Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?
On a side note, I still find it quite funny just how toxic Blair's name is; especially considering just how emphatic his election victories were.
'Car crash'?!.........More like wishful thinking/spin on your part.
Bizarre post.
Why would someone who confesses to having been an ex-Conservative party member who let his membership lapse, who hates the idea of a Corbyn led Labour majority, wish failure upon the Lib Dems?
Mays refusal to engage in televised debate is a disgrace but she's a shrewd old Biddy. Putting herself up for scrutiny would gain her absolutely nothing. She's already won the election. All she needs to do is sit tight and not fuck up.
Which is exactly what she done in the run-up to the Brexit vote. A shrewd Biddy indeed
Mays refusal to engage in televised debate is a disgrace but she's a shrewd old Biddy. Putting herself up for scrutiny would gain her absolutely nothing. She's already won the election. All she needs to do is sit tight and not fuck up.
Which is exactly what she done in the run-up to the Brexit vote. A shrewd Biddy indeed
But still she keeps insisting that she doesn't play political games.
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?.
There are more than two possible answers to this pointless question.
I beg to differ, you're either prepared to share a platform or you're not.
However, even if that were the case, then say it. Don't simply continue giving the same party platitudes when you've been asked multiple times, that makes it clear that you've been blindsided by an obvious question, and doesn't instill much confidence in your leadership abilities.
I think tactical voting is required. The tories will win, but their majority can't be made bigger so voting for the Libs isn't going to put Farron in power, and voting Labour won't put Corbyn in. So in effect a vote for which party is the biggest threat to the conservatives and where the candidate supports a soft Brexit will be a worthwhile one. Even if they win, the tories can still be given a firm message, which is going to be important in the dangerous times ahead!
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?
On a side note, I still find it quite funny just how toxic Blair's name is; especially considering just how emphatic his election victories were.
I don't think that is a fair question to ask him. If he dodged it, good for him. It is only valid if there was a prospect of him sharing a platform with Blair. I think the way the press treat this is just a point scoring game and a disgrace! You can't link all pro Europeans with Blair because he is one. I agree with Blair about Europe but despise the man!
I watched the interview with curiosity, as Liberal Democrat may be the way forward as far as I'm concerned. It's at least a possibility that I want to explore.
That said, he didn't just dodge the question - he flat out ignored it. To add insult to injury, he ignored it by repeating the same lines that he'd said previously, and then subsequently repeated them again when he was asked again.
It very much came across as though he had little of substance to say, and that his preparation since 11am yesterday had simply consisted of remembering a couple of bullet points without any real depth. For a potential voter it came across as very weak.
I dislike Blair, my observation was little more than it being ironic that the man with the greatest victory margins has become so toxic, and for the record - I agree that associating with Blair could be damaging to Farron. I do however believe he should've had the fortitude to state this sentiment himself.
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?.
There are more than two possible answers to this pointless question.
I beg to differ, you're either prepared to share a platform or you're not.
However, even if that were the case, then say it. Don't simply continue giving the same party platitudes when you've been asked multiple times, that makes it clear that you've been blindsided by an obvious question, and doesn't instill much confidence in your leadership abilities.
Blair isn't even in the same party as Farron - so it is a question that shouldn't have been asked! And some questions don't deserve answers!
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?
On a side note, I still find it quite funny just how toxic Blair's name is; especially considering just how emphatic his election victories were.
I don't think that is a fair question to ask him. If he dodged it, good for him. It is only valid if there was a prospect of him sharing a platform with Blair. I think the way the press treat this is just a point scoring game and a disgrace! You can't link all pro Europeans with Blair because he is one. I agree with Blair about Europe but despise the man!
I watched the interview with curiosity, as Liberal Democrat may be the way forward as far as I'm concerned. It's at least a possibility that I want to explore.
That said, he didn't just dodge the question - he flat out ignored it. To add insult to injury, he ignored it by repeating the same lines that he'd said previously, and then subsequently repeated them again when he was asked again.
It very much came across as though he had little of substance to say, and that his preparation since 11am yesterday had simply consisted of remembering a couple of bullet points without any real depth. For a potential voter it came across as very weak.
I dislike Blair, my observation was little more than it being ironic that the man with the greatest victory margins has become so toxic, and for the record - I agree that associating with Blair could be damaging to Farron. I do however believe he should've had the fortitude to state this sentiment himself.
Was that the first interview you have seen with a politician in your life time?
It was notable that the pound went up after the announcement, as many in the City feel that a large Conservative majority would REDUCE the chance of a hard Brexit. May is a pragmatist, but with the current small majority is having to listen to her right wingers to get votes through. A larger majority would enable her to do what she wants
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?.
There are more than two possible answers to this pointless question.
I beg to differ, you're either prepared to share a platform or you're not.
However, even if that were the case, then say it. Don't simply continue giving the same party platitudes when you've been asked multiple times, that makes it clear that you've been blindsided by an obvious question, and doesn't instill much confidence in your leadership abilities.
Blair isn't even in the same party as Farron - so it is a question that shouldn't have been asked!
Blair had stated that parties didn't matter, that individual candidates were the real subject - and people should vote for those that oppose Brexit regardless of party. (At least that's how the BBC framed it.)
As such I can see the interviewers point, a key political figure in recent history - one with no current party ties - has made a statement that seems to support Farron's stance. It's a worthy observation IMO.
Not that it will happen as it involves having a coherent strategy and I am not sure that Labour or the Lib Dems have any hope of that at the moment but...
The opposition parties should vote against the early election (that not even I want) unless they get some major concessions from it. These concessions could range from:- The unlikely - the introduction of PR. The possible - remaining in the single market The likely - TV debates and all Brexit deals to be discussed in parliament (within reason)
If the Government wont play ball then the opposition should say well OK you can have your election but not through the two thirds rule but through the 51% no confidence in this government rule (fixed parliament act).
As unpalatable as it for me to vote Labour, Green or Lib Dem at the moment I will be looking at policies not party leaders. And local candidates and not their party leaders and then I will vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tories.
In a sense this will mean voting for the least worst candidate which is the problem with FPP. To wavering non-Tories this is the best we can do as not voting is not an option.
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?.
There are more than two possible answers to this pointless question.
I beg to differ, you're either prepared to share a platform or you're not.
However, even if that were the case, then say it. Don't simply continue giving the same party platitudes when you've been asked multiple times, that makes it clear that you've been blindsided by an obvious question, and doesn't instill much confidence in your leadership abilities.
Blair isn't even in the same party as Farron - so it is a question that shouldn't have been asked!
Blair had stated that parties didn't matter, that individual candidates were the real subject - and people should vote for those that oppose Brexit regardless of party. (At least that's how the BBC framed it.)
As such I can see the interviewers point, a key political figure in recent history - one with no current party ties - has made a statement that seems to support Farron's stance. It's a worthy observation IMO.
On the 22 June 2016 of the 650 sitting MP's 637 had openly stated their voting intentions. Remain was 479 and Leave 158.
I doubt those figures have changed in terms of beliefs but in terms of political expediency pretty much every sitting MP now will come out with the 'Brexit is Brexit' line and we must get the best deal for Britain (as opposed to the thought that anyone would say the opposite!).
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?.
There are more than two possible answers to this pointless question.
I beg to differ, you're either prepared to share a platform or you're not. .
You didn't give simple yes or no options in your two possibilities.
Party platitudes is what politicians do. May and Sturgeon are the best at it.
For my entire long life I have lived in constituencies in which, although I have always voted, I knew my vote would not make the slightest difference to the result. Bring in proportional representation!
Farron has had a bit of a car-crash interview on BBC Breakfast this morning. Tony Blair was mentioned as asking voters to go for the candidates that will oppose Brexit the most, a message that ties in closer with the Liberal Democrats than Labour.
This led to a fairly simple question being pointed towards Farron, specifically "Would you share a platform with Tony Blair?". After a lot of waffle the question has to be presented to him again - "I don't think there was a Yes or No in there?". Rather than answer the question as requested, his just verbally craps out more party lines and platitudes.
You're the leader of a political party FFS! Just say "Although I didn't agree with many of the decisions of Blair's government, I do feel there is some common ground on this issue and would be open to sharing a platform in opposition to Brexit.", or alternatively "Whilst I did campaign to remain in the UK like Mr. Blair, I feel that the British people have cast their votes and expressed their wishes. We shouldn't oppose that wish, but we need to ensure we get the best deal, and for that reason I wouldn't share a platform with Mr.Blair.". Not hard, is it?.
There are more than two possible answers to this pointless question.
I beg to differ, you're either prepared to share a platform or you're not. .
You didn't give simple yes or no options in your two possibilities.
Party platitudes is what politicians do. May and Sturgeon are the best at it.
To be fair all parties do it:
Tories: "we're the responsible ones" Labour: "vote for us, everyone else is a Tory" SNP: "vote for us, everyone else is a Tory"
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
An opinion that I happen to largely agree with, but your average Labour voter doesn't really care about things like that and they just come out with some sort of diatribe about how all Conservatives just want poor and ill people dead, whilst selling all the assets off to their pals in some sort of Putinist fire-sale, as is often seen on here. All it takes is a couple of speeches on that and they will vote for anyone wearing the red tie.
Alan Johnson was the kind of politician Labour really needed... But someone like Starmer is the best they really have now.
John McDonnell this morning on BBC Breakfast. Having said his party had been ready for an election and had been preparing since last November, he was asked what the party's slogan would be. He said "watch this space". Call me old-fashioned but "watch this space" doesn't seem like a killer slogan to me.
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
If Keir Starmer's a Trot, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
If Keir Starmer's a Trot, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
If Keir Starmer's a Trot, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Good morning Your Grace. The C of E is rich, any chance you could take over Charlton?
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
If Keir Starmer's a Trot, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.
If it wasn't for the coalition with the Tories in the last government, and Nick Clegg had held back his ascension to this election, with the Brexit reversal being one of their key policies, I could genuinely see them having more seats than Labour, if everything else remained constant.
Unfortunate for them in many ways.
I genuinely think if you are a remainer who cares/believes that much about how "bad" Brexit is/is going to be voting Lib Dem is the only real choice in this election, certainly for many in here I would see that as the only logical choice.
Because of this I really expect them to do well, they just don't have the right leader. I think they would actually do better bringing Clegg back and ditching Farron despite everything that has happened with Clegg.
They have a huge opportunity here, but I don't think they will grab it.
I see where you are coming from but what can they actually achieve? To get 40 seats would be monumental for them this time and frankly that won't put them anywhere near opposition.
I agree that as things stand today, 40 seats would be monumental, but this amount of time before Clegg's monumental rise people wouldn't have thought much of them.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Yeah, just what we need - another poncy Camden trot. He was hopeless at the CPS and hopeless as DPP.
If Keir Starmer's a Trot, I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why is the interviewer asking the platform question though except to try and embarrass somehow and score points, how is that relevant? If they ask those questions expect those answers.
Having said that I wish Blaire would retire from public life, his image is so tarnished he can do no good whatever.
So far on PMQ'S May's line is I am better than Corbyn. It is also clear that her strategy is to turn the election issue to BREXIT at every opportunity. She may be at risk of being prematurely triumphalist which may go down badly with some people. She wants to cite her role in Brexit negotiations as a reason to back her, but you can bet your bottom new pound coin that there will be no detail about Brexit revealed during this campaign. It is about her saying 'I am better than Corbyn, so even though I am a hopeless liàr vote for me anyway as I mess up the negotiations because you don't know how badly I will fail yet, nobody does'.
Comments
Why would someone who confesses to having been an ex-Conservative party member who let his membership lapse, who hates the idea of a Corbyn led Labour majority, wish failure upon the Lib Dems?
A shrewd Biddy indeed
However, even if that were the case, then say it. Don't simply continue giving the same party platitudes when you've been asked multiple times, that makes it clear that you've been blindsided by an obvious question, and doesn't instill much confidence in your leadership abilities.
That said, he didn't just dodge the question - he flat out ignored it. To add insult to injury, he ignored it by repeating the same lines that he'd said previously, and then subsequently repeated them again when he was asked again.
It very much came across as though he had little of substance to say, and that his preparation since 11am yesterday had simply consisted of remembering a couple of bullet points without any real depth. For a potential voter it came across as very weak.
I dislike Blair, my observation was little more than it being ironic that the man with the greatest victory margins has become so toxic, and for the record - I agree that associating with Blair could be damaging to Farron. I do however believe he should've had the fortitude to state this sentiment himself.
As such I can see the interviewers point, a key political figure in recent history - one with no current party ties - has made a statement that seems to support Farron's stance. It's a worthy observation IMO.
The opposition parties should vote against the early election (that not even I want) unless they get some major concessions from it. These concessions could range from:-
The unlikely - the introduction of PR.
The possible - remaining in the single market
The likely - TV debates and all Brexit deals to be discussed in parliament (within reason)
If the Government wont play ball then the opposition should say well OK you can have your election but not through the two thirds rule but through the 51% no confidence in this government rule (fixed parliament act).
In a sense this will mean voting for the least worst candidate which is the problem with FPP. To wavering non-Tories this is the best we can do as not voting is not an option.
I doubt those figures have changed in terms of beliefs but in terms of political expediency pretty much every sitting MP now will come out with the 'Brexit is Brexit' line and we must get the best deal for Britain (as opposed to the thought that anyone would say the opposite!).
Fecking politicians - I hate them all.
If they can successfully market themselves as the Brexit reversal party, I think they could mop up a huge amount of votes, especially because of the way Labour are floundering. This is, again as many have said on here, an election that is about nothing other than Brexit, as little as we may want that to be the case.
If I was Farron, I would be getting Clegg out there as much as possible (he is their Brexit guy isn't he?) chanting that message, if Farron can improve his charisma a bit, then maybe he can promise to be unlike Clegg (wasn't he against the coalition at the time?) whilst at the same time using Clegg's charisma to push the "vote for us and Brexit won't happen" add to that all of the SNP members that will be returned, and anti Brexit anti Tory people have the best possible outcome, it will provide the strongest possible opposition to Brexit in Parliament...
The problem Labour then have is that they will have to completely change their leadership election method again, in order to prevent the resurrection of JC or one of his disciples...
Labour needs a Starmer, not a McDonnel.
Party platitudes is what politicians do. May and Sturgeon are the best at it.
Tories: "we're the responsible ones"
Labour: "vote for us, everyone else is a Tory"
SNP: "vote for us, everyone else is a Tory"
Alan Johnson was the kind of politician Labour really needed... But someone like Starmer is the best they really have now.
The C of E is rich, any chance you could take over Charlton?
Having said that I wish Blaire would retire from public life, his image is so tarnished he can do no good whatever.
She wants to cite her role in Brexit negotiations as a reason to back her, but you can bet your bottom new pound coin that there will be no detail about Brexit revealed during this campaign.
It is about her saying 'I am better than Corbyn, so even though I am a hopeless liàr vote for me anyway as I mess up the negotiations because you don't know how badly I will fail yet, nobody does'.