Shit policy is subjective - 1948 on the prologue question. 1707 on queens being involved - never to my knowledge on the remainer idea
The Attlee government's ideas largely stood the test of time. The British government's own analysis of no deal Brexit paints a very different picture. Your messiah supports it based on a political calculation that it will cement his power, just as he decided in 2016 when he wrote essays for and against EU membership. He has sent the pound tumbling further still and may see the Euro surpass the pound for the first time if he keeps it up
Bollocks. When was the last time such a motion has been allowed in parliament to forced government to act against policy without a no confidence motion?
Because they are all scrambling for their own bits of power. They would however back another referendum with a Brexit extension to allow the vote to take place. If the Brexiters think they have enough support they won't shy away from a second vote.
While of course Mr Corbyn rejected a soft Brexit landing to try and sieze power.
While of course Mr Corbyn rejected a soft Brexit landing to try and sieze power.
While of course Mr Corbyn rejected a soft Brexit landing to try and sieze power.
He has played Brexit appallingly, enough in my view to warrant a replacement. Though I have been saying this for God knows how long
True
Corbyn and McDonnell want to negotiate their own deal and put it to the people.
Sturgeon wants independence - the thing is a No-Deal Brexit strengthens the chance of her winning one but not getting one. Corbyn would give her a referendum on it in return for a coalition.
TIG - who gives a fuck but it’s probably just some more handouts.
Swinson - she wants some sort of power. She’s obsessed with it and she’d screw over every skin Dem voter to get it.
Lucas - 6 months ago I’d have her down as one of the most respected politicians in Westminster. Her alignment with Lib Dems has damaged her massively.
By attempting to bring Leave and Remain together? Labour’s intransigence (although frustrating because it would never be supported by the media) was the way it should have been done from Day 1.
Corbyn thinks he is playing a blinder by vowing to negotiate a better deal and appease both sides of his party-he is wrong and the EU clearly are not coming back to the table. Sturgeon benefits every time the UK fails and so wants the worst outcome for the country-an odious individual who regrettably I can no longer vote against. The Lib Dems have learned nothing from the coalition and Lucas has gone past the pale. A great shame.
Another referendum will fix these issues and allow domestic politics to resume which is desperately needed looking at the general state of the country.
And if Leave won again? Then what?
By repeatedly demanding a General Election over a second vote. Labour has lost more to the Lib Dems over Brexit than it has to Farage's cult
Including a No-Deal?Then it happens and the country accepts the consequences- I want it legally binding.
Including a No-Deal?
To be in control of the negotiations when it was clear the current government were incapable....? Not sure you can call that bad strategy.
Also - Labour have lost voters to Lib Dems in safe metropolitan seats. But what about Leave voting northern seats? Do they count for less, even when these will be there ones that Labour will live or die by.
What about Scotland which lost 50 Labour seats because of continued failure to stand up for progressive policies? There was no appetite for another election when Corbyn started calling for one. The EU were clearly not coming back for more negotiations. Brexit needs to be resolved and Parliament is incapable of doing the job.
Labour lost 50 Scotland seats in 2010 because they had turned into the Tories by the end of Blair/ Brown. They did just as bad in 2015 under their continued Tory-lite banner. That is irrelevant to the Corbyn discussion unless you acknowledge that his policies started the long road to redemption in Scotland.
Brexit won’t be resolved for a generation - the damage is done. Thinking that another referendum without serious consideration of the fall-out is ridiculous. It has to be planned meticulously so that we don’t infinitely repeat ourselves. A Labour government would have provided that time.
So it was never a bad policy - just not a policy that was wanted by the so-called ‘moderates’ who are anything but.
This will likely accelerate the end of the monarchy in its current format.
Add that to the list of things to be sacrificed on the alter of Brexit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This will likely accelerate the end of the monarchy in its current format.
Add that to the list of things to be sacrificed on the alter of Brexit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
your sanity is another one you can add to your list.
This will likely accelerate the end of the monarchy in its current format.
Add that to the list of things to be sacrificed on the alter of Brexit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The domestic policies are excellent-I simply want the focus to return to them. If a majority still vote for no deal after everything that has happened then the country deserves what's coming but the government's own analysis cannot hide the impact it would have. A Labour government would have failed at renegotiation and then be left in the same problem as the Tories. That is of course assuming that they would have won, and public opinion was squarely against another election at the time. It would have handed May a solid majority on a plate.
Not sure about the Monarchy but probably the end of the Conservative party as we know it. Between Cameron and Boris they’ve changed it for life. I suspect that the LIB Dems will pick up the pieces.
Not sure about the Monarchy but probably the end of the Conservative party as we know it. Between Cameron and Boris they’ve changed it for life. I suspect that the LIB Dems will pick up the pieces.
I’m not arguing with you over whether No-Deal should be stopped. It should.
Post 2017 - there is simply no way there was appetite in the electorate for another referendum. This has changed now I agree (though maybe not quite as much as some people would make out) but it has only come into political focus since the WA failed. There was no way May was going to give another Referendum, so Labour’s only strategy was to force a change in the dynamics of parliament.
Again - it wasn’t a bad strategy - it just had a low chance of success... but still higher than a 2nd Ref.
Not sure about the Monarchy but probably the end of the Conservative party as we know it. Between Cameron and Boris they’ve changed it for life. I suspect that the LIB Dems will pick up the pieces.
When the ailing moron Charles inherits the throne will probably be the best shot
Tells you everything you need to know about the Lib Dems really.
Corbyn started seriously calling for another election in the final quarter of 2018. Sorry, I don't see how Labour were going to win that and definitely not now.
Would be a nice roundness to it.
Charles I - end of monarchy
Charles II - reformation of monarchy
Charles III - end of monarchy.
So until Charles IV turns up we'd be a republic.
To be honest, I think Charles is likely to get the question asked - he likes having his opinion on stuff, esp environmental issues etc. Monarch is supposed to be non-political and just keep schtum. Not sure he could manage it.
And then some.... centre politics is dead. Just ask the currently polling at 0% TIG....Tory light?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?