The Coin Return Foundational Fundraiser is here! Please donate!

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Their Worstest Hour

19495969799

Posts

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    Even if the Lib Dems came around on Corbyn being a caretaker PM that still doesn't give them the numbers to do it. He needs Tory rebels to back him as well, and they won't.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Well, forgive this ignorant Yank (but I repeat myself), but I see both of our blonde idjits in charge trying to do things that they're not "allowed" to do, and the question seems to be, as a practical matter, who's going to stop them?
    And, by extension, what's to stop Corbyn if he gets into that position?

  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    Well, forgive this ignorant Yank (but I repeat myself), but I see both of our blonde idjits in charge trying to do things that they're not "allowed" to do, and the question seems to be, as a practical matter, who's going to stop them?
    And, by extension, what's to stop Corbyn if he gets into that position?

    He'd be no-confidenced so fast, the seats in Downing Street wouldn't even have had time to get warm.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    And then what?
    I mean, yes, I understand I'm basically asking "what if the PM - Boris, Jeremy, whoever - decides he can just ignore the rules?"
    I submit that we are either at, or rapidly approaching, the point where that is not outside the realm of possibility.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    It's unclear how Johnson is going to try and avoid doing the thing he's required by law to do. Until we know how he intends to avoid doing it it isn't clear what will be done to stop him.

    I think it's tremendously unlikely Corbyn would try and stay on as PM if he were made a temporary PM, refusing to leave or whatever, and just as unlikely he wouldn't ask for an extension or use the opportunity try to institute some of his more controversial policies. He would be PM by virtue of a coalition of MPs agreeing temporarily to back him, and if he abused that trust they would stop backing him, immediately call a VONC (again) and he'd be facing a general election in which he'd have to fight as the guy no one could trust for even two weeks to not be an arsehole. I imagine he desperately wants the chance to show he can be trusted not to immediately gift our nuclear deterrent to Gazprom or whatever.

    I think Swinson has simply calculated that trusting someone so manifestly untrustworthy about Brexit over the last three years would be a bad electoral move for her resurgent, pro-EU party. The Lib Dems are going to shoulder very, very little of the blame for a no deal Brexit no matter how hard Corbyn tries to pin it on them, so why risk being aboard the Corbyn ship, one that appears to be sinking under the weight of polls that say he won't beat a government of confirmed liars, morons and frothing, swivel-eyed lunatics?

  • DrascinDrascin Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think Swinson has simply calculated that trusting someone so manifestly untrustworthy about Brexit over the last three years would be a bad electoral move for her resurgent, pro-EU party. The Lib Dems are going to shoulder very, very little of the blame for a no deal Brexit no matter how hard Corbyn tries to pin it on them, so why risk being aboard the Corbyn ship, one that appears to be sinking under the weight of polls that say he won't beat a government of confirmed liars, morons and frothing, swivel-eyed lunatics?

    I think this is it. The Libdems already got nearly destroyed by tying themselves to an alliance that then made them recant pretty much everything they had promised, and, reasonably, people left them in droves. They've just barely managed to shake the albatross a bit by going all-in on "we're the anti-Brexit party", so suddenly allying with someone who is known to not actually be against Brexit would probably look like too much returning to the old fuckups to their new base, and likely cause them to implode.

    Steam ID: Right here.
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    And then what?
    I mean, yes, I understand I'm basically asking "what if the PM - Boris, Jeremy, whoever - decides he can just ignore the rules?"
    I submit that we are either at, or rapidly approaching, the point where that is not outside the realm of possibility.

    Fortunately, the mechanism of confidence is such that, if there's no confidence in the government then the government can't do anything, as it lacks a majority to win any votes. I can't see Corbyn hanging out in government whilst hamstrung and impotent. He wants to make policy.

    And also all the things @Bogart said.

    Edit: To expand on the sequencing for this, Johnson has so far not been the subject of a no-confidence vote (and subsequent election), mostly to allow for an extension to be requested from the EU first. All opposition parties want this because a) they are not actually insane, and think having a functioning economy is good and b) as a bonus, forcing Johnson to request an extension makes him look bad to his target voters. Probably.

    Once the current deadline is past, the blood will be in the water.

    Corbyn on the other hand, has no such political benefit, not being as stridently anti-EU/pro No Extension as Johnson. If he was put in place as the head of a caretaker government with one purpose, and that government did not try to fulfil its purpose, the already unstable coalition that would presumably have formed would collapse, and we'd get...probably an election, and some weird stuff to sort out an extension in the interim, per the Benn act.

    If he ignored a no confidence vote, he'd a) probably be getting the courts involved again, which is not a good look b) be essentially impotent and unable to actually enact any policy, so what would be the point (c.f. Johnson, who is desperate for an election to get a working majority)

    That said, no-one is forming a unity government unless Johnson has figured out a way around the Benn act, which seems unlikely, to put it mildly. Suspect for all the sound and fury, the sequencing is:
    1. Johnson fails to get a deal
    2. Benn act forces him to ask for an extension
    3. EU agrees to an extension (at least this time, to see what plays out electorally)
    4. Election
    5. a) If Tory win, Then no-deal madness b) If hung parliament, Then Lib/Lab/SNP coalition, referendum

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    And then what?
    I mean, yes, I understand I'm basically asking "what if the PM - Boris, Jeremy, whoever - decides he can just ignore the rules?"
    I submit that we are either at, or rapidly approaching, the point where that is not outside the realm of possibility.

    Fortunately, the mechanism of confidence is such that, if there's no confidence in the government then the government can't do anything, as it lacks a majority to win any votes.

    As the executive, I'm pretty sure they can do a lot of stuff without having to pass a single new law.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    can't see Corbyn hanging out in government whilst hamstrung and impotent. He wants to make policy.
    I mean, hasn't his entire career been him hanging out while hamstrung and impotent? He's at his most ascendant and he still comes across that way.

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    P10 wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    can't see Corbyn hanging out in government whilst hamstrung and impotent. He wants to make policy.
    I mean, hasn't his entire career been him hanging out while hamstrung and impotent? He's at his most ascendant and he still comes across that way.

    Making policy is great, but an acceptable second is being able to tell everyone what a great policy you have here and it's the fault of all these people stopping you from implementing it. That's what kept Labour warm through the bitter cold of the Thatcher years. Corbyn's used to being the opposition, I think he'd find some comfort in basically being that while also being PM.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    And then what?
    I mean, yes, I understand I'm basically asking "what if the PM - Boris, Jeremy, whoever - decides he can just ignore the rules?"
    I submit that we are either at, or rapidly approaching, the point where that is not outside the realm of possibility.

    Fortunately, the mechanism of confidence is such that, if there's no confidence in the government then the government can't do anything, as it lacks a majority to win any votes.

    As the executive, I'm pretty sure they can do a lot of stuff without having to pass a single new law.

    Not in the context of a Corbynite social programme they can't. Most of that's going to require big legal changes to enact.

    Also, we're discussing here what happens if Corbyn somehow decided to ignore a VONC while in a coalition government of national unity.
    Parliament would be incredibly hostile to that, and as we're currently seeing, has more than enough tools to make its displeasure felt, up to and including having a PM led off in handcuffs.

    But it's incredibly (incredulously) unlikely in any case. Corbyn at the head of a unity government would inevitably request (and hopefully get) the extension and then step down; doing so gives him a massive PR boost right before the election he's always wanted, and believes he can win.

  • DirtmuncherDirtmuncher Registered User regular
    Perdurabo wrote: »

    I don't believe it unless a European newspaper publishes it.

    steam_sig.png
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    On the one hand, this is a great play by the EU, because now Boris-not-Boris can't blame them for not getting a deal done.
    On the other hand, I hope this is only to force him to ask for an extension as giving petulant children what they want will only lead them to throwing more tantrums.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • PerduraboPerdurabo Registered User regular
    The DUP liked Boris' proposal because it game them an effective veto on staying in alignment, so as usual it all hinges on what they think. If they were on board, it sounds like the sort of arrangement that could get through parliament. But that's a big if. Also frankly it's more than we deserve after the horrorshow diplomacy we saw yesterday.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    I still don't understand why the DUP is supporting the NI only backstop. It seems to undercut the whole 'U' bit in their name. All I can think is that they're looking to go full scorpion and break out of whatever backstop structure there is as soon as they think they can and just dare anyone to do anything about it.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    I still don't understand why the DUP is supporting the NI only backstop. It seems to undercut the whole 'U' bit in their name. All I can think is that they're looking to go full scorpion and break out of whatever backstop structure there is as soon as they think they can and just dare anyone to do anything about it.

    Looks like you’re correct.
    DUP already declining to vote for a deal with EU’s latest concession in it - as it requires a majority on all sides for the trigger mechanism (and switched it so that staying in the CU was the default).

    So a nice optic move by the EU ahead of the summit.

  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Dear Lord

    Morons on a UK politics sub I post on are honest to god arguing that calling a German person a Kraut ISN'T racist.

    This is the world we live in now.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Dear Lord

    Morons on a UK politics sub I post on are honest to god arguing that calling a German person a Kraut ISN'T racist.

    This is the world we live in now.

    Ask them how they feel about limeys?

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Dear Lord

    Morons on a UK politics sub I post on are honest to god arguing that calling a German person a Kraut ISN'T racist.

    This is the world we live in now.

    Ask them how they feel about limeys?

    Eh, I wouldn't say they would very bothered as they have never heard it being used about them in a pejorative way

  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Limey is the cracker of international nicknames

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    Lib Dems are currently expecting a general election to be called for 28th November, with the moves towards this beginning week of the 21st October.

    Not sure about the framework that leads to a general election being called (ie VONCs, FTPA vote etc)

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    Ask them how they feel about "gammon-faced shithead" as a descriptor.

  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Limey is the cracker of international nicknames

    So the only Brits who actually get offended by it are so racist it is almost cathartic to see them react in that way to it?

    steam_sig.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Dear Lord

    Morons on a UK politics sub I post on are honest to god arguing that calling a German person a Kraut ISN'T racist.

    This is the world we live in now.

    People in the UK have always pushed back on the idea that their cutesy names for foreigners are racist. It’s just harder to handwave away these days.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    It's worth noting that they withdrew the poster after a shedload of people rinsed them for it. So while some 'people in the UK' might push back on the accusation of racism for the blatantly racist names they use, it's not currently, in this case, acceptable enough to get away with, even if you're a bunch of ignorant racist scumlords like Leave.EU.

    I don't think it's a unique characteristic of British people to deny their racist terms are actually racist.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    Drascin wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think Swinson has simply calculated that trusting someone so manifestly untrustworthy about Brexit over the last three years would be a bad electoral move for her resurgent, pro-EU party. The Lib Dems are going to shoulder very, very little of the blame for a no deal Brexit no matter how hard Corbyn tries to pin it on them, so why risk being aboard the Corbyn ship, one that appears to be sinking under the weight of polls that say he won't beat a government of confirmed liars, morons and frothing, swivel-eyed lunatics?

    I think this is it. The Libdems already got nearly destroyed by tying themselves to an alliance that then made them recant pretty much everything they had promised, and, reasonably, people left them in droves. They've just barely managed to shake the albatross a bit by going all-in on "we're the anti-Brexit party", so suddenly allying with someone who is known to not actually be against Brexit would probably look like too much returning to the old fuckups to their new base, and likely cause them to implode.

    I think it's also they've got a load of new MPs and a massive upswelling in support from being the party of Remain. If Corbyn and Labour start looking like more of an alternative, a large chunk of their new voters might go back.

  • AntinumericAntinumeric Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    It's worth noting that they withdrew the poster after a shedload of people rinsed them for it. So while some 'people in the UK' might push back on the accusation of racism for the blatantly racist names they use, it's not currently, in this case, acceptable enough to get away with, even if you're a bunch of ignorant racist scumlords like Leave.EU.

    I don't think it's a unique characteristic of British people to deny their racist terms are actually racist.
    What poster is this?

    In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    I don't think it's appropriate to repost it here, but it's from Leave.EU, the organisation led by Arron Banks, and is insulting about Merkel, using an insulting term for a German person. You can find it online if you want to see just how stupid and racist Banks and his shithead cronies are.

  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    It's easily findable. And a prime example of Brexiter arseholery.

    I also found a version that replaces Merkel with Farage, and the pejorative term for a German person with the word "fraud". Far more apt.

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    I still don't understand why the DUP is supporting the NI only backstop. It seems to undercut the whole 'U' bit in their name. All I can think is that they're looking to go full scorpion and break out of whatever backstop structure there is as soon as they think they can and just dare anyone to do anything about it.

    Looks like you’re correct.
    DUP already declining to vote for a deal with EU’s latest concession in it - as it requires a majority on all sides for the trigger mechanism (and switched it so that staying in the CU was the default).

    So a nice optic move by the EU ahead of the summit.

    Yup given them what they claim to want but making it so one small faction like the DUP has total veto power on its own. If a supermajority of the NI assembly are okay with it then that does not seem unreasonable but also at the same time totally unpalatable to the DUP.

  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    I don't think it's appropriate to repost it here, but it's from Leave.EU, the organisation led by Arron Banks, and is insulting about Merkel, using an insulting term for a German person. You can find it online if you want to see just how stupid and racist Banks and his shithead cronies are.

    Egregious enough that Piers Morgan called them out, which was frankly startling.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    Morgan then crawled up their arse after they took it down and said he 'respected' them for doing so.

  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Trust Morgan to find new and inventive ways of being a shitweasel.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    It's like those rare occasions Trump retracts a controversial statement and the media says he's being presidential about it.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Let's face it, "presidential" has been well and truly redefined over the last three years. I went to the zoo recently and was well amused by the presidential behaviour on display at the monkey house.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Morgan then crawled up their arse after they took it down and said he 'respected' them for doing so.

    look it's very painful for him to mildly criticize right wing loonies, he probably needed a good lie down afterwards.

  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Boris Johnson fails to answer Arcuri questions, says London Assembly
    Gosh, that's surprising.
    Boris Johnson is under fire for failing to provide details of his contacts with US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri to a London Assembly inquiry.

    The PM responded to the assembly's request for information on Tuesday.

    But the assembly said the letter it received - marked "confidential and not for publication" - did not answer any of its questions.

    Mr Johnson denies claims of a conflict of interest over his friendship with Ms Arcuri when he was London mayor.

    The assembly had asked for details and a timeline of all contact between the pair, including private text messages and emails.

    A London Assembly spokeswoman told the BBC the letter "doesn't answer any of the questions we asked", adding: "I can't understand why it is labelled confidential."

    The assembly is now seeking legal advice over whether members of its oversight committee can discuss the contents of the letter at their meeting next week.
    And that's why it's labelled confidential. So you can't just make it public so everyone can see the twaddle he tried to pass off as cooperation.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    "Pifflepafflewifflewaffle", as the saying goes.

  • AbhainnAbhainn Registered User regular
    Perdurabo wrote: »

    A Buzzfeed editor is claiming EU sources say this is bollocks



    Not entirely surprising given how much bull has been in the news this week.

This discussion has been closed.