I think it was wiser to wait for the SC to rule. Imagine the unrest and anger amongst English right wing brexiters if in effect Scotland alone had ruled for Parliament to return, especially since the courts in E&W and NI had ruled it was not a court matter.

Yeah. Just because the politicians acted as if it had happened doesn't mean that it legally did.

The thing is that prorogation isn't just a recess or a standing-down of parliament. It has a real impact on parliament's ability to legislate - including legislation that was being worked on before prorogation.

Therefore saying that it didn't happen is legally and importantly distinct from saying that it did but that it should resume.

One way to think about it is if there's a document on someone's computer that people are collaboratively working on. Lots of different people can access the document from their location, but they can't save it to their own devices. It exists purely on the server. It's only once the document is complete that it's uploaded to multiple servers on the web - at which point anybody can access it and save it, but it's read-only.

Proroguing parliament isn't like turning the original server off - it's like erasing it completely and turning it off. Any documents that are unfinished are erased from existence completely and anybody wanting to work on them will have to start again from a blank page, and they will have to wait until the server is turned back on.

This didn't happen, so the courts ruled.

What happened instead is like someone turned the server off, but when it was turned back on by court order, all the old documents were still there, and everybody could pick up where they left off.

I think perhaps the people arguing that the prorogation did happen, don't really understand the full implications of prorogation.

I'm leaning towards "Corbyn would be worse". BJ discredits Brexit itself, Corbyn might not.

McHrozni

Exactly.
The domestic abuse bill being a case in point.

Had Parliament been prorogued then that bill would be dead.

Since proroguing did not happen (Parliament simply didn't sit for a week because of The Liar Johnson) that bill is not actually dead, and it continues its path through Parliament as though nothing has happened.

I really struggle with the apparent acceptance by almost everyone that Boris - paid by bested interests and with the aim of enriching himself and his backers - is no worse than Corbyn - whose policies are denounced as unfeasible but whose apparent aim is to improve the lot of the worst off among us and try to level the playing field.

Why the current attitude seems to be that both are as bad as each other isbeyond me.

I totally agree. At the very least he won't be selling off chunks of the NHS and pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy. That the rest of any Labour policies could possibly be as bad as recent Tory efforts is truly hard to imagine.

Meanwhile - Johnson's latest offer has been met with little more than derision. Undoubtedly that was his plan.

Well both have worked tirelessly in their own ways to make sure that any attempt to stop a no-deal Brexit founders. If Jeremy Corbyn would accept an alternative leader for a government of national unity then it could possibly happen, but he won't, so it won't.

Jeremy may claim to be working for the benefit of the worst off among us, but the EU has been responsible for many of the initiatives that have benefited the less well off and protected them from the ravages of BJ and his cronies.

Jeremy Corbyn seems determined to re-fight the lost battles of the 1970s (like privatisation) rather than address current concerns. Reminds me of the SWSS in Uni. They wouldn't fight to protect students' rights to claim housing benefit because they were too busy trying to get Fruit Pastilles banned from university shops because of Rowntree's links to South Africa. :mad:

Yes, but even accepting all of that (which I doin't, but let's say I do) do you really think they're both as bad as each other? Which seems to be the general feeling. I think it's a triumph of the tax-exile newspaper owners

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179145982161780736

Article embedded in tweet.

If the outcome's the same, why does the motivation make a difference ?

If you run me down and kill me with your car, does it matter to me whether you did it on purpose or by accident ?

Both of these loons have set out to destroy the UK economy, that one does it because of lunatic aspirations of forming a workers' utopia whilst the other is doing it to please shadowy backers doesn't make a lot of difference from where I stand. :(

Corbyn would be better than Johnson as PM, and is better than Johnson as is - but that's an incredibly low bar to clear. Theresa May was better than Johnson. So was Margaret Thatcher.

Because those whose motivation is to change the country for the better are likely to be more pragmatic when it doesn't work.

Because I'd rather go down in flames trying to make the country better for everyone than go down inflames enriching vested interests.

Because between the active evil and the potentially less competent good, I'll take the latter.

I think motivation matters. Others may not.


Not after you're hit. Before you're hit there's a chance the accidental drive will swerve to miss you. The deliberate one will swerve to hit you. I'll take the former.


No. One of these loons has set out to deliberately destroy the UK economy to enrich his mates. You believe the other might do it by accident. Even if that's the case I don't believe they're even approaching equivalent.


I think you're wrong by bloody miles. I think motivation matters. I think the well intentioned are willing to change course when disaster is imminent. Disaster is what disaster capitalists want.

I think they're polls apart. That people like you think they're as bad as each other is very concerning. It can be proven that Corbyn attracts more undeserving bad press than Boris (I wonder why) and I think that's the reason we're at what I consider to be a really, really weird equivalence.

The deal apparently is avoiding having customs checks on the border by having them near the border and using technology that doesn't exist :rolleyes:

IMO a deliberate attempt to offer a deal that is unacceptable to the other party in an attempt to transfer blame for the inevitable no-deal. If the EU do bite then they are mugs because Boris Johnson and his cronies will renege on any agreement at the first opportunity IMO.

Corbyn has never given much indication of changing his mind on, well, much at all. In his case it's ideological blindness. His backbench career was pretty much built on it.

Having said that, yes. He would be better than Johnson. However, there is precious little chance of him managing to convince enough MPs of that. Which is why he ought to show some actual leadership and agree with a caretaker until an election.

At no point has he had the opportunity to implement his plans and change his mind. He's never been in power, so I don't see how the above argument is valid.



I'm not disputing that. I'm just concerned at this false equivalence that seems to have been tacitly agreed.

IMO, if the result's the same then the motivation doesn't really matter.

Jeremy Corbyn has been offered many opportunities to steer the car away from the collision but has either refused to do so, or has placed preconditions which prevent the collision from being averted.


Jeremy Corbyn will just as assuredly destroy the UK economy as Boris Johnson because he too is pro-Brexit.

I haven't even considered any additional damage he might wreak through large scale re-nationalisation or enforced transfer of ownership of businesses to the workers, propping up failed industries through subsidy or any of his other proposals resurrected from the 1970s because they're small beer by comparison to the impact of Brexit.


Jeremy Corbyn has shown no willingness to change his mind at any point in his long career as a backbencher or during his time as Labour leader, I don't see why he would suddenly be prepared to do so as PM.

I also note that, like Boris Johnson, he's perfectly happy to eject dissenting voices from the party.

As human beings you're right, Jeremy Corbyn is a finer person with good intentions and an honestly held (to the extent of being dogmatic) set of beliefs.

As Prime Ministers, I'm not so sure. They both want to lead us to Brexit and the manner in which they propose to do it is likely to result in no-deal. Beyond that, any other damage they wreak is just a rounding error by comparison.

Not seeing how that makes him as bad as Johnson and a majority tory government.

Indeed if you think about it your worries in regards to workers rights and so on being lost once we leave the EU, do you really think both Johnson and Corbyn are as likely to legislate to remove the current rights?

The Scottish Secretary, of all people in the government, gives his opinion on why no-deal Brexit won't cause any disruption to shipping. Apparently everything is going to continue on the way it used to because workers need their daily bread and would starve to death if they were caught in a bottleneck at the border because of customs.

Can you notice the critical problem with his reasoning?

Maybe in the general sense. In Corbyn's case specifically, don't forget that this particular tangent arose because of Labour ruling out an interim government led by anybody other than Corbyn, despite the fact that we already know that Corbyn wouldn't be an acceptable caretaker to the other parties in the potential coalition, and the fact that him being PM in this manner would be handing the opposition all the ammunition they need to paint it as an undemocratic coup, driven by ideology.

What's really needed is a trustworthy Tory or recently-ex-Tory. Form a caretaker government around them, negotiate a real deal in good faith with the EU (one like the deal that was promised by the Leave campaign), have a second referendum, and then call a general election. That's not going to happen with Corbyn.

So we are heading for disaster, and Corbyn is proving that he's unwilling to play with others in order to avoid it.

No, he just wants to do things, for the benefit of the least well off among us, that the EU won't let him do. His reasons are there for all to see and clearly stated.

That some (most of whom havn't actually read a labour manifesto, er, ever) think his pan is unfeasible is not, in any way at all, the equivalent of a disaster capitalist backed tory trying to make money for his mates by ******* us all over.


They are not the same. Why they are talked of and treated as if they are both as disastrous as each other is, as I say, a triumph of the tax-exiled newspaper owners.

Because insofar as the single most important thing to happen to the UK since the second world war, they both want the same thing - Brexit - and both have worked tirelessly to ensure that any attempt to prevent it founders.

Whether or not workers' rights are preserved or not is a secondary concern compared to the damage that Brexit will inflict on the UK. Workers' rights are nice, but if economic contraction results in hundreds of thousands or millions being out of work then they're a rounding error in the broader scale of things (and that presumes that nationalisation and transfer of ownership to employees doesn't have negative economic consequences).

We have his years as an obstructionist backbencher, during which he was pretty much single minded.

Hell, Dennis Skinner's more flexible than Corbyn (see The Beast's relationship with Blair).

Exactly.

Whether it's his own sense of entitlement, a deliberate attempt to derail any kind of government of national unity or an honest miscalculation, the result is the same, once again Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates that he is temperamentally incapable of compromise.

Even if all that is true, why is he constantly advertised as just as bad as the man who is actively trying to wreck the UK economy because his mates are paying him to?

I really don't see a GNU hanging round for the length of time needed to put together a referendum.

Then again, if MacDonald managed to hold together the National Government in the early 30s then I suppose a slightly wobbly GNU could last the 6 months to a year needed for a referendum. I just have trouble seeing how it would handle any other policies.

Because the result is the same - a wrecked UK economy.

IMO he's a better human being, but likely an equally poor Prime Minister.

None of that is relevant to him not being prepared to support a caretaker government unless he is the head of it.

I don't agree.

How he will act as PM is not a known factor.

How Boris acts as PM is.

No, but it's a lot of reasons he'd be a better PM than the current one.

But not an NHS sold off by stealth in chunks, for example. I also don't see the equivalence.

You think that a Corbyn Brexit won't wreck the UK economy ?

Remember that Corbyn's red lines rule out EEA membership or being part of a customs union.

We do know how he behaved as a backbencher and as a leader of the Labour Party. This, combined with his dogmatic adherence to the attitudes and policies of the 1970's don't lead me to believe that he'll be a good PM.

Like Boris Johnson he'll surround himself with acolytes. Like Boris Johnson he has shown that dissent will result in expulsion from the party.

If the UK economy is in tatters, who owns the NHS is a second or third order concern. It'll be chronically underfunded (due to economic turmoil), understaffed (due to the loss of the freedom of movement) and unable to meet the challenge of hundreds of thousands of repatriating retirees.

That the results will be the same. I think they'll be a million miles apart.


Yes. For clearly stated reasons.


Yes, I acknowledge your speculation and point out that we are absolutely certain how Boris will act as PM as he's doing it at the moment.


Unlike Boris Johnson he will not be wrecking the economy for the profits of his mates.

What he will do is raise the top tax rate and look to try to improve social services and the lot of the least well off among us.

In a wrecked economy, which would you prefer?


And yet, for reasons I don't understand, apparently they're as bad as each other.

It's been a bang up hatchet job by the press. An actual left wing leader terrifies the very rich so he's been pilloried.

Has it?
Indeed. I think the opposite usually happens, certainly with respect to "automatic stabilisers" but also with discretionary policy.
Well you need the fiscal prudence to afford the tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think it's fairly clear that Jeremy Corbyn would make a better PM than Boris Johnson, but that bar isn't very high. It's even possible that Corbyn would make a good PM, provided he drops his on-off support for Brexit. As such, I would agree that it's unfair to paint him as equally bad as Johnson in any general sense.

That said, right now he isn't a good choice for a caretaker government, primarily because the other parties won't accept him. Thus, he should show leadership and allow another person to take the helm of such a government.

But are saying they are as bad as each other. If we look at it as an equation the two sides are no where near the same. Corbyn is for public spending, Johnson against it, Corbyn is for workers rights, Johnson is against them, Corbyn (in your opinion) will delivery a no deal Brexit, Johnson will deliver (In my opinion) a no deal brexit.

So the no deal Brexit cancels it out and you are left with the rest of the stuff. The rest of the stuff to me on Corbyn's side (especially some of the recent policies enacted at conference) is much better for the country that what Johnson would allow us to have.

In a wrecked economy it doesn't much matter.
Either way we'll all be worse off.

I don't care if, under Corbyn, I get to eat a whole rat, rather than half of one under Johnson. I'll still be eating rat.

I think the counterfactual being used there is a bunch of shipping firms with no boats like the Seaborne Freight folks that Grayling signed up early this year. So no deal / same diff.

Which to me sounds like the perfect excuse for Johnson to sell it off to his mates.

The Economist seems fairly correct that the country has the worst PM and the worst opposition leader at the same time. If Corbyn wanted "national unity" there would not be the insistence that he leads it.

However, much as I would prefer a Swinson led caretaker government (or even a Clarke one), I would rather have the Corbyn version than none.