General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[beefybake]

50 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Much would depend on how Neil would want to treat him.

He is, or was, pretty far right himself, he might not be as hard on Boris as most of us would wish him to be.

He's going to have to be, to avoid being labelled as Kuenssburg Mk 2.   

Unless he and the BJ indulge in a little theatre, and drama,  for the gullible punters.

Like old-time wrestling.

Edited December 5, 2019 by beefybake

[Michael W]

Neil has absolutely murdered Johnson in that short clip.

That's actually worse than what he'd do to him in an interview. Most the people who'll see that probably wouldn't have watched the interview anyway, but now they'll see him called out. 3mins is short enough for people on twitter to watch the full thing as well. 

 

[sureiknow]

54 minutes ago, tbsouth said:

Where will they go? Can Israel get any bigger??

Who said Israel? 

The USA is a more likely option. 

What other Religious  group in the UK has threatened to leave en mass?

None.

Edited December 5, 2019 by sureiknow

[BFTD]

I'm guessing 47% of British Jews are Tory voters doing the thing that actors always do before right-wing governments get elected, only in reverse. "They're going to elect Bush? That's it, I'm emigrating to Canada! Eventually."

What on Earth are we supposed to believe that a Labour government would actually want to do to the Jewish community? Even if the National Front returned from the grave to a (somewhat surprising) election victory, it wouldn't be the Jews who'd be the first to be rounded up these days.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Who said Israel? 
The USA is a more likely option. 
What other Religious  group in the UK has threatened to leave en mass?
None.

It's en masse.

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

It's en masse.

Also, foreign-born Jews have the right to move to Israel and claim citizenship. America has no such agreement, and isn't terribly keen on random immigrants these days. And it's utter bollocks anyway, because nobody Jewish would be leaving the country unless they already had plans to do so.

Apart from that, a tremendous post; equal to his finest.

[John Lambies Doos]

It's en masse.

^big team found

[tongue_tied_danny]

1 hour ago, tbsouth said:

Where will they go? Can Israel get any bigger??

Israel isn't the only jewish territory. They could move to Birobidzhan. I'm not sure they'd want to though...

[pandarilla]

 

Yep. The attempt to attack Johnson (rightly) and portray Corbyn as some sort of man of the people on this site is quite frankly pathetic. The man is anti-semitic, doesn’t have a stance on two major issues (indyref2 and Brexit) and is constantly spouting cloud cuckoo land soundbites (including his unsustainable spending plans) to try and get the young, naive students on board.

 

He’s an utter fool and while Johnson is too, the idea that we’ll be totally safe with Corbyn in charge is baffling.

Don't like your politics mate, but that post is spot on... Have a greenie

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is an anti-Semite is a gullible fool, slurping up the lies of a right wing dominated media.

 

His plans for the economy are incredibly radical - and will change this country no doubt. Will the stock markets and financial experts shite themselves? I fucking hope so. For far too long Britain has been driven by a fierce neoliberal ideology and I'm sick fed up of it. Get it in the sea.

 

In terms of brexit the country is massively split, and Corbyn wants a second leave vote before triggering this pretty nuclear option. I have no issue with that. He can't completely back remain as it's far too undemocratic to do so, and he's trying to find a middle ground.

 

In terms of indyref2 he's taking a far more pragmatic approach than Scottish Labour. He at least accepts that it's up to the Scottish parliament to decide whether or not to have a referendum. (Without explicitly saying this)

 

 

 

 

 

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is an anti-Semite is a gullible fool, slurping up the lies of a right wing dominated media.  
His plans for the economy are incredibly radical - and will change this country no doubt. Will the stock markets and financial experts shite themselves? I fucking hope so. For far too long Britain has been driven by a fierce neoliberal ideology and I'm sick fed up of it. Get it in the sea.
 
In terms of brexit the country is massively split, and Corbyn wants a second leave vote before triggering this pretty nuclear option. I have no issue with that. He can't completely back remain as it's far too undemocratic to do so, and he's trying to find a middle ground.
 
In terms of indyref2 he's taking a far more pragmatic approach than Scottish Labour. He at least accepts that it's up to the Scottish parliament to decide whether or not to have a referendum. (Without explicitly saying this)
 
 
 
 
 

Why have a second Brexit vote though? We’ve already had one. Several posters have ridiculed me for asking this but I’ve not really had a proper answer other than ‘Boris is a racist c**t’.

People voted to leave and I think it’s ignorant, disrespectful and undemocratic to make the first result null and void just because parliament has fudged up the deal and the remainers cannot accept what was voted for.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Much would depend on how Neil would want to treat him.

He is, or was, pretty far right himself, he might not be as hard on Boris as most of us would wish him to be.

While the BBC would doubtless prefer Neil to go easy, I don't think Neil's ego would allow it. He's been built up into the interviewer politicians need to fear, I think he'd eviscerate Johnson, and thoroughly enjoy doing so. 

[ICTJohnboy]

1 minute ago, Day of the Lords said:

While the BBC would doubtless prefer Neil to go easy, I don't think Neil's ego would allow it. He's been built up into the interviewer politicians need to fear, I think he'd eviscerate Johnson, and thoroughly enjoy doing so. 

 

It would certainly be good for the BBC's viewing figures!

 

[pandarilla]

Why have a second Brexit vote though? We’ve already had one. Several posters have ridiculed me for asking this but I’ve not really had a proper answer other than ‘Boris is a racist c**t’.

People voted to leave and I think it’s ignorant, disrespectful and undemocratic to make the first result null and void just because parliament has fudged up the deal and the remainers cannot accept what was voted for.

It's way too complex though. Out or in is not a straight choice unless you support a no deal brexit and if that's the case I'd say that's definetely not what people voted for.

The referendum campaign was utterly embarrassing. We were told we could have any option we wanted (Canada, Norway, Norway +) but the leave campaign didn't stick with any concrete plan. Arguing against it was like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Now when it came to finding a solution nothing has been possible. It's no deal, or the latest tweak that Boris has managed.

Under these circumstances, given the complexities and the seriousness of the potential consequences I'd say a confirmatory referendum with an option to remain (which has to get over 50%) seems fair and reasonable.

Why are you so afraid of people changing their minds?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

It would certainly be good for the BBC's viewing figures!

 

I'd probably watch it tbf. I genuinely think Neil wants to destroy him. 

ETA: Going on is a no-brainer for Johnson. He could take a shit in the BBC studio live on camera and his base will still vote for him. If he doesn't he looks like the complete coward he is.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Day of the Lords

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

It's way too complex though. Out or in is not a straight choice unless you support a no deal brexit and if that's the case I'd say that's definetely not what people voted for.  

The referendum campaign was utterly embarrassing. We were told we could have any option we wanted (Canada, Norway, Norway +) but the leave campaign didn't stick with any concrete plan. Arguing against it was like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

 

Now when it came to finding a solution nothing has been possible. It's no deal, or the latest tweak that Boris has managed.

 

Under these circumstances, given the complexities and the seriousness of the potential consequences I'd say a confirmatory referendum with an option to remain (which has to get over 50%) seems fair and reasonable.

 

Why are you so afraid of people changing their minds?

 

 

A vote on a deal I can back, but a ‘confirmatory’ referendum is a completely ridiculous idea for me. The people voted to leave, and they should arguably get a choice on a deal or no deal, but leave was the choice people voted for.

 

It’s not that I’m afraid of people changing their minds (I think you and the rest of Scotland would get a shock, as most English I know agree with me and would vote leave again, or vote leave even if they originally voted remain), it’s that having two votes on one issue is incredibly dangerous because you’re effectively ignoring the first vote. In future referendums on any issue, a second referendum will always be pushed for by the losing side entirely based on Brexit getting a second one. It’s a an extremely risky precedent to set and reduces the validity of future referendums, as nobody will know if their vote will even count, as there may be a second or confirmatory referendum.

 

I get that you, and the whole of Scotland, are pretty peeved at being on the wrong side of the result, but holding the referendum again just because you ‘want it confirmed’ is already a horrendously weak argument even before you get to the real underlying motive which is simply that people can’t accept that they lost.

 

As for the consequences, you, I and many others may think that we’re in for a rocky period, but many (I suspect more than half of the country) disagree with that. So you’re going to tell them we’re having a confirmatory referendum because a number of Remainers are concerned about the consequences of Brexit?

 

[The Chief]

43 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

A vote on a deal I can back, but a ‘confirmatory’ referendum is a completely ridiculous idea for me. The people voted to leave, and they should arguably get a choice on a deal or no deal, but leave was the choice people voted for.

 

It’s not that I’m afraid of people changing their minds (I think you and the rest of Scotland would get a shock, as most English I know agree with me and would vote leave again, or vote leave even if they originally voted remain), it’s that having two votes on one issue is incredibly dangerous because you’re effectively ignoring the first vote. In future referendums on any issue, a second referendum will always be pushed for by the losing side entirely based on Brexit getting a second one. It’s a an extremely risky precedent to set and reduces the validity of future referendums, as nobody will know if their vote will even count, as there may be a second or confirmatory referendum.

 

I get that you, and the whole of Scotland, are pretty peeved at being on the wrong side of the result, but holding the referendum again just because you ‘want it confirmed’ is already a horrendously weak argument even before you get to the real underlying motive which is simply that people can’t accept that they lost.

 

As for the consequences, you, I and many others may think that we’re in for a rocky period, but many (I suspect more than half of the country) disagree with that. So you’re going to tell them we’re having a confirmatory referendum because a number of Remainers are concerned about the consequences of Brexit?

 

Good post.

I wonder if there is a single Remainer thick enough to believe that a second referendum would have been contemplated or in any way countenanced had Remain won the first vote. Not a chance would Leave voters have been given a second bite at the cherry. That would have been the end of story. The whole subject swept under the carpet and consigned to history. Well that is precisely how the Brexiteers should treat Remainers now. Ignore them and push on with leaving the EU, with no deal if necessary.

Edited December 6, 2019 by The Chief

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Good post.
I wonder if there is a single Remainer thick enough to believe that a second referendum would have been contemplated or in any way countenanced had Remain won the first vote. Not a chance would Leave voters have been given a second bite at the cherry. That would have been the end of story. The whole subject swept under the carpet and consigned to history. Well that is precisely how the Brexiteers should treat Remainers now. Ignore them and push on with leaving the EU, with no deal if necessary.

I would much rather leave with a deal than without one, but people voted Leave, not Leave with a deal. If all sides (I’m looking at all parties here) can’t agree a deal then it will have to be no deal. No deal shouldn’t block what the people voted for, whether you agree with it or not.

[The Chief]

3 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

I would much rather leave with a deal than without one, but people voted Leave, not Leave with a deal. If all sides (I’m looking at all parties here) can’t agree a deal then it will have to be no deal. No deal shouldn’t block what the people voted for, whether you agree with it or not.

 

I would also rather leave with a deal than without one. But I am quite sceptical that a good deal that works for both sides can be reached. But then I am sceptical by nature and pretty cynical about politicians in general. Maybe such a deal could be done. Only time will tell I suppose.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

I would also rather leave with a deal than without one. But I am quite sceptical that a good deal that works for both sides can be reached. But then I am sceptical by nature and pretty cynical about politicians in general. Maybe such a deal could be done. Only time will tell I suppose.

While I don’t fully back Johnson’s deal, I wouldn’t be optimistic of crackpot Corbyn thinking up a better one. I also don’t think Corbyn would be (and don’t think he ever was) willing to back any form of Tory deal even if it gave every member of the United Kingdom £1million.

I also don’t believe that Corbyn honour the vote of the British public. I think he’d either cancel Brexit or have another referendum and back Remain. He has flip-flopped too many times on far too many issues.

[The Chief]

7 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

While I don’t fully back Johnson’s deal, I wouldn’t be optimistic of crackpot Corbyn thinking up a better one. I also don’t think Corbyn would be (and don’t think he ever was) willing to back any form of Tory deal even if it gave every member of the United Kingdom £1million.

I also don’t believe that Corbyn honour the vote of the British public. I think he’d either cancel Brexit or have another referendum and back Remain. He has flip-flopped too many times on far too many issues.

 

I think we have a pretty good idea what a deal negotiated by Corbyn would look like. A customs union and 'close alignment to the single market(whatever that means?)'. We'd be voting on Remain Light or Remain. In that situation I'd probably reluctantly have to vote Remain as Corbyn's deal would leave us with none of the benefits of leaving and all of the pitfalls of staying. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by The Chief