Brexit

[Mechelle]

The Liberal Democrats won the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election as expected, although considering they were fielding a candidate who had a criminal conviction for fradulent expenses claims, the Conservatives ran them surprisingly close. It was a new record, apparently, for a prime minister to lose a seat only 11 days after taking office.
What was noticeable was how, while the Labour vote fell away badly, the Brexit Party's support stayed relatively strong as they finished 3rd, and, if their support had gone to the Conservatives, the latter would have run. Thete are a lot of if's, though, and it would be very amusing if the First Past the Post system, which has benefitted the Conservatives so much in the past, suddenly starts working against them.
Oh, and the Monster Raving Loony Party beat UKIP.

[gaggedLouise]

Pelosi just threw a big chunk of armoured concrete in the path of the idea of a speedy free-trade deal negotiated by Boris, Trump and Bolton in the event of a no-deal Brexit (or some other super-hard variety). No way we'll let that pass if the kind of Brexit Boris will be making would endanger peace and long-term stability on Ireland, she essentially said. Great job, Nancy! :)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49348062

[Callie Del Noire]

Pelosi just threw a big chunk of armoured concrete in the path of the idea of a speedy free-trade deal negotiated by Boris, Trump and Bolton in the event of a no-deal Brexit (or some other super-hard variety). No way we'll let that pass if the kind of Brexit Boris will be making would endanger peace and long-term stability on Ireland, she essentially said. Great job, Nancy! :)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49348062

Welp, I’m curious to see how the outcome turns out now.”

[Mechelle]

Although August is traditionally a quiet time in politics, there was a lot going on today with Jeremy Corbyn finally making a move and asking the leaders of the smaller progressive parties to support him in his bid to depose Boris Johnson in a vote of no confidence and become a temporary prime minister, prior to calling a general election.

The Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Greens were all receptive to talking to him at least, but Jo Swinson, the new Liberal Democrat leader was not initially, although she has since revised her view and said she would talk to him. It was quite bad politics on her part, as she has now been accused of being a Meatloaf - I would do anything to stop Brexit, but I won't do that! - as it makes her look obstructive, when nothing may come of this anyway. The maths don't quite add up as the small pro-Eurooean Change UK group of ex-Labour MPs seem to hate Corbyn more than they hate Brexit, and have said they may support Boris Johnson in a vote of confidence.

Corbyn is a very divisive figure, anyway. While, as leader of the opposition, I think he should have the first chance to form an alternative government, I can't see him achieving one, however temporary, and a senior more centrist figure such as Ken Clarke from the Conservatives or Harriet Harman from Labour (both names suggested by Jo Swinson) would have more chance.

The basic fact,  though, is that while the House of Commons may be able to summon a vote of confidence against Johnson, they are unlikely to be able to achieve a vote in favour of any other candidate. I think this means a general election is coming fairly soon.

[Eye of Horus]

If they won’t support this idea of forming a government just long enough to write No Deal out of law, then I really don’t know what the so-called Anti Brexit faction thinks they’re doing at this point.

Focusing on stopping Johnson from shutting down Parliament is dangerous because he doesn’t actually need to do this to allow No Deal to happen.

If Johnson loses the confidence vote but they refuse to unite around Labour, then the 14 day limit will expire and an election will be called. The only thing that can stop Johnson from scheduling this election after Brexit day is a far-from-certain Supreme Court challenge.

And if Johnson wins the confidence vote, then a No Deal Brexit is essentially inevitable.

[Orval Wintermute]

But it's not just one anti-Brexit faction.

There are those who want the UK to Remain, end of. Some would be happy just to revoke Article 50 and others who want the cover of a confirmatory referendum.

Then there are pro-Brexit should still go ahead, just anti-May's Brexit and anti-No Deal, such as Corbyn. But that causes it's own problems as Corbyn's Brexit isn't Brexity enough for some pro-Brexiters and is too Brexity for pro-Remain politicians.

And there is a difference between uniting\getting behind a Labour led caretaker Government and getting behind Corbyn led Government who could be "caretaker" for up to 3 years and campaign from No 10. There are people who are going to have a problem with that.

As things stand Corbyn is at least 10 votes short with no realistic way of changing enough minds. If he sticks to his "it's got to be me" red line then if Corbyn calls for a vote of no confidence in the Government, either he loses and strengthens Johnson's hand or Corbyn's wins by the Tories abstaining which allows Johnson to keep Parliament shut down past the 31st October.

The road block is Corbyn and if he doesn't get out of the way then it doesn't end well.

[Eye of Horus]

There are those who want the UK to Remain, end of. Some would be happy just to revoke Article 50 and others who want the cover of a confirmatory referendum.

For now I don't think there's any chance of revoking Article 50 without some sort of referendum. Parliament won't support it, and constitutionally it would set a bad precedent. Not to mention that it would simply switch from silencing Remain voters (as has been the case since 2016) to silencing Leave voters instead.

Revoking Article 50 might pass parliament if there was an 11th hour vote on "No Deal or No Brexit" (perhaps if a new extension was asked for but refused), but aside from how such a vote could be engineered while Johnson remains PM, it seems reckless to pin all hopes on that kind of last-minute brinkmanship.

For all their faults, Labour seem to have been faster to grasp the politically inevitable than the other parties these past few years. I really don't buy the Remainer argument that Corbyn's plan is unacceptable because it seeks a new Brexit deal. Whether a "better" deal is possible or not is irrelevant; not trying for one rejects Leave voters and the (I know - flawed, invalid, corrupt, lie-filled etc) referendum result. And since they're guaranteeing a remain-option referendum at the end of it, I don't see why Remainers should give a damn about whether Labour campaign for their new deal during that referendum or not. If you think the deal is worse (which it almost certainly will be), then vote remain!

And there is a difference between uniting\getting behind a Labour led caretaker Government and getting behind Corbyn led Government who could be "caretaker" for up to 3 years and campaign from No 10. There are people who are going to have a problem with that.

To my knowledge Corbyn hasn't, and never did, suggest that the caretaker government should stay in power for longer than it takes to avert No Deal (probably via another extension, since there's no majority in parliament for changing the legal default to revoking Article 50 if time runs out) and to call an election. If you can find an article or press release saying that he did propose a longer-term government, please link it for me.

While I can at least understand the Tory rebels who want to oust Johnson but worry that backing Corbyn (even temporarily) would lose them their seats at the next election, the ego trip that the supposedly anti-No-Deal Lib Dems and independents are on is staggering.

Do they want the glory of "stopping Brexit" for themselves - via their own attempt to lead a unity government (no more certain than Corbyn's), or to organise a binding vote against No Deal (Labour already tried to take control of the parliamentary agenda back in June, and MPs voted against it)?

Or do they simply care more about denying Corbyn than preventing Brexit? Is there any other potential caretaker PM who could both "command a majority" and offer the same assurances as Corbyn re: an election and a remain-option referendum after the No Deal threat is deferred?

[Orval Wintermute]

While I can at least understand the Tory rebels who want to oust Johnson but worry that backing Corbyn (even temporarily) would lose them their seats at the next election,

They bring down Johnson there's a good chance they lose their seats regardless of their backing of Corbyn led Government, but if they're going to lose their jobs it might as well be for a good reason. And Corbyn isn't a good reason.

the ego trip that the supposedly anti-No-Deal Lib Dems and independents are on is staggering.

And that's just outright nonsense. Read Jo Swinson's letter to Corbyn
Want to call a Vote of No Confidence the said they Lib Dems will back it. Unlike Labour not supporting the Lib Dems when they tried to call a VoNC and the reason Labour gave was "not enough Tories will support it".
Swinson's letter was clear, she thought there needs to be 8 or so Tory rebels to get Corbyn into No. 10 so far there have exactly zero Tory MP's willing to back Corbyn.
Corbyn and Corbynistas need to their collective ego aside and pick someone who enough people respect to lead a caretaker Governement, because it can't be Corbyn. Swinson even wrote in the letter if Corbyn has those 8 MP's hidden away he should come out and say so, strangely enough he hasn't.

Starting from the House is currently split, Tories & DUP against everyone else, Corbyn is one vote down.
Jared O'Mara won't be returning so that's two votes down.
Charlie Elphicke is a Tory just without the whip; four votes down.
Nick Boles ex-Tory now independent who's stated public he'd vote against Corbyn becoming PM; 6 votes down.
Anna Soubry, Mike Gapes both say they won't vote for Corbyn but haven't said they'll vote against him either; 8 votes down (at least).
Kate Hoey, John Mann, don't want Brexit delayed and would be happy with No Deal. 12 votes down.

Take Corbyn out of the equation and 4 of those votes swing the other way plus somewhere between a 20-40 vote swing from Tory rebels.

Do they want the glory of "stopping Brexit" for themselves - via their own attempt to lead a unity government (no more certain than Corbyn's), or to organise a binding vote against No Deal (Labour already tried to take control of the parliamentary agenda back in June, and MPs voted against it)?

Are referring to the Cooper-Boles amendment, or the Letwin amendment? Neither of which the Labour front bench went anywhere near.

Or do they simply care more about denying Corbyn than preventing Brexit? Is there any other potential caretaker PM who could both "command a majority" and offer the same assurances as Corbyn re: an election and a remain-option referendum after the No Deal threat is deferred?

Ken Clarke
Harriet Harman
Ann Clwyd
Betty Bothroyd
David Attenborough
Steve aka that bloke that shouts STOP BREXIT!
The Graffiti Granny
Larry the cat

All of them have a better chance of gaining the confidence of the House than Corbyn does. Corbyn's Meatloaf tribute act (I will do anything to stop a No Deal Brexit but I won't do that!) is an obvious power grab and people are right to be nervous about him.

[Eye of Horus]

Want to call a Vote of No Confidence the said they Lib Dems will back it. Unlike Labour not supporting the Lib Dems when they tried to call a VoNC and the reason Labour gave was "not enough Tories will support it"

Indeed. But the Lib Dems wanted to call the vote the week after Johnson was elected. Very few (if any) Tories would have voted against their brand new PM before he had even had a chance to screw up anything. As much as I'm anxious about the delay on the VoNC, I see the logic of it.

The Lib Dems backing the VoNC is well and good, but the anti-Brexit MPs have only 14 days to put together an alternative, otherwise it goes back to Johnson to set the date of the necessary election - and the only thing that can really stop him from setting the date after Halloween and allowing No Deal to happen in the interim is a somewhat uncertain legal challenge via the Supreme Court. While this might work, I'm nervous about it being the only line of defence.

Are referring to the Cooper-Boles amendment, or the Letwin amendment? Neither of which the Labour front bench went anywhere near.

I'm referring to the vote on the 25th of June, on the cross-party proposal to allow parliament to set the agenda for an upcoming session (and thus table a vote to block No Deal that would actually be legally binding - essentially the same thing Cooper and Boles had attempted previously).

The shadow cabinet voted for the Letwin amendment on indicative votes. Only 8 Labour MPs voted against it.

They also voted for the Cooper-Boles amendment to delay No Deal (along with almost all of Labour, though as I think I stated somewhere previously in this thread, I was extremely pissed to learn that a few Labour rebels essentially sank the vote).

Have the notional Tory rebels indicated who they might back, if given the choice?

Corbyn's Meatloaf tribute act (I will do anything to stop a No Deal Brexit but I won't do that!) is an obvious power grab and people are right to be nervous about him.

It being a power grab is literally impossible because there is nothing to stop the other MPs of this notional caretaker government from joining the rest of the house against Corbyn if he attempted to stay in power beyond the extension / election votes. Although I could understand them being nervous of Labour being able to position themselves as the party that "saved Britain from No Deal", right before an election.

[Tolvo]

Why are people so opposed to Corbyn? Whenever I end up seeing records on him he seems like one of the best politicians in Britain at the moment, not perfect but so many have pretty horrible past records while from what i've seen his is fairly clean. I often see things saying he just can't win, no one would support him, he can't lead, but then no actual votes or statements or acts of his. Are there just a bunch of things that don't get shared widely about him? I know all the anti-communist fear mongering this regarding him despite him being far from radical. So I was wondering if there was some stuff rooted in reality I just haven't seen.

[Eye of Horus]

I'm perhaps not the best person to ask, since generally I'm well-disposed towards him, but from my research and conversations with people I know:

The media - I know that sounds cliche, but the establishment class really, really hate Corbyn. They have had a relatively easy ride under every PM since Thatcher, and they don't like the idea of a PM who might seriously challenge the neoliberal status quo. More regulation? Fewer tax breaks? Locking big business out of lucrative sectors like healthcare, utilities and transport? No thank you! So Corbyn gets a constant barrage of negative publicity, far beyond what might be considered holding a politician to account.

Perception of being too left wing - the Overton Window of what is "normal" in UK politics is somewhat to the right of Scandinavia, France and Germany. Therefore economic policies which are proven to work and utterly unremarkable in those countries are seen as radical here (at least by some). That said, Corbyn's policies are remarkably popular with the general public (especially if you don't tell them that they're his policies!).

Perception of antisemitism - antisemitism still exists in the UK and the Labour party is not magically immune to it. Some have interpreted Corbyn's sympathy for occupied Palestine and criticism of Israeli use of force there to be antisemitic. It's worth noting that the Israeli government (and its lobbies in other countries) regularly levels an accusation of antisemitism against anyone who criticises it, and the establishment have gladly seized on it since it's the one smear against Corbyn that's actually managed to stick. Of course the situation isn't clear-cut - many Palestinians, oppressed or not, are virulently antisemitic - and it is right that a party leader should take pains to stamp out racism within his membership. That said, surveys show that antisemitism is lower on the left in general than on the right, and that it has actually decreased within Labour (in % terms) since Corbyn became leader, so the argument that he should "do more" to tackle antisemitism within his party really doesn't hold water. Also compare to the Conservative party, which has been flatly denying its blatant problem with antisemitism and islamophobia for years.

Perception of supporting the IRA - while Corbyn did meet with various IRA figures during the Troubles, the rest of the government was also doing the same thing (behind closed doors). However, Corbyn has historically shown some sympathy to the Republican cause - or at least, refused to unequivocally take the Unionist side. For some within Northern Ireland who lived through IRA terrorism (and the terrorism of the loyalist paramilitaries), this could be seen as insulting.

Perception of "the left" as aggressive - some people feel that things in Britain are generally okay, and that poverty, racism and sexism aren't really big deals in our country anymore. Therefore, they don't always understand what Corbyn (and the Left in general) have such a problem with. They often have a live and let live attitude, which also means they don't like to be hassled by Labour activists telling them that things need to change (or, worse, that they're "Tories" or "Nazis").

Perception that he's a Brexiteer - some people think that Corbyn didn't fight for Remain during the referendum (provably false) or that his hesitance to get behind a second referendum show that he's a closet Brexiteer (the actual reason is that Labour can't simply alienate thousands of Leave voters in its current and target constituencies). They therefore worry that he's trying to enact Brexit "by stealth", though this is a difficult claim to substantiate when he has consistently voted against (and occasionally defeated) the government on hard Brexit, and is offering a Remain-option referendum on any future Labour-negotiated deal.

Perception that he's a Remainer - and on the flipside, some people think that his support for a second referendum show that he is now trying to thwart the will of the people (the standard establishment attack line against anyone who opposes a No Deal Brexit).

[Humble Scribe]

Speaking as someone on the centre left, I think it's the whiff of 1970s Militant Tendency that clings to Corbyn and his adherents, and the entryism of Momentum into the Labour Party. He supports all of the traditional extreme left causes - pro-Russia (as though the Soviet Union still existed), anti-Israel, pro-Venezuela... all of this stuff is just stupid touchstones that affect no-one in the UK but serve to make them look stupid, same as it did in the 80s (and I'm old enough to remember then). The fears of Labour losing Leave supporters in the North is bullshit - the European elections showed that their real disaster would be by losing Remain supporters in London and the south. Look, I know that there is a major constituency on the left that feels betrayed by New Labour, but here's the thing - they're not large enough on their own to win an election. That's just the arithmetic, and wishing that the British public was in general more left wing doesn't cut it. Politics is the art of the possible. Blair, for all of his faults (and they are many, I acknowledge) won three elections. Corbyn has won none.

His heart is not in staying in Europe. However, all that being said, I actually think that his Brexit policy has ended up on quite a sensible area - respect the referendum, but negotiate a soft Brexit that leaves us in the EEA or Single Market. I am an ardent Remainer, but alive enough to the principle of democracy to see that some form of Brexit is probably inevitable. Second Referendum is a Remainer clutching at straws position. Revoking Article 50 is fantasy politics.

But - considering a Tory Party that has also betrayed the Referendum result by trying to pretend No Deal was what 52% of 72% voted for is bullshit, and any means to stop that is valid. I am in general a Liberal voter, but Jo Swinson is being stupid on insisting Corbyn must step aside for there to be a government of National Unity, and I suspect most anti-No Deal tories are too. You don't get to choose who is leader of the Labour party - that's Labour's choice. Either you're against No Deal or you're not.

[Mechelle]

That is very well said, Humble Scribe. I would only take issue with this idea of Labour leave voters in the north. As I have mentioned before, I am sure, I live in a safe Labour constituency in the north, which voted to Remain, but you would never believe such places existed from the media. There are working-class Leave voters in the north,  but I think they are usually 'working class Tories" who would not vote Labour anyway.



As I think you are saying, we nesd to compromise, although the government (both May and Johnson's) have aimed to appease the hard Leave voters, while Corbyn would always prefer to correct as he sees it, rather than
compromise. A glimmer of hope for this is that Johnson doesn't seem to believe any of this ideology really, but just wants power for himself, by whatever method is best to achieve this.

[Tolvo]

This is pretty much all the stuff I have examined so I guess I was getting an accurate impression of Corbyn from what I've been reading of his past and current actions and words. 

[Orval Wintermute]

Why are people so opposed to Corbyn?

Where to start?

There's the problem with antisemitism, I don't think Corbyn is actively antisemitic but he seems to have done less than nothing to sort the problem out inside the Labour party. Recently he had an interview where he said that he couldn't be certain that his office hadn't interfered with internal investigations. Seriously!? The Labour party is under one almighty spotlight on this issue and can't be sure that his office hasn't helped people get away with racism!?

One of the center pieces of his economic policy is to force larger companies to hold shares in a sort of trust for the employees and then the employees will get payouts. Which sounds great until you look a bit closer, actually it's the Government that will control the shares and the payout is based on the employees receiving part of the increase in share price. In effect he wants every UK business to have over 20% of it's shares to him, I wonder why isn't going down well.

And then Brexit.
Corbyn's record of being anti-EU is long and undeniable, he's voted against every EU treaty that's gone through the House of Commons.  The "common wisdom" was that Remain would win the referendum, so he wouldn't want to be on the wrong side so the sensible thing was to campaign for Remain but he was half-hearted about it at best.

Since then he has never backed a People's vote, a second referendum or confirmatory referendum; Corbyn has only ever called for a "public vote". "What's the difference?" I hear you ask. Well good question if a "public vote" is a synonym for a referendum then why not just say "referendum"? An election is a "public vote", a vote in the House of Commons is a "public vote" it's a bit of a stretch but it would be a vote done in public on behalf of the public. So if Corbyn really means referendum then why the need for ambiguity?

And of course his no to No Deal plan.
His plan is to form a "strictly time limited Government" under the Fix Term Parliaments Act any Government would be "strictly time limited" to May 2022, so there is no new information there.
Corbyn would try to extend Article 50, but there's nothing about what he would do if he didn't get the extension.
At some point Corbyn would call an election, given his popularity ratings the chances of Labour getting a majority are not good.
Now he claims after forming a Government he would seek to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement at which point he campaign FOR Labour's Brexit deal in a "public vote".
Of course if Corbyn doesn't form a Government then he doesn't have to keep his promises.

Still wondering why he's not trusted?

[Eye of Horus]

Speaking as someone on the centre left, I think it's the whiff of 1970s Militant Tendency that clings to Corbyn and his adherents, and the entryism of Momentum into the Labour Party. He supports all of the traditional extreme left causes - pro-Russia (as though the Soviet Union still existed), anti-Israel, pro-Venezuela... all of this stuff is just stupid touchstones that affect no-one in the UK but serve to make them look stupid, same as it did in the 80s (and I'm old enough to remember then).

This is probably a fair criticism. The fact that I'm not old enough to remember the 80s makes me wonder if this is a factor in Labour's vote surge in 2017 coming primarily from the under 40s.

The fears of Labour losing Leave supporters in the North is bullshit - the European elections showed that their real disaster would be by losing Remain supporters in London and the south.

I would only take issue with this idea of Labour leave voters in the north. As I have mentioned before, I am sure, I live in a safe Labour constituency in the north, which voted to Remain, but you would never believe such places existed from the media. There are working-class Leave voters in the north,  but I think they are usually 'working class Tories" who would not vote Labour anyway.

The number of Labour constituencies that are majority Leave is not inconsiderable, although I will caveat that with the fact that these numbers are estimated because not all councils released constituency-by-constituency vote tallies. The situation is complicated further by the fact that most of the marginals that Labour would need to win in the next election are also majority Leave. Now I wouldn't suggest that this means Labour need to get behind the hardcore No Dealers, but they certainly need to offer something to Leavers as well as Remainers in order to have a hope, even if the rest of their non-Brexit policy platform is pretty good.

the European elections showed that their real disaster would be by losing Remain supporters in London and the south.

It was certainly a factor in Labour belatedly jumping on the People's Vote bandwagon. I would be cautious of using the EU elections to predict voting in a notion general election, though, because the turnout was rather low (37% - compared to 72% for the EU referendum and 69% in the 2017 general election). Most of the people who bothered to turn up were the ones with the strongest pro-Leave or pro-Remain bias, and voted accordingly. You might also argue that the EU election system encourages less tactical voting than a regular UK election.

Look, I know that there is a major constituency on the left that feels betrayed by New Labour, but here's the thing - they're not large enough on their own to win an election. That's just the arithmetic, and wishing that the British public was in general more left wing doesn't cut it.

A fair point, which kind of links back to my earlier point of the Overton Window for UK politics being further to the right than some of our European neighbours. That said, the majority of the British public have a mixture of left-wing and right-wing views, and most of Labour's policy platform caters to this broad audience - particularly around things like the NHS and nationalisation.

Politics is the art of the possible. Blair, for all of his faults (and they are many, I acknowledge) won three elections. Corbyn has won none.

Blair's mistake was to cater almost exclusively to "middle England" - while Labour's traditional base was guaranteed for a while, their vote share among this bracket collapsed between 1994 and 2010, with a lot of them ultimately ending up as SNP and UKIP voters. That wasn't (and isn't) an easy voter base to win back.

Corbyn didn't "win" in 2017 in that he didn't end up in Number 10, but a 70-seat swing to do so would have been highly unusual under any leader. On the other hand, the anti-austerity platform that Milliband probably should have adopted in 2015 boosted the Labour vote share to 40%, which even Blair never achieved. The distribution of voters however meant that this swing only translated into 30 extra seats - though a number of Labour marginals were boosted to safe status, and a number of Tory seats became knife-edge marginals...an interesting starting point for the next election.

Whoever won the 2017 election it certainly wasn't May, who only held her vote share due to the collapse of UKIP and, far more importantly, lost her majority to leave the DUP with a veto on the rest of her premiership.

Second Referendum is a Remainer clutching at straws position. Revoking Article 50 is fantasy politics.

Revoking Article 50 is certainly a non-starter without some kind of new public mandate.

Leavers might worry that a referendum on a deal risks "stealing" their 2016 vote, and Remainers might not be happy with a government that continues to work towards Brexit even if they do get a referendum at the end of it, but I've yet to see a fairer policy for giving both sides a voice. That said, with Leave voters now hardening around No Deal and everyone else hardening around No Brexit with little tolerance for anything in between, who knows any more.

There's the problem with antisemitism, I don't think Corbyn is actively antisemitic but he seems to have done less than nothing to sort the problem out inside the Labour party. Recently he had an interview where he said that he couldn't be certain that his office hadn't interfered with internal investigations. Seriously!? The Labour party is under one almighty spotlight on this issue and can't be sure that his office hasn't helped people get away with racism!?

As I said in my previous post, the perception is certainly there (and is therefore a problem, politically) though given the drop in antisemitism in the party since he became leader I would contest the idea that he has really done "less than nothing". See points 24 onwards of this list.

One of the center pieces of his economic policy is to force larger companies to hold shares in a sort of trust for the employees and then the employees will get payouts. Which sounds great until you look a bit closer, actually it's the Government that will control the shares and the payout is based on the employees receiving part of the increase in share price. In effect he wants every UK business to have over 20% of it's shares to him, I wonder why isn't going down well.

I believe it's 10%, and the government wouldn't own any stake - it would however collect any dividends above the initial £500 that went to workers (essentially, it would be an additional corporation tax). Right-wing think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute have predicted it will stifle investment, but they make these predictions about any new tax in defiance of historical precedent, so I won't consider them in detail. I do however think that the Confederation for British Industry (who were supportive of Labour in 2017) have a valid point about it having a lot of problems and that it would be better to consult businesses on the matter, perhaps aiming for an increase in employer pensions instead.

Since then he has never backed a People's vote, a second referendum or confirmatory referendum; Corbyn has only ever called for a "public vote" ... So if Corbyn really means referendum then why the need for ambiguity?

Weasel words are the standard in politics. If you call it a "referendum" then people think of it as a simple re-run, whereas a "People's Vote" can be defined as confirmation (or not) of a Brexit deal. Yes, it's dumb.

To be honest, I don't give a damn what he personally believes in so long as the chance to vote Deal or Remain (or, I guess, No Deal or Remain) is on Labour's manifesto.

His plan is to form a "strictly time limited Government" under the Fix Term Parliaments Act any Government would be "strictly time limited" to May 2022, so there is no new information there.

There's a built-in safeguard here: anything he tries to do beyond the "get extension and call an election" mandate could easily be vetoed by a majority of MPs (or they could simply call another vote of no confidence). So in the unlikely event that Corbyn really is intending to sneak into power and stay there, he's an utter moron.

Corbyn would try to extend Article 50, but there's nothing about what he would do if he didn't get the extension.

The answer is fairly obvious: he would have to ask parliament to vote (bindingly this time) on No Deal or No Brexit.

At some point Corbyn would call an election, given his popularity ratings the chances of Labour getting a majority are not good.

This is true; what parliament would look like after an election is anyone's guess. But at the very least, the UK will get the chance to vote on parties that are explicitly standing for No Deal (Conservatives), Referendum (Labour) or Revoke (Lib Dems).

If I were to guess at Corbyn's plan, I would say he hopes to shift the balance a little more from the Tories to Labour, such that he could make a majority with another small party or get at least some of his manifesto through as a minority government - as he said, "let them vote against more money for the NHS" or words to that effect.

Now, having led the caretaker government that "saved" Britain from No Deal would be an obvious boost to Corbyn and Labour, which gives other parties good reason to be nervous about him proposing it. If letting someone else lead really does turn out to be the only way to get enough MPs for a caretaker government then yes, I think Corbyn should stand aside - the next election is not worth the country's future. That said, by convention the elected leader of the opposition really is the first in line to form an opposition government...and if Tory rebels are willing to bring down their own government and risk their seats to stop No Deal, but aren't willing to actually back an opposition government that will enact the legislation to stop No Deal, then they're just as guilty of "Meatloafing" as Corbyn is.

Now he claims after forming a Government he would seek to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement at which point he campaign FOR Labour's Brexit deal in a "public vote".

Again, I don't really give a damn if he campaigns for Labour's Brexit deal at a future referendum - in the quite likely event that it's worse than remaining in the EU, Remainers can (and will) all just vote remain and kill the plan.

[gaggedLouise]

The most viral piece of political news in the UK today: Put it next to the coverage of the G7 meeting and Boris' visits to Berlin and Paris last week - BoJo is demonstrating to everyone that he has painted himself into a corner on Brexit, and he really thinks no one has any right to challenge that way he's handling it: instead everyone else, especially parliament, should just shut up and follow him:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/26/boris-johnson-warning-mps-block-no-deal-brexit

Democracy? Sovereignty of the people? Nope, what he's expounding is an authoritarian cult of the Leader. And if he feels he has to close down Parliament to make sure no one can defy him until Brexit is through, he surely would.

[gaggedLouise]

Trump just said at a press briefing that the US and the EU are getting "very close"  to a wide free trade deal. What does that do to the promises he offered Boris?`:)

[Humble Scribe]

Trump just said at a press briefing that the US and the EU are getting "very close"  to a wide free trade deal. What does that do to the promises he offered Boris?`:)

I've long since stopped listening to anything Trump says or tweets. He says whatever passes through his mind at any given moment and is usually lying, misremembering, just making stuff up as he goes along or likely to change his mind tomorrow morning. Believe it when it's signed, and not until.

[Oniya]

I've long since stopped listening to anything Trump says or tweets. He says whatever passes through his mind at any given moment and is usually lying, misremembering, just making stuff up as he goes along or likely to change his mind tomorrow morning. Believe it when it's signed, and not until.

Based on his business practices before taking office, don't even believe it then.   

[Callie Del Noire]

Based on his business practices before taking office, don't even believe it then.   

Yeah he’s reneged on enough contracts I wouldn’t trust him if he paid AHEAD of time.

He’s bankrupted a tone of folks in New York and New Jersey. Last year some guy down in south Florida finally won a case against him for a friggin paint job. Cheap bastard.

[Eye of Horus]

Meanwhile, in the red corner...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49483374

Opposition MPs have agreed a plan, though they are (perhaps understandably) reluctant to leak it for now. Corbyn appears to have compromised by letting MPs exhaust legislative options first - few and uncertain though they may be - before rolling the dice on a VoNC. This is probably sensible, as rebel Tories are more likely to consider voting against Johnson if all other options are already gone.

[gaggedLouise]

The long fight over Brexit, and over Boris' future as PM, is entering one of its peak duels. Possibly the most decisive of them all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49493632

Live updates here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/aug/28/spending-review-set-for-next-week-fuels-election-speculation-live

I hope Elizabeth has the good sense to say NO - what Boris is asking for is both disruptive, divisive and very questionable in terms of democracy.

[SINless]

I hope Elizabeth has the good sense to say NO - what Boris is asking for is both disruptive, divisive and very questionable in terms of democracy.

I doubt she has a choice. Saying no would anger both the Gammon and those supporting government, and they turn violent.
Saying yes angers those already angered by the current course, they'll just have a protest and a moan, and then go home.

Being the grownup in a fight can work against you.

[gaggedLouise]

I doubt she has a choice. Saying no would anger both the Gammon and those supporting government, and they turn violent.
Saying yes angers those already angered by the current course, they'll just have a protest and a moan, and then go home.

Being the grownup in a fight can work against you.

I know, but Brexit is one of the last decisive political fights she'll ever witness, and her choice toiay (or tomorrow) will most likely become part of her legacy, of how her reign will be described after she's been put to rest. And Boris really isn't her kind of guy at all.