Yes, but that pain would be spread a little more evenly.

I don't believe that you believe that the results of a post brexit tory government will be the same a post brexit labour one. They just won't



That's madness, Between half a rat and a rat, I'll take whole one. So would you. Either way you're eating rat. With a whole one, you won't be malnourished.

The others could also show leadership and tolerate Corbyn. It's as if they (i) don't believe that all he would do is delay brexit and call an election (which is odd since he "doesn't have the numbers" to do anything else), or (ii) they are scared he will be really popular in office (which is odd since polls indicate he is a lot less popular than Johnson)

Er, I think I would rather eat half a rat.

In other words I would "like" not eating the other rat half.

It would require everybody (other than the Tories) working together. Everybody other than Jeremy Corbyn seems prepared to do so.

So yes, you're right. Without Corbyn, I think it would be possible, because most MPs seem to recognise this as the crisis that it is, and that a second referendum with a deal actually on the table is likely the only way out of it at all.

The metaphor is becoming unreasonably stretched.


I don't think "It's gong to be bad so it may as well be as bad as it's possible to be" is reasonable. And yet it's what I'm being told.

But if you had a whole rat, you'd have the choice of leaving the other half on the side of the plate.

Dave

Since I've already said that he'd be a better PM than Johnson, I don't know why you're directing that at me - especially not while admitting that what you posted in reply to me isn't actually a reply to me.

No, it was mitigation of your point.

i.e. In spite of all you say, even if it's true, he's still not as bad as Boris. So why is he being painted as such?

In simple terms Johnson is too far right and Corbyn is too far left.

If you are left or right you will see that as meaning one is surely better than the other. Or you'll try to say that one of them is close the the centre than the other. But with respect to the latter relative to the political preferences of UK voters that's probably gonna be Johnson . . . .

OK that's not how I read it (from Tolls) but I dunno.

Which is madness and utterly dependent on the Overton Window.

(I also find that the whole left/right thing a useless and decisive thing. To attempt to define the whole of one's views on absolutely everything as a point in one dimension is madness. I, you, and everyone else are much more complex than that)




The centre moves. To talk of one being too far in one direction or the other is pointless. I would prefer to look at policy proposals and check them against the real world rather than some constantly moving target of 'centrism'

After a no-deal Brexit, none of the other stuff really matters.

Tory bribes spending plans go out of the window because we simply can no longer afford them.

Labour promises are equally unaffordable although I suppose there'll be a far greater range of failing industries for a Jeremy Corbyn led government to subsidise - it's a shame that they'll have no money left to do it.

Workers' rights are only a factor when there are people in employment, promises to increse public spending is all well and good but in an economy suffering from stagflation then simply maintaining expenditure in real terms is a challenge. We have the 1970s as an example of how such a situation is likely to play out.

I think that's just not accurate.

The two would be very different. Neither would be good but I'm damn sure I know which one I prefer.


That you think they both will be the same is the point of disagreement between us. I think your position regarding that is just not logical. Of course they'll be different.

Unfortunately it seems that Jeremy Corbyn's insistence that he's Prime Minister means that we're not going to get a GNU - which in a nutshell is my main reason why I think he would make a terrible Prime Minister, he finds any kind of compromise, deviation or dissent from his chosen path impossible.

Excluding brexit (which makes this rather irrelevant of course) I think I would prefer a Johnson government over a Corbyn one. On balance I suspect Corbyn is actually more opposed to no deal brexit than Johnson is which makes him better if all else was equal. But other Labour policies are IMO worse.

However the latter are not relevant to a Corbyn-led caretaker government that simply delays brexit and calls an election. He should not insist on leading it but by the same token the others should not rule out him leading it.

Which ones?

Compared to the effects of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, everything else is a rounding error IMO.

In any case, after Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit, all plans goes out of the window because any government will have its hands merely firefighting the economy and attempting to maintain public order.

I really don't think so. I don't envisage the country being so on it's uppers that policy changes at parliamentary level have zero effect.

What you seem, to me, to be saying is that after a no deal brexit the government will have no significant or noticeable effect on the state of the country. I can't accept that, I think that's just not accurate.


I don't accept that. I don't accept that who s in power will have zero effect on the lives of everyone.

UK Proposals for a new protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland :

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rthern-ireland

Personally I don't think he's too far left (at least on most things). He's a bit unreconstructed 1970s in his views, but a lot of what came out of the Labour conference was fairly reasonable.

I just don't think he's particularly competent.

I think you read it the way I intended.

I don't want to be eating rat at all.
So I'm not going to support someone who seems intent on having me eat rat. I don't actually care whether it's a whole one or not.

However...at least Corbyn is on the referendum route now, which is a massive plus point. However, however...I really don't trust him not to change his mind, or to throw his full weight behind Brexit in any campaign.

As Nicola Sturgeon said a little while ago - 'designed to fail'. And predictably so.

That's the way it felt in the 1970's.

If there's inflation and a stagnant or shrinking economy then any changes will be very marginal.

After a no-deal Brexit any Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn led government would effectively be passengers - but for different reasons. Boris would be a willing passenger, after all it's what he wants. Jeremy may be an unwilling passenger but his inability to change from 1970s thinking and his unwillingness and/or inability to compromise in any meaningful way means that he'll still be a passenger.

I'm not saying that they'll have zero effect, just that the effect will have little or nothing to do with the campaign promises that they've made due to the economic and social turmoil.

As someone who is seemingly impervious to changing circumstances and incapable of compromise then Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem like the kind of leader you'd want.

Yup :(

Would Nicola Sturgeon allow herself to be ennobled and installed as GNU in chief ?:o

I'd say that's a major exaggeration. Things will be bad, but not so bad that the colour of the govt. will make no difference.

A 'rounding error' is where you express pi as 3.141 rather than 3.142 ;)

I was thinking of writing that Johnson is not too far right, but incompetent, unfit for office, populist, opportunistic, self-serving etc. I don't really know enough of Corbyn to make those same conclusions, it is the far-leftness I disagree with.

I think that the markets (which are interested in wealth not social justice or anything like that so it is not a judgment that should be recommended to voters) would prefer a Corbyn led temp government toppling Johnson's than this not happening. Probably they believe he would stop no deal and then get voted out. (I believe that as well--sure "trust" is a risk but on balance worth it)

Where are your predictions coming from?

I know everyone has "had enough of experts" but the IMF and the OECD think no deal is a -3% or -3.5% shock to economic output, and the Bank of England has moderated its previous -8% forecast to about -5.

(And the consensus among economy watchers / market types was too pessimistic in respect of the impact of a leave vote)

IOW you don't know which part nor who cited it.

My well-upholstered rear :o

Well some folks will clearly feel a much worse impact than that. Some others won't notice at all. A few might be better off.

Can you really make that argument given how divorced from reality Johnson is? I mean all this over Prawn Cocktail crisps? Does he really have policies instead of vague ideas that have no resemblance to reality?

Does that contradict my statement? Seems to be in line with it

But how can you say how far right someone is in a situation like that?

You can't which is the point really.

Its ridiculous how Johnson is still trying to act like he's holding all the cards in negotiating with the EU even when everyone can see his hand is actually just pages torn from a notebook with the word 'ace' scrawled on them.

Vote to dissolve the Union and then E W and NI can ask to form a new one with Scotland?

Regarding this temporary government nonsense its clear that the priority has to be preventing a no deal Brexit and Johnson cannot be trusted to do that.

Who leads the GNU is irrelevant in my mind. It probably should be Corbyn as thats the convention. And Swinson is an idiot child for insisting she won't back him.

Equally you would hope that if Corbyn couldn't get the numbers but someone else could then he would step aside but he is probably right not to say that at the moment.

None of the UK parties are coming out of this with much glory at the moment.

In the longer term, no matter what happens the problem doesnt go away. BoJo wins an election and forces no deal, Labour win an election and cant agree a deal that works and we end up in this limbo, or there is a hung parliament with the empty crisp packet Swinson blowing around trying to decide if she wants her rat fried or grilled.

Thank God Scotland, NI and Wales have an out if they want it, because this is going to kill England for a degeneration at least one way or another

Alternatively, what existing law said he could do what he did?

As we have tried to explain to you repeatedly that was the question put to the court. Does the existing law allow him to do this? and the answer came back, no it doesn't.

Thats the job of the SC to interpret and clarify the law.

oh and apparently parliament is going to be prorogued again next week for a Queens speech

I haven't seen the calculations about "getting the numbers" specifically any testing of what leader would be most likely to do that.

If it is clear that an individual would not get the numbers and someone else would then that individual is an idiot kid for insisting me me me. Conversely if someone is insisting another won't get the numbers purely because that someone will order their MPs not to vote for them then that individual is an idiot kid too.

It's a failed piss up in a brewery at the moment that makes Johnson actually look good.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. "