Brexit.

[armaghniac]

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

I'm sure SF can withstand the abuse, but if it leads some other MPs to switch sides then they would do no good.

[weareros]

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

I'm sure SF can withstand the abuse, but if it leads some other MPs to switch sides then they would do no good.

Am I the only one who thinks that if SF made a one time exception to their policy, they would actually win admirers N&S of the border. They could make what Dev called a "hollow oath". Because of what BoJo did, I also don't think many, if any, would change sides, such is their anger with the PM and what is seen as an anti-democratic move.

[balladmaker]

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

I'm sure SF can withstand the abuse, but if it leads some other MPs to switch sides then they would do no good.

Am I the only one who thinks that if SF made a one time exception to their policy, they would actually win admirers N&S of the border. They could make what Dev called a "hollow oath". Because of what BoJo did, I also don't think many, if any, would change sides, such is their anger with the PM and what is seen as an anti-democratic move.

Taking their seats can have no positive for SF, unless there was to be a vote in Parliament whether or not to have a border poll.  Why interrupt the nutters in Westminster when they're doing a fine job of realising SF's main aim. 

[armaghniac]

Am I the only one who thinks that if SF made a one time exception to their policy, they would actually win admirers N&S of the border. They could make what Dev called a "hollow oath". Because of what BoJo did, I also don't think many, if any, would change sides, such is their anger with the PM and what is seen as an anti-democratic move.

I think they could justify an exception for a vote on a NI only backstop, for instance.
But showing up for votes that determine the direction of England breaks SFs own principles and causes a counter reaction. 

[LCohen]

If Corbyn wasnt such and ideologist he could have kept his party together, prob even stole a few tory mps, been an acceptable face for a caretaker government, been able to take his party and electorate with a coordinated strategy for brexit. He could have had and won a vote of confidence as well as a GE and he'd be sitting in downing street at the minute with the Tories in disarray.
But he cant let go of his precious ideology that were borne while the world has utterly different place. Its is the epitome of fiddling while Rome burns.

As was put to John McDonnel last night...."theres an open goal and you cant score"

Also I thought it hilarious that every week at the dispatch box Thresea May would give him a good hiding  while her world was imploding.

Explain the actions that Corbyn should have taken that would have united the 4 divisions in his parliamentary party (being MPs in Remain constituencies, MPs in leave constituencies that voted leave overall, MPs in constituencies where the Labour vote voted to leave and fourthly Kate Hoey)?

Name the Tory MPs that would have moved across?

The caretaker government is going to do nothing other than extend Article 50 and call a general election. Name the MPs that object to no deal Brexit but will sit on their hands if Corbyn plays a role in the solution. More importantly outline your opinion of these MPs??

What coordinated Brexit strategy will get the buy in of Labour MPs, members and voters? You are arguing that Labour should be a clear party for Leave

You say he could have won a no confidence vote. On what date? Which Tory MPs would have voted for it? What commentators said it would have been won? Your talk of GE is conditional on your No confidence "argument"

So set out the details

1. His Parliamentary party is more or less united on Brexit, how many actually vote against the whip? 10 or something? Last time out it was only Hoey.... let her be and deselect at the next election. Or dig up some dirt and have a petition for her removal followed by a by election which she would be duly crucified by a Remain candidate. My point is he would have much more leverage and weight with the whip to easily deal with rebels if he had stable support but he doesn't... half his parliamentary party would love to get rid of him so he has to do everything by the book and he's always scrambling to appease someone?

2. Prob the ones that actually left the Tory party and formed another one with a group of Labour MPs.... who incidentally are pissed off with his economic delusion but use anti Seminitism as a smoke screen. And maybe some of the others who lost the whip.

3. The Lib Dems for a start... not to mention the sensible Remain Tories.

4. No, prob just support a ref2 and present it as a democratic 3 way vote with the exit deal presented as a third option. IN an election talk lots about the Brexit party and emphasis Tory austerity while presenting Labour as a sensible option of sustainable growth by a moderate tax regime which will providing income to support the NHS and social welfare. Then just cut your loses on the Leave seats, the marginal seats won would more than make up for the those lost.

5. Hmmm i dunno...... maybe after Theresa May's catastrophic series of record defeats? Being an unacceptable option as PM was enuff to deter them so being more acceptable and a few underhand tactics like promising weak Labour candidates in targeted marginal Remain seats could have also have brought a few. The reality if he had a more centrist approach he would have had greater all around support and he would have been able to put much more pressure on her much earlier and forced her resignation... indeed he would prob have won the election...


Besides all of this is pointless.... its obvious that he is not the man for the job.... FFS its says it all when he has to have someone like Diane Abbot as a senior member of his cabinet

Outline the united position that Barry Gardiner, John Mann, Yvette Cooper, Jess Philips and Kier Starmer are "more or less united on Brexit on"?

Current estimation is that up to 45 Labour MPs would stand in the way of a second referendum if asked to vote in favour of it. The number that would ignore the whip if Labour backed May's deal is unknown but likely to be 100+. Your tactics for dealing with rebels couldn't cope with these numbers.

Outline the policy positions adopted by Soubry, Allen and Wollaston over the years that they could reconcile with joining Labour - any version of the Labour Party noting that only 2 Tory MPs have ever defected to Labour in history including all previous centrist versions of the Party under other leaders

So what is your opinion (given you don't like ideological politicians) of these LDs and Tories that will let a no deal happen if the only alternative is a 90 day caretaker Labour government

You think a 3 way Vote is going to bring a conclusion to this?? To be honest that reads like a massive failure on your part to grasp the basics of the situation but i'll happily read your response outlining how it would work?

What numbers are you using for these swing seat that Labour would lose and win???

Your point 5 is wonderfully loose and plucked from the realm of fantasy. No confidence votes are exceptionally difficult to pull off. You need Tory MPs to end their own careers. Some older MPs or ones already resigned to deselection are prime targets but the numbers were never within reach back then. They are closer now (as there is a reducing number of Labour rebels as the Tory position hardens)

They vast majority high 90% have voted with the whip Who are those 45? Where were they during the meaning votes etc?

Certainly not the current policy of the Labour leadership, they upped sticks and left to join other Labour MPs that tell you that they cant be that far away from their position

What does my opinion matter on a Labour government..... it wont happen? If a no deal was allowed as that was presented as the only alternative it would be a shameful act by all involved. Whats your opinion on the Labour leadership allowing that situation to develop?

3 way vote is simple enough.... hardly really need to outline it. But sure that ship has sailed at this point

Poll numbers... a slim majority of the electorate appear to be remainers with some undecided... so a united strategy from that side and a centrist economic outlook should be enough to win the majority  over.

So its plucked from the realms of fantasy but its gonna happen... dunno what point your making there?


Besides this is pointless Corbyn is not the man for the job he is a slave to ideology not a political leader. If he was a stronger leader that reflected more broadly the position of the electrode he would have more support instead of fumbling around and constantly looking over his shoulder

Although I must say I am surprised that a Unionist  is so blindly supporting a potential British PM who supports a UI

My figure of 45 comes from Nick Watt. The highest figure I've seen is 50. That was was from Stephen Kinnock. I would believe Watt

Labour have put forward something. Others are free to so. And they might yet. I just find it incredible that someone can blame Corbyn for something somebody else hasn't done

A 3 way option on this issue is basically guaranteed to not provide a majority. It's a non solution. So yes you have a whole lot of explaining to do on it

You are asking for an end of at least a suspension of the party system. Not easy to do. Have other Remain leaders backed this?? Are you sure it wouldn't be trumped by the Leave campaign and Cummings?? It's high risk and highly complicated. To offer it as a solution and blame Corbin for it not happening is Trumpian in its sloganeering duplicity

My point on a no confidence vote is straight forward. The numbers were not there during the May period. Under Boris things are starting to change. Johnson's underhand tactics and his seeming appetite for no deal are stirring Tory rebels. The clock is running down so they feel they gotta act now. Also any Tory rebels have to counter any Labour rebels. If it's a no deal on offer then the number of Labour rebels recedes. There may be an opportunity to successfully prosecute a no confidence vote next week but there has not been to date. And people should not pretend that this has been sitting there as an easy option all along

Thats the most pessimistic Ive ever heard and not bore out on the critical votes so its really hypothetical fantasy stuff and since you've moved the goal posts a strawman into the bargin

What Critical Votes have there been on a second referendum.

The account of a respected journalist that has been accurate to date in reporting the planned actions of MPs is not to be dismissed as hypothetical fantasy.
What goal posts have I moved? What is this talk of a strawman?? Seems a bit rambling.

Preference voting? Run off? not that much of stretch unless your deliberately trying to be obtuse

Have you read The Economist article by Peter Kellner? I dont think Kellner is being obtuse when he completely rumbles the flaws in preference voting and a run off in trying to unpick the Brexit riddle. And I'm not being obtuse either.

A major factor that the numbers weren't there during May's time was Corbyn himself..... but we're just going round in circles now

So spell it out. What were the numbers and who were the names of Tory MPs who were prepared to vote down a Tory government and end their own political careers during the May era and only refrained from doing so because of Corbyn. Bet you cant even name one.

I not asking for anything but its probably thats prob the only route available at the minute considering how divided the remain side are. In the scenario that Labour had a more moderate stronger leader they could easily attract voters across the political spectrum and be a focal point to those opposed to a hard Brexit.

And what about the Leavers within Labour? Surely the Labour leader has to lsiten to them also? But then again you plain just dont believe Nick Watt and reliable political sources. You stick to your alternative facts

Besides I am not blaming Corbyn per se he's incapable, he is only doing what is in his powers which is the point your are trying to make and he is clearly not the man for the job. If there was a strong leader of the opposition he could easily command discipline within his own party and would be a rallying point for other no deal opponents.

Discipline on Europe?? Name me the alternative Labour Leader that can hold Caroline Flint, Kate Hoey, John Mann, Stephen Kinnock, Phil Wilson, Ian Lavery, Yvette Cooper and Hillary Benn to a single position on Europe?? And when you are naming the alternative leader tell me what their position on Europe would be??

I will let you off on Hoey. But who is going to unify the rest?

[LCohen]

Are the passport collection points a costed proposal in your manifesto??

You are going to have to explain that one.

But then nobody is accusing Fintan O'Toole of being a fool

Without such an accusation you can disagree with him on a particular issue.
Do you dispute that SF going to Westminster would lead to a whole new issue of terrorists in government arising?

On the passports. I would hazard a guess that there are couple of million who possess Irish passports but by your definition have no business calling themselves Irish

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

But it would mean SF going against policy that they stood for and was voted for by the public. As you say to take the seats now would go against your view of democracy.

SF could very easily stuck between a rock and a hard place of their own making.

If we end up in a financial meltdown (not making a comment on the likelihood of that) with SF having been in a position to prevent it (not saying we are there yet but could easily get there) then SF will be perfectly free to quote their principles. I'm not sure how receptive the future audience will be though?

None of my concern though

[LCohen]

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

I'm sure SF can withstand the abuse, but if it leads some other MPs to switch sides then they would do no good.

Maybe if SF are interesting in stopping a no deal they will have done the preliminary inquiries to work that out?

[LCohen]

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

I'm sure SF can withstand the abuse, but if it leads some other MPs to switch sides then they would do no good.

Am I the only one who thinks that if SF made a one time exception to their policy, they would actually win admirers N&S of the border. They could make what Dev called a "hollow oath". Because of what BoJo did, I also don't think many, if any, would change sides, such is their anger with the PM and what is seen as an anti-democratic move.

Taking their seats can have no positive for SF, unless there was to be a vote in Parliament whether or not to have a border poll.  Why interrupt the nutters in Westminster when they're doing a fine job of realising SF's main aim.

Unless we get to the position where constituents (north or South) are poorer or materially poorer because of something SF neglected to do?

[ziggysego]

So apparently Boris Johnson is going to call a General Election on Thursday to be held on the 17th October and any Tory MPs who actively campaign for against a No Deal Brexit will be deselected.

[trueblue1234]

Are the passport collection points a costed proposal in your manifesto??

You are going to have to explain that one.

But then nobody is accusing Fintan O'Toole of being a fool

Without such an accusation you can disagree with him on a particular issue.
Do you dispute that SF going to Westminster would lead to a whole new issue of terrorists in government arising?

On the passports. I would hazard a guess that there are couple of million who possess Irish passports but by your definition have no business calling themselves Irish

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

But it would mean SF going against policy that they stood for and was voted for by the public. As you say to take the seats now would go against your view of democracy.

SF could very easily stuck between a rock and a hard place of their own making.

If we end up in a financial meltdown (not making a comment on the likelihood of that) with SF having been in a position to prevent it (not saying we are there yet but could easily get there) then SF will be perfectly free to quote their principles. I'm not sure how receptive the future audience will be though?

None of my concern though

But they won't be. To take their seats now would be undemocratic. Most of the complaints will come from None SF voters. So I think to do an about turn now would have a greater impact on their audience.

[LCohen]

Are the passport collection points a costed proposal in your manifesto??

You are going to have to explain that one.

But then nobody is accusing Fintan O'Toole of being a fool

Without such an accusation you can disagree with him on a particular issue.
Do you dispute that SF going to Westminster would lead to a whole new issue of terrorists in government arising?

On the passports. I would hazard a guess that there are couple of million who possess Irish passports but by your definition have no business calling themselves Irish

Who is saying that SF taking their seats would lead to terrorists in government or an allegation of terrorists in government. Anyway allegations. We can withstand that for 90 days

But it would mean SF going against policy that they stood for and was voted for by the public. As you say to take the seats now would go against your view of democracy.

SF could very easily stuck between a rock and a hard place of their own making.

If we end up in a financial meltdown (not making a comment on the likelihood of that) with SF having been in a position to prevent it (not saying we are there yet but could easily get there) then SF will be perfectly free to quote their principles. I'm not sure how receptive the future audience will be though?

None of my concern though

But they won't be. To take their seats now would be undemocratic. Most of the complaints will come from None SF voters. So I think to do an about turn now would have a greater impact on their audience.

Any response to the economic point?

[trueblue1234]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

[trailer]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Exactly SF think SF is more important that Brexit.

[trueblue1234]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Exactly SF think SF is more important that Brexit.

Party thinks it's voters are more important to represent than non voter shocker.

[trailer]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Exactly SF think SF is more important that Brexit.

Party thinks it's voters are more important to represent than non voter shocker.

Exactly. We've seen the same play out when they protected sex offenders and paedophiles. Party first approach.