Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[The Don]

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

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.

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?

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).

 

[Tolls]

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.

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).

 

[The Don]

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.

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.

 

[3point14]

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?

 

[Tolls]

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.

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.

 

[The Don]

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?

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

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

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

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

 

[3point14]

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

I don't agree.

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

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

How Boris acts as PM is.

 

[3point14]

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

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

 

[GlennB]

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

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

 

[The Don]

I don't agree.

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.

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

How Boris acts as PM is.

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.

 

[The Don]

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

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.

 

[3point14]

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

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

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

Yes. For clearly stated reasons.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Francesca R]

Certainly if the economy takes a dive - perhaps if Brexit works out worse than they expect - then spending will be reined back: this has happened many times before when an economic downturn occurs.

Has it?

Reducing spending during an economic downturn is generally not a good idea because it makes the economic downturn worse.

Indeed. I think the opposite usually happens, certainly with respect to "automatic stabilisers" but also with discretionary policy.

IMO Austerity was never about fiscal prudence (otherwise there wouldn't have been tax cuts for the wealthy).

Well you need the fiscal prudence to afford the tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[uke2se]

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.

 

[Darat]

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).

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.

 

[Tolls]

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?

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.

 

[Francesca R]

The Scottish Secretary, of all people in the government, gives his opinion on why no-deal Brexit won't cause any disruption to shipping.

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.

 

[Darat]

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.

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

 

[Francesca R]

I'm not sure which of the two of them would be a worse UK Prime Minister.

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.