• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Sorry I meant the Labour party should stand behind him ehich makes it hard to get their votes.
Click to expand...

The Labour party should do whatever is best for the country which, at the moment, is not blindly standing behind someone who cannot command the confidence of the Commons. Better than that would be to try to persuade Corbyn that someone else should be PM.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As I've said several times, Ken Clarke is a name that's being thrown around as a credible possibility. Harriet Harman is the other top contender.



How would Labour be throwing their leader under a bus? If anything, it'd be beneficial to Corbyn because he wouldn't have to be Prime Minister while holding the poisoned chalice that is Brexit. He'll get to to in to the election with his hands clean, and having demonstrated that he can behave like an adult when it's required of him.



Corbyn doesn't have the numbers. Swinson getting behind him would make no difference to his ability to be leader of a GNU. She's better off throwing her support behind someone who could actually credibly lead one.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that Clarke or Harmann have the numbers either and start off from a much lower base.

As leader of the opposition JC is the person who would automatically be the choice. If Labour cede this easily its basically admitting that his own party dont think he can be PM.

And this is nothing to do qith holiding the can for brexit. The remit is to get an extension and then resign and have an election
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The Labour party should do whatever is best for the country which, at the moment, is not blindly standing behind someone who cannot command the confidence of the Commons. Better than that would be to try to persuade Corbyn that someone else should be PM.
Click to expand...

Its going round in circles but as things stand nobody can command confidence. what you are saying is that labour should hold their nose and get behind Clarke but that Tories shouldn't do the same for Corbyn. Its just double standards.

I couldnt really care less who gets the extension and calls an election, do you? why should a Tory?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
There is no evidence that Clarke or Harmann have the numbers either and start off from a much lower base.
Click to expand...

There is evidence that Corbyn doesn't.

As leader of the opposition JC is the person who would automatically be the choice. If Labour cede this easily its basically admitting that his own party dont think he can be PM.
Click to expand...

He can't be PM. He doesn't have the numbers.

That isn't to say that he couldn't win an election and get the numbers. But that's the future.

And this is nothing to do qith holiding the can for brexit. The remit is to get an extension and then resign and have an election
Click to expand...

The remit is most likely to get an extension, hold a referendum, and then have an election.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Its going round in circles but as things stand nobody can command confidence. what you are saying is that labour should hold their nose and get behind Clarke but that Tories shouldn't do the same for Corbyn. Its just double standards.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be Clarke. It has to be someone that a majority can get behind. Unless something drastic changes, that is not Corbyn, no matter how much you wish it were.

That doesn't mean it has to be a Tory. I've mentioned Harriet Harmon several times. Margaret Beckett is another name that is being bandied about, although she'll most likely become Speaker.

I couldnt really care less who gets the extension and calls an election, do you? why should a Tory?
Click to expand...

Corbyn, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to be incompetent and untrustworthy. That's why people care. Not because of what colour tie he wears.

Look at it this way - there's a bunch of people saying "not Corbyn", and Corbyn saying "only me". The two positions are not equivalent. One is shutting down a lot more possibilities than the other, and in a way that seems designed to personally benefit him rather than trying to do right by the country as a whole.

Part of a politician's job is making people warm to and trust you. Corbyn is not good at this. Another part of a politician's job is compromising for the good of the country. Corbyn is refusing to do this. His truculence on this matter is an example of why people don't trust him to be PM, and it's an example of why they're probably right not to - he wouldn't act like the statesman he'd be required to and, even if he did manage to get appointed as PM, the government would likely fall apart PDQ as he tried to push through what he thought was right rather than what the majority wants and people rebel against him. A GNU would require a delicate touch, which Corbyn has not shown he possesses and, in fact, is currently demonstrating he doesn't.
 
psionl0 said:
The support would quickly dwindle once it came down to the form of the alternative head of state.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
If course it would...

Will you be supporting this claim with evidence or just expecting everyone to believe whatever you say, as usual.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
It's quite strange, I'm working in Windsor at the moment so not surprisingly royalty often comes up in casual conversations, and I've been astonished how many people seem to think the next Monarch will be William. They've either forgotten Charles or think he'll take a pass on being the King!
Click to expand...

My understanding is that he is adamant he will be King and get his name in the history of succession, but for the good of the institution of the monarchy is prepared to make it a short reign, ten years or possibly slightly less, before stepping aside for William.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
My understanding is that he is adamant he will be King and get his name in the history of succession, but for the good of the institution of the monarchy is prepared to make it a short reign, ten years or possibly slightly less, before stepping aside for William.
Click to expand...
No-one wants him. Even the Queen said Charles will be King over her dead body.........
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Are all leave voters the same, did they all have the same motivation?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
There is no evidence that Clarke or Harmann have the numbers either
Click to expand...
And why is there this lack of evidence? Because of Corbyn/McDonnell sheer pig-headedness. That's why.

If Labour cede this easily its basically admitting that his own party dont think he can be PM.
Click to expand...
That may be the truth but failure to cede indicates that they put the maintainence of such fantasy above national interest.

Corbyn is probably fine with no deal just as long as he isn't blamed. Hopefully consensus wisdom will start to blame him soon.
 
catsmate said:
Yeah, Charles IV is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
It's not merely unlikely to happen; it's impossible, because if Charles succeeds his mother he will be Charles III of both England and Scotland and Charles I of the UK.
 
She could be throne under a bus tomorrow.

(Please don't read/quote my posts until I've finished looking up the private eye chav names for the Windsors)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom