No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Arklight

Malthusian wrote: »

This fallacy is as old as democracy.

The trouble with the idea that all you need to do is promise loads of free stuff and you'll get elected is that the more likely someone is to believe you, the less likely they are to vote.

Comrades, I stand before you unable to believe we lost the election. So many students said on Facebook they'd vote for me, then got high instead. Clearly it's the Jewish media's fault. And the Blairite traitors for not letting me promise even more free stuff.

That was basically Labour's 2017 post-mortem in a nutshell, after they managed to lose the election to the worst Tory leader and worst Tory campaign in living memory.

Yes, you have all the anti Corbyn proganda in there, neatly packaged.

In reality, Corbyn increased Labour's share of the vote more than any other post war Labour leader, and a bigger swing than Tony Blair managed. Most importantly he mobilised most of the youth vote, who contrary to your claims about young people being lazy stoners, did go out and vote for him.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-result-vote-share-increased-1945-clement-attlee-a7781706.html

It wasn't enough to win, no. But then the Tories didn't win either, although they managed to form a government with a party of religious fundamentalists who believe gay people should burn for eternity in hell, women who have abortions should burn for eternity in hell, Catholics should burn for eternity in hell, and who inspect their cornflakes each morning to see if an image of Jesus has appeared.

That was right after the Brexit vote with the Tories campaigning on a Brexit ticket and 2/3 of the PLP in open revolt about Corbyn's decision to respect the referendum.

In the coming election the Tories will either have failed miserably to deliver Brexit, cancelled Brexit, or will have delivered it for a future government manage. At that point most of the (sane) electorate will realise there is no more use for them.

With the average Tory voter now being well into their late 50s, time has simply run out for this party.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

More people would be encouraged to vote in the UK if we had PR.

Turn out in european elections is increasing.

Yes. It's finally crawled back to where it was in 1999.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The offset is that how everything will be financed needs to be explained clearly.

Have you been asking the same of the Tories and their sudden claims of a spending spree?

Sailtheworld

Malthusian wrote: »

This fallacy is as old as democracy.

The trouble with the idea that all you need to do is promise loads of free stuff and you'll get elected is that the more likely someone is to believe you, the less likely they are to vote.

As all parties have grand spending ideas which will be funded by someone else they obviously think it's a vote winner.

The magic money tree looked a bit threadbare after the Labour party conference but the Tories are still giving it a good yank this week.

The-Joker

Thee is so much dirt being thrown at boris lately

Corbyn may get in after all

Sailtheworld

The-Joker wrote: »

Thee is so much dirt being thrown at boris lately

Corbyn may get in after all

I honestly don't know why you're bothered. Even if you get your crash and buy a house you think you'll need a new roof every few years and they cost £40k a pop.

Filo25

No way Labour are getting a majority, so their only hope is to get close enough that they can get over the line with SNP+PC+Green support.

LDs won't be voting to put Corbyn in Downing Street, so I think if LD support is needed you are probably looking at something more like a Government of National Unity (led by someone other than Corbyn) or another GE anyway.

We will see how the next campaign goes anyway, but Labour have a lot of work to do even to get to that kind of position.

JC9

I'm not a big fan of Corbyn by any means, but at this point in time, what do people think is the advantage of a no-deal Brexit? Genuinely curious.

lvader

JC9 wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Corbyn by any means, but at this point in time, what do people think is the advantage of a no-deal Brexit? Genuinely curious.

The EU have yet to negotiate in good faith. a no deal actually forces them to negotiate and if they don't you then concentrate with trade elsewhere.

Fran_Klee

JC9 wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Corbyn by any means, but at this point in time, what do people think is the advantage of a no-deal Brexit? Genuinely curious.

The terminology is actually a bit misleading in that the only "deal" is that we pay the EU a huge sum of money supposedly for prior commitments; nothing whatsoever regarding future trade.
So already there is no "deal", just a bill.

Without going into the "if's" and "but's" or the rights and wrongs, paying the EU however many tens of billions of pounds without any itemised bill, much less any promise of favourable future trade and other relationships is in all probability not a very good idea.

After over three years of basically bickering from both sides, anybody can surely see that the EU have approximately zero intention of allowing any sort of preferential future relationship between themselves and the UK beyond those that exist between the EU and any other non-EU country.

Sadly Ivader is absolutely correct.
The EU hoped that the UK would pay many billions without the offer of anything in return.
Refusing to do so demonstrates the UK's determination to put our interests first and not the EU's which will make the EU reconsider their attitudes to future relationships with our country.

Since so far the EU have offered approximately zero, that can only be a positive.