Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First post-Supreme Court polling finds the LDs main beneficiar

1235789

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,993

    Nigelb said:

    spudgfsh said:



    A GE is odds on to produce another hung parliament. How is it a clear and obvious solution? The betting markets suggest it might give a solution about 20-30% of the time, the rest of the time we are back to square one.

    The only way to resolve this is with a deal. they had one but the ERG refused to vote for it because it wasn't pure enough. the opposition parties refused to vote for it because it was not 'soft' enough (and for political reasons).

    A referendum may be the only way forward to clear this up once and for all.
    1) do you accept the deal (whatever it is)
    2) if no, do you want to leave or remain in the EU
    The clear resolutions are:

    1) Soft Brexit deal - Requires MPs to vote independently rather than by party. Very unlikely but the conditions are getting closer to it becoming plausible.
    2) Referendum

    A GE is an alternative and could work but probably wont.

    Sadly most likely is ongoing paralysis and division for another couple of years.
    A GE will probably work.

    First, It will produce at least one loser. Corby will go if he doesn't advance. Bojo will go if he loses 40+ seats. And they both could lose their seats in such an unpredictable election. That will break the logjam in the parties.

    Second, even if it produces a hung Parliament like now, the message from the electorate is we are not giving a mandate for Revoke or No Deal. You need to come up with a compromise. It allows MPs to row back from their extreme position. We asked the electorate, and they gave an answer and we must now implement the answer by compromise.

    Third, it could give Boris a majority (possible but unlikely IMO), and then he get get on and do what he wants with his mandate.

    The present prolonging of a Parliament that has no stable configuration is not in the interests of anyone, other than a few vicariously cruel individuals.
    Strangely enough, I agree with you.
    I'd previously advocated, back in the halcyon days of May, for some kind of referendum to break the impasse, but that is clearly impossible. Parliament wouldn't begin to be able to agree on the question(s) to put.

    All sides are claiming to be speaking for 'the public', and that clearly can't be true. A fresh election would at least give a real indication of where the electorate now is.

    But it's not going to happen until the issue of no deal on 31st Oct is fully resolved.
    Can't wait just to move onto the election phase.
    But Corbyn clearly can.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    Blue_rog said:

    To Brexiteers - serious question.

    What would be wrong with an NI only backstop?

    It's a de facto annexation of part of our territory. No PM could agree to hand over part of the UK to a foreign power
    It really isn't. Stop over-dramatising. It's this kind of hyperbole which is preventing us from finding a sensible solution.

    Northern Ireland is a very special case, with special laws, and special status. Not quite as British as the mainland, but certainly not 100% Irish either. All this is acknowledged - legally, by Britain - in the GFA. It's also acknowledged culturally in the way all Ireland has one rugby team, for example.

    So an evolution in this special status isn't some betrayal, and it isn't a horror. It's especially not horrific when such a status would be approved by Stormont, the elected government of Northern Ireland.

    The road to Belfast will be the road that leads us out of the chaos, eventually, if we ever take it.

  • The film Battle of Britain includes a Polish squadron. There is also the more recent Squadron 303 film, and exhibits at the Imperial War Museum and iirc the RAF museum.
    Repeat please!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0

    Slightly odd to think that the BoB film was made 50 years ago, much closer to the events portrayed than it is to the present. I'd suggest that there was probably more willingness to acknowledge gallant allies then than now, and I fear that we're getting towards U-571 territory in terms of national myth making.
  • spudgfsh said:

    The crucial point from this projection: the Lib Dems have an easier pathway to 100 seats than BXP do to 3, or the Greens to 2.

    http://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1177140630348292096

    the problem is the lack of uniformness in the swing which gets in the way of these being truly informative. what this (and electoral calculus) need is a level of confidence on each seat and on the number of seats.
    Yes. The two border seats are forecast to be very close between SNP and Tory in that flavible projection. It's almost as likely that they will both be Tory than both SNP.

    How goes the saying? "Without error bars any measurement is worthless."
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Blue_rog said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    Post of the year for me
    Welcome back for your first appearance since 31st December.
  • In the absence of anything positive to say or do about Brexit it was predictable that they would queue up to climb on the outrage bus about language. They are all talked out. They have nothing to say to end the crisis. What is the point of their being there? I have an excellent idea. Prorogue them until 1st November.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Noo said:

    Blue_rog said:

    To Brexiteers - serious question.

    What would be wrong with an NI only backstop?

    It's a de facto annexation of part of our territory. No PM could agree to hand over part of the UK to a foreign power
    No, it is nothing of the sort. What absolute garbage.
    How do you explain the the back stop has a provision in it that only the EU can decide when the backstop expires? The UK has no say as to when the UK rule of law will apply to NI again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,993
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Nor does he even "reflect the national mood". He merely mirrors and amplifies the animus of a particular section of the electorate.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    edited September 2019
    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson has said two things: he won't extend and he won't break the law. That can only mean Corbyn in Downing Street to request an extension if Johnson can't get the deal he wants in time.

    I think there is constitutionally a narrow landing strip for a third option.

    Bunter resigns and tells Queenie that he is unable to recommend anyone who could command the confidence.

    Queenie then nominates someone - perhaps father or mother of the house - to see if he or she can.

    But, I don’t know about this!
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,457
    edited September 2019

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    Who is this "single nation" of which you talk ? If we'd not had a circumstance of a vote being very close, and an overwhelming majority voting for something - let alone a current majority apparently favouring the opposite - this might logically follow on, but in the current circumstances I'm afraid not.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697
    Nigelb said:

    spudgfsh said:



    A GE is odds on to produce another hung parliament. How is it a clear and obvious solution? The betting markets suggest it might give a solution about 20-30% of the time, the rest of the time we are back to square one.

    The only way to resolve this is with a deal. they had one but the ERG refused to vote for it because it wasn't pure enough. the opposition parties refused to vote for it because it was not 'soft' enough.

    A referendum may be the only way forward to clear this up once and for all.
    1) do you accept the deal (whatever it is)
    2) if no, do you want to leave or remain in the EU
    The clear resolutions are:

    1) Soft Brexit deal - Requires MPs to vote independently rather than by party. Very unlikely but the conditions are getting closer to it becoming plausible.
    2) Referendum

    A GE is an alternative and could work but probably wont.

    Sadly most likely is ongoing paralysis and division for another couple of years.
    A GE will probably work.

    First, It will produce at least one loser. Corby will go if he doesn't advance. Bojo will go if he loses 40+ seats. And they both could lose their seats in such an unpredictable election. That will break the logjam in the parties.

    Second, even if it produces a hung Parliament like now, the message from the electorate is we are not giving a mandate for Revoke or No Deal. You need to come up with a compromise. It allows MPs to row back from their extreme position. We asked the electorate, and they gave an answer and we must now implement the answer by compromise.

    Third, it could give Boris a majority (possible but unlikely IMO), and then he get get on and do what he wants with his mandate.

    The present prolonging of a Parliament that has no stable configuration is not in the interests of anyone, other than a few vicariously cruel individuals.
    Strangely enough, I agree with you.
    I'd previously advocated, back in the halcyon days of May, for some kind of referendum to break the impasse, but that is clearly impossible. Parliament wouldn't begin to be able to agree on the question(s) to put.

    All sides are claiming to be speaking for 'the public', and that clearly can't be true. A fresh election would at least give a real indication of where the electorate now is.

    But it's not going to happen until the issue of no deal on 31st Oct is fully resolved.

    I disagree with this bit:

    All sides are claiming to be speaking for 'the public', and that clearly can't be true. A fresh election would at least give a real indication of where the electorate now is.

    As the public is split it is possible for several varieties of opinion to be accurately speaking for a section of the public.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Nor does he even "reflect the national mood". He merely mirrors and amplifies the animus of a particular section of the electorate.
    An animus he has stoked and ridden for his personal advancement.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,805
    edited September 2019
    TGOHF2 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    CLAPS !

    Hooray, a Plato memorial post from one of several PB heirs to Plato and her dankly febrile politics.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Andy_JS said:

    Johnson has said two things: he won't extend and he won't break the law. That can only mean Corbyn in Downing Street to request an extension if Johnson can't get the deal he wants in time.

    I think there is constitutionally a narrow landing strip for a third option.

    Bunter resigns and tells Queenie that he is unable to recommend anyone who could command the confidence.

    Queenie then nominates someone - perhaps father or mother of the house - to see if he or she can.

    But, I don’t know about this!
    How does Boris resign - I suspect he can't until a replacement is named - and that will be a mess.

    Mind you Ken Clarke due to being father of the house is probably worth a few quid.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386
    TGOHF2 said:
    Interesting — the distinction between honest and dishonest "offence taking".
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    JackW said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    Post of the year for me
    Welcome back for your first appearance since 31st December.
    Thanks. I got sick of contributing to the overly polarised place that PB has become. I'll probably go back to lurking again when my blood pressure gets over 200/100 :)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Everyone has decided that THEIR side winning is the most important, and pretty much only priority right now.

    It all follows from that really.

    Absolutely. Progress will only be made when all hope has gone.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    edited September 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    The idea that everybody else, apart from us, has "moved on from WW2" is poignantly ridiculous.

    Anyone who travels anywhere can confirm that the Second World War, and its legacy, absolutely dominates discourse and mindsets in Germany (guilt), Russia (pain, pride), Poland (pain, anger), Israel (of course), the Baltic States (pain, fear), and so on. It is often hidden in other issues, but it is always there.

    It's easier to pick the countries where it isn't a national trauma. Spain. Portugal. Switzerland.

    Even Japan and America are, ton story.
    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. Ws and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces r freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Youre letting yourself get carried away The Empire such as it was was largely an extension of England in those days as indeed it was in WW1. In both instances we declared war on Germany not the other way round.

    Im afraid I just dont accept this brexity cant about Empire. Im 58, there was next to no Empire when I was born, I feel no urge to grab back India ot Nigeria. I get fed up with former colonies wanting to blame the UK for their problems rather than their own kleptocrat governments.

    The vestiges of Empire I see and of course there still are some, rest mostly in the liberal end of the spectrum where proponents want to use "influence" to tell people in far off countries that they should be like us. Its why we have our daft DfID budget. The sooner we shake off this nonsense the better we will be for it.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,135

    spudgfsh said:

    The crucial point from this projection: the Lib Dems have an easier pathway to 100 seats than BXP do to 3, or the Greens to 2.

    http://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1177140630348292096

    the problem is the lack of uniformness in the swing which gets in the way of these being truly informative. what this (and electoral calculus) need is a level of confidence on each seat and on the number of seats.
    Yes. The two border seats are forecast to be very close between SNP and Tory in that flavible projection. It's almost as likely that they will both be Tory than both SNP.

    How goes the saying? "Without error bars any measurement is worthless."
    I've been slowly putting together my own model, for my own consumption, but I'm not sure what error bar I should be using. too high and it's meaningless, too low and it's worthless.

    I thought
    <1% too close to call
    <5% lean
    >5% safe
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    eek said:

    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.

    Boris won’t resign.

    A letter is not an extension.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979


    The film Battle of Britain includes a Polish squadron. There is also the more recent Squadron 303 film, and exhibits at the Imperial War Museum and iirc the RAF museum.
    Repeat please!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0

    Slightly odd to think that the BoB film was made 50 years ago, much closer to the events portrayed than it is to the present. I'd suggest that there was probably more willingness to acknowledge gallant allies then than now, and I fear that we're getting towards U-571 territory in terms of national myth making.
    I mean, it's not like any one has every under sold the UK's role, is it?

    Oh...

    https://tinyurl.com/y26rxshl

    "I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner," the PM told Sky News.

    "We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

    Downing Street today insisted Mr Cameron's comments were not intended to belittle the efforts of Britain's troops at a time when the UK and its empire stood alone against the Nazis.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Go and join a political party. Go knock on doors. Then you might just need to recalibrate who has properly judged the national mood.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    The idea that everybody else, apart from us, has "moved on from WW2" is poignantly ridiculous.

    Anyone who travels anywhere can confirm that the Second World War, and its legacy, absolutely dominates discourse and mindsets in Germany (guilt), Russia (pain, pride), Poland (pain, anger), Israel (of course), the Baltic States (pain, fear), and so on. It is often hidden in other issues, but it is always there.

    It's easier to pick the countries where it isn't a national trauma. Spain. Portugal. Switzerland.

    Even Japan and America are, to some extent, still living in the shadow. Which is understandable, it was the worst and greatest war in history, the greatest crime ever committed, and it gave birth to nuclear bombs. It is arguably the most pivotal moment in the human story.
    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Was it here that someone posted that the Army in N Africa was only about 25% British (in the sense of being English/Welsh/Scots N Irish), the rest being from the Empire/Commonwealth.
    And by the time we'd got to mid '42 a significant part of Australia's troops had been captured in Singapore by the Japanese.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Pulpstar said:

    Everyone has decided that THEIR side winning is the most important, and pretty much only priority right now.

    It all follows from that really.

    Absolutely. Progress will only be made when all hope has gone.
    Well, here's one PB-er that has lost all hope of "winning". The very notion is surreal. There is no winning to be done in Brexit, for anyone.

    I just want our democracy and economy to survive, as undamaged as possible.

    For me, the best bet is some Johnsonian deal, as I have said. Every other course is fraught with greater dangers.

    Increasingly I think that a 2nd referendum is too ghastly to contemplate. Imagine how bitter, angry and divisive the campaign would be? We're not meant to speak of violence on here, but Ugh. And what happens if one side simply boycotts a second vote, and the turnout goes below 50%? Then our crisis worsens,
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    The idea that everybody else, apart from us, has "moved on from WW2" is poignantly ridiculous.

    Anyone who travels anywhere can confirm that the Second World War, and its legacy, absolutely dominates discourse and mindsets in Germany (guilt), Russia (pain, pride), Poland (pain, anger), Israel (of course), the Baltic States (pain, fear), and so on. It is often hidden in other issues, but it is always there.

    It's easier to pick the countries where it isn't a national trauma. Spain. Portugal. Switzerland.

    Even Japan and America are, to some extent, still living in the shadow. Which is understandable, it was the worst and greatest war in history, the greatest crime ever committed, and it gave birth to nuclear bombs. It is arguably the most pivotal moment in the human story.
    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    You are wrong. Richard Burton, Alec Guinness and Michael Caine won WW2 single handed, with supporting roles only played by Gregory Peck, Steve McQueen and Pele. Or that's what all us thick Brexit voters think I suppose?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,900
    edited September 2019
    eek said:

    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.

    You keep on saying this.

    Boris can resign and the Queen will send for the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That is absolutely given.

    She will offer Jeremy first chance. There would be absolute uproar if she did not, and it would jeopardise the impartiality of the Monarchy.

    Jeremy takes over as PM. The assumption is that he has the confidence of the house.

    But, if there is a confidence vote, the Tories can simply say we abstain.

    After all, they can take Corbyn down any time they want. They may prefer to let him send the "Surrender Letter" so they have a huge stick to beat him with.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    The idea that everybody else, apart from us, has "moved on from WW2" is poignantly ridiculous.

    Anyone who travels anywhere can confirm that the Second World War, and its legacy, absolutely dominates discourse and mindsets in Germany (guilt), Russia (pain, pride), Poland (pain, anger), Israel (of course), the Baltic States (pain, fear), and so on. It is often hidden in other issues, but it is always there.

    It's easier to pick the countries where it isn't a national trauma. Spain. Portugal. Switzerland.

    Even Japan and America are, to some extent, still living in the shadow. Which is understandable, it was the worst and greatest war in history, the greatest crime ever committed, and it gave birth to nuclear bombs. It is arguably the most pivotal moment in the human story.
    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    There is an overlooked aspect to this point: Britain has never succeeded as a nation state. No European country really has.
    We've seen maritime empires, and a couple of examples of (attempted) continental empires. And then you have the EEC-EU-EFTA models, which have finally stabilised and demilitarised borders.

    The myth of the European nation state has no basis in history.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
    It's not a secret but it's not something that gets much airing these days. Ask the Poles if they feel that their contribution to the Battle of Britain gets much recognition by those who think that entering into an agreement with the EU is a "surrender".
  • I can understand why he'd be annoyed (even though a Labour MP raised the subject), but is Brendan Cox really the person to have on the airwaves talking about 'bad behaviour' over this, given his history?

    At the very least, I'd expect it to be mentioned in the stories.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited September 2019

    Morning all,

    /twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1177135743237611521

    Well we cant accuse the pollsters of herding....
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    eek said:

    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.


    This is probably right. Again points to Ken Clarke - he wouldn't exactly command the confidence of the house, but the opposition also aren't going to bring him down while he goes through the extension process. That might be enough for HM.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Go and join a political party. Go knock on doors. Then you might just need to recalibrate who has properly judged the national mood.
    There is no single national mood at the moment. The national mood in Camden and central Manchester bears no relationship to the mood in Stoke and Weston-Super-Mare.
  • Byronic said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Everyone has decided that THEIR side winning is the most important, and pretty much only priority right now.

    It all follows from that really.

    Absolutely. Progress will only be made when all hope has gone.
    Well, here's one PB-er that has lost all hope of "winning". The very notion is surreal. There is no winning to be done in Brexit, for anyone.

    I just want our democracy and economy to survive, as undamaged as possible.

    For me, the best bet is some Johnsonian deal, as I have said. Every other course is fraught with greater dangers.

    Increasingly I think that a 2nd referendum is too ghastly to contemplate. Imagine how bitter, angry and divisive the campaign would be? We're not meant to speak of violence on here, but Ugh. And what happens if one side simply boycotts a second vote, and the turnout goes below 50%? Then our crisis worsens,
    Boris Johnson has proven himself an exceptionally bad bet for anyone who wants our democracy to survive.
  • tlg86 said:


    The film Battle of Britain includes a Polish squadron. There is also the more recent Squadron 303 film, and exhibits at the Imperial War Museum and iirc the RAF museum.
    Repeat please!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0

    Slightly odd to think that the BoB film was made 50 years ago, much closer to the events portrayed than it is to the present. I'd suggest that there was probably more willingness to acknowledge gallant allies then than now, and I fear that we're getting towards U-571 territory in terms of national myth making.
    I mean, it's not like any one has every under sold the UK's role, is it?

    Oh...

    https://tinyurl.com/y26rxshl

    "I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner," the PM told Sky News.

    "We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

    Downing Street today insisted Mr Cameron's comments were not intended to belittle the efforts of Britain's troops at a time when the UK and its empire stood alone against the Nazis.
    David Cameron did his A-level history at Eton. We must make allowances for his not knowing when America entered the war. If ever a school was begging for an Ofsted inspection!
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    .
    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Was it here that someone posted that the Army in N Africa was only about 25% British (in the sense of being English/Welsh/Scots N Irish), the rest being from the Empire/Commonwealth.
    And by the time we'd got to mid '42 a significant part of Australia's troops had been captured in Singapore by the Japanese.
    Yes. And this will please Malcolm and Stuart - the "best" troops were those from Australia, New Zealand, and Scotland.

    The Australians were largely withdrawn in early 1942 after the attack on Pearl Harbour
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. Ws and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces r freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Youre letting yourself get carried away The Empire such as it was was largely an extension of England in those days as indeed it was in WW1. In both instances we declared war on Germany not the other way round.

    Im afraid I just dont accept this brexity cant about Empire. Im 58, there was next to no Empire when I was born, I feel no urge to grab back India ot Nigeria. I get fed up with former colonies wanting to blame the UK for their problems rather than their own kleptocrat governments.

    The vestiges of Empire I see and of course there still are some, rest mostly in the liberal end of the spectrum where proponents want to use "influence" to tell people in far off countries that they should be like us. Its why we have our daft DfID budget. The sooner we shake off this nonsense the better we will be for it.
    I too dislike this Empire nostalgia bollocks. But during WW2 Britain had the resources of an Empire behind it and this meant that is was not simply one little island fighting by itself, as some of the myth-making from some would have us believe.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
    It's not a secret but it's not something that gets much airing these days. Ask the Poles if they feel that their contribution to the Battle of Britain gets much recognition by those who think that entering into an agreement with the EU is a "surrender".
    And those that did get here to fight often displayed great courage in getting here, as well as in battle.

  • I think there is constitutionally a narrow landing strip for a third option.

    Bunter resigns and tells Queenie that he is unable to recommend anyone who could command the confidence.

    Queenie then nominates someone - perhaps father or mother of the house - to see if he or she can.

    But, I don’t know about this!

    The Queen won't skip Corbyn even if Johnson finds himself unable to make a confident prediction of a successor that could command confidence.

    Inviting any other politician than the LotO would invite questions about the correctness of HMQ's decision.

    We appear to be in a rather ridiculous position of Labour supporters desperately hoping their man doesn't become the temporary PM who delivers the extension request.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,135

    Pulpstar said:

    Everyone has decided that THEIR side winning is the most important, and pretty much only priority right now.

    It all follows from that really.

    Absolutely. Progress will only be made when all hope has gone.
    I can only see progress being made when one side has been defeated. Either there is a 'no deal for now'(NDFN) brexit or a revoke (unilaterally or by referendum). The most likely being a NDFN brexit happening.

    once the NDFN has happened the public will see what the consequences are. if that is a collapse in manufacturing industry, major impacts in the financial services industry in dealing with the EU countries and a recession then people will actually start to think again and there will be calls to do something about it.

    if there is not then it will be over and there will only be a rump 'return' movement but life will go on.

    It's still a big gamble to take and if it goes wrong the Tories will be in serious trouble.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    spudgfsh said:
    The clear resolutions are:

    1) Soft Brexit deal - Requires MPs to vote independently rather than by party. Very unlikely but the conditions are getting closer to it becoming plausible.
    2) Referendum

    A GE is an alternative and could work but probably wont.

    Sadly most likely is ongoing paralysis and division for another couple of years.
    A GE will probably work.

    First, It will produce at least one loser. Corby will go if he doesn't advance. Bojo will go if he loses 40+ seats. And they both could lose their seats in such an unpredictable election. That will break the logjam in the parties.

    Second, even if it produces a hung Parliament like now, the message from the electorate is we are not giving a mandate for Revoke or No Deal. You need to come up with a compromise. It allows MPs to row back from their extreme position. We asked the electorate, and they gave an answer and we must now implement the answer by compromise.

    Third, it could give Boris a majority (possible but unlikely IMO), and then he get get on and do what he wants with his mandate.

    The present prolonging of a Parliament that has no stable configuration is not in the interests of anyone, other than a few vicariously cruel individuals.
    Strangely enough, I agree with you.
    I'd previously advocated, back in the halcyon days of May, for some kind of referendum to break the impasse, but that is clearly impossible. Parliament wouldn't begin to be able to agree on the question(s) to put.

    All sides are claiming to be speaking for 'the public', and that clearly can't be true. A fresh election would at least give a real indication of where the electorate now is.

    But it's not going to happen until the issue of no deal on 31st Oct is fully resolved.
    Can't wait just to move onto the election phase.
    But Corbyn clearly can.
    I'm assuming your intelligent enough to understand what they are waiting for, it is exactly what I am waiting for. I might 'can't wait' to just move onto a medical operation I was waiting for but that doesn't mean I'll do it without a doctor or operating room because they aren't available yet.

    The phrase 'can't wait' doesn't mean I will do anything to make it happen. Although I'm sure you know full well what it means and are being a smug asshole because you disagree with my politics.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578

    Byronic said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Everyone has decided that THEIR side winning is the most important, and pretty much only priority right now.

    It all follows from that really.

    Absolutely. Progress will only be made when all hope has gone.
    Well, here's one PB-er that has lost all hope of "winning". The very notion is surreal. There is no winning to be done in Brexit, for anyone.

    I just want our democracy and economy to survive, as undamaged as possible.

    For me, the best bet is some Johnsonian deal, as I have said. Every other course is fraught with greater dangers.

    Increasingly I think that a 2nd referendum is too ghastly to contemplate. Imagine how bitter, angry and divisive the campaign would be? We're not meant to speak of violence on here, but Ugh. And what happens if one side simply boycotts a second vote, and the turnout goes below 50%? Then our crisis worsens,
    Boris Johnson has proven himself an exceptionally bad bet for anyone who wants our democracy to survive.
    We are attempting the art of the possible, not crafting the perfect.

    The alternatives to Boris are all worse, in their own ways. Corbyn - obviously. Farage - No Deal?? Swinson - Revoke! Crazy lady.

    OK you can posit some tricky tactical voting fest which delivers the perfect balance of Libs, Nats, Lab, whatevs, to deliver a new dispensation, but that is fantasy land.

    In the world of the possible, Boris is the best bet for national rescue, for all his many egregious flaws. I have not seen a sensible alternative proposal.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,790
    I watched a fair amount of the debate last night and the subsequent coverage strikes me as lurid. Sure, Geoffrey Cox did a bit of a cabaret act (and it certainly made for watchable theatre) but I think the reaction to Boris was overblown. His comments on Jo Cox were a reaction to a question, not brilliant, but probably in part due to tiredness. In the end it descended into endless repetitions of the same points. Wonder why they bothered reconvening. Only innovation was the sensitivity to language, which looked rather pre-arranged. Notable how few MPs were left by the time Boris's session was over. The one who stood out for me was Gove - lucid, on top of his brief, and scrupulously courteous.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Go and join a political party. Go knock on doors. Then you might just need to recalibrate who has properly judged the national mood.
    Oh, there is only one national mood is there? And Boris knows what it is, does he?

    And the rest of us - our mood, our fed-up'ness, our anger: I suppose they don't count.

    He is not a leader. He is a self-interested charlatan who is making things worse not better. He is not even trying to make things better. He claims to admire Churchill but is copying Trump.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,805
    edited September 2019
    tlg86 said:


    The film Battle of Britain includes a Polish squadron. There is also the more recent Squadron 303 film, and exhibits at the Imperial War Museum and iirc the RAF museum.
    Repeat please!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0

    Slightly odd to think that the BoB film was made 50 years ago, much closer to the events portrayed than it is to the present. I'd suggest that there was probably more willingness to acknowledge gallant allies then than now, and I fear that we're getting towards U-571 territory in terms of national myth making.
    I mean, it's not like any one has every under sold the UK's role, is it?

    Oh...

    https://tinyurl.com/y26rxshl

    "I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner," the PM told Sky News.

    "We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

    Downing Street today insisted Mr Cameron's comments were not intended to belittle the efforts of Britain's troops at a time when the UK and its empire stood alone against the Nazis.
    You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm interested in defending Cameron, in fact I'm pretty sure at the time I was pointing and chortling at the ahistorical, tin eared buffoon.

    The same piece says 'Downing Street today insisted Mr Cameron's comments were not intended to belittle the efforts of Britain's troops at a time when the UK and its empire stood alone against the Nazis.' I think that nowadays the Tele wouldn't bother with 'and its empire', though in any case how one stands alone with an Empire that covers close to a quarter of the world's population and land mass, I don't know.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    Have you felt a sudden urge to invade Poland?
    British obsession with the war is why we are in such a mess as a country.

    @eristdoof congratulations, I would if I could too.
    You beat me to it. When I read Eristdoof's comment I thought how long will it be before a Brexiteer brings up the war. I didn't have long to wait.

    If you ever look at any Brexit discussion on CH you won't go along without WW2 coming into it. It ended three quarters of a century ago yet they bring it up like it was last year. It is pathetic. Everyone else seems to have moved on but us.


    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    In 1940 "we" was not solely the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but included all the Dominions and Empire, and smaller but disproportionately significant contributions from defeated nations.

    Even bigger than their contribution to fighting the BoB, was the Polish capture of an Enigma machine. That truly was a game changer.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
    It's not a secret but it's not something that gets much airing these days. Ask the Poles if they feel that their contribution to the Battle of Britain gets much recognition by those who think that entering into an agreement with the EU is a "surrender".
    And those that did get here to fight often displayed great courage in getting here, as well as in battle.
    This one amuses me: a small Polish destroyer goes against the might Bismarck, transmitting the message: "I am a pole!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORP_Piorun_(G65)
  • My model suggests the Survation poll would yield CON around 270, LAB around 250, LD and SNP around 50 apiece, BXP 0. Presumably that would give a pretty shaky LAB minority govt with C&S from LD and SNP. CONs descend into civil war as BJ departs. 2nd referendum?
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    OK, we're either waffling about the war, or repeating ourselves endlessly about Brexit. We're no better than the Arse of Commons.

    Time to do some real work. Lates.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    edited September 2019


    I think there is constitutionally a narrow landing strip for a third option.

    Bunter resigns and tells Queenie that he is unable to recommend anyone who could command the confidence.

    Queenie then nominates someone - perhaps father or mother of the house - to see if he or she can.

    But, I don’t know about this!

    The Queen won't skip Corbyn even if Johnson finds himself unable to make a confident prediction of a successor that could command confidence.

    Inviting any other politician than the LotO would invite questions about the correctness of HMQ's decision.

    We appear to be in a rather ridiculous position of Labour supporters desperately hoping their man doesn't become the temporary PM who delivers the extension request.
    Well yes. I doubt the Queen will be enthused about calling Corbyn as PM but constitutionally it's absolubtely correct.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,648
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. Ws and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces r freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Youre letting yourself get carried away The Empire such as it was was largely an extension of England in those days as indeed it was in WW1. In both instances we declared war on Germany not the other way round.

    Im afraid I just dont accept this brexity cant about Empire. Im 58, there was next to no Empire when I was born, I feel no urge to grab back India ot Nigeria. I get fed up with former colonies wanting to blame the UK for their problems rather than their own kleptocrat governments.

    The vestiges of Empire I see and of course there still are some, rest mostly in the liberal end of the spectrum where proponents want to use "influence" to tell people in far off countries that they should be like us. Its why we have our daft DfID budget. The sooner we shake off this nonsense the better we will be for it.
    I too dislike this Empire nostalgia bollocks. But during WW2 Britain had the resources of an Empire behind it and this meant that is was not simply one little island fighting by itself, as some of the myth-making from some would have us believe.
    If the island had fallen the rest of the Empire would have had little option but to shut up shop, it was te industrial base for the rest and the centre for leadership.
    Much as the Empire worked with us the fact remains the Empire was effectively bust and only US finance allowed it to function. So in our own mad way we made the beau geste in 1940 but we could never have survived without the USA and USSR.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    Thought: could we have two ballot papers at the GE to decouple Brexit from Party?
  • Andrew said:

    eek said:

    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.


    This is probably right. Again points to Ken Clarke - he wouldn't exactly command the confidence of the house, but the opposition also aren't going to bring him down while he goes through the extension process. That might be enough for HM.
    No, it cannot be Ken Clarke. For a start, he wants to negotiate a new deal which involves running a proper government for months. Second, he would be rejected by both Boris and Jeremy Corbyn.

    If you must look for a neutral figure, it has to be someone Corbyn and Boris can accept, at least passively.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    He is not even trying to make things better.

    Ouch. On the nose.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322
    moonshine said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:




    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    You are wrong. Richard Burton, Alec Guinness and Michael Caine won WW2 single handed, with supporting roles only played by Gregory Peck, Steve McQueen and Pele. Or that's what all us thick Brexit voters think I suppose?
    I've no idea. I have never called Brexit voters thick. I don't think that people who voted for Brexit are thick, ipso facto. They had all sorts of reasons for voting that way. I understand some of those reasons. I am at heart a Eurosceptic. But that does not make me a Brexiteer given the way Brexit is developing.

    The Battle of Britain was won as a result of the efforts of people like my father, a Squadron Leader during that time. He came from Ireland to volunteer. He was an immigrant, like my mother, and some on the Brexit side have come out with views and language about immigrants which has been disgraceful and which shames this country.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Cyclefree said:



    Oh, there is only one national mood is there? And Boris knows what it is, does he?

    And the rest of us - our mood, our fed-up'ness, our anger: I suppose they don't count.

    He is not a leader. He is a self-interested charlatan who is making things worse not better. He is not even trying to make things better. He claims to admire Churchill but is copying Trump.

    Trump. Trump. Trump. The easy get-out. Point at the bogey-man, stand back waiting for applause. I expected better arguments than that from you.

    Of course Boris is trying to make things better. He's trying to deliver Brexit, which is the way to make things better by ending this fever which otherwise stubbornly refuses to break. He's trying against endless roadblocks from those who were elected promising to dismantle barricades, not build and man them.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Everyone has decided that THEIR side winning is the most important, and pretty much only priority right now.

    It all follows from that really.

    Absolutely. Progress will only be made when all hope has gone.
    Well, here's one PB-er that has lost all hope of "winning". The very notion is surreal. There is no winning to be done in Brexit, for anyone.

    I just want our democracy and economy to survive, as undamaged as possible.

    For me, the best bet is some Johnsonian deal, as I have said. Every other course is fraught with greater dangers.

    Increasingly I think that a 2nd referendum is too ghastly to contemplate. Imagine how bitter, angry and divisive the campaign would be? We're not meant to speak of violence on here, but Ugh. And what happens if one side simply boycotts a second vote, and the turnout goes below 50%? Then our crisis worsens,
    Boris Johnson has proven himself an exceptionally bad bet for anyone who wants our democracy to survive.
    We are attempting the art of the possible, not crafting the perfect.

    The alternatives to Boris are all worse, in their own ways. Corbyn - obviously. Farage - No Deal?? Swinson - Revoke! Crazy lady.

    OK you can posit some tricky tactical voting fest which delivers the perfect balance of Libs, Nats, Lab, whatevs, to deliver a new dispensation, but that is fantasy land.

    In the world of the possible, Boris is the best bet for national rescue, for all his many egregious flaws. I have not seen a sensible alternative proposal.
    Boris is attempting his version of the "Art of the Deal" - it isn't working, it definitely isn't art and it definitely isn't a deal
  • TOPPING said:

    Extraordinary times, just look at last night's parliament. And yet Swinson still struggles to reach Cleggs 2010 performance.

    Many erstwhile and current Tories probably reflect my own thinking. Any thoughts of voting LD given the utter Tossers that now run "our" party are severely mitigated by the thought that such behaviour might somehow let Corbyn in.
    I don't know where you stood on the AV referendum but these sort of conundrums would have been easier if it had passed. Some sort of 1-nation Tory breakaway party would probably have formed and you could have given it your first choice, with 2 for Tory to prevent Corbyn.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    tlg86 said:


    The film Battle of Britain includes a Polish squadron. There is also the more recent Squadron 303 film, and exhibits at the Imperial War Museum and iirc the RAF museum.
    Repeat please!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXf1bhEEXd0

    Slightly odd to think that the BoB film was made 50 years ago, much closer to the events portrayed than it is to the present. I'd suggest that there was probably more willingness to acknowledge gallant allies then than now, and I fear that we're getting towards U-571 territory in terms of national myth making.
    I mean, it's not like any one has every under sold the UK's role, is it?

    Oh...

    https://tinyurl.com/y26rxshl

    "I think it's important in life to speak as it is, and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US, but we are the junior partner," the PM told Sky News.

    "We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

    Downing Street today insisted Mr Cameron's comments were not intended to belittle the efforts of Britain's troops at a time when the UK and its empire stood alone against the Nazis.
    David Cameron did his A-level history at Eton. We must make allowances for his not knowing when America entered the war. If ever a school was begging for an Ofsted inspection!
    "Not my period." - the excuse of every historian.
  • Byronic said:

    OK, we're either waffling about the war, or repeating ourselves endlessly about Brexit. We're no better than the Arse of Commons.

    Time to do some real work. Lates.

    Enjoy the photo shoot.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Tabman said:

    Thought: could we have two ballot papers at the GE to decouple Brexit from Party?

    You just know that there would end up being a Leave+Lib Dem majority or a Remain+Brexit Party majority ;)
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483


    I think there is constitutionally a narrow landing strip for a third option.

    Bunter resigns and tells Queenie that he is unable to recommend anyone who could command the confidence.

    Queenie then nominates someone - perhaps father or mother of the house - to see if he or she can.

    But, I don’t know about this!

    The Queen won't skip Corbyn even if Johnson finds himself unable to make a confident prediction of a successor that could command confidence.

    Inviting any other politician than the LotO would invite questions about the correctness of HMQ's decision.

    We appear to be in a rather ridiculous position of Labour supporters desperately hoping their man doesn't become the temporary PM who delivers the extension request.
    Why? The only person who wants to die in a ditch on 31/10 is Johnson who is shit scared of farage. No body else would be punished for seeking an extension, yes people would moan but it’s unlikely to change their vote unless it’s to TBP.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    edited September 2019


    eek said:

    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.

    You keep on saying this.

    Boris can resign and the Queen will send for the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That is absolutely given.

    She will offer Jeremy first chance. There would be absolute uproar if she did not, and it would jeopardise the impartiality of the Monarchy.

    Jeremy takes over as PM. The assumption is that he has the confidence of the house.

    But, if there is a confidence vote, the Tories can simply say abstain.

    After all, they can take Corbyn down any time they want. They may prefer to let him send the "Surrender Letter" so they have a huge stick to beat him with.
    How does Boris resign when there is always a Prime Minister?
    Remember even after a vote of No Confidence the current Government remains in power until an election is held and as with 2010 a new Prime Minister doesn't begin until a suitable candidate has been identified.

    At most Boris can say he wishes to resign so please send for Jeremy Corbyn. If Corbyn has any sense he will say that he cannot command a majority so Boris has to remain there until he can find a majority.

    Which is why I think nothing short of taking the Chiltern Hundreds is going to solve this mess for Boris and even that may not work.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
    It's not a secret but it's not something that gets much airing these days. Ask the Poles if they feel that their contribution to the Battle of Britain gets much recognition by those who think that entering into an agreement with the EU is a "surrender".
    And those that did get here to fight often displayed great courage in getting here, as well as in battle.
    The Anglo/Polish feature film 303 Squadron (which DVD I bought from Sainsbury's just this month) was released last year. The Polish contribution (pilots and code breakers) is not a state secret.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSHeKwLnp8o
  • Cyclefree said:


    I too dislike this Empire nostalgia bollocks. But during WW2 Britain had the resources of an Empire behind it and this meant that is was not simply one little island fighting by itself, as some of the myth-making from some would have us believe.

    I have never quite followed the reasoning of those (and there are many) who enjoy taking the opportunity to snipe from the sidelines about a period of history that the UK is rightly proud.

    It is difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than it is small-minded pettiness and a self-loathing projecting outwards.

    The other answer of course is that the pride shown is often coming from people on the opposite side of the debate so descending in to the gutter about WW2 is legitimate if it means a point might be scored.

    A very sad, and unfortunate, consequence of the Brexit debate running on far past its reasonable point of conclusion.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Of course Boris is trying to make things better.

    Bollocks

    He wants to stay King of the World.

    He will burn down Parliament, the Courts, the Country, to stay in power.

    Like Trump.
  • https://twitter.com/p_surridge/status/1177147781728931840

    Look at the Conservative vote share in the Level 4 group!
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
    It's not a secret but it's not something that gets much airing these days. Ask the Poles if they feel that their contribution to the Battle of Britain gets much recognition by those who think that entering into an agreement with the EU is a "surrender".
    And those that did get here to fight often displayed great courage in getting here, as well as in battle.
    I'm reminded of the Uncle of a friend of mine, who was deported to Siberia by Stalin as a fifteen year old from Eastern Poland, dumped in the wilderness and had to build shelter, then went to Egypt via Iran, then fought his way up Italy carrying half a Vickers Machine Gun. I think he'd earned the right to settle.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Go and join a political party. Go knock on doors. Then you might just need to recalibrate who has properly judged the national mood.
    There is no single national mood at the moment. The national mood in Camden and central Manchester bears no relationship to the mood in Stoke and Weston-Super-Mare.
    How many in Camden and Manchester have huge respect for what our MPs are doing? Huh?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    those (and there are many) who enjoy taking the opportunity to snipe from the sidelines

    Wait, I thought we were all Establishment Elite? Now we're sniping from the sidelines too? Goodness, we are everywhere.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    As a leader [Boris] has a special responsibility. And he is failing in that. The buck stops with him.

    The PM also has a duty to reflect the national mood. We expect it at times of national joy, we expect it at times of national grieving. So why not now, when that national mood is one of seething anger at our elected officials? Our collective opinion of elected officials has never been lower. They have lied to their electors, they have refused to undertake the largest political project this country has ever told them to do. And now they refuse to be brought to account for that failure by their employers. Any other employee behaving like this would be dismissed on the spot.

    For supposedly smart people, our political class don't have the collective nous of a brick. That the PM reminded them of this was entirely right. That they chose to be monstrously offended rather than take on board some home truths just demonstrates why they need to be replaced. En masse.

    No, the PM does not have that duty. He has the duty to lead. That means trying to overcome divisions not create them. It means working out a destination and persuading / showing / motivating people to understand what it is and how to get there. It means creating a space where disagreements can be resolved or got over and compromises reached. That is what politics is about and it is more important than ever following a binary referendum.

    He is doing none of that. He is deliberately speaking to a small group. He is enhancing division rather than trying to unify and heal. He is shutting out rather than reaching out. He refuses to show empathy for his opponents but feels immensely sorry for himself. He refuses to accept that he might be wrong. He is not big enough or mature enough to apologise. He threatens those who stand in his way or who won't do what he wants.

    These are not the qualities of good leaders.
    Go and join a political party. Go knock on doors. Then you might just need to recalibrate who has properly judged the national mood.
    There is no single national mood at the moment. The national mood in Camden and central Manchester bears no relationship to the mood in Stoke and Weston-Super-Mare.
    Or even bracknell and Wokingham
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,278

    Cyclefree said:



    Oh, there is only one national mood is there? And Boris knows what it is, does he?

    And the rest of us - our mood, our fed-up'ness, our anger: I suppose they don't count.

    He is not a leader. He is a self-interested charlatan who is making things worse not better. He is not even trying to make things better. He claims to admire Churchill but is copying Trump.

    Trump. Trump. Trump. The easy get-out. Point at the bogey-man, stand back waiting for applause. I expected better arguments than that from you.

    Of course Boris is trying to make things better. He's trying to deliver Brexit, which is the way to make things better by ending this fever which otherwise stubbornly refuses to break. He's trying against endless roadblocks from those who were elected promising to dismantle barricades, not build and man them.
    If there was a consensus on what a deal was, what our relationship would be with the EU, we on the Remain side would, I think, from talking to my Remain friends, accept it.
    Problem is that there still appears to be a range of possibilities, from armed guards at Dover and just outside Armagh and Derry, to rejoining EFTA.
    Which are we going for in five weeks time?
    Which, or what variation, does Boris, who after all was at the front of the Leave campaign, want?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979

    https://twitter.com/p_surridge/status/1177147781728931840

    Look at the Conservative vote share in the Level 4 group!

    It would be interesting to see this normalised by age.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Scott_P said:

    Of course Boris is trying to make things better.

    Bollocks

    He wants to stay King of the World.

    He will burn down Parliament, the Courts, the Country, to stay in power.

    Like Trump.
    Listen to yourself.

    "burn down". Inflammatroy language much?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,322

    Cyclefree said:



    Oh, there is only one national mood is there? And Boris knows what it is, does he?

    And the rest of us - our mood, our fed-up'ness, our anger: I suppose they don't count.

    He is not a leader. He is a self-interested charlatan who is making things worse not better. He is not even trying to make things better. He claims to admire Churchill but is copying Trump.

    Trump. Trump. Trump. The easy get-out. Point at the bogey-man, stand back waiting for applause. I expected better arguments than that from you.

    Of course Boris is trying to make things better. He's trying to deliver Brexit, which is the way to make things better by ending this fever which otherwise stubbornly refuses to break. He's trying against endless roadblocks from those who were elected promising to dismantle barricades, not build and man them.
    If he were genuine in trying to deliver Brexit he would not have tied himself to a date. He would have come up with a realistic negotiation strategy, explained it to his party and the Commons and explained that he would need the time to get this right, that it was important to get this right, that Brexit needed to be delivered properly in order to work. That is the way to get Brexit done.

    He did none of this. He picked a date, worked backwards and is now lashing out at anyone and anything that stands in his way.

    And yes the fact that he is copying Trump is a legitimate criticism to make of a man who has made so much of his admiration of the man. We are entitled to look at who he admires and the tactics he adopts to assess his behaviour. Just as we - and you - have done in relation to Corbyn. Sauce for the goose and all that.
  • https://twitter.com/p_surridge/status/1177147781728931840

    Look at the Conservative vote share in the Level 4 group!

    Is this why they dont like state education?
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Scott_P said:
    Lewis Goodall is a joke. Essentially Corbyn's mouthpiece. No idea how a mainstream channel can justify a socialist as a news correspondent (we all know how Paul Mason turned out).
  • Byronic said:


    Well, here's one PB-er that has lost all hope of "winning". The very notion is surreal. There is no winning to be done in Brexit, for anyone.

    I just want our democracy and economy to survive, as undamaged as possible.

    For me, the best bet is some Johnsonian deal, as I have said. Every other course is fraught with greater dangers.

    Increasingly I think that a 2nd referendum is too ghastly to contemplate. Imagine how bitter, angry and divisive the campaign would be? We're not meant to speak of violence on here, but Ugh. And what happens if one side simply boycotts a second vote, and the turnout goes below 50%? Then our crisis worsens,

    This chimes with my view.

    You read ever more hysterical and apocalyptic predictions from remainers about the effects of a no deal exit but these horrific consequences are never so bad that it would justify voting for a deal.

    The truth is that remainers are so hell bent on overturning the referendum result that the scorching of centuries of convention, national institutions and, worst of all, the faith of the electorate is justifiable if it means they can thwart the will of over 17m people.

    I wish they would step back and realise the damage they are doing.
  • Andrew said:

    eek said:

    I think a lot of people are working on the basis that Boris can simply walk away from being PM to avoid sending the letter.

    I'm not so he can - and that as we need a PM Boris remains it until another person is nominated to be PM.


    This is probably right. Again points to Ken Clarke - he wouldn't exactly command the confidence of the house, but the opposition also aren't going to bring him down while he goes through the extension process. That might be enough for HM.
    No, it cannot be Ken Clarke. For a start, he wants to negotiate a new deal which involves running a proper government for months. Second, he would be rejected by both Boris and Jeremy Corbyn.

    If you must look for a neutral figure, it has to be someone Corbyn and Boris can accept, at least passively.
    Even a referendum would take 6 odd months to sort out. So if we get a GNU they'll have to do stuff outside of Brexit.

    Like a budget etc etc.
  • Tabman said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    spudgfsh said:

    OllyT said:

    Byronic said:

    OllyT said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:



    .
    I disagree, nobody bangs on about WW2 in the way many Brits do.
    No, but the way that most of the other 27 countries think of the EU is heavily influenced by it.
    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.
    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Was it here that someone posted that the Army in N Africa was only about 25% British (in the sense of being English/Welsh/Scots N Irish), the rest being from the Empire/Commonwealth.
    And by the time we'd got to mid '42 a significant part of Australia's troops had been captured in Singapore by the Japanese.
    Yes. And this will please Malcolm and Stuart - the "best" troops were those from Australia, New Zealand, and Scotland.

    The Australians were largely withdrawn in early 1942 after the attack on Pearl Harbour
    Martial mythologising can be overdone, eg the behaviour of some Australian troops at the fall of Singapore was less than glorious & I'm sure there are similar instances with Scottish troops. Otoh Kiwis seem to largely deserve their ferocious reputation, eg Charles Upham, one of only 3 double VCs and the only combat soldier recipient.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    This thread is getting a lot of interest on Twitter.

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1176839648406122497
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,993

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:



    A GE will probably work.

    First, It will produce at least one loser. Corby will go if he doesn't advance. Bojo will go if he loses 40+ seats. And they both could lose their seats in such an unpredictable election. That will break the logjam in the parties.

    Second, even if it produces a hung Parliament like now, the message from the electorate is we are not giving a mandate for Revoke or No Deal. You need to come up with a compromise. It allows MPs to row back from their extreme position. We asked the electorate, and they gave an answer and we must now implement the answer by compromise.

    Third, it could give Boris a majority (possible but unlikely IMO), and then he get get on and do what he wants with his mandate.

    The present prolonging of a Parliament that has no stable configuration is not in the interests of anyone, other than a few vicariously cruel individuals.

    Strangely enough, I agree with you.
    I'd previously advocated, back in the halcyon days of May, for some kind of referendum to break the impasse, but that is clearly impossible. Parliament wouldn't begin to be able to agree on the question(s) to put.

    All sides are claiming to be speaking for 'the public', and that clearly can't be true. A fresh election would at least give a real indication of where the electorate now is.

    But it's not going to happen until the issue of no deal on 31st Oct is fully resolved.
    Can't wait just to move onto the election phase.
    But Corbyn clearly can.
    I'm assuming your intelligent enough to understand what they are waiting for, it is exactly what I am waiting for. I might 'can't wait' to just move onto a medical operation I was waiting for but that doesn't mean I'll do it without a doctor or operating room because they aren't available yet.

    The phrase 'can't wait' doesn't mean I will do anything to make it happen. Although I'm sure you know full well what it means and are being a smug asshole because you disagree with my politics.
    I'll agree to flippant, but I think smug is simply inaccurate.
    As for asshole - well, we're all in possession of one.

    My remark was intended to suggest that patience is both warranted and necessary. Just getting angry because Parliament 'isn't doing anything' is an exercise in futility.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    Cyclefree said:


    The Battle of Britain was won as a result of the efforts of people like my father, a Squadron Leader during that time. He came from Ireland to volunteer. He was an immigrant, like my mother, and some on the Brexit side have come out with views and language about immigrants which has been disgraceful and which shames this country.

    I understand volunteers who fought for the "Brits" didn't necessarily get a rapturous reception on their return. Unless your father was from the North?
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,850
    edited September 2019

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The problem is that the way Britain thinks of it is based on a misunderstanding of our own history. So the big myth about Britain fighting alone against the forces of evil.

    Balls. We were not alone. We largely overlook the contribution of Polish airmen, for instance, to the Battle of Britain. So we overestimate our ability to cope on our own and forget that most of what we've achieved in our history has been in conjunction with our friends and allies.

    In 1940 we were alone, the contibution of Free forces while noteworthy didnt save the country. We didnt win the war either, we were simply on the winning side. the USSR did most of the dying and the USA most of the financing. Our contribution was probably providing most of the jump off points for freeing Western Europe.
    We had our Empire behind us in 1940. It was not plucky Britain standing alone. We have mythologised our role in WW2 and it is skewing our perceptions of our standing in the world. Britain has achieved much in history but more often than not it has been as a result of working with friends and allies.
    Yes, and Churchill said as much in his "we will fight them on the beaches ... we will never surrender speech". It continues:
    and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


    So I am agreeing with @Cyclefree we were not alone, but disagreeing this is somehow a secret.
    It's not a secret but it's not something that gets much airing these days. Ask the Poles if they feel that their contribution to the Battle of Britain gets much recognition by those who think that entering into an agreement with the EU is a "surrender".
    And those that did get here to fight often displayed great courage in getting here, as well as in battle.
    The Anglo/Polish feature film 303 Squadron (which DVD I bought from Sainsbury's just this month) was released last year. The Polish contribution (pilots and code breakers) is not a state secret.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSHeKwLnp8o
    The Czechs and Poles are - I believe - also portrayed in the 1960s epic-classic, The Battle of Britain. It's never been anything airbrushed from history.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Scott_P said:

    Of course Boris is trying to make things better.

    Bollocks

    He wants to stay King of the World.

    He will burn down Parliament, the Courts, the Country, to stay in power.

    Like Trump.
    Listen to yourself.

    "burn down". Inflammatroy language much?

    He tried to close down Parliament and has already accused the Courts (who are neutral by definition in the UK) of playing Politics.

    Clearly you need more evidence than that but it's perfectly acceptable to think that Boris is happy to destory anything and everything to get what he wants.
  • Byronic said:

    OK, we're either waffling about the war, or repeating ourselves endlessly about Brexit. We're no better than the Arse of Commons.

    Time to do some real work. Lates.

    Enjoy the photo shoot.
    I'm sure Byronic is not the only PBer who sits around in his pants while posting.
  • https://twitter.com/p_surridge/status/1177147781728931840

    Look at the Conservative vote share in the Level 4 group!

    Shocking for the Conservatives. The more educated you are the less likely you are to be Conservative. One expects this with the Brexit Party, but not Conservative. It would be interesting to see a similar graph/datset from 10 years ago.

    The impact of this is likely to be medium and long term. Thought leadership is an important aspect of marketing. The more educated generally have a greater platform to be heard and influence others, and to be seen to be reasonable. The Conservatives really are fucked. Thanks Boris!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,979

    This thread is getting a lot of interest on Twitter.

    https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1176839648406122497

    Could do with The Human League playing when reading that.

    I notice that not many other politicians are laying into Boris here. Can't think why...
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028
    Noo said:

    Tabman said:

    Thought: could we have two ballot papers at the GE to decouple Brexit from Party?

    You just know that there would end up being a Leave+Lib Dem majority or a Remain+Brexit Party majority ;)
    Which is no bad thing - isn't there a trope that says you get someone opposed to something to deliver it effectively?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522
    edited September 2019

    Even a referendum would take 6 odd months to sort out. So if we get a GNU they'll have to do stuff outside of Brexit.

    Like a budget etc etc.

    Conveniently, the government recently announced a huge unfunded pre-election spending splurge, so stick with that, and take the credit for it.
  • Mr. Noo, that's an odd comment.

    The Roman Empire isn't around any more. That doesn't mean it was a failure.

    England, depending how you measure it, has been around for one and a half thousand years. Is it a failure?

    Empires (using the term very broadly) rise, and fall, ebb and flow all the time, throughout all human history. Just because something doesn't last forever in an immutable form doesn't mean it's worthless. Times change, and so does the world.
  • I think we need to No Deal Brexit and burn the cancer of nationalism out. Lack of medicines, firms going bust, food shortages.

    The whole enchilada.
  • Brom said:

    Scott_P said:
    Lewis Goodall is a joke. Essentially Corbyn's mouthpiece. No idea how a mainstream channel can justify a socialist as a news correspondent (we all know how Paul Mason turned out).
    Maybe, but don't shoot the messenger if the message is sound, which it is.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    https://twitter.com/p_surridge/status/1177147781728931840

    Look at the Conservative vote share in the Level 4 group!

    Shocking for the Conservatives. The more educated you are the less likely you are to be Conservative. One expects this with the Brexit Party, but not Conservative. It would be interesting to see a similar graph/datset from 10 years ago.

    The impact of this is likely to be medium and long term. Thought leadership is an important aspect of marketing. The more educated generally have a greater platform to be heard and influence others, and to be seen to be reasonable. The Conservatives really are fucked. Thanks Boris!
    I think the educated followed the Conservatives when they were the party of economic and social liberalism (similarly Blair). Both are positions of reason. Now they've vacated the field, there's a huge opportunity for another party to capitalise on this.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I think we need to No Deal Brexit and burn the cancer of nationalism out. Lack of medicines, firms going bust, food shortages.

    The whole enchilada.

    Sadly, yes.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,419
    edited September 2019

    Cyclefree said:


    I too dislike this Empire nostalgia bollocks. But during WW2 Britain had the resources of an Empire behind it and this meant that is was not simply one little island fighting by itself, as some of the myth-making from some would have us believe.

    I have never quite followed the reasoning of those (and there are many) who enjoy taking the opportunity to snipe from the sidelines about a period of history that the UK is rightly proud.
    It is a period of history of which we can be proud. But it was then and this is now. We are not them and they are not us.

    We need to deal with this period of history - a very different time with very different challenges.

    Harking back to the past will not solve today's problems.
  • I think we need to No Deal Brexit and burn the cancer of nationalism out. Lack of medicines, firms going bust, food shortages.

    The whole enchilada.

    What if people turn even more strongly to nationalism in response to no deal hardship?
This discussion has been closed.