Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Soft thread split, hard thread split, no-deal thread split. Who gives a sh!t as long as we get a thread split by the 15:35 deadline.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

They've always lied. It's not unique to the Tories either.

GSC wrote:Long Bailey now the favourite to be labour leader, with Rayner apparently running for deputy.

So there goes the idea that labour learned anything from last week.

You thought they would? Surprised Long-Bailey would potentially ruin her political career at this point. As for Rayner, this is the person who tried to bail Corbyn out re. Queen's speech nonsense by saying he might have watched on catch-up, even before the speech had been broadcast?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing.

navyblueshorts wrote:They've always lied. It's not unique to the Tories either.

I know.

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:Long Bailey now the favourite to be labour leader, with Rayner apparently running for deputy.

So there goes the idea that labour learned anything from last week.

You thought they would? Surprised Long-Bailey would potentially ruin her political career at this point. As for Rayner, this is the person who tried to bail Corbyn out re. Queen's speech nonsense by saying he might have watched on catch-up, even before the speech had been broadcast?

Unless he watches them one year behind everyone else?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:Long Bailey now the favourite to be labour leader, with Rayner apparently running for deputy.

So there goes the idea that labour learned anything from last week.

You thought they would? Surprised Long-Bailey would potentially ruin her political career at this point. As for Rayner, this is the person who tried to bail Corbyn out re. Queen's speech nonsense by saying he might have watched on catch-up, even before the speech had been broadcast?

Unless he watches them one year behind everyone else?  

Ah, cunning. Still, they're so dumb they didn't think of that either.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

Before he lets them down. Either he lets them down, or the moderates.

It's only right that it's a Brexiter at the helm for when Brexit happens and is for many people not what they were promised it would be.

Things are going to come to a head now. They'll have to if we're going to leave. What's the craic with Northern Ireland?

Over to you, Leavers. This is your mess to tidy up.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

Before he lets them down. Either he lets them down, or the moderates.

It's only right that it's a Brexiter at the helm for when Brexit happens and is for many people not what they were promised it would be.

Things are going to come to a head now. They'll have to if we're going to leave. What's the craic with Northern Ireland?

Over to you, Leavers. This is your mess to tidy up.

If he "lets them down", he lets them down. At least he has enough of majority to hopefully not care that much.

Not what people were promised it would be? When are people going to accept that the referendum didn't promise anything except in/out??
N.I.? Maybe they've grown up enough now not to go to war now? Given Nationalist majority in N.I. this Parliament, don't think it's long before an all-Ireland reunification in any case.

Leavers mess to tidy up? One could argue that, but maybe Remainers (for it's assuredly mainly them) should take their share of responsibility for creating an environment over so many years where so many felt that they should leave the EU if they wanted a material improvement in their lives? No? Didn't think they'd like that idea.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

Before he lets them down. Either he lets them down, or the moderates.

It's only right that it's a Brexiter at the helm for when Brexit happens and is for many people not what they were promised it would be.

Things are going to come to a head now. They'll have to if we're going to leave. What's the craic with Northern Ireland?

Over to you, Leavers. This is your mess to tidy up.

If he "lets them down", he lets them down. At least he has enough of majority to hopefully not care that much.

Not what people were promised it would be? When are people going to accept that the referendum didn't promise anything except in/out??
N.I.? Maybe they've grown up enough now not to go to war now? Given Nationalist majority in N.I. this Parliament, don't think it's long before an all-Ireland reunification in any case.

Leavers mess to tidy up? One could argue that, but maybe Remainers (for it's assuredly mainly them) should take their share of responsibility for creating an environment over so many years where so many felt that they should leave the EU if they wanted a material improvement in their lives? No? Didn't think they'd like that idea.

I remember a certain bus that implied that leaving would lead to healthcare nirvana.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

Before he lets them down. Either he lets them down, or the moderates.

It's only right that it's a Brexiter at the helm for when Brexit happens and is for many people not what they were promised it would be.

Things are going to come to a head now. They'll have to if we're going to leave. What's the craic with Northern Ireland?

Over to you, Leavers. This is your mess to tidy up.

If he "lets them down", he lets them down. At least he has enough of majority to hopefully not care that much.

Not what people were promised it would be? When are people going to accept that the referendum didn't promise anything except in/out??
N.I.? Maybe they've grown up enough now not to go to war now? Given Nationalist majority in N.I. this Parliament, don't think it's long before an all-Ireland reunification in any case.

Leavers mess to tidy up? One could argue that, but maybe Remainers (for it's assuredly mainly them) should take their share of responsibility for creating an environment over so many years where so many felt that they should leave the EU if they wanted a material improvement in their lives? No? Didn't think they'd like that idea.

Well that's not very nice, is it?

navyblueshorts wrote:When are people going to accept that the referendum didn't promise anything except in/out??

I'm not sure Leave voters will be particularly forgiving if Johnson tells them that.

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

Before he lets them down. Either he lets them down, or the moderates.

It's only right that it's a Brexiter at the helm for when Brexit happens and is for many people not what they were promised it would be.

Things are going to come to a head now. They'll have to if we're going to leave. What's the craic with Northern Ireland?

Over to you, Leavers. This is your mess to tidy up.

If he "lets them down", he lets them down. At least he has enough of majority to hopefully not care that much.

Not what people were promised it would be? When are people going to accept that the referendum didn't promise anything except in/out??
N.I.? Maybe they've grown up enough now not to go to war now? Given Nationalist majority in N.I. this Parliament, don't think it's long before an all-Ireland reunification in any case.

Leavers mess to tidy up? One could argue that, but maybe Remainers (for it's assuredly mainly them) should take their share of responsibility for creating an environment over so many years where so many felt that they should leave the EU if they wanted a material improvement in their lives? No? Didn't think they'd like that idea.

I remember a certain bus that implied that leaving would lead to healthcare nirvana.

True. I was thinking of the actual ballot though, and what was written on it. Let's face it, no-one will agree on any of this but we're just reaching the top of the roller coaster ride now, just before the point of no return. Guess we'll find out what we're in for in the near future...

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Probably not.

We may have reached a point in history where no one cares if you go back on your word.

So, you'd rather he followed through instead of extend if he thought he needed more time?

When it's almost certain you'll need more time, I don't see the point of making a rod for your own back. Either he's serious about accepting a no-deal Brexit, or we're back to implausible bluffing....

Keeping the ERG wingnuts quiet for a bit?

Before he lets them down. Either he lets them down, or the moderates.

It's only right that it's a Brexiter at the helm for when Brexit happens and is for many people not what they were promised it would be.

Things are going to come to a head now. They'll have to if we're going to leave. What's the craic with Northern Ireland?

Over to you, Leavers. This is your mess to tidy up.

If he "lets them down", he lets them down. At least he has enough of majority to hopefully not care that much.

Not what people were promised it would be? When are people going to accept that the referendum didn't promise anything except in/out??
N.I.? Maybe they've grown up enough now not to go to war now? Given Nationalist majority in N.I. this Parliament, don't think it's long before an all-Ireland reunification in any case.

Leavers mess to tidy up? One could argue that, but maybe Remainers (for it's assuredly mainly them) should take their share of responsibility for creating an environment over so many years where so many felt that they should leave the EU if they wanted a material improvement in their lives? No? Didn't think they'd like that idea.

Well that's not very nice, is it?

No, maybe not. I don't have a lot of sympathy with the sectarian (read: religious) motives behind the conflict though, even if I have plenty for the innocents caught up in it.

I want to add for the record that I don't want Brexit to be bad - it's going to affect us all, regardless of how we voted in the referendum. If it doesn't harm the economy, and if we find beneficial trade deals easy to strike, I'll happily eat my hat.

Apparently there's been a large spike in Labour party memberships since last week. A friend of mine (not a fan of Corbyn) has rejoined and will vote for Starmer if he stands. I know someone else, more of a Corbyn sympathiser, who gets a vote via their union, who will also vote for Starmer - the rationale is that he's very well informed on Brexit and can take the government to account on it more effectively than other candidates. Given that Labour have already been punished over Brexit and that the economy will inevitably take a hit, the next leader doesn't necessarily need to be 'pro-Brexit'. Starmer is a serious, heavyweight politician who can also appeal to different wings of the party. Long-Bailey isn't as bad as people make her out to be, but she is wrong choice at current moment.

Rayner has potential but still needs bit of time to develop. Jo Swinson is a perfect example of a young inexperienced leader coming in way above their head and finding themselves out of their depth.

Thornberry’s the first confirmed candidate. Will do an excellent job of moving more Labour leavers over to the Tories, if elected.

And I imagine the Tory battlebus at any future GE with Thornberry as leader of the opposition would be a white van...

Starmer and Long Bailey the two clear favourites with the bookmakers, with Nandy just outside. Thornberry still priced at 33/1.

I'm surprised this was in the Queen's Speech:

'Work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - which would enable the prime minister to call an election without the consent of MPs'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50842124

The Fixed Term Parliament Act is pointless; no one will miss it.

Good to see an ambitious Queen’s Speech. Seems as though Johnson is settling in for the long haul. He’s got at least ten years in the job, barring internal shenanigans within his own ranks, and very limited opposition.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm surprised this was in the Queen's Speech:

'Work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act - which would enable the prime minister to call an election without the consent of MPs'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50842124

You are? Think this was an obvious move. It's been shown to be a shower of ****, despite maybe some logic in its original adoption.

I  just assumed it would suit the government to be guaranteed its five years. Not to say they have to call an election within that time just because they've repealed it.

Unless they feck up in the most mighty of ways then they're in charge now for a decade.

If enough Leave voters are happy with a soft Brexit, then they're sorted. I don't see how the next phase of negotiations can't drag on and on without the UK choosing (or having to accept) very close alignment on more or less everything.

The calculation must be that the likes of Farage will be far less influential once we're out, even if it's not a 'real' Brexit.

Hero wrote:Unless they feck up in the most mighty of ways then they're in charge now for a decade.

I seriously wouldn't put this past Boris and his band of merry men.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether Labour can avoid fecking up the selection of their next leader, and actually pick someone who can make then believable and effective in opposition. My strong suspicion at the moment is that the Corbyn arm of the party faithful is too strong, and they'll manage to select another militant lefty, probably with a bit of virtue signalling thrown in (northern, female, working class origins...).

I really don't want to be going into the next GE with such a poor choice of party leaders.

Whilst I've been pretty supportive of Corbyn (with 1 or 2 caveats) and what he stands for, I really do think he needs to just step down now as soon as possible - the longer he stays on the worst it is for morale.

Politically I am probably more on the left side of Labour (and a year or 2 ago would have gone for Clive Lewis to replace Corbyn), but right now I think we need Starmer as leader as he's the only one who has the gravitas and skills to hold the government to account on what they are doing on Brexit, and unite different wings of the party.

Amidst all the excitement of the honeymoon period its worth noticing what's already on Johnson's agenda:

Removing workers' rights from the withdrawal agreement.
Backtrack on manifesto commitment to increase minimum wage.
Photo ID for elections.
Changes to judicial system.
Weakening of parliamentary scrutiny on Brexit deal.
Jobs for the 'old boys' - Goldsmith and Morgan appointed as peers having both stepped down/lost their seats last week.

Most of mainstream media will ignore the above and other sneaky things the government are trying to do other than 1 or 2 honorable exceptions.  Private Eye do some really good investigative journalism putting others to shame, but they're hardly a mass media publication.

Photo ID for elections would be excellent. The increase to the living wage has been included in the Queen’s Speech, as has the issues relating to workers rights.

Goldsmith getting a peerage is such a joke.

Duty281 wrote:Photo ID for elections would be excellent.

Why? It’s a disgusting tactic to try limit things.

Should be opening voting up. 16 year olds should be able to vote and it should be compulsory for anyone 18 and over.

It's a great idea.

In no way should 16 year olds be voting.

Why? If they can sign up for the forces and die for their country, surely they should be allowed to vote?

I don't think they should be able to do that until 18 either.

Active duty is 18 anyway.

Soul Requiem wrote:I don't think they should be able to do that until 18 either.

Active duty is 18 anyway.

But they can. So they should be able to vote.

Armed forces argument aside, if you're old enough to be a full-time, taxpaying worker, you should be allowed to vote.

They can earn money and pay taxes, they are politically interested enough to have informed opinions, and those that aren't won't vote.

Why is it a great idea to require photo ID? It's just more fearmongering, and it's not solving a problem - except pretending to solve one that doesn't exist.

Fearmongering? Oh no you have to prove who you are to vote, how terrible.

Rudolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Photo ID for elections would be excellent.

Why? It’s a disgusting tactic to try limit things.

Should be opening voting up. 16 year olds should be able to vote and it should be compulsory for anyone 18 and over.

Because there’s no virtually no security on voting and there should be. Taking ID would be no hardship when you need ID to do most things in society nowadays.

Also disagree with giving 16-17 years old the vote - far too young. And firmly against forced voting as well. The freedom to vote also includes the freedom not to vote.

This isn’t an attempt to eliminate electoral fraud though.

It is widely reported that the people most likely to not have a form of photo id are the younger generation, the very generation that lean towards Labour.

It’s a cynical way to legally limit the share of voters for the main opposition party.

Soul Requiem wrote:Fearmongering? Oh no you have to prove who you are to vote, how terrible.

Because, and you're smart enough to know this, it is building an idea for fraudulent voting. And it is an idea to making voting a little more inconvenient, and it's certainly not going to affect the older voter...

Duty281 wrote:

Rudolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Photo ID for elections would be excellent.

Why? It’s a disgusting tactic to try limit things.

Should be opening voting up. 16 year olds should be able to vote and it should be compulsory for anyone 18 and over.

Because there’s no virtually no security on voting and there should be. Taking ID would be no hardship when you need ID to do most things in society nowadays.

Also disagree with giving 16-17 years old the vote - far too young. And firmly against forced voting as well. The freedom to vote also includes the freedom not to vote.

That bit in bold, for you Soul.

Why is it too young? For what? Understanding politics? They go to work, take on choices for education, learn to drive at 17, and can serve in the blooming army.

The freedom not to vote is the freedom to spoil the ballot. I've come to a point where I agree with the Australians - not something I enjoy doing over here - as it makes people more involved in the political decisions that affect them and it gets people to think about politics and engage more.

I think the country needs huge electoral reform and there are no reasons logical reasons to be against it. There are selfish reasons, and the same kind of nonsense bulls*** as "sovereignty" in the Brexit argument.

Why are 16 and 17 year olds old enough to pay tax but not old enough to vote?

“You can pay tax the same as everyone else, but not have any say on how it is spent”

Afro wrote:This isn’t an attempt to eliminate electoral fraud though.

It is widely reported that the people most likely to not have a form of photo id are the younger generation, the very generation that lean towards Labour.

It’s a cynical way to legally limit the share of voters for the main opposition party.

Do you have a source for this bit about the most likely not to have id are the younger generation, out of interest?

Not only that, the likelihood is that an election at 16 will impact their lives til they're 21. They are more than likely to have paid tax by that point

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.php?t=69414