sense that something of this magnitude should never have been decided by the uneducated public in the first place and the only sane reason for putting it back in their hands is in the hope that "the will of the people" can be expressed definitively and we can stop having politicians wanking off about it), surely there's no time for such a thing. It'd take a minimum of 3 months to run a referendum, during which we'd presumably stop negotiating with the EU in case we changed our mind, and if the result was to leave again, then there'd be no time for any deal.

Puja

Ask for an extension of negotiation time due to the circumstances; I've seen Brussels commentators say it would happen and it makes sense that it would.

Although to a certain extent, whether its plausible isn't as important as whether Corbyn can use it to make the case for being the most plausible leader in a post-Brexit Britain and/or use the pressure of it to bring down Ma's government

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:Will lying about a wreath lay to rest Corbyn's time as leader, or like Trump can he do as he wants and take no hit to his base? And even if they ditch the walking apology machine for terrorism would the next leader be any better?

Was that the wreath laying ceremony from 2014? I can't imagine why there is a fuss about it now, can you? Any anti-islamic telegraph columns that need attention being drawn away from?

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:Nope, they're both pricks, and one doing something to grab some media attention doesn't suddenly validate the other

Nope, that's exactly the opposite of the point.

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

Corbyn honours a dead terrorist and this is an ‘issue’. Boris offends Muslim woman - at least the 1ish % who wear a niquab - with tasteless jokes whilst actually supporting their right to wear what the wish and he’s an utter c**t. That seems like the proportionally correct response.
I’d venture that Corbyn is the utter c**t and Boris’s behaviour is an issue, albeit a serious one.

Once again, point missed. This isn't about the actions of two politicians. Or at least it shouldn't be. It is about the way the press has has rallied round an old boy to move public opinion.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Corbyn honours a dead terrorist and this is an ‘issue’. Boris offends Muslim woman - at least the 1ish % who wear a niquab - with tasteless jokes whilst actually supporting their right to wear what the wish and he’s an utter c**t. That seems like the proportionally correct response.
I’d venture that Corbyn is the utter c**t and Boris’s behaviour is an issue, albeit a serious one.

Once again, point missed. This isn't about the actions of two politicians. Or at least it shouldn't be. It is about the way the press has has rallied round an old boy to move public opinion.

I haven’t missed the point. I was just suprised that your reaction to both events is so wholly out of proportion. As for your point, I ignored it as it’s paranoid nonsense.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

This anti Semitic issue has tumbled on way before Boris made his remarks. The reason it’s still news is that Labour are making a pigs ear of handling it.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Would now be opportune to mention that the only reason this particular Corbyn issue is in the news is to distract the feeble minded from the utter cuntery of Boris Johnson?

This anti Semitic issue has tumbled on way before Boris made his remarks. The reason it’s still news is that Labour are making a pigs ear of handling it.

All of what you say is true and in no way takes away from my point.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: This anti Semitic issue has tumbled on way before Boris made his remarks. The reason it’s still news is that Labour are making a pigs ear of handling it.

All of what you say is true and in no way takes away from my point.

Except while Labour fail to handle the situation, more and more diet will be found to make the point. I suspect the researchers were trawling for news way before Boris got into trouble.

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:Nope, they're both pricks, and one doing something to grab some media attention doesn't suddenly validate the other

Nope, that's exactly the opposite of the point.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:Nope, they're both pricks, and one doing something to grab some media attention doesn't suddenly validate the other

Nope, that's exactly the opposite of the point.

Your point is seemingly this latest coverage on the Dear Leader only came about to deflect negative stories about Boris? And frankly it seems a nonsense, there are plenty of stories about both in the media simultaneously, and they both come across as pricks.

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Nope, that's exactly the opposite of the point.

Your point is seemingly this latest coverage on the Dear Leader only came about to deflect negative stories about Boris? And frankly it seems a nonsense, there are plenty of stories about both in the media simultaneously, and they both come across as pricks.

I'm thrilled you think it's a nonsense. It's probably due to my inherent bias against Boris Johnson. The sort of bias that leads me to constantly refer to him by a stupid nickname that I think sounds clever.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Being gutless only works until he's in a position to do something at which point he'd have no mandate

I think the plan is that, with May's brilliant scheme of calling an early election to push the next one till 2020, he won't be in a position to do anything until after everything is completely fucked up and then he'll a) hopefully have a country that's not half in denial and b) be able to blame anything he wants on how terrible the last government made everything.

Basically the last thing he wants is power while everything's still 52/48.

Puja

And if we do crash out of the EU completely then not only will Corbyn be personally happy, but it will make it far easier for the implementation of their financial policy.

Peat wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the plan is that, with May's brilliant scheme of calling an early election to push the next one till 2020, he won't be in a position to do anything until after everything is completely fucked up and then he'll a) hopefully have a country that's not half in denial and b) be able to blame anything he wants on how terrible the last government made everything.

Basically the last thing he wants is power while everything's still 52/48.

Puja

And if we do crash out of the EU completely then not only will Corbyn be personally happy, but it will make it far easier for the implementation of their financial policy.

Apart from the bit where they have no money with which to do any of them

Sandydragon wrote:

Peat wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
And if we do crash out of the EU completely then not only will Corbyn be personally happy, but it will make it far easier for the implementation of their financial policy.

Apart from the bit where they have no money with which to do any of them

That’s the easy bit, apparently. Tax and borrow, tax and borrow.

Peat wrote:Can't tax what people don't have and doubt the interest rates on borrowing will be all that kind either.