FrancieBrady wrote: » you are comparing that to belittling the assassination of an MP? Really?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Of course it's ridiculous to compare what Tom Watson is saying to the offensive drivel Johnson was coming out with and there's no question, for all the whatabouttery, that the most sinister commentary is coming from the right. That said, however, i wish Watson and others would be a bit more precise when considering their language. The word "extremist" is being shovelled around with such abandon that it's meaning is beginning to drift alarmingly for me. If you start casually tossing that label around, what then do you do when you have to deal with some truly nasty elements on the far right of the spectrum? It's used about those on the left too, it cheapens and coarsens language in my view and isn't in any way helpful.
fr336 wrote: » I would be over the moon if this government was brought down by a confidence vote this week when they already think they've won and Corbyn is temporary PM. Then in opposition Boris makes such a shamble of things that we end up with a rainbow coalition of Labour and other opposition parties as the government. This is the only guaranteed route to blowing apart Johnson and Cumming's plans and it would be a delight to see the look on their faces. Time to call their bluff.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You call them 'nasty extremists' if that's what they are.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The Lib Dems are, imho, trying to play kingmaker. They are the main stumbling bloc due to their continued refusal to accept the leader of the largest opposition party as caretaker PM. If they held their nose, backed Corbyn then Boris is gone. It could happen on Monday. Failure to do so is simply prolonging the whole farce. It really does come down to if you truly wish to stop Boris then call a VONC - install Corbyn who calls a GE. Otherwise you are just working to keep Boris there. LP have 246 seats SNP have 35 So that's 281 to the Tories 288. If Plaid Cymru and the Green join it makes 286 to 288 - are the Lib Dems and the ex-Tories really going to vote to keep Boris and the threat of No Deal when it could easily be off the table and a GE called to be held in November?? Will Labour MPs vote to keep Boris?!?! Playing party politics while the country heads towards a cliff is the kind of thing that has the UK in this mess in the first place.
Inquitus wrote: » Ken Clarke would be the ideal man for the job, not re-standing at the next election, Father of the House, and should be palatable enough for everyone, if the Lib Dems can't get over their Corbyn issues. This is however the clearest best way forwards, avoiding any shens Bojo might try and play with the Benn Act.
Varta wrote: » Playing party politics is exactly what the labour party is doing. They want the unelectable Corbyn as PM so they can go into an election with their leader as PM.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Like it or not the LP is the biggest party in opposition by a huge margin. Their vote was increased in the last GE under Corbyn's leadership. They enjoyed a swing of 9.6% and gained 30 seats. That was a year after the Brexit Ref. So saying they are 'unelectable' is pure hyperbole. The conventions are clear - the leader of the largest opposition party is invited to form a caretaker government until a GE can be called. If he/she cannot then look elsewhere. The LibDems want to ignore the conventions that don't suit their agenda - which makes them 'guilty' of doing exactly the same thing as Johnson - but the LP are accused of playing party politics because they are looking to abide by the long standing conventions?? Seriously?
Sam Russell wrote: » The Gov of National Unity (for want of a better name) should look to stay in power for six months though, and aim to hold a second ref before the GE
Varta wrote: » Yes, seriously, the Labour party is playing party politics. As is every other party bar the SNP, whose motivation is another indy referendum. I don't believe any party in the UK is capable of putting party politics or personal interest aside for the good of the country, which partly explains the mess that they are in.
Enzokk wrote: » The SNP is in the enviable position of knowing the polling is showing them picking up seats for standing by their position. This means they can happily pursue stopping Brexit and still pick up support, which is not the case for Labour. I agree with what they are doing, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say they are not playing party politics. It is just that at the moment party politics is working out for them.
briany wrote: » Shouldn't be a surprise that current party policy is a fairly accurate indicator of its base's views. Labour's ambivalent stance reflects the fact that its base is still hopelessly split on the issue of Brexit. The question Labour have to ask is if they could really afford to take a firmer stance. Choosing either way puts them in a battle with either CON or LD. It's cynical to take an amorphic stance on Brexit, but it would at least be lawful cynicism, unlike the attempted prorogation.
Roger_007 wrote: » They should have opposed the triggering of Art 50 until the principles of the exit deal were negotiated and agreed with the EU.
Bannasidhe wrote: The LibDems want to ignore the conventions that don't suit their agenda - which makes them 'guilty' of doing exactly the same thing as Johnson - but the LP are accused of playing party politics because they are looking to abide by the long standing conventions??
AllForIt wrote: » It seems that if your on the right side of the Brexit argument you can just about say whatever you like and are exempt from feeling thoroughly ashamed of yourself. FrancieBrady wrote: » you are comparing that to belittling the assassination of an MP? Really?
GM228 wrote: » He said "take knife to pen pushers", but was supposed to say "take the axe", yea I can see how he could easily make that mistake...
Roger_007 wrote: » Labour have made horrendous mistakes on the whole issue of Brexit. They should have opposed the holding of a binary in-out referendum when the question was so complex.They should have opposed the triggering of Art 50 until the principles of the exit deal were negotiated and agreed with the EU. They should have produced an actual alternative to May's deal instead of just voting against it. Labour's position is now hopeless. Their policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it is laughable. When the GE comes, Labour have no hope of getting a majority. The best they can hope for is that they can form a coalition with the Lib Dems and the SNP.
CrabRevolution wrote: » The EU would never agree to such a suicidal proposition. Imagine if it were possible to see what deal a country would get upon leaving the EU without having to actually commit to leaving. You would have countries perpetually negotiating to leave in order to hold the EU to ransom and try to get more favorable treatment.
Roger_007 wrote: » I don't disagree with that, but it would have been a much better plan to get broad agreement in the HoC on what the approach to the negotiations was going to be before agreeing to trigger Art 50. It was triggered without anyone having the faintest idea what the HoC would /would not accept in a withdrawal agreement. It was like agreeing to buy a house in 2 years time without knowing the location, the condition or the price.
