The nature of the MPs the Tories have post-election is going to be very different. They will be far more right-wing and far less willig to compromise on Brexit. There are 21 deselected MPs to replace and a number of other moderates who have annouced their retirements on top. You can pretty much take it for granted that those who replace them will be ERG/BXP, so there is no way they are going to vote for anything that looks like May's Deal.
Virtually all Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop ie the Brady amendment so if Boris gets a Tory majority he can pass that if he agrees it with the EU.
Do you think the EU is minded to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and bin the backstop?
This means resignation. Corbyn in No.10, massively legitimised.
Corbyn in No 10 for 10 seconds purely to extend as Neville Chamberlain 2, Tories then sweep through Labour Leave seats at the subsequent general election with Boris campaigning as Winston Churchill (while rightly telling Tory Remainers vote LD you get Corbyn)
You are such a prat, not even funny anymore. What has happened to you? You used to make cow.
We. Need. Polls.
Sorry that is not true. I think many remain voting MPs share the view that is similar PM
PS HYUFD completely destroyed any shred of cred he had when he started using the word "traitor". I have many friends and family who are remain sympathetic and have served their country in the armed forces. What the fuck has this idiot done for his country I would like to know?
I never said traitors to country, I said traitors to democracy, which they undoubtedly are having refused to respect the winning Leave vote despite voting to have the referendum and invoke Article 50 and most of the country feels the same
The majority of voters backed parties that specifically opposed a No Deal Brexit in the 2017 General Election. They did so again in the 2019 European Elections.
Leaving, with a deal, is the thing voters consistently have voted for, and MPs have consistently voted against
Yep - so we need to get to a deal that most voters and MPs would accept. That involves EEA/EFTA, but is politically impossible for the Tories to support becaue it would destroy them.
It’s insane that no party in parliament - none of them - support the outcome you suggest, which is clearly the most sensible, and likely to enjoy the widest public support, and which saves our democracy and our economy. They’ve all gone mad on all sides.
The first run of the Letwin indicative vote process showed that at that point Labour was pretty much the soft Brexit Party. Had Conservatives been willing to participate in the process, rather than voting everything other than their own unicorn down, things might have ended differently. Since Letwin - by a handful of votes - failed to identify a consensus way forward, events have driven everyone to the extremes.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
Yep - so we need to get to a deal that most voters and MPs would accept. That involves EEA/EFTA, but is politically impossible for the Tories to support becaue it would destroy them.
If MPs would support that why did they reject it in the indicative votes?
Because the government was whipped for god sake.
I thought they were free votes? But the government side wasn't whipped in favour of anything, which is how anything controversial actually gets passed in the British system.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
Then VONC yes?
No! That would mean a general election and we don't have elections in this country when its dark at 4pm and cold/wet/snowy.
December, January and February are ruled out for a general election. November too in all proabaility.
This means resignation. Corbyn in No.10, massively legitimised.
Corbyn in No 10 for 10 seconds purely to extend as Neville Chamberlain 2, Tories then sweep through Labour Leave seats at the subsequent general election with Boris campaigning as Winston Churchill (while rightly telling Tory Remainers vote LD you get Corbyn)
You are such a prat, not even funny anymore. What has happened to you? You used to make some sensible comment. Now it is all war comic references and referring to decent British citizens as "traitors" for not agreeing with your myopic view. I am beginning to think you are actually a bot from Moscow.
We. Need. Polls.
Sorry that is not true. I think many remain voting MPs M
PS HYUFD completely destroyed any shred of cred he had when he started using the wo know?
I never said traitors to country, I said traitors to democracy, which they e
The majority of voters backed parties that specifically opposed a No Deal Brexit in the 2017 General Election. They did so again in the 2019 European Elections.
Leaving, with a deal, is , and MPs have consistently voted against
Yep - so we need to get to a deal t would destroy them.
It’s insane that no party in parliament - none of them - support the outcome you suggest, which mad on all sides.
Agree. But TMs deal is the best available right now, and leaves various doors open.
The Tories cannot back that now either. It would destroy them. They have to deliver No Deal. They have no other option.
Agreed. Everything is pinned on that, only absolute victories allowed as others have said. They might well end up dominating polling but unable to deliver the no deal that is swelling their numbers.
For what it's worth I know at least 1 former remainer who would reluctantly back no deal over Corbyn, but the country as a whole?
By 48% to 35% voters prefer No Deal to Corbyn as PM
The nature of the MPs the Tories have post-election is going to be very different. They will be far more right-wing and far less willig to compromise on Brexit. There are 21 deselected MPs to replace and a number of other moderates who have annouced their retirements on top. You can pretty much take it for granted that those who replace them will be ERG/BXP, so there is no way they are going to vote for anything that looks like May's Deal.
Virtually all Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop ie the Brady amendment so if Boris gets a Tory majority he can pass that if he agrees it with the EU.
Do you think the EU is minded to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and bin the backstop?
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
Then VONC yes?
No! That would mean a general election and we don't have elections in this country when its dark at 4pm and cold/wet/snowy.
December, January and February are ruled out for a general election. November too in all proabaility.
Not sure long standing conventions can guide us much at the minute.....
The nature of the MPs the Tories have post-election is going to be very different. They will be far more right-wing and far less willig to compromise on Brexit. There are 21 deselected MPs to replace and a number of other moderates who have annouced their retirements on top. You can pretty much take it for granted that those who replace them will be ERG/BXP, so there is no way they are going to vote for anything that looks like May's Deal.
Virtually all Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop ie the Brady amendment so if Boris gets a Tory majority he can pass that if he agrees it with the EU.
Do you think the EU is minded to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and bin the backstop?
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical alternative
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
The more Labour looks at the polls, and - more tellingly - recent actual election results, the less likely they are going to want an election any time soon.
only 'useless' in the context that the Prime Minister is prepared to break the law with intent. Which I suppose in normal times is not something you tend to consider likely.
Well the opposition has repeatedly said it doesn't trust Johnson. Surely if you don't trust him you'll try and remove him at the first opportunity ?
I guess so... well actually at the first opportunity that you can do so without risking him finding a way to do the thing you least want him to do
Not about a lack of trust in Boris, all about electoral advantage. T'was ever thus.
The nature of the MPs the Tories have post-election is going to be very different. They will be far more right-wing and far less willig to compromise on Brexit. There are 21 deselected MPs to replace and a number of other moderates who have annouced their retirements on top. You can pretty much take it for granted that those who replace them will be ERG/BXP, so there is no way they are going to vote for anything that looks like May's Deal.
Virtually all Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop ie the Brady amendment so if Boris gets a Tory majority he can pass that if he agrees it with the EU.
Do you think the EU is minded to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and bin the backstop?
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical alternative
Merkel gave Boris 30 days to submit his proposals. How is he doing?
"For what it's worth I know at least 1 former remainer who would reluctantly back no deal over Corbyn, but the country as a whole?"
Boris will want on an election on 'getting Brexit done' versus 'Corbyn and yet more Brexit delay', not a straight fight versus Corbyn on other issues. As shown in 2017, Corbyn does rather well when it comes to the other issues.....
Boris needs this to be the mother of all Brexit elections in which people vote on who they think will get Brexit 'done' as quickly as possible.
That Tory poster down thread beautifully illustrates the message.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
Then VONC yes?
No! That would mean a general election and we don't have elections in this country when its dark at 4pm and cold/wet/snowy.
December, January and February are ruled out for a general election. November too in all proabaility.
Has anyone wargamed (sic) the implications of that? presumably lower turnout, but who does that benefit?
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
LDs would VONC Corbyn to keep Tory Remainers voting for them.
Tory rebels are mostly standing down anyway and would VONC Corbyn post extension
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
Oh come on. You k ow that is disingenuous bollocks. If you want to be pedantic Columbus took slaves to Hispaniola in 1492 and he was an Italian working for the Spanish. The Spanish, Portuguese and English were co-conspirators in what we would now consider a crime against humanity. Your efforts to spin patriotism around the “system’s” belated attempt to end that crime it is an absurd whitewash of history.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
The more Labour looks at the polls, and - more tellingly - recent actual election results, the less likely they are going to want an election any time soon.
Yes and Labour polling will hit rock bottom after Corbyn hands in his surrender request so they have to play it long if they can.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We did not start the slave trade.
Farming started the slave trade. Until people started farming, slaves were no use for anything.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
LDs would VONC Corbyn to keep Tory Remainers voting for them.
Tory rebels are mostly standing down anyway and would VONC Corbyn post extension
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
We don't go the the polls in November, December, January or February. It just won't happen.
If Jezza is in power on 1st Novedmber he'll still be there on 1st April.
By that time who knows how the political siuation will look...
Only if he has the confidence of parliament. Which, if he does, is legitimate. If not, the LOTO (presumably the Conservative leader?) VONCs him and a new government or election follows. What other outcome could there possibly be?
That's what the Parties will say they're going to do but in reality the Parties will hold off on VONC until Spring as a winter election just isn't practical.
As someone else has said Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not even a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
If Boris is right and the people are behind him against the traitor remainers then why does he care when the election is?
Because his inverted pyramid of piffle of a Brexit policy cannot survive contact with the EU Council. He needs the election beforehand to give him political space to abandon it.
The nature of the MPs the Tories have post-election is going to be very different. They will be far more right-wing and far less willig to compromise on Brexit. There are 21 deselected MPs to replace and a number of other moderates who have annouced their retirements on top. You can pretty much take it for granted that those who replace them will be ERG/BXP, so there is no way they are going to vote for anything that looks like May's Deal.
Virtually all Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop ie the Brady amendment so if Boris gets a Tory majority he can pass that if he agrees it with the EU.
Do you think the EU is minded to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and bin the backstop?
If it is the only way to avoid No Deal. Yes.
Not a minute sooner.
So too late for now given they know parliament will ask thrn to kick the can.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
LDs would VONC Corbyn to keep Tory Remainers voting for them.
Tory rebels are mostly standing down anyway and would VONC Corbyn post extension
Once again.
Only the LotO can propose a VONC.
No, anyone can propose a VONC. By convention, only LOTO is guaranteed early parliamentary time for it.
The nature of the MPs the Tories have post-election is going to be very different. They will be far more right-wing and far less willig to compromise on Brexit. There are 21 deselected MPs to replace and a number of other moderates who have annouced their retirements on top. You can pretty much take it for granted that those who replace them will be ERG/BXP, so there is no way they are going to vote for anything that looks like May's Deal.
Virtually all Tory MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop ie the Brady amendment so if Boris gets a Tory majority he can pass that if he agrees it with the EU.
Do you think the EU is minded to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and bin the backstop?
Macron and Merkel did not rule out a technical alternative
Great. So what is the alternative and what has there reaction been to it?
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
Oh come on. You k ow that is disingenuous bollocks. If you want to be pedantic Columbus took slaves to Hispaniola in 1492 and he was an Italian working for the Spanish. The Spanish, Portuguese and English were co-conspirators in what we would now consider a crime against humanity. Your efforts to spin patriotism around the “system’s” belated attempt to end that crime it is an absurd whitewash of history.
Slavery was not something invented by either the Portuguese, Spanish or English. It was something this world had always known. The Bible endorses it, the Romans had it, the Spanish and Portuguese had it. Africans had it without us even getting involved.
But we stopped it. Yes we got involved first but we stopped it and we were the only ones to do so. It could still exist today like it had for millennia before were it not for us.
"For what it's worth I know at least 1 former remainer who would reluctantly back no deal over Corbyn, but the country as a whole?"
Boris will want on an election on 'getting Brexit done' versus 'Corbyn and yet more Brexit delay', not a straight fight versus Corbyn on other issues. As shown in 2017, Corbyn does rather well when it comes to the other issues.....
Boris needs this to be the mother of all Brexit elections in which people vote on who they think will get Brexit 'done' as quickly as possible.
That Tory poster down thread beautifully illustrates the message.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We did not start the slave trade.
We began the importation of slaves into what is now the United States in 1619 when the White Lion arrived in Virginia. For 200 years thereafter we perpetuated a crime against humanity. Then, after 10s of millions of lives were destroyed by the actions of this country, you say we should be “proud” of a system that made some efforts to end it. You then make your untenable position worse by splitting hairs over who started it.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
We are - just - second to Portugal in millions of bodies shipped across the Atlantic. Does that make it OK that we did it? Please sir, he started it?
Slavery survives as more than just a story in that there are some very large, intact fortunes passed down from successful, err, general merchants in places like Bristol and Liverpool.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
We don't go the the polls in November, December, January or February. It just won't happen.
If Jezza is in power on 1st Novedmber he'll still be there on 1st April.
By that time who knows how the political siuation will look...
Only if he has the confidence of parliament. Which, if he does, is legitimate. If not, the LOTO (presumably the Conservative leader?) VONCs him and a new government or election follows. What other outcome could there possibly be?
That's what the Parties will say they're going to do but in reality the Parties will hold off on VONC until Spring as a winter election just isn't practical.
As someone else has saif Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
Corbyn doesn't have the numbers with just the SNP
Conservative 289 Democratic Unionist Party 10 ----------------------------- 299
Labour 247 (less Iam Murray I expect) Scottish National Party 35 --------------------- 282
Lib Dems won't entertain the potential break up of the UK either.
"For what it's worth I know at least 1 former remainer who would reluctantly back no deal over Corbyn, but the country as a whole?"
Boris will want on an election on 'getting Brexit done' versus 'Corbyn and yet more Brexit delay', not a straight fight versus Corbyn on other issues. As shown in 2017, Corbyn does rather well when it comes to the other issues.....
Boris needs this to be the mother of all Brexit elections in which people vote on who they think will get Brexit 'done' as quickly as possible.
That Tory poster down thread beautifully illustrates the message.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
LDs would VONC Corbyn to keep Tory Remainers voting for them.
Tory rebels are mostly standing down anyway and would VONC Corbyn post extension
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
We don't go the the polls in November, December, January or February. It just won't happen.
If Jezza is in power on 1st Novedmber he'll still be there on 1st April.
By that time who knows how the political siuation will look...
Only if he has the confidence of parliament. Which, if he does, is legitimate. If not, the LOTO (presumably the Conservative leader?) VONCs him and a new government or election follows. What other outcome could there possibly be?
That's what the Parties will say they're going to do but in reality the parties will hold off on VONC until Spring as a winter election just isn't practical.
As someone else has saif Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
I don't think Tory rebels or LibDems countenance a Corbyn administration beyond a quick jaunt to Brussels (they may not yet even allow that, though my hunch is they'll fall in if that's the last hope against No Deal).
Lab+SNP isn't sustainable on its own, but yes.. I guess the others might hold off the trigger to avoid a winter election, as long as he doesn't try to nationalise Tesco or anything.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
Oh come on. You k ow that is disingenuous bollocks. If you want to be pedantic Columbus took slaves to Hispaniola in 1492 and he was an Italian working for the Spanish. The Spanish, Portuguese and English were co-conspirators in what we would now consider a crime against humanity. Your efforts to spin patriotism around the “system’s” belated attempt to end that crime it is an absurd whitewash of history.
There's a long history of all sorts of people taking all sorts of other people as slaves.For example, IIRC, there's genetic evideince that some at least of the Icelandic population is descended from women from the British Isles. They MAY have gone there willingly, but there's also evidence of the Vikings taking slaves of both sexes during their raids. Where does that put the present day Icelanders?
Mr DougSeal, HYUFD is a pathetic little pipsqueak who is not
I know.
I didn't get involved in the tyranny of the majority debate.
I trust our system. I trust our people.
Are you taking the piss? Our system led to the North Atlantic Slave trade and millions of deaths before abolishing it. That's like wanting credit for putting out a fire you yourself started.
(Snip)
You are both right. Britain (England, really) were a key force in internationalising and industrialising the existing slave trade. It is a hideous stain on our past.
However, there is the other side of the equation: when we decided to abolish slavery, we not only abolished it for ourselves, but tried abolishing it when it was done by others - aided by our Navy. We had no reason to do this: we could just have 'banned' it and let the slavers get on with their evil work.
Some people say the costs of the latter more than offset the profits from the former. Not just in money: in 1829, over a quarter of the men serving in the squadron died of illness.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
Slavery was not abolished in the British Empire until 1832. So while the West Africa Squadron in 1829 was suffering disease, Slavery was still very operational in the British West Indies. Even after abolition (and payment of compensation to the slave owners, not slaves) ex-slaves were "apprenticed" to their former owners for further years of toil.
My own Great Great Grandfather was a teacher and missionary in Jamaica in that period of early freedom. The economic system didn't fundamentally change, hence Paul Bogle and the Morant Bay Rebellion.
While abolitionism changed the minds of the British Parliament around the turn of the 18th/19th Century, the other big factor was the foundation of the Haitian Republic. That self liberation was bloody and brutal, but having a free Black Republic at the heart of the West Indies made continuing slavery in the West Indies untenable. The abolition of slavery in the islands really dates from that. Indeed at the height of the Napoleonic wars, 45,000 British troops died in Haiti trying to reimpose slavery on behalf of their French owners, such was the fear of freed slaves spreading the contagion to British Islands.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
We don't go the the polls in November, December, January or February. It just won't happen.
If Jezza is in power on 1st Novedmber he'll still be there on 1st April.
By that time who knows how the political siuation will look...
Only if he has the confidence of parliament. Which, if he does, is legitimate. If not, the LOTO (presumably the Conservative leader?) VONCs him and a new government or election follows. What other outcome could there possibly be?
That's what the Parties will say they're going to do but in reality the parties will hold off on VONC until Spring as a winter election just isn't practical.
As someone else has saif Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
I don't think Tory rebels or LibDems countenance a Corbyn administration beyond a quick jaunt to Brussels (they may not yet even allow that, though my hunch is they'll fall in if that's the last hope against No Deal).
Lab+SNP isn't sustainable on its own, but yes.. I guess the others might hold off the trigger to avoid a winter election, as long as he doesn't try to nationalise Tesco or anything.
I think Corbyn would try and ram through an outrageous give away budget to turn the narrative away from Brexit into a debate on "social justice" knowing that even if it is voted down he has set his agenda and forced middle of the road MPs to take a stance.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
Oh come on. You k ow that is disingenuous bollocks. If you want to be pedantic Columbus took slaves to Hispaniola in 1492 and he was an Italian working for the Spanish. The Spanish, Portuguese and English were co-conspirators in what we would now consider a crime against humanity. Your efforts to spin patriotism around the “system’s” belated attempt to end that crime it is an absurd whitewash of history.
Slavery was not something invented by either the Portuguese, Spanish or English. It was something this world had always known. The Bible endorses it, the Romans had it, the Spanish and Portuguese had it. Africans had it without us even getting involved.
But we stopped it. Yes we got involved first but we stopped it and we were the only ones to do so. It could still exist today like it had for millennia before were it not for us.
@Philip_Thompson - only ones to do so? We were not even the first. Ahistorical bullshit, What about Toussaint L'Ouverture? Vermont in 1777? Denmark in 1802? We were well behind the curve and slavery does exist today. One of the only things the Tory party has done recently that gives them any credit is the Modern Slavery Act that wouldn’t be necessary if it didn’t exist?
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
Oh come on. You k ow that is disingenuous bollocks. If you want to be pedantic Columbus took slaves to Hispaniola in 1492 and he was an Italian working for the Spanish. The Spanish, Portuguese and English were co-conspirators in what we would now consider a crime against humanity. Your efforts to spin patriotism around the “system’s” belated attempt to end that crime it is an absurd whitewash of history.
There's a long history of all sorts of people taking all sorts of other people as slaves.For example, IIRC, there's genetic evideince that some at least of the Icelandic population is descended from women from the British Isles. They MAY have gone there willingly, but there's also evidence of the Vikings taking slaves of both sexes during their raids. Where does that put the present day Icelanders?
The Barbary pirates were famous for raiding much of the European coast, even as far as Britain, often for the purposes of slavery:
"The raids were such a problem coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century. Between 1580 and 1680 corsairs were said to have captured about 850,000 people as slaves and from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved.[1] "
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
We are - just - second to Portugal in millions of bodies shipped across the Atlantic. Does that make it OK that we did it? Please sir, he started it?
Slavery survives as more than just a story in that there are some very large, intact fortunes passed down from successful, err, general merchants in places like Bristol and Liverpool.
My Dad saw two travellers using Romanians as slave Labour last week. £100 to do a £10 gardening job for an OAP
Slavery was not abolished in the British Empire until 1832. So while the West Africa Squadron in 1829 was suffering disease, Slavery was still very operational in the British West Indies. Even after abolition (and payment of compensation to the slave owners, not slaves) ex-slaves were "apprenticed" to their former owners for further years of toil.
My own Great Great Grandfather was a teacher and missionary in Jamaica in that period of early freedom. The economic system didn't fundamentally change, hence Paul Bogle and the Morant Bay Rebellion.
While abolitionism changed the minds of the British Parliament around the turn of the 18th/19th Century, the other big factor was the foundation of the Haitian Republic. That self liberation was bloody and brutal, but having a free Black Republic at the heart of the West Indies made continuing slavery in the West Indies untenable. The abolition of slavery in the islands really dates from that. Indeed at the height of the Napoleonic wars, 45,000 British troops died in Haiti trying to reimpose slavery on behalf of their French owners, such was the fear of freed slaves spreading the contagion to British Islands.
Indeed: the abolition of slavery was not a one-off event, but a long-term process - and one that is arguable still going on today. Likewise, motives are often complex - for instance, the existence of the West Africa Squadron also helped our colonial efforts.
As an aside, I recently walked past the Wilberforce Oak - or more accurately, its site. Were Wilberforce's motivations 'clean' from a modern point of view?
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
Not sure it would pass .I can see Corbyn doing a deal with the SNP in return for second Indy .Are all the Tory defectors going to vote for an immediate GE that will cost most of them their seats? LDs who knows?
LDs would VONC Corbyn to keep Tory Remainers voting for them.
Tory rebels are mostly standing down anyway and would VONC Corbyn post extension
Once again.
Only the LotO can propose a VONC.
Not true. Callaghan called some on himself.
FTPA has rewritten the rules since Callaghan's day*. It requires a specific motion with the wording set out in the Act. And although the FTPA DOESN'T specify that it has to be put by the Leader of the Opposition, it's only (s)he who can expect to be given precedence over government business in a hurry.
(*In any case - not that it makes much difference practically - his were VOCs rather than VONCs!!)
So the decision to have a long prorogation seems to have achieved the following:
* engendered widespread allegations about coups, threat to democracy, embarrassing HM etc etc and diminishing even further Johnson's reputation for trustworthiness, having denied it was going to happen only hours before it happened; * forced all the opposition parties and rebel Tories to bury their differences and come together behind a coherent and workable strategy to prevent no deal; * the expulsion of long-serving Tory MPs, Churchill's grandson included, and the PM's own brother accusing him of abandoning the national interest; * an even greater degree of mistrust between the EU and the UK government; * the transformation of the opposition parties from a warring rabble of disunited factions into a coherent political force clearly in charge of the parliamentary agenda; * the transformation of the Tories from a coherent political force into a warring rabble of disunited factions which has clearly lost control of the parliamentary agenda; * closed off any possibility of Johnson being able to deliver on his threats of an early election.
I wonder how all this fits into the great strategic plan that we have been assured the government is working to?
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
We are - just - second to Portugal in millions of bodies shipped across the Atlantic. Does that make it OK that we did it? Please sir, he started it?
Slavery survives as more than just a story in that there are some very large, intact fortunes passed down from successful, err, general merchants in places like Bristol and Liverpool.
My Dad saw two travellers using Romanians as slave Labour last week. £100 to do a £10 gardening job for an OAP
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
Oh come on.
There's a long history of all sorts of people taking all sorts of other people as slaves.For example, IIRC, there's genetic evideince that some at least of the Icelandic population is descended from women from the British Isles. They MAY have gone there willingly, but there's also evidence of the Vikings taking slaves of both sexes during their raids. Where does that put the present day Icelanders?
The Barbary pirates were famous for raiding much of the European coast, even as far as Britain, often for the purposes of slavery:
"The raids were such a problem coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century. Between 1580 and 1680 corsairs were said to have captured about 850,000 people as slaves and from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved.[1] "
Indeed the Lady Mico foundation that my ancestor was seving in 19th Century Jamaica was originally for the rehabilitation of freed British slaves of the Barbary coast. Often these had been badly treated by their countrymen because of conversion to Islam in captivity.
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
We don't go the the polls in November, December, January or February. It just won't happen.
If Jezza is in power on 1st Novedmber he'll still be there on 1st April.
By that time who knows how the political siuation will look...
Only if he has the confidence of parliament. Which, if he does, is legitimate. If not, the LOTO (presumably the Conservative leader?) VONCs him and a new government or election follows. What other outcome could there possibly be?
That's what the Parties will say they're going to do but in reality the parties will hold off on VONC until Spring as a winter election just isn't practical.
As someone else has saif Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
I don't think Tory rebels or LibDems countenance a Corbyn administration beyond a quick jaunt to Brussels (they may not yet even allow that, though my hunch is they'll fall in if that's the last hope against No Deal).
Lab+SNP isn't sustainable on its own, but yes.. I guess the others might hold off the trigger to avoid a winter election, as long as he doesn't try to nationalise Tesco or anything.
I think Corbyn would try and ram through an outrageous give away budget to turn the narrative away from Brexit into a debate on "social justice" knowing that even if it is voted down he has set his agenda and forced middle of the road MPs to take a stance.
I'm pretty sure the others would bin him off before he had the chance. They'd have to hold their noses pretty tight to put him there at all, and the LDs especially can't afford an election poster with Jo Swinson in Corbyn's suit pocket* when they'll be looking to attract Tory remainers.
(*clearly this would be a mocked up picture. JC in a suit? )
Simple question Johnson resigns Queen invites corbyn to for government as PM no need to have support from anyone else. Goes to Brussels requests extension comes back and seeks 2/3 majority for GE. what is wrong with that
Everything would work up tp 2/3 majority for a general election.
Once in power he'd take root there... Certainly through the Winter and possibly beyond.
VONC is easily done.
We don't go the the polls in November, December, January or February. It just won't happen.
If Jezza is in power on 1st Novedmber he'll still be there on 1st April.
By that time who knows how the political siuation will look...
Only if he has the confidence of parliament. Which, if he does, is legitimate. If not, the LOTO (presumably the Conservative leader?) VONCs him and a new government or election follows. What other outcome could there possibly be?
That's what the Parties will say they're going to do but in reality the parties will hold off on VONC until Spring as a winter election just isn't practical.
As someone else has saif Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
I don't think Tory rebels or LibDems countenance a Corbyn administration beyond a quick jaunt to Brussels (they may not yet even allow that, though my hunch is they'll fall in if that's the last hope against No Deal).
Lab+SNP isn't sustainable on its own, but yes.. I guess the others might hold off the trigger to avoid a winter election, as long as he doesn't try to nationalise Tesco or anything.
I think Corbyn would try and ram through an outrageous give away budget to turn the narrative away from Brexit into a debate on "social justice" knowing that even if it is voted down he has set his agenda and forced middle of the road MPs to take a stance.
I'm pretty sure the others would bin him off before he had the chance. They'd have to hold their noses pretty tight to put him there at all, and the LDs especially can't afford an election poster with Jo Swinson in Corbyn's suit pocket* when they'll be looking to attract Tory remainers.
(*clearly this would be a mocked up picture. JC in a suit? )
Yeah but theres a danger in that 'the lib dems are blocking saving lifes etc etc.' If anything a tempory government would be more tempted to do something 'outragous' than a permanent one.
So whilst we should never forget our role in a hideous trade (and one that we were not alone in doing), we can also take some pride that we eventually fought against it.
There's a bit of a question mark about this "we" business. Nobody alive then is around now. The nature of our state is very different, both in composition and constitution. Very many of the descendants of the British then live in other countries and very many of the population today are descendants of people who were not British then. The continuity linking us to them, linking today's Britain to the Britain of then is faded to the extent that it only exists as a story. It's like pouring a cup of tea into a river and trying to follow where it goes. You can for a while, but in the end it's both everywhere and nowhere.
I feel no shame at the Atlantic slave trade, nor any pride in Britain's efforts to curtail it. Nor should any of you, really.
I agree. However Philip Thompson was suggesting that we have a great system that stopped the Atlantic slave trade while ignoring the fact it started it as well
We really didn’t start the Atlantic slave trade. The Portuguese did. Go to Lagos on the Algarve, and visit the slave market there. Which still stands. Harrowing and educational
Letting facts enter the discussion. @DougSeal won't like that!
We are - just - second to Portugal in millions of bodies shipped across the Atlantic. Does that make it OK that we did it? Please sir, he started it?
Slavery survives as more than just a story in that there are some very large, intact fortunes passed down from successful, err, general merchants in places like Bristol and Liverpool.
My Dad saw two travellers using Romanians as slave Labour last week. £100 to do a £10 gardening job for an OAP
Did he report them?
Dont think so. He gave the Romanians his bottle of water. The travellers kept asking where The Krays lived.
Yeah but theres a danger in that 'the lib dems are blocking saving lifes etc etc.' If anything a tempory government would be more tempted to do something 'outragous' than a permanent one.
A hallmark of the 'Remain Alliance' so far is that it always does the bare minimum required to stop whatever the government's about to do... always extend, never revoke; always force the government's hand, never (so far) overthrow it.
The "alliance" only extends as far as it meets everyone's unanimous, overlapping needs (unlike, say, the 2010 Coalition which involved a good deal of compromise and shared pain).
Given that history, any deal to put Corbyn in will have a manifesto of about half a side of A4 with as much leeway as the Benn bill gives Boris. And failure to stick to the script will lead to a VONC.
I guess if four or five parties agree something that looks like good virtue signalling for all of them - I don't know.. 50p on the minimum wage or more green subsidies - they might give it a go. But I don't see Corbyn getting enough leash to do his own thing, and I think co-operation would be strictly limited ahead of an election campaign where I expect them to resume taking chunks out of each other.
Further explanation of de facto Leave voters saying they voted Remain. When they voted in 2016, they didn't know that Leave could mean that which many now describe as a national catastrophe. They've become well aware that Leave actually could mean that which many now describe as a national catastrophe. They don't want to say they voted for that. And there's only one other way they can say that they voted.
I just checked the last 9 polls** that have come out since Alastair wrote the above article. In total 5,828 participants claimed to have voted Remain and 6,222 claimed Leave. That is 48% Remain and 52% Leave - the same as the referendum. I do not doubt that he had evidence for his claims but it would be interesting to know how many polls it was based on to work out if either result is an anomaly.
** I used the Wikipedia Opinion Polls For The Next UK GE page and took the 9 polls which included polling on or after the 6th September and so could not have been published before the article, starting with Opinium and ending with YG/Times. I used the unweighted figures which was clearly marked in 8 of the polls and I double checked everything.
Comments
December, January and February are ruled out for a general election. November too in all proabaility.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/17/48-35-britons-would-rather-have-no-deal-and-no-cor
Not a minute sooner.
"For what it's worth I know at least 1 former remainer who would reluctantly back no deal over Corbyn, but the country as a whole?"
Boris will want on an election on 'getting Brexit done' versus 'Corbyn and yet more Brexit delay', not a straight fight versus Corbyn on other issues. As shown in 2017, Corbyn does rather well when it comes to the other issues.....
Boris needs this to be the mother of all Brexit elections in which people vote on who they think will get Brexit 'done' as quickly as possible.
That Tory poster down thread beautifully illustrates the message.
Tory rebels are mostly standing down anyway and would VONC Corbyn post extension
Less to lose than we have
Only the LotO can propose a VONC.
As someone else has said Jezza might offer the SNP another refernedum so its not even a given Labour would even lose a VONC.
But we stopped it. Yes we got involved first but we stopped it and we were the only ones to do so. It could still exist today like it had for millennia before were it not for us.
NEW THREAD
Slavery survives as more than just a story in that there are some very large, intact fortunes passed down from successful, err, general merchants in places like Bristol and Liverpool.
Conservative 289
Democratic Unionist Party 10
-----------------------------
299
Labour 247 (less Iam Murray I expect)
Scottish National Party 35
---------------------
282
Lib Dems won't entertain the potential break up of the UK either.
No.
Lab+SNP isn't sustainable on its own, but yes.. I guess the others might hold off the trigger to avoid a winter election, as long as he doesn't try to nationalise Tesco or anything.
Where does that put the present day Icelanders?
My own Great Great Grandfather was a teacher and missionary in Jamaica in that period of early freedom. The economic system didn't fundamentally change, hence Paul Bogle and the Morant Bay Rebellion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bogle
While abolitionism changed the minds of the British Parliament around the turn of the 18th/19th Century, the other big factor was the foundation of the Haitian Republic. That self liberation was bloody and brutal, but having a free Black Republic at the heart of the West Indies made continuing slavery in the West Indies untenable. The abolition of slavery in the islands really dates from that. Indeed at the height of the Napoleonic wars, 45,000 British troops died in Haiti trying to reimpose slavery on behalf of their French owners, such was the fear of freed slaves spreading the contagion to British Islands.
Still, facts don’t matter to you do they?
"The raids were such a problem coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century. Between 1580 and 1680 corsairs were said to have captured about 850,000 people as slaves and from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved.[1] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
As an aside, I recently walked past the Wilberforce Oak - or more accurately, its site. Were Wilberforce's motivations 'clean' from a modern point of view?
http://moremoth.blogspot.com/2016/05/wilberforce-oak_12.html
(*In any case - not that it makes much difference practically - his were VOCs rather than VONCs!!)
* engendered widespread allegations about coups, threat to democracy, embarrassing HM etc etc and diminishing even further Johnson's reputation for trustworthiness, having denied it was going to happen only hours before it happened;
* forced all the opposition parties and rebel Tories to bury their differences and come together behind a coherent and workable strategy to prevent no deal;
* the expulsion of long-serving Tory MPs, Churchill's grandson included, and the PM's own brother accusing him of abandoning the national interest;
* an even greater degree of mistrust between the EU and the UK government;
* the transformation of the opposition parties from a warring rabble of disunited factions into a coherent political force clearly in charge of the parliamentary agenda;
* the transformation of the Tories from a coherent political force into a warring rabble of disunited factions which has clearly lost control of the parliamentary agenda;
* closed off any possibility of Johnson being able to deliver on his threats of an early election.
I wonder how all this fits into the great strategic plan that we have been assured the government is working to?
(*clearly this would be a mocked up picture. JC in a suit?
The "alliance" only extends as far as it meets everyone's unanimous, overlapping needs (unlike, say, the 2010 Coalition which involved a good deal of compromise and shared pain).
Given that history, any deal to put Corbyn in will have a manifesto of about half a side of A4 with as much leeway as the Benn bill gives Boris. And failure to stick to the script will lead to a VONC.
I guess if four or five parties agree something that looks like good virtue signalling for all of them - I don't know.. 50p on the minimum wage or more green subsidies - they might give it a go. But I don't see Corbyn getting enough leash to do his own thing, and I think co-operation would be strictly limited ahead of an election campaign where I expect them to resume taking chunks out of each other.
I do not doubt that he had evidence for his claims but it would be interesting to know how many polls it was based on to work out if either result is an anomaly.
** I used the Wikipedia Opinion Polls For The Next UK GE page and took the 9 polls which included polling on or after the 6th September and so could not have been published before the article, starting with Opinium and ending with YG/Times. I used the unweighted figures which was clearly marked in 8 of the polls and I double checked everything.