Topic: General political discussion Part II

[ShakaHislop]

UK government borrowing up by a fifth over past six months

Public sector borrowing has risen by a fifth during the first half of the financial year, official figures show.

Borrowing for the six months to September has now hit £40.3bn, up £7.4bn from the same period in 2018.

In the month of September, borrowing was £9.4bn - slightly lower than expected but still up from £8.8bn last year.

The figures raise questions about the chancellor's room to manoeuvre in next month's Budget.

Sajid Javid has said he is "turning the page on austerity" and promised big spending rises in his November statement.

But John Hawksworth, chief economist at PwC, said: "Today's data showed the UK public finances heading further into the red, with the deficit more than £7bn higher in the first half of this financial year than the same period last year.

"This borrowing overshoot will not make the chancellor's choices any easier as he heads towards his first Budget on 6 November."

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the borrowing figures for September mark the first annual rise in that month for five years.

The increase comes despite the government receiving a £1.1bn dividend boost last month from part-nationalised lender Royal Bank of Scotland.

The ONS said borrowing was pushed higher due to seasonal payments of £2bn for winter fuel and £2.7bn of student loan write-offs - both of which are recorded in September each year.

Mr Javid plans to set out new long-term fiscal rules in next month's Budget.

Currently the rules state that borrowing should remain below 2% of national income, but most expect him to relax this.

"September's better-than-expected public finance figures do not change this year's overarching themes of higher spending and borrowing. If anything, today's release will only encourage the chancellor to loosen fiscal policy at the Budget next month," said Thomas Pugh, UK economist at Capital Economics.

"We already know that the chancellor wants to review the fiscal rules in the Budget on 6 November, as there is very little chance of hitting the current ones.

"We don't know what the new fiscal rules will be, but they are likely to allow for a substantial loosening of fiscal policy at the Budget, which would support economic growth. Of course, whether this happens depends on whether there is a Brexit deal."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50137772

[Alan_X]

I do think Labour's Brexit position is going to be problematic in an election campaign.

The govt do seem to have successfully fostered the narrative that we just need to get on with it, and that it has been hanging over us too long.

I'm really not sure how much appetite there is now for a further renegotiation with no idea of what that deal will look like by the end of it, and with no idea if Labour will camapign for or against the deal in the lengthy referendum campaign that follows.

Like others I'm not saying the position is wrong or isn't sensible when you really think about it but it is a tough sell to the public.

If it's that tough a sell it's never going to win. The argument is pretty much lost now.   

"I want Brexit..."
"We'll negotiate a new deal and then give you a referendum which we may campaign for or maybe campaign to remain in the EU..." 
"I want Brexit, Boris has a deal, we had a referendum and we won.... I'll vote Tory..."

or:

"I want Brexit..."
"We'll negotiate a new deal and then give you a referendum which we may campaign for or maybe campaign to remain in the EU..." 
"I want Brexit, Boris has a deal, we had a referendum and we won.... I won't vote Tory so I'll vote Brexit Party..."

or:

"I want to Remain..."
"We'll negotiate a new deal and then give you a referendum which we may campaign for or maybe campaign to remain in the EU..." 
"I want to Remain, I will vote for a party that is committed to Remain, I'll vote Lib Dems or Green..."

or:

"I'm fed up with the whole thing..."
"We'll negotiate a new deal and then give you a referendum which we may campaign for or maybe campaign to remain in the EU..." 
"I'm fed up with the whole thing, Boris has a deal, we had a referendum... I'll vote for anyone who isn't going to prolong this whole fucking thing any longer..."


No one in their right mind actually wants a referendum as a first preference or yet another attempt to negotiate yet another version of the Withdrawal Agreement.

[Elmo!]

Potentially 5 weeks out from a GE and Unites priority is deselecting the MP in Scotland with the biggest Labour majority. McCluskey needs to fuck off.

If a Corbynite/Momentum candidate ends up runnign for Labour in Ian Murrays constituency, that majority is getting wiped out. It is a wealthy constituency with a lot of small 'c' conservatives. Murray knows his voters well and retains his high majority due to a large personal vote.

[So… Howard Philips]

And in local news the in fighting has started to replace three Labour MPs;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-50142837

[Trada]

Jonathan Ashworth
‏Verified account @JonAshworth

🚨Tory MPs voted to defeat (with help of the Lib Dems who abstained) our attempt to safeguard the NHS from a Trump deal sell off that locks in privatisation.

The truth is shown yet again only Labour can be trusted with our NHS.

[Red-Soldier]

Jonathan Ashworth
‏Verified account @JonAshworth

🚨Tory MPs voted to defeat (with help of the Lib Dems who abstained) our attempt to safeguard the NHS from a Trump deal sell off that locks in privatisation.

The truth is shown yet again only Labour can be trusted with our NHS.

Yeah, that's not good from the Lib Dems.  Seven Labour MPs abstained to.

[Red Viper]

Jonathan Ashworth
‏Verified account @JonAshworth

🚨Tory MPs voted to defeat (with help of the Lib Dems who abstained) our attempt to safeguard the NHS from a Trump deal sell off that locks in privatisation.

The truth is shown yet again only Labour can be trusted with our NHS.

Great set of lads those Lib Dems. Glad loads on this forum love them so much

[Zeb]

Still trying to figure out what Labour's proposed amendment actually meant. Repeal the 2012 NHS Act then ? which then protects the NHS from future trade deals.

Works for election leaflets, I suppose. SNP and Lib Dems do similar with their amendments so meh.

[ShakaHislop]

Still trying to figure out what Labour's proposed amendment actually meant. Repeal the 2012 NHS Act then ? which then protects the NHS from future trade deals.

Works for election leaflets, I suppose. SNP and Lib Dems do similar with their amendments so meh.

That's what it reads like to me. Surprise surprise Trada, and more disappointingly Ashworth, is being disingenuous.

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regrets that the Gracious Speech does not repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to restore a publicly provided and administered National Health Service and protect it from future trade agreements that would allow private companies competing for services who put profit before public health and that could restrict policy decisions taken in the public interest.”

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-10-23/debates/08C96380-84AA-48F3-B9E0-720107995F68/TheNationalHealthService

[Red-Soldier]

Still trying to figure out what Labour's proposed amendment actually meant. Repeal the 2012 NHS Act then ? which then protects the NHS from future trade deals.

Works for election leaflets, I suppose. SNP and Lib Dems do similar with their amendments so meh.

With the Queen’s Speech debate back in parliament today (Wednesday), the Labour Party has secured focus on the NHS and will force a vote to rule out privatisation and any future Trump-style deals.

In a parliamentary procedure known as a ‘regret motion’, Labour will make the case against NHS privatisation and expose the failings of the Conservative Government’s Queen’s Speech in relation to the NHS. Labour will force a vote to get parliament’s backing to bring the NHS back into the hands of the public, specifically calling on parliament to fully protect the NHS from all aspects of future trade agreements.

 

Jonathan Ashworth MP, Labour’s shadow health secretary, said:

“The truth is that thanks to the Tory reorganisation of the NHS, where billions of pounds of health contracts are privatised every year, the NHS is on the table in any trade deal with Donald Trump.

“The Tory sell-out deal will see US corporates running more NHS services while big US pharmaceutical companies force our NHS to pay more for vital medicines.

“Under the Tories, NHS privatisation has more than doubled. The only way to protect our NHS is to bin the Tory privatisation rules and restore a public NHS for all.”


The debate will take place this afternoon and will be opened by Jonathan Ashworth and closed by Barry Gardiner, shadow international trade secretary.
   
Labour’s amendment to the Queens Speech expresses parliament’s regret that the speech: “[D]oes not repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to restore a publicly provided and administered National Health Service and protect it from future trade agreements that would allow private companies competing for services who put profit before public health and that could restrict policy decisions taken in the public interest.”

https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-seeks-to-rule-out-nhs-privatisation-in-commons-vote-today/

The SNP, Greens, Plaid, and 3 Change MPs voted with Labour.

[classycarra]

That's what it reads like to me. Surprise surprise Trada, and more disappointingly Ashworth, is being disingenuous.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-10-23/debates/08C96380-84AA-48F3-B9E0-720107995F68/TheNationalHealthService

It's grandstanding bollocks. Designed to be meaningless (or maybe they're that dumb, Ashworth certainly is) so people don't bother voting on it - since it literally does as much to the legislation as a tweet - and then create a whinge afterwards and tell people to attack the lib dems (helping southern Tories in the upcoming election).

[Zeb]

With the Queen’s Speech debate back in parliament today (Wednesday), the Labour Party has secured focus on the NHS and will force a vote to rule out privatisation and any future Trump-style deals.

In a parliamentary procedure known as a ‘regret motion’, Labour will make the case against NHS privatisation and expose the failings of the Conservative Government’s Queen’s Speech in relation to the NHS. Labour will force a vote to get parliament’s backing to bring the NHS back into the hands of the public, specifically calling on parliament to fully protect the NHS from all aspects of future trade agreements.

 

Jonathan Ashworth MP, Labour’s shadow health secretary, said:

“The truth is that thanks to the Tory reorganisation of the NHS, where billions of pounds of health contracts are privatised every year, the NHS is on the table in any trade deal with Donald Trump.

“The Tory sell-out deal will see US corporates running more NHS services while big US pharmaceutical companies force our NHS to pay more for vital medicines.

“Under the Tories, NHS privatisation has more than doubled. The only way to protect our NHS is to bin the Tory privatisation rules and restore a public NHS for all.”


The debate will take place this afternoon and will be opened by Jonathan Ashworth and closed by Barry Gardiner, shadow international trade secretary.
   
Labour’s amendment to the Queens Speech expresses parliament’s regret that the speech: “[D]oes not repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to restore a publicly provided and administered National Health Service and protect it from future trade agreements that would allow private companies competing for services who put profit before public health and that could restrict policy decisions taken in the public interest.”

https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-seeks-to-rule-out-nhs-privatisation-in-commons-vote-today/

The SNP, Greens, Plaid, and 3 Change MPs voted with Labour.

Yeah, I got the press release. Looking for the explanation of the gap between what Ashworth says it's for and what the amendment says it wants. "We will reorganise the NHS" is perfectly fine as a political aspiration. Not sure how that stops the US telling a Tory government that the NHS needs to pay what US pharma wants for meds rather than the NHS using its power to negotiate them down. I'm all for political signalling though.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

It's grandstanding bollocks. Designed to be meaningless (or maybe they're that dumb, Ashworth certainly is) so people don't bother voting on it - since it literally does as much to the legislation as a tweet - and then create a whinge afterwards and tell people to attack the lib dems (helping southern Tories in the upcoming election).

yup, but it works with some

[Trada]

It's grandstanding bollocks. Designed to be meaningless (or maybe they're that dumb, Ashworth certainly is) so people don't bother voting on it - since it literally does as much to the legislation as a tweet - and then create a whinge afterwards and tell people to attack the lib dems (helping southern Tories in the upcoming election).

Oh yes the old protecting the NHS from Trump is grandstanding and meaningless......


Fucking Lib dems like you are the fucking pits.... full of shit and backing the Tories.

A fucking disgrace.

The Lib Dems the most pointless political party ever.

[Circa1892]

Such a pleasant tone.

[No666]

Seeing as they're the only one of the three main parties to back Remain unequivocally, they have a new 'point' for me that they've never had before.

[classycarra]

Oh yes the old protecting the NHS from Trump is grandstanding and meaningless......


Fucking Lib dems like you are the fucking pits.... full of shit and backing the Tories.

A fucking disgrace.

The Lib Dems the most pointless political party ever.

Always voted Labour - unlike you, flaunting the zeal of the convert.

If you cut through your hatred and applied some kind of critical thought you'd realise that the motion literally does nothing to protect the NHS from US trade deals. Remaining in the EU, on the other hand, does.

But you want a Labour brexit - so I'm not sure you really give too much of a shit about the NHS, you're more just doing as you're told by those who know how to whip up Corbyn's diminishing group of supporters.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's grandstanding bollocks. Designed to be meaningless (or maybe they're that dumb, Ashworth certainly is) so people don't bother voting on it - since it literally does as much to the legislation as a tweet - and then create a whinge afterwards and tell people to attack the lib dems (helping southern Tories in the upcoming election).

What harm would it have done the Lib Dems to vote with it, and nail their colours to the anti-privatisation mast?

[Zeb]

Committing to another multi-year re-organisation of the NHS, when that one is still being tinkered with, in an amendment designed to try and embarrass them is something the Lib Dems will sit out. If we're back to 'abstaining means you support the opposite' then Labour need to stop doing it on stuff they don't want to take a position on yet too (including Tory budgets implementing further cuts!). It's all part of the punch and judy of parliamentary politics. Lib Dems are at it today with:



If Labour want a referendum they'll support this? If they abstain, they don't? Lib Dems will lump on large with the second when it happens. Labour will have a fair point that it's intended to highlight their own divisions on the subject rather than do anything constructive towards getting one.

So it goes.

[classycarra]

What harm would it have done the Lib Dems to vote with it, and nail their colours to the anti-privatisation mast?

Were they even in the chamber? Maybe they just don't want to be associated with such a dumbed-down lowest-common-denomitor piece of political game playing, with absolutely no sincere concern for improving health?

An actual appraisal of the Health and Social Care Act can be a lot more fruitful than tribal over simplified 'repeal it'. And if Labour actually set out what their alternative legislation would look like, that would be even better and constructive.

We don't need more slash and burn redesign of the entire public health infrastructure, which repealing the Act would bring about. Health in particular is an area that is constantly fucked over by the cyclical nature of governments coming in and wanting to make their mark, when good public health requires a bit more than three years of throwing money at a new idea then not waiting to see how it works out. It needs collaboration over decades, not each party saying 'got to get rid, even though it's working, cos Labour did it'

Of course the easiest way to protect the NHS would be to remain in the EU bloc. Maybe some of the people who were activated by the labour tweeting on this non-issue could have been a bit less accommodating protecting a leader at odds with this for the last few years.

[Nobby Reserve]

Were they even in the chamber? Maybe they just don't want to be associated with such a dumbed-down lowest-common-denomitor piece of political game playing, with absolutely no sincere concern for improving health?

An actual appraisal of the Health and Social Care Act can be a lot more fruitful than tribal over simplified 'repeal it'. And if Labour actually set out what their alternative legislation would look like, that would be even better and constructive.

We don't need more slash and burn redesign of the entire public health infrastructure, which repealing the Act would bring about. Health in particular is an area that is constantly fucked over by the cyclical nature of governments coming in and wanting to make their mark, when good public health requires a bit more than three years of throwing money at a new idea then not waiting to see how it works out. It needs collaboration over decades, not each party saying 'got to get rid, even though it's working, cos Labour did it'

Of course the easiest way to protect the NHS would be to remain in the EU bloc. Maybe some of the people who were activated by the labour tweeting on this non-issue could have been a bit less accommodating protecting a leader at odds with this for the last few years.

When taxpayer money is leeched out of the NHS into the pockets of executives & directors of parasitic private companies (not to mention shareholders) - private companies taking on NHS tasks from cleaning to operations - then that is money that is lost to being devoted to clinical care.

You can try to obfuscate about the pernicious impact of creeping privatisation all you want, by claiming that the last thing the NHS needs right now is more reform, but if the current trajectory of the NHS is plain wrong and immoral, then continuing further down that path takes us further away from where we need to be.

[classycarra]

When taxpayer money is leeched out of the NHS into the pockets of executives & directors of parasitic private companies (not to mention shareholders) - private companies taking on NHS tasks from cleaning to operations - then that is money that is lost to being devoted to clinical care.

Lots of words. Relevance?

You can try to obfuscate about the pernicious impact of creeping privatisation all you want, by claiming that the last thing the NHS needs right now is more reform, but if the current trajectory of the NHS is plain wrong and immoral, then continuing further down that path takes us further away from where we need to be.

You fucking what? How am I obfuscating? I haven't even talked about privatisation. You are literally making no sense, replying to things that aren't there, and read like an example from Politics and the English Language.

Why don't you calm down a tad, act like the word privatisation hasn't got you aroused, and reread my answer to your own question in which you asked me to answer from the Lib Dems perspective?

I work in the public sector in public health. I am vehemently opposed to privatisation. I am also vehemently opposed to the health sector being used as a political football, and dumbed down for black and white tribal conversations. For a start I'd love it if people would actually give as much of a shit about public health as they did about healthcare. Long term investment in the former would go a lot further than investment in healthcare that doesn't prevent people from having to attend hospitals so frequently.

Alas 'our public health' isn't as good on a badge as 'our NHS' for whichever red blue or yellow tribe someone cares more about that peoples health

[Nobby Reserve]

Lots of words. Relevance?

It didn't seem a particularly complex statement, but if you need it dumbing-down, then I guess it could be summarised as:

If taxpayer money is going into the pockets of very highly-paid executives/directors and shareholders of private companies providing services to the NHS, then that money is lost to being able to be used to provide treatment and care for patients.

You fucking what? How am I obfuscating? I haven't even talked about privatisation. You are literally making no sense, replying to things that aren't there, and read like an example from Politics and the English Language.

Why don't you calm down a tad, act like the word privatisation hasn't got you aroused, and reread my answer to your own question in which you asked me to answer from the Lib Dems perspective?

I work in the public sector in public health. I am vehemently opposed to privatisation. I am also vehemently opposed to the health sector being used as a political football, and dumbed down for black and white tribal conversations. For a start I'd love it if people would actually give as much of a shit about public health as they did about healthcare. Long term investment in the former would go a lot further than investment in healthcare that doesn't prevent people from having to attend hospitals so frequently.

Alas 'our public health' isn't as good on a badge as 'our NHS' for whichever red blue or yellow tribe someone cares more about that peoples health

You literally said "We don't need more slash and burn redesign of the entire public health infrastructure, which repealing the Act would bring about"

Now you claim to be vehemently opposed to privatisation?

I struggle to see how the two positions - opposing the repeal of the 2012 Act and being 'vehemently opposed to privatisation' - can be reconciled, as the Act has at its core the principle of expanding privatisation and private provision of treatment.

If you have a bit of a knowledge gap about the 2012 Act, perhaps the following suggested reading could help you:



https://unitetheunion.org/media/1365/unite-politics-briefing-privatised-nhs.pdf

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/nhs-being-privatised

https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/working%20for%20change/policy%20and%20lobbying/bma-independentsectorprovisionofnhscare-18042016-2.pdf?la=en

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/health-act-means-death-of-nhs

[classycarra]

It didn't seem a particularly complex statement, but if you need it dumbing-down, then I guess it could be summarised as:

If taxpayer money is going into the pockets of very highly-paid executives/directors and shareholders of private companies providing services to the NHS, then that money is lost to being able to be used to provide treatment and care for patients.

More irrelevant words. Ta for that. Nothing remotely complicated in your posts, but thanks for the concern - it's just they had nowt to do with my answer to the question you posed.

You literally said "We don't need more slash and burn redesign of the entire public health infrastructure, which repealing the Act would bring about"

Now you claim to be vehemently opposed to privatisation?

I struggle to see how the two positions - opposing the repeal of the 2012 Act and being 'vehemently opposed to privatisation' - can be reconciled, as the Act has at its core the principle of expanding privatisation and private provision of treatment.

Claim to be Alright, Poirot

Like I said, deactivate whatever it is that's been triggered by the Lib Dems, and maybe slow down and reread what you're replying to. You might even see that before you even went off on one I welcome the prospect of the legislation being reviewed and amended.

It seems that this has all come about because you don't understand what repeal means? Look it up and your struggles reconciling those two short sentences will all be gone.

If you have a bit of a knowledge gap about the 2012 Act, perhaps the following suggested reading could help you:

I don't, but thanks for sending some years old bookmarks nonetheless.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Oh yes the old protecting the NHS from Trump is grandstanding and meaningless......


Fucking Lib dems like you are the fucking pits.... full of shit and backing the Tories.

A fucking disgrace.

The Lib Dems the most pointless political party ever.

Have you considered, Trada, that maybe, just maybe, you are being led by the nose!?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Oh yes the old protecting the NHS from Trump is grandstanding and meaningless......


Fucking Lib dems like you are the fucking pits.... full of shit and backing the Tories.

A fucking disgrace.

The Lib Dems the most pointless political party ever.

Always voted Labour - unlike you, flaunting the zeal of the convert.

If you cut through your hatred and applied some kind of critical thought you'd realise that the motion literally does nothing to protect the NHS from US trade deals. Remaining in the EU, on the other hand, does.

But you want a Labour brexit - so I'm not sure you really give too much of a shit about the NHS, you're more just doing as you're told by those who know how to whip up Corbyn's diminishing group of supporters.

Labour are Trada's team. And that would be fine if Labour were a football club. Trada, Labour are a political party, not a footy club! Loyalty is generally a fine quality. However, Unquestioning loyalty is the root of tyranny. Never, ever give into it. I would not paint all present Labour Party supporters with same brush, but you belong to the extreme, jackboot* end of the spectrum.

* I used the term advisedly.

[ShakaHislop]

Oh yes the old protecting the NHS from Trump is grandstanding and meaningless......


Fucking Lib dems like you are the fucking pits.... full of shit and backing the Tories.

A fucking disgrace.

The Lib Dems the most pointless political party ever.

They've been in government more recently than Labour.

[PatriotScouser]

They've been in government more recently than Labour.

Indeed and did a much worse job of it

[Alan_X]

Indeed and did a much worse job of it

Not according to the Corbynistas...

[BoRed]

Committing to another multi-year re-organisation of the NHS, when that one is still being tinkered with, in an amendment designed to try and embarrass them is something the Lib Dems will sit out. If we're back to 'abstaining means you support the opposite' then Labour need to stop doing it on stuff they don't want to take a position on yet too (including Tory budgets implementing further cuts!). It's all part of the punch and judy of parliamentary politics. Lib Dems are at it today with:



If Labour want a referendum they'll support this? If they abstain, they don't? Lib Dems will lump on large with the second when it happens. Labour will have a fair point that it's intended to highlight their own divisions on the subject rather than do anything constructive towards getting one.

So it goes.

Luckily Bercow hasn't selected it for debate.

[Mutton Geoff]

Have you considered, Trada, that maybe, just maybe, you are being led by the nose!?

I generally just read the posts these days for amusement mainly but the one about glass houses applies here , Trada is maybe taking in what he reads and is in your words led by nose, but the majority of you lap up any shit on Corbyn and the Labour party that you are spoon fed by a virulent right wing media and could be said in fact to be collectively led by the nose.

The other thing i find amusing is the amount of people in this thread that will defend the Lib Dems at all costs, a party who when they sniffed the Tories petticoats as some wonderful power trip,  and then shat on this society and the most vulnerable within it without a second thought.

As for these cynical clowns supporting remain it is just a manipulation to try gain some much needed support with promises they know they can never deliver or are expected to deliver because their performance with the coalition decimated their MP's and any trust in them.

[classycarra]

As for these cynical clowns supporting remain it is just a manipulation to try gain some much needed support with promises they know they can never deliver or are expected to deliver because their performance with the coalition decimated their MP's and any trust in them.

It's cynical of the Lib Dems to be pro remain, as they were pre-referendum? That's a new take.

Same applies for the Corbyn leadership to be fair though. Four years in now, and never once looked like they have a hope in hell of getting elected so they'd be expected to deliver one of their policies

[Mutton Geoff]

It's cynical of the Lib Dems to be pro remain, as they were pre-referendum? That's a new take.

Same applies for the Corbyn leadership to be fair though. Four years in now, and never once looked like they have a hope in hell of getting elected so they'd be expected to deliver one of their policies

I knew you would be the first to defend them leopards an all that! Bye

[classycarra]

I knew you would be the first to defend them leopards an all that! Bye

What is it about Lib Dems that gets some peoples blood flowing

One mention of their name and all reason (and some literacy) has disappeared.

If someone makes a claim then refuting that claim with objective reality, pointing out how silly it is, somehow counts as defending them?

[filopastry]

What is it about Lib Dems that gets some peoples blood flowing

One mention of their name and all reason (and some literacy) has disappeared.

If someone makes a claim then refuting that claim with objective reality, pointing out how silly it is, somehow counts as defending them?

There seems to be some kind of view that the LDs are stealing voters who somewhow belong to Labour, that if the LDs were despatched all of their potential voters would return to the fold and happily vote for a Corbyn led Labour party.

For all the talk of a Remain alliance incl Labour there are a hell of a lot of Lab voters who would not vote LD under any corcumstances and vice versa.

For as appalling as the Tory results were the Euro elections were, I said at the time that I felt they would be more successful in stitching together a pro-Brexit electoral coaltion than Labour could ever be in stitching together a pro-Remain one, and that is still my view, even though I expect Lab to outperform their current polls in an election by squeezing the LDs a bit and and bringing some undecided former Lab voters home.

[filopastry]

Govt will push a motion on a GE on Monday

[Nobby Reserve]

Govt will push a motion on a GE on Monday

12th December I've read.

It's going to cost the tax-dodging shysters who fund the Tory Party a lot to pay enough people to canvass for them on cold, December nights.

And a massive battle for Labour to get its vote out amongst the most disadvantaged. Hopefully, it'll put off a lot of embittered Brexit pensioners, too; wouldn't want them slipping and breaking their hips - might lose the chip on their shoulders.

[filopastry]

12th December I've read.

It's going to cost the tax-dodging shysters who fund the Tory Party a lot to pay enough people to canvass for them on cold, December nights.

And a massive battle for Labour to get its vote out amongst the most disadvantaged. Hopefully, it'll put off a lot of embittered Brexit pensioners, too; wouldn't want them slipping and breaking their hips - might lose the chip on their shoulders.

I think the long nights probably reduce the advantage of Labour's ground game a bit, you just have less time to speak to people on the doorstep in a shortish election campaign.

All depends on the EU's response anyway

[Zeb]

Proposal is for 12th (Johnson's word on it) via Fixed Terms Parliament Act. Needs Labour approval, or several dozen Labour rebels, which doesn't seem to have been asked for in advance. And, even if given, may not give 86 Labour MPs following the whip on it.

Alternative if that fails is to try and pass by simple majority and temporarily amend the Fixed Terms Parliament Act. Problem with amending bills is there's no way for the government to stop the amendment being amended.

[Nobby Reserve]

I think, for the first time ever, I might volunteer to canvass for Labour. My constituency is solid Labour, but Warrington (South especially) is going to need a miracle. If it were the Lib Dems challenging and not Labour, i'd canvass for them.