It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Cummings only does blitzkrieg.
Is there anyone on the Remain side as focused and ruthless as he?
Worth noting that Blitzkrieg was ultimately a failure that destroyed the wehrmacht.
Blitzkrieg wasn't a failure, it was what conquered most of Europe for the Nazis. The Nazi defeat came on the defensive through invasion by Allied powers not the all out attack of blitzkrieg
It failed in Russia big time. Admittedly you need the land and numbers to do this, but fail it did. To quote someone more informed than me 'This put an end to blitzkrieg as a phenomenon of that period of history'.
Blitzkrieg only really worked once - in the Ardennes - and was really little more than the application of surprise against a poorly prepared enemy. Subsequent German successes were mostly down to superior equipment and far, far better Generals.
The MPs who formed Change UK, and many others from both sides of the house, were elected in 2017 by promising to honour the referendum result. When Theresa May and the EU agreed a deal, those MPs gambled that it was worth the risk of no deal to vote against that agreement, in the hope of delaying things long enough to stop Brexit altogether. They allowed this to happen, they voted with the ERG, yet seem beyond criticism.
happened.
I don’t really care what spinners and headline writers make of it, I’m more interested in what individuals did. And they did as I posted.
You don't know that. You are claiming some special insight into their private thoughts that you don't have,
I’m comparing what MPs said in their election campaigns to what they did when elected, it’s not a special insight of mine, just plain facts.
You said that they voted against the withdrawal agreement in an attempt to stop Brexit altogether - but many have said (and voted in the indicative votes) that they would support a deal that would lead to a softer Brexit, such as remaining in the single market.
So your statement is contrary to the known facts.
“The MPs who formed Change UK” weren’t attempting to stop Brexit altogether?
"..and many others from both sides of the house.."
Sure, you can point to some individuals, as I noted, but you can't sweep them all into the same group.
The others gambled on their version of Brexit vs No Deal, and we are where we are.
They voted against something they did not want. If they find that they can vote against something else they don't want - a no deal exit - then we will find we are somewhere else.
If we end up with no Brexit after all, I guess you will be critical of the Brexit supporting MPs who gambled on their version of Brexit vs No Brexit and lost?
Or perhaps it would be too hard for you to criticise people on your side of the grand chasm of British politics?
I criticised them plenty of times on this very site for exactly that, and tweeted Nigel Farage, someone I HAVE followed on Twitter, saying the same thing (although he obviously didn’t vote for or against any deal) so your last couple of paragraphs are ill informed and prejudiced. No MP should have got a vote on the PMs agreement with the EU.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Cummings only does blitzkrieg.
Is there anyone on the Remain side as focused and ruthless as he?
Worth noting that Blitzkrieg was ultimately a failure that destroyed the wehrmacht.
Blitzkrieg wasn't a failure, it was what conquered most of Europe for the Nazis. The Nazi defeat came on the defensive through invasion by Allied powers not the all out attack of blitzkrieg
It failed in Russia big time. Admittedly you need the land and numbers to do this, but fail it did. To quote someone more informed than me 'This put an end to blitzkrieg as a phenomenon of that period of history'.
Blitzkrieg only really worked once - in the Ardennes - and was really little more than the application of surprise against a poorly prepared enemy. Subsequent German successes were mostly down to superior equipment and far, far better Generals.
Evening all. I've been away for a few days in Greece, the cradle of democracy. Looks like I've missed an eventful couple of days.
It does seem as if Johnson and Cummins genuinely believe the No Deal is
No Deal isn't an end point - it just removes all the legal agreements that exist and requires them
Indeed. And when voters are confronted with the reality of No Deal they will remember Boris Johnson closed down Parliament to ensure .
They voted with the ERG, yet seem beyond criticism.
The Tories voted for the Iraq war, Labour owned it. No Deal Brexit will be the property of the former Conservative and Unionist Party, and voters will remember that Boris Johnson said it would be no problem and that he shut down Parliament to ensure it happened.
This is the crux of the issue and why we’re all cross with each oth
But then I’m a dreamer who still prays for common sense to break out and an EFTA compromise to come in. Sadly it’s a bit late for that, given the trenchant positions on the Irish border, and how dug in we all are (see above).
Your sentiments are commendable but dangerously naive.
Just take the Irish border, as one example. The men of violence are already tooling up for the anticipated increase in business which is expected to follow on from a hard Brexit. Yes, it's manageable. So was World War Two. My parents and their relatives were evacuated from the East End to Leicester, and they 'managed'.
Wasn't a bundle of fun though, but unlike Brexit, it wasn't avoidable.
That’s an example of my point. We’re looking at the same data and I’m not convinced we’ll see much uptick in violence in NI (beyond the latest wave). At least not as a direct result of Brexit.
I suspect that where we really differ is that I see leaving the EU as a principled issue of not being sucked into a transnational body. In that context, border issues in NI are something to manage but not a reason not to do it. On the other hand you obviously don’t see it that way, so entirely reasonably view it as mad to do something we don’t have to do which might destabilise things.
It would be better if more folk made an effort to at least understand each other’s views rather than caricature them (not saying you are by the way).
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
That's not true. The Tripartite Pact was a defensive alliance. Hitler was under no obligation to attack the US just because Japan had declared war.
The map will be ideal to devote resources in an election.
Genuine question - is anything emerging from the map that we didn’t already know (or at least assume)?
It is more up-to-date and can be compared to the vote in 2016. Who would have thought Bristol West was the No.1 Remain hotspot.
Don’t we have to be a bit careful in over interpreting a mobilised set of people in an area that may not reflect enough actual votes? To give a silly example if there was a large Uni I’m Eastborne I’d expect it to be red on that map, but I’d still expect the overall area to be strongly enough pro-Brexit that it wouldn’t change the price of metaphorical fish.
Genuinely thinking out loud from a “does this help me decide where to risk my cash on bets” perspective.
If the previous mass petition (People's Vote) is anything to go by it's quite a good guide as to how constituencies are likely to vote. The main problem from a betting viewpoint is that Shadsy can see it too.
Hah! Yes it’s hardly a secret document. Fair point.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Evening all. I've been away for a few days in Greece, the cradle of democracy. Looks like I've missed an eventful couple of days.
It does seem as if Johnson and Cummins genuinely believe the No Deal is
No Deal isn't an end point - it just removes all the legal agreements that exist and requires them
Indeed. And when voters are confronted with the reality of No Deal they will remember Boris Johnson closed down Parliament to ensure .
They voted with the ERG, yet seem beyond criticism.
The Tories voted for the Iraq war, Labour owned it. No Deal Brexit will be the property of the former Conservative and Unionist Party, and voters will remember that Boris Johnson said it would be no problem and that he shut down Parliament to ensure it happened.
This is the crux of the issue and why we’re all cross with each oth
But then I’m a dreamer who still prays for common sense to break out and an EFTA compromise to come in. Sadly it’s a bit late for that, given the trenchant positions on the Irish border, and how dug in we all are (see above).
Your sentiments are commendable but dangerously naive.
Juseicester, and they 'managed'.
Wasn't a bundle of fun though, but unlike Brexit, it wasn't avoidable.
That’s an example of my point. We’re looking at the same data and I’m not convinced we’ll see much uptick in violence in NI (beyond the latest wave). At least not as a direct result of Brexit.
I suspect that where we really differ is that I see leaving the EU as a principled issue of not being s destabilise things.
It would be better if more folk made an effort to at least understand each other’s views rather than caricature them (not saying you are by the way).
My friends in NI say Brexit is already having an effect and not in a good way. If it goes ahead, they will manage. They managed through the Troubles and they will maage the reintroduction of a hard border if they have to. Just bear in mind that it is them that will be doing the managing, not you nor I. Nobody should underestimate what that means in practical and human terms.
And remember I was talking about just one aspect of a hard Brexit. Others on here are better qualified to talk about other aspects - insulin supplies, for example.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
As I have pointed out and as remains absolutely correct it was blitzkrieg that saw the Germans reach Paris and Moscow within 2 years of the outbreak of WW2
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
No, the attack came before a formal declaration of war by Japan. And Germany was only obliged by the Pact to declare war on the USA if the USA (or Allies) attacked Japan.
That SNP score is ridiculous! No net gains. That just isn’t going to happen.
We don't seem to have the SNP share yet with this YouGov poll. Interesting that the LDs would gain just 15 Tory seats on a 9% uniform swing.
Any UNS-based Analysis is pointless in such a flux-ridden environment. I think in Con-LD marginals we will see lots of results like OxWAB in 2017 with big local swings.
That SNP score is ridiculous! No net gains and losing seats to the Tories! That just isn’t going to happen.
I would hope everyone on here can agree that none of these projection models are worth much at the minute. Any election is likely to yield some bonkers results - I doubt we’ll be off to bed early, put it that way.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
No, the attack came before a formal declaration of war by Japan. And Germany was only obliged by the Pact to declare war on the USA if the USA (or Allies) attacked Japan.
Which they did through invading Japanese territory and ultimately attacking mainland Japan too in the Pacific War
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
As I have pointed out and as remains absolutely correct it was blitzkrieg that saw the Germans reach Paris and Moscow within 2 years of the outbreak of WW2
Wrong again. WW2 broke out in September 1939. The battle of Moscow (which the Germans lost) ended in Jan 1942.
That SNP score is ridiculous! No net gains. That just isn’t going to happen.
We don't seem to have the SNP share yet with this YouGov poll. Interesting that the LDs would gain just 15 Tory seats on a 9% uniform swing.
On a uniform swing is key though. Would today's events make you, as a Lab, LD, SNP, PC, or Green voter, make you more or less likely to vote tactically?
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
There was no obligation for Hitler to declare war on the US under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. (Indeed, the terms required more the US not merely to declare war on Japan, it required an atual attack.)
Now might be a good time to admit you made an error.
So you think it's acceptable that an unelected Prime Minister who has yet to face a vote leading a government with no majority pursuing a policy that has never been put to the electorate should seek to impose that policy by suspending Parliament?
Let's take these points one at a time.
I think we can set aside the customary unelected Prime Minister argument. For better or worse, we do not have a directly elected head of Government in this country. Boris Johnson has been appointed according to the prevailing constitutional norms, and may also be removed by them should the Commons wish to do so when it returns next week. Mr Corbyn has signalled his availability to replace Mr Johnson immediately should the numbers exist for him to win a vote of confidence. That would also neatly resolve the issue of which, if any, possible Government can command a Parliamentary majority.
The fact that Boris Johnson's policy has yet to be voted on in Parliament is also irrelevant, because Parliament will have the opportunity to have its say before there is a chance for the policy to be implemented. Given that the Government is completely committed to withdrawal on October 31st regardless of the terms then, if Parliament wishes to veto this policy, it will have to replace the Government. There is sufficient time left in which to do this.
No Deal has not specifically been put to the electorate, but the general concept of staying in or leaving the EU has. The electorate has already voted to leave the EU. If Parliament can't agree to the Withdrawal Agreement that Theresa May negotiated with the EU, and the EU won't negotiate a new Withdrawal Agreement, then the only logical means available to follow through on the referendum result is No Deal. Again, if a majority of MPs believes that most of their constituents don't want No Deal, and that this is a belief they are happy to represent, then the means exists for them to prevent it by replacing the current Government.
(TBC)
The problem is that "no deal Brexit" is actually a combination of two things. Well one thing and a lack of another thing. Parliament has voted for the first thing and failed to vote for the second thing multiple times. If they put leaving the EU into UK law, and refuse to pass a deal, they can't act suddenly suprised that leaving the EU without a deal is the result. Boris has behaved disgracefully but virtually our entire political class is to blame.
Evening all. I've been away for a few days in Greece, the cradle of democracy. Looks like I've missed an eventful couple of days.
It does seem as if Johnson and Cummins genuinely believe the No Deal is
No Deal isn't an end point - it just removes all the legal agreements that exist and requires them
Indeed. And when voters are confronted with the reality of No Deal they will remember Boris Johnson closed down Parliament to ensure .
They voted with the ERG, yet seem beyond criticism.
The Tories voted for the Iraq war, Labour owned it. No Deal Brexit will be the property of the former Conservative and Unionist Party, and voters will remember that Boris Johnson said it would be no problem and that he shut down Parliament to ensure it happened.
This is the crux of the issue and why we’re all cross with each oth
But then I’m a dreamer who still prays for common sense to break out and an EFTA compromise to come in. Sadly it’s a bit late for that, given the trenchant positions on the Irish border, and how dug in we all are (see above).
Your sentiments are commendable but dangerously naive.
Juseicester, and they 'managed'.
Wasn't a bundle of fun though, but unlike Brexit, it wasn't avoidable.
That’s an example of my point. We’re looking at the same data and I’m not convinced we’ll see much uptick in violence in NI (beyond the latest wave). At least not as a direct result of Brexit.
I suspect that where we really differ is that I see leaving the EU as a principled issue of not being s destabilise things.
It would be better if more folk made an effort to at least understand each other’s views rather than caricature them (not saying you are by the way).
My friends in NI say Brexit is already having an effect and not in a good way. If it goes ahead, they will manage. They managed through the Troubles and they will maage the reintroduction of a hard border if they have to. Just bear in mind that it is them that will be doing the managing, not you nor I. Nobody should underestimate what that means in practical and human terms.
And remember I was talking about just one aspect of a hard Brexit. Others on here are better qualified to talk about other aspects - insulin supplies, for example.
Boris has promised there will be no hard border in Ireland
And what then? Pray what is the end purpose? No one seems to have a clue. Thatcher, Attlee, Blair had a programme. This seems to be a Johnson government outside the EU. No more, no less.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
There was no obligation for Hitler to declare war on the US under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. (Indeed, the terms required more the US not merely to declare war on Japan, it required an atual attack.)
Now might be a good time to admit you made an error.
It’s an easy mistake to make what with Hitler’s reputation as a stickler for treaty obligations...
That SNP score is ridiculous! No net gains. That just isn’t going to happen.
We don't seem to have the SNP share yet with this YouGov poll. Interesting that the LDs would gain just 15 Tory seats on a 9% uniform swing.
On a uniform swing is key though. Would today's events make you, as a Lab, LD, SNP, PC, or Green voter, make you more or less likely to vote tactically?
I agree that uniform swing won't be much use at the next GE. A few Tory/LD marginals will probably swing slightly to the Conservatives, whilst others will swing massively to the yellows.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
There was no obligation for Hitler to declare war on the US under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. (Indeed, the terms required more the US not merely to declare war on Japan, it required an atual attack.)
Now might be a good time to admit you made an error.
Given the US invaded Japanese occupied territory in the Pacific War that was merely delaying the inevitable given Hitler's alliance with Japan
That SNP score is ridiculous! No net gains. That just isn’t going to happen.
We don't seem to have the SNP share yet with this YouGov poll. Interesting that the LDs would gain just 15 Tory seats on a 9% uniform swing.
On a uniform swing is key though. Would today's events make you, as a Lab, LD, SNP, PC, or Green voter, make you more or less likely to vote tactically?
I agree that uniform swing won't be much use at the next GE. A few Tory/LD marginals will probably swing slightly to the Conservatives, whilst others will swing massively to the yellows.
And the Tories will lose seats in Scotland, not win more from the SNP!
And what then? Pray what is the end purpose? No one seems to have a clue. Thatcher, Attlee, Blair had a programme. This seems to be a Johnson government outside the EU. No more, no less.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
As I have pointed out and as remains absolutely correct it was blitzkrieg that saw the Germans reach Paris and Moscow within 2 years of the outbreak of WW2
Wrong again. WW2 broke out in September 1939. The battle of Moscow (which the Germans lost) ended in Jan 1942.
The Germans reached Moscow by September 1941, so not wrong at all
Evening all. I've been away for a few days in Greece, the cradle of democracy. Looks like I've missed an eventful couple of days.
It does seem as if Johnson and Cummins genuinely believe the No Deal is
No Deal isn't an end point - it just removes all the legal agreements that exist and requires them
Indeed. And when voters are confronted with the reality of No Deal they will remember Boris Johnson closed down Parliament to ensure .
They voted with the ERG, yet seem beyond criticism.
The Tories voted for the Iraq war, Labour owned it. No Deal Brexit will be the property of the former Conservative and Unionist Party, and voters will remember that Boris Johnson said it would be no problem and that he shut down Parliament to ensure it happened.
This is the crux of the issue and why we’re all cross with each oth
But then I’m a dreamer who still prays for common sense to break out and an EFTA compromise to come in. Sadly it’s a bit late for that, given the trenchant positions on the Irish border, and how dug in we all are (see above).
Your sentiments are commendable but dangerously naive.
Juseicester, and they 'managed'.
Wasn't a bundle of fun though, but unlike Brexit, it wasn't avoidable.
That’s an example of my point. We’re looking at the same data and I’m not convinced we’ll see much uptick in violence in NI (beyond the latest wave). At least not as a direct result of Brexit.
I suspect that where we really differ is that I see leaving the EU as a principled issue of not being s destabilise things.
It would be better if more folk made an effort to at least understand each other’s views rather than caricature them (not saying you are by the way).
My friends in NI say Brexit is already having an effect and not in a good way. If it goes ahead, theynor I. Nobody should underestimate what that means in practical and human terms.
And remember I was talking about just one aspect of a hard Brexit. Others on here are better qualified to talk about other aspects - insulin supplies, for example.
Boris has promised there will be no hard border in Ireland
And he is of course famous for his integrity and honesty.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
No, the attack came before a formal declaration of war by Japan. And Germany was only obliged by the Pact to declare war on the USA if the USA (or Allies) attacked Japan.
Which they did through invading Japanese territory and ultimately attacking mainland Japan too in the Pacific War
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Do I give a shit what you want to patronise me with, no.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Remainers in the autumn
itlerstrategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the USA before Roosevelt declared war on Germany given after Pearl Harbour the USA declared war on Japan obliging the Germans to respond under the Pact.
As I have pointed out and as remains absolutely correct it was blitzkrieg that saw the Germans reach Paris and Moscow within 2 years of the outbreak of WW2
For some reason I thought you had a history degree. Try reading up about the failure of blitzkrieg in the Russian campaign. It was blitzkrieg and the way the Russians dealt with it which was the prime downfall of the German Army here. Don't take my word for it. My knowledge in this area is very limited, but the internet has plenty to say on it from respected sources. Yes blitzkrieg worked in Western Europe. I didn't deny that. I pointed out it was a failure in Russia mainly because of the land mass and the numbers and how Russia utilised these.
Re USA as has been pointed out to you by others here and anything you can read on the subject you are clearly wrong. A little bit of trivial research shows you that the pact did not require that action and that Hitler was also advised he did not have to, so saying the pact required him to is plain wrong.
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Do I give a shit what you want to patronise me with, no.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
You used to be a decent poster with an interesting line on branch activities of your local Conservatives. Latterly you've become the Comical Ali of PB.com.
And what then? Pray what is the end purpose? No one seems to have a clue. Thatcher, Attlee, Blair had a programme. This seems to be a Johnson government outside the EU. No more, no less.
Tory FC will have won the title. That’s it.
And make a fortune from selling the T- shirts and assorted tat no doubt. Just as long as they're happy I suppose.
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Do I give a shit what you want to patronise me with, no.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
You do understand the difference between a prediction of the future and knowledge of a past event don't you? It is not as if we are debating whether Hitler will declare war on the USA?
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Do I give a shit what you want to patronise me with, no.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
You used to be a decent poster with an interesting line on branch activities of your local Conservatives. Latterly you've become the Comical Ali of PB.com.
What happened?
I went against the PB fiscally conservative, socially liberal, anti hard Brexit consensus.
Does it bother me my views are now in a minority on here, no not at all, I will always say what I think regardless of what others think
I am getting pretty pissed off with YouGov's practices. They are once again allowing reporting of the results of a new poll before publishing the tables for the last one (as carried in the Sunday Times with Con on 33%).
Based on current form, we will get no detail beyond what is published in the Times itself for the best part a week.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Remainers in the autumn
itlerstrategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the f the outbreak of WW2
For some reason I thought you had a history degree. Try reading up about the failure of blitzkrieg in the Russian campaign. It was blitzkrieg and the way the Russians dealt with it which was the prime downfall of the German Army here. Don't take my word for it. My knowledge in this area is very limited, but the internet has plenty to say on it from respected sources. Yes blitzkrieg worked in Western Europe. I didn't deny that. I pointed out it was a failure in Russia mainly because of the land mass and the numbers and how Russia utilised these.
Re USA as has been pointed out to you by others here and anything you can read on the subject you are clearly wrong. A little bit of trivial research shows you that the pact did not require that action and that Hitler was also advised he did not have to, so saying the pact required him to is plain wrong.
Do you ever admit you are wrong?
Blitzkrieg failed in Russia because of the Russian winter primarily
A hilarious day with so much faux outrage. If it was so bloody important to navel gaze in Parliament for yet another few weeks more, why didn’t these monkeys cancel the summer recess? Oh yeah, because the Remain Alliance would rather drink spritzers in the Med.
To those screaming coup and dictator, Parliament is STILL sovereign. Pass a simple majority expressing no confidence in the government and it will fall, with the ultimate safeguard of democracy being a new election. But they still don’t have the numbers for the VONC and would likely lose the election anyway.
Oh and the Queen is a fascist facilitator for enacting the centuries old means for a new legislative programme? Please.
It’s not a good feeling when you realise that no matter what you do, you can’t get what you want isn’t it. Swathes of society have got pretty used to that feeling of powerlessness. Ho hum.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
As I have pointed out and as remains absolutely correct it was blitzkrieg that saw the Germans reach Paris and Moscow within 2 years of the outbreak of WW2
Wrong again. WW2 broke out in September 1939. The battle of Moscow (which the Germans lost) ended in Jan 1942.
The Germans reached Moscow by September 1941, so not wrong at all
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Do I give a shit what you want to patronise me with, no.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
You used to be a decent poster with an interesting line on branch activities of your local Conservatives. Latterly you've become the Comical Ali of PB.com.
What happened?
I went against the PB fiscally conservative, socially liberal, anti hard Brexit consensus.
Does it bother me my views are now in a minority on here, no not at all, I will always say what I think regardless of what others think
But you are now rewriting history and even after you are told something is wrong, which you can easily check out, you still stick to your guns.
I am getting pretty pissed off with YouGov's practices. They are once again allowing reporting of the results of a new poll before publishing the tables for the last one (as carried in the Sunday Times with Con on 33%).
Based on current form, we will get no detail beyond what is published in the Times itself for the best part a week.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Remainers in the autumn
itlerstrategic genius and look how that ended for him....
SSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the f the outbreak of WW2
For some reason I thought you had a history degree. Try reading up about the failure of blitzkrieg in the Russian campaign. It was blitzkrieg and the way the Russians dealt with it which was the prime downfall of the German Army here. Don't take my word for it. My knowledge in this area is very limited, but the internet has plenty to say on it from respected sources. Yes blitzkrieg worked in Western Europe. I didn't deny that. I pointed out it was a failure in Russia mainly because of the land mass and the numbers and how Russia utilised these.
Re USA as has been pointed out to you by others here and anything you can read on the subject you are clearly wrong. A little bit of trivial research shows you that the pact did not require that action and that Hitler was also advised he did not have to, so saying the pact required him to is plain wrong.
Do you ever admit you are wrong?
Blitzkrieg failed in Russia because of the Russian winter primarily
Try reading up on it and the Russian tactics. How did the Germans get into that position? If you think about it, it is inconsistent with blitzkrieg isn't it? So how did it happen? They were only there in the winter because of the failure of Blitzkrieg.
PB always exposes any mistakes. I thought it unusual that a poster so supportive of Boris and Brexit invokes German barbarism from WWII to describe Tory Policy and strategy. Lets hope Boris does not want to fashion policies on nazism. Judgement is important in politics and using the wrong analogy can open the advocate up to difficult crossfire...
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Do I give a shit what you want to patronise me with, no.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
You used to be a decent poster with an interesting line on branch activities of your local Conservatives. Latterly you've become the Comical Ali of PB.com.
What happened?
I went against the PB fiscally conservative, socially liberal, anti hard Brexit consensus.
Does it bother me my views are now in a minority on here, no not at all, I will always say what I think regardless of what others think
Your post saddens me. I had always quietly assumed you were paid to write drivel. Now I have little choice but to accept you do in fact believe it.
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Remainers in the autumn
itlerstrategic genius and look how that ended for him....
SSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
Hitler said himself he declared war on the f the outbreak of WW2
For some reason I thought you had a history degree. Try reading up about the failure of blitzkrieg in the Russian campaign. It was blitzkrieg and the way the earch shows you that the pact did not require that action and that Hitler was also advised he did not have to, so saying the pact required him to is plain wrong.
Do you ever admit you are wrong?
Blitzkrieg failed in Russia because of the Russian winter primarily
Try reading up on it and the Russian tactics. How did the Germans get into that position? If you think about it, it is inconsistent with blitzkrieg isn't it? So how did it happen? They were only there in the winter because of the failure of Blitzkrieg.
Had Hitler invaded Russia in April 1941 rather than June 1941 Moscow may well have fallen
I've not been online today due to real life but for those like Cyclefree suggesting if the government breaks conventions then what's to stop their opposition doing so in the future ... doesn't that cut both ways?
The opposition, including sadly the supposedly independent Speaker, have set aside rules and conventions in order to get what they wanted. Why would the government stand still while the opposition tears up the rule book?
In one way I think the origins for today trace back to when serious accusations were getting made against Bercow but Remainers chose to keep him because he would side with them down the track.
38% of Scots voted to Leave the EU, more even the 28% who voted Tory in 2017. Not one poll has the SNP polling over 50%, the biggest gainers since 2017 in Scotland have been the LDs and the Brexit Party NOT the SNP
An hour ago you told me that it was untrue that the front pages in Scotland a dream for the SNP. I await your apology expectantly. Or have you now given up on any kind of pretence that the truth matters?
They aren't, as I said the Daily Record is a pro Labour, anti Tory paper and prefers the SNP to the Tories and all the Scottish only papers are pro Remain despite 38% of Scots voting Leave
In what way are these headlines not a dream for the SNP? They are a direct assault on the idea of the union, illustrated by the poster child of unionism.
They are a direct assault on the union by diehard Remainers who dream of breaking up the Union as punishment for the Leave vote, what is new?
Yet still the SNP is polling below the 50% it got in 2015 BEFORE the Brexit vote
Can you concentrate on the question that you were asked, since you accused me of an untruth based on it? Or alternatively, apologise for your mistake.
I will neither apologise nor admit a mistake as none was made.
Diehard Remainers and anti Tories, jncluding in much of the Scottish press, are determined to destroy the Union in order to use it as a weapon to try and destroy Brexit, despite the fact most Leavers would still back Brexit regardless and the SNP was polling higher in 2015 than it is now BEFORE Brexit
Is the second half of your first sentence strictly necessary?
LOL, Robert. What are you considering the second half of the sentence - from 'as none', or 'nor admit'?
OK... last third, so from "nor admit"
My point was both would make sense, but one was slightly ruder than the other ...
It seems to me that today’s debate is exactly what Cummings wanted. And he’ll love the idea of some remainers having a pop at Her Majesty as that’s a brilliant way to split the cause when the likes of Sir John Major won’t go along with it.
If remainers want to beat this man they need to be united and to have a clear plan. This won’t be the end of it this week. There’ll be more from Cummings - probably popular domestic policies. If remainers let him dictate the pace, and don’t get inside his decision cycle, they will lose.
Yes, Cummings believes in all out war and he is now ready for blitzkrieg against diehard Remainers in the autumn
Blitzkrieg is a lighting attack with overwhelming force. I think it is pretty laughable your jingoistic claptrap. The Tories are in no shape for a GE and the armies you move on maps are ghosts. Besides Hitler thought he was a strategic genius and look how that ended for him....
Hitler conquered most of Europe through blitzkrieg and was only defeated after a 6 year War and with the combined might of the USA and USSR and British Empire, he may have been evil but he was a military and strategic genius for his first few years
I appreciate you said the first few years, but how could declaring war on the USA ever have been considered anything close to coming from a strategic genius. In the end he was fighting with non existent armies and the Russian campaign was flawed on so many counts.
It was Japan who declared war on the USA when it attacked Pearl Harbour, under the Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and Japan, Hitler therefore had to declare war on the USA
Utter nonsense. You are jut making stuff up. It was even pointed out to Hitler that he was under no obligation, by his advisors, but he went ahead anyway.
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
It is unusual for even the daftest of right wing apologists to take up the defence of Hitler himself!
Comments
I suspect that where we really differ is that I see leaving the EU as a principled issue of not being sucked into a transnational body. In that context, border issues in NI are something to manage but not a reason not to do it. On the other hand you obviously don’t see it that way, so entirely reasonably view it as mad to do something we don’t have to do which might destabilise things.
It would be better if more folk made an effort to at least understand each other’s views rather than caricature them (not saying you are by the way).
Con 34 (+1)
Lab 22 (+1)
LD 17 (-2)
BXP 13 (-1)
Greens 8 (+1)
Changes since the 23rd of August.
Fieldwork was was carried out on Tuesday and Wednesday, before and after the prorogation announcement.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/poll-shows-tory-support-highest-since-march-brexit-deadline-was-missed-s2lx29g7f
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=34&LAB=22&LIB=17&Brexit=13&Green=8&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
Con 388
Lab 170
LD 35
SNP 35
Do you check 'facts' you print. I'm no historian, but the stuff you have just printed re blitzkrieg and declaring war on the USA are very basic stuff.
And remember I was talking about just one aspect of a hard Brexit. Others on here are better qualified to talk about other aspects - insulin supplies, for example.
As I have pointed out and as remains absolutely correct it was blitzkrieg that saw the Germans reach Paris and Moscow within 2 years of the outbreak of WW2
Would today's events make you, as a Lab, LD, SNP, PC, or Green voter, make you more or less likely to vote tactically?
There was no obligation for Hitler to declare war on the US under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. (Indeed, the terms required more the US not merely to declare war on Japan, it required an atual attack.)
Now might be a good time to admit you made an error.
You should keep off the WW2 stuff. Your knowledge is superficial, you are prone to inaccuracies and your judgement is poor.
Some may conclude from this that the same applies to your posts on political matters.
Nite nite.
In fact I was happily arguing in a minority of 1 yesterday that Boris would prorogue Parliament and was largely dismissed and lo and behold look what happened today
Re USA as has been pointed out to you by others here and anything you can read on the subject you are clearly wrong. A little bit of trivial research shows you that the pact did not require that action and that Hitler was also advised he did not have to, so saying the pact required him to is plain wrong.
Do you ever admit you are wrong?
What happened?
Does it bother me my views are now in a minority on here, no not at all, I will always say what I think regardless of what others think
Based on current form, we will get no detail beyond what is published in the Times itself for the best part a week.
To those screaming coup and dictator, Parliament is STILL sovereign. Pass a simple majority expressing no confidence in the government and it will fall, with the ultimate safeguard of democracy being a new election. But they still don’t have the numbers for the VONC and would likely lose the election anyway.
Oh and the Queen is a fascist facilitator for enacting the centuries old means for a new legislative programme? Please.
It’s not a good feeling when you realise that no matter what you do, you can’t get what you want isn’t it. Swathes of society have got pretty used to that feeling of powerlessness. Ho hum.
Why? We all make mistakes. I make a pile of them.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zs2sv7dkpf/TheSundayTimes_190823_VI_Trackers_w.pdf
It was published Tuesday morning.
NEW THREAD
The opposition, including sadly the supposedly independent Speaker, have set aside rules and conventions in order to get what they wanted. Why would the government stand still while the opposition tears up the rule book?
In one way I think the origins for today trace back to when serious accusations were getting made against Bercow but Remainers chose to keep him because he would side with them down the track.