This is a fascinating video broadcast on BBC Question Time recorded lastnight. It illustrates how low income relative to wealth has become in this country. The relationship between Labour (work) and capital.

The system is rigged to gradually drive down wages for the people who work. While the people who live on capital keep quiet and spend as little as possible, so that the workers don't realise where all the wealth is. When the Labour Party says it will increase tax for people earning over £80,000, people like this man think that they are taxing the ordinary worker, because he doesn't think he is in the top 5%. He thinks he's in the bottom half of earners, but actually he is in the top 5%.


https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514

Wow.

Yes, they are desperate. This is an existential crisis for the Conservative party, they are terrified that a truly socialist party can get into government and take to task their privelidged lifestyles, so they fear. That the public could get a taste for it, while their party fades into oblivion due to the change in the demographic( the younger generations don't favour the Conservative party).

Most people are basically selfish, and kind unselfish people seldom get rich..

Yes, the people who are rich tend to be more selfish, or put more effort into accruing wealth for some reason. The poor are more vulnerable and rely more on the state to look after their interests. Although there is a strange phenomena of poor people voting for the rich to keep them poor, a kind of defeatist attitude.

The reason that the government hasn't come out all guns blazing at the Labour manifesto is that they too are planning to say that they are going to splash the cash. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They seem to be tying themselves into a knot. This morning Priti Patel the Home Secretary started blaming the housing crisis and poverty on councils and providers who the government has starved of cash for the last 9 years. So basically blaming the government and claiming that the government is now going to put it right.

Now that the Labour manifesto has come out, lots of wealthy and powerful people are coming out of the woodwork and claiming that the're under attack, they'll leave the country etc. When all is being proposed is that they pay a little more tax, or pay the taxes they are avoiding paying. Oh, and it will bankrupt the country etc. With no thought for the poor.

Interesting that the conversation has moved on from Brexit...


The problem with the view that a labour government would bankrupt the country which is the usual slur. Is that most people don't remember what happened in the 1950's and 1970's. The older predominantly Tory supporting part of the population, who were there at the time, are falling in number due to demographic forces.

Whereas on the other side of the debate, the string of failing, or profiteering private provision of essential services over the last 30 years spells out that privatisation is not all it's cracked up to be either. I think I only need to mention two names to illustrate this point, for now. Jarvis and Carillion.

Yes, I agree about sticking to party lines. I mentioned it because the media focussed on it as being boring and not broadening the debate and were spinning lines that they were unfit to be prime minister because of it. Which I didn't agree with, I realised that they were aiming at a small audience of undecided, or poorly informed voters, so wanted to give them, their primary attack lines.

I thought Corbyn's reluctance to commit to a view was Johnson's attack line, he didn't seem to have any others apart from a few mumbled references to " the highest corporation tax in Europe", or 1.2 trillion in spending under Corbyn. Both blatantly in accurate. When I realised that was his only attack line, I was surprised and relieved, because it is in fact irrelevant. As Rebecca Long Bailey pointed out on Newsnight after the debate. Their policy is that the people would decide in a referendum, and the party would decide democratically in conference when the referendum is called what the party line would be and frontline politicians wouldn't be whipped on it. That It is sensible for Corbyn not to express a view going into a renegotiation with the EU, as it was a matter of negotiation.

I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?

I have seen a few other polls on the debate, Corbyn is well ahead in all of them. I don't have time now to link them.

Anyway Dominic Raab the Tory Secretary of State said "no one gives a toss about social media" on BBC breakfast this morning. So it doesn't matter anyway.

Thanks for that, there is so much going on now, I can't write it all here. The first time I saw this false poll was on BBC in the follow up coverage. Looks like the gremlins in the BBC are spreading fake news again.


Update,
The i newspaper is saying that the poll wasn't held before the debate, but immediately after and that the time referenced on the webpage had not been updated. Also they say the claim went viral amongst Corbyn supporters. I'm not sure what to think on that one. YouGov who ran the pole is run by Nadim Zahawi, a Conservative cabinet minister, so the result is dubious anyway.

James OBrian on LBC has just made an interesting observation. In reference to the fraudulent change of the name and title of the Conservative press twitter account, yesterday during the debate lastnight.
The title was changed to FactcheckerUK aping genuine fact checker organisations, which have become important in UK politics, due to so much disinformation and untruths. This is a big story this morning.

What James is saying is that in the Tory spin press office during the debate, while in the knowledge that the headlines in the dominant right wing press would slam Corbyn in the morning. Decided to create this fraudulent fact checker because they were worried about Corbyn's attack on what a Johnson government would do to sell out the NHS. Why are they so scarred? That they would pull that stunt.

Maybe it's because the younger generations have been signing up to vote in large numbers since the vote was called and we all know what they think of the Tory's.

Highlights of the leaders debate, its difficult to be impartial due to the depth of the political division. Audience and initial public reaction is split, meaning that their opinions can't be taken as impartial.

For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".

Johnson's weakness, is he only has one policy, one slogan, one goal, get it done. Corbyn's weakness is he has to straddle a split party so has to try to appeal to both sides and not to alienate one, or the other.

Johnson is a one trick pony, a pony, who is untrustworthy, divisive and doesn't care for the real issues in the country.

Corbyn is balancing on a fence and finding himself a socialist up against four decades of anti socialist sentiment, drip fed by the press and pretty much endemic in public perception at this time. While having an extensive and progressive socialist plan to restore the social and economic health of the country, which is desperately wanted by a portion of the population and dismissed as Marxist by another portion.

Johnson's policy other than "just get it done", is more of the same deregulated capitalism, failure to address the disintegrating public services. More stripping of workers rights. And the prospect of a rip roaring capitalist trade deal with Trump selling out the NHS and access to a deregulated marketplace, a race to the bottom.

The sensible choice for me is a no brainer, it is depressing how many people are caught up in prejudice and deceit and can't think clearly about what is important for the country.

There will be a leaders debate tonight at 8.00pm on ITV. Between Johnson and Corbyn. It will be broadcast widely on news channels if you're not in the UK.

That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.

Yes I don't deny that they did reflect a public view. But the public was from my experience quite isolated from the general public politically. It was mainly well off Tory supporters in Tory heartlands. Anyway going back to the hard right, I heard it from the horses mouth at the time. My ex partners father was the political editor of The Times during the 1980's, the time I am referring to and was present in the political establishment throughout the period. Anti EU rhetoric spread slowly through the party base, I was persuaded to an extent at the time. But decided a few years later that the fears were largely unfounded and the benefits of EU membership outweigh the issues they were concerned about. Well apart from those who were convinced that the Germans where planning to create a European superstate which they would control. If you subscribed to that view, there was no way back.

I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.

In 2004 the other countries already in the EU put working and residency restrictions on immigrants from the east European states when they joined. The UK didn't, they could have done, but Blair didn't think many would come and thought it would be beneficial.

but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules.

I just wanted to pick up on these two points. The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.

The anti-EU view is a legitimate one

Of course there is such a thing as anti-EU sentiment. But the only legitimate one I can identify is the one of political independence and Sovereignty. Although most of the rhetoric I hear on this point is spurious, which is due to a misunderstanding of how the EU works and what we are doing in cooperating in such a Union.
Again this has been primed by the tabloids and anti EU politicians spreading spurious claims.

This is evident in the fact that if one looks at the comment on the EU and our involvement in it in the media, it has for a number of years been entirely negative, i.e. Pointing out things about our membership which are not in our interest, while at no point mentioning what is in our interest.

If this is not a bias in the media, then where is the comment in favour of both our involvement and our future in the EU?

I was blaming the idea of leaving the EU on the Tory party. On the assumption that UKIP was a Tory party phenomenon, part of the split in the party.

It is well known that the threat of UKIP once it was established is what pushed the Tory's and New Labour to start talking about the idea of leaving. Blair only talked about it because the conversation had been started by UKIP, which in turn only started talking about it because right wing Tory's had been talking about it for a decade before that.

What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004. At that point very few people were unhappy with our membership, or were talking about leaving. So the idea of leaving was already in place at this point and was predominantly held by Tory's and disaffected Tory's in UKIP.

These groupings found fertile ground following the large numbers of EU citizens who came in over the next few years. The populist press quickly took up the batton and the anti EU sentiment grew quickly.

As far as I know this development didn't split the Labour Party, but was exerting internal pressures in the Tory party. This resulted in hard right Tory's who had been kept quiet flexing their muscles within the party. Resulting in Cameron concluding that the only way to prevent the party splitting and hemorrhaging significant numbers to UKIP was to call a referendum, therefore shutting them up for a generation.

If Blair talked about a referendum, it was only because the Tory's had been banging on about it and it had become an election issue.

Regarding Corbyn, he has scorn poured on him every day by the tabloids and is subject to an endemic anti socialist rhetoric throughout the whole media establishment. Whoever was the leader of the Labour Party would be subject to this bias. Unless it was still under the control of New Labour, someone like Blair, or David Milliband. But New Labour was Tory Light, it was Tory in all but name and was acceptable to be backed by The Sun newspaper, a right wing rag.

We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..

Johnson's deal takes us there, or do you think it doesn't?

As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.

In an ideal world, (as you suggested)

My point was what are we doing considering such a thing? Because of infighting in the Tory party caused by the fanaticism of the far right, along with a drip feeding of a similar ideology through the media by wealthy right wing Tory backing media barons.

Take those two small groups of people out of the equation and none of this Brexit psychodrama would have happened and everyone would have carried on as normal living in peace and harmony with our neighbours.

Rather like I say, in an ideal world, ( or a good deal with the EU) an independent England is an interesting concept. Although I don't see what reason there would be to go in that direction. I quite like the idea of an independent East Anglia, I'm not going to push for it though, why would I.

In the real world though we are in a mess, due to government incompetence and in fighting. Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England*? To save face for the Conservative Party? As I say in my last but one post, if the Conservative party is broke, why fix the country, surely one should fix the Conservative party instead.

If Johnson wins a majority, as David Gauke said the other day, it would be bad for the country. Again I could list the issues, but surely it only takes a little thought.

* not to mention all the other changes envisioned in a Tory Brexit.

What have the examples you give got in common?

War and/or deep division between groups with all the animosity which is found in human nature.

I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences).

The kind of future envisioned by the government is to have quite rapid divergence in regulations, standards and tariffs. So it would require hard borders on every border around England. As a consequence of this divergence and the inevitable difficulties in negotiating future arrangements there would be great pressure to a open up new trade routes with other countries who are not in the EU, such as America, China, India. They would by that point be poised like vultures around a carcass.

This is not to mention the animosity between the people of these islands after they have been shafted by the clown in Downing Street.

I have barely started, but don't have much time now. It is an interesting subject though and probably should be considered here.

Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?

Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? Because the Conservative party lost touch with reality, I don't think that is a good enough reason. Better to ditch the Conservatives and preserve the Union and get back to some semblance of normality and statesmanship in our government.

I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?

Yes, having that clown (Johnson) in Downing Street would certainly add to the pressure. The government would not be able to prevent it if the demand was clear. I don't think many English people realise the extent of the damage done to relations ( don't mention Johnson's relations) with the Scott's by this farce of a government. Cameron did a good job in shoring up the Union with the Scottish referendum. I think independence had been pushed into the long grass for a generation. But now that has all been kyboshed and the Scott's treated with contempt. Rather like the contempt with with the Irish have been treated. It really is remarkable what damage can be done when a political party goes wrong.

And the Union.( I don't mean it's a good thing. But the best way to prevent Scotland leaving is a Labour coalition)

Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble.

Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..

Yes, I'm not sure what would happen at that point, David Gauke described it as moving to world trade rules, but many commentators, including well informed ones describe it as a cliff edge.
Regardless of just what would be involved, it would be just as febrile as the March 31st, or October 31st, with just as much uncertainty as we have now, so businesses will still suffer, public services will still be in crisis, important legislation would be kicked into the long grass, or not brought forward, just as over the last two years.

Everyone who knows what is involved in the next stage of negotiations says it will be at the very least 3 years to thrash out something that can be agreed on for going forward. But this cliff edge is in one year. Johnson's shambles of a government doesn't inspire me with confidence about this. Also we shouldn't be under any illusions about the fact that Johnson has secured the support of the ERG and a number of Brexit party supporters on the promise that he will drag his feet during the negotiations so that the cliff edge happens at the end of that period.

So it's more of the same, more division, more uncertainty, we will probably go into recession and Scotland will be set to leave in short order. There will be major crisis in the NHS and other public services, far worse than the crisis which is emerging right now.

Happy days, still at least we will be respecting democracy, because if we don't democracy is broken. The people voted to leave, so we must leave, why did we vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, so we must leave, do or die, get over it you remoaners (not).

Interesting intervention from David Gauke this morning a well respected Tory moderate. Saying that a Johnson majority would be bad for the country. It would likely drive the country of a cliff at the end of 2020, and the uncertainty wouldn't stop in the meantime, but intensify.

Well, one really can't tell who it was yet. And if it would be Russia, remember that their goal is just to make Britain more weak, more hateful against each other and more distrustful of your own government, so that they are a bigger player in Europe. :wink:

Of interest to me is that it will contribute to a political row over the government refusing to publish the select committee report on possible Russian interference. A big headache for Johnson, it has already been leaked that Kremlin sponsored oligarchs had been smoozing with Tory politicians, including Johnson himself and making large contributions to Tory coffers. There are also rumours going round that Dominic Cummings was complicit, as he had spent a year working in Moscow a few years back.

Thatcherism still wasn't really populism and surely John Major wasn't a populist just as Tony Blair wasn't either. But of course political discourse has always been quite rude in the UK.

The cabal I was referring to was in the shadows, they were always confined to an enclave by the moderate, "one nation" Tory's who ran the governments. In order to win the centre ground the party had to show moderation and a nod to the ordinary folk, hence the slogan "one nation". It was never much more than a nod though. Now the cabal is front and centre for the first time, naked, who knows what will transpire.

It has been reported that the Labour Party campaign team has suffered a cyber attack. Just as Hillary Clinton has criticised the government for sitting on the Russia report. This story is growing fast.

It has emerged that Farage had been starting to examine what was wrong with Johnson's deal last week. As soon as the tabloids realised what he was up to, they turned on him and pressured him to get into bed with Johnson, at which point he rolled over. Because as they know, as soon as anyone starts to describe Brexit, it falls apart. The government will do anything, pull any stunt, to prevent scrutiny of his deal, because as soon as that happens it falls apart.

But unfortunately now that they are in bed, the Tory party has lost its soul and any moderate Tory's left will be leaving now.

We are bowing to the need for compromise and a resolution to the problem, hence the remain vote is fraying

I would have accepted leave the day following the referendum up until Theresa May's first meaningful vote. Although I was critical of her failure to work across the house and was becoming reluctant by that point. From that point on, I have been vehemently remain due to the wrecking of our country by the Tory's. As we have descended into chaos and lashed out at the EU, there is no way I would support it now. You say you know someone who would vote leave know. Are they happy with this mess and to leave in this position of weakness and contempt for the EU?

Farage has just said he will not stand candidates in the seats that the Conservatives won in the last election. About 317 seats I think. He says it's because Johnson made a speech yesterday in which he leaned in the direction of a Canada free trade relationship with the EU. Apparently the Mail on Sunday turned the screws on Farage yesterday.

As an outside observer, I think populism played a key part to this whole debacle.
You see, populism is about making a divide, dividing people to be either part of the "common ordinary people" or then "the elites". The 'elites' were in favour of globalization, EU integration and "giving up independence". The 'elites' have totally forgotten the 'common people'. The 'elite' is evil. That is populism.

Yes, I hear you, if that is the definition then you are right. The cabal at the centre of the hard right faction of the Conservative party during the 1970's and 80's were developing into populists. But I don't think they were employing the populist strategies we are discussing here, of appealing to large numbers of people. Their strategy was one on one, although they were employing xenophobia memes. I saw it first hand at the time. It was traditionalist Tory politicians, who had grown up during the Second World War. They were simply spreading paranoia about what the goals or ambitions of the Germans are in their involvement in the EU, i.e. they would become the leaders of a European Empire. Also criticism of the French as being corrupt. This spread slowly for decades, before anti EU sentiment became mainstream, fuelled by worries about the growing numbers of EU migrants roughly between 2004-10. This last development is when Farage came onto the scene and adopted megaphone populism.

This includes BBC polling (albeit from mid-October) on whether leavers/remainers have changed thieir minds since the referendum (3rd graph down): Of those who voted leave, 6% are now remain. Of those who voted remain, 27% are now leave (mostly, assuming a deal is agreed)...

I did see that article, I left not sure what to think, other than the electorate had not moved significantly from what it was thinking in 2016. Also the graph you refer to was taken between 4-7th of September which was before the illegal prorogation of parliament. Before Johnson's disgraceful behaviour. I have heard of some people saying they won't support him after that. The other thing I noticed is that there were 5 options in the Pole, 4 were versions of leave and only one was a version of remain, I don't know if that might have skewed the result.

As I am embedded in the remain camp, it is difficult to judge what is happening in the opposing camp. I can speak for myself though. I voted remain, but would have been happy with a sensible deal and respectful alignment with the EU, while maintaining our international reputation and integrity. But for over a year now I have not been happy with the way the government has taken a wrecking ball to our institutions and reputation. So now I am vehemently remain.

Surely Labour's 2010 defeat was down to the crash and their spending almost bankrupting the country - also to the fact that no-one thought Brown was any good. The UKIP poll vote did not exceed 8% til 2013, when it went well into double figures.

.

Yes, in hindsight I think you were right to pick me up on that one. It was the article I was reading which made me over egg the influence of Tony Blairs policy on EU migrants. Although I do think it played a part. Gordon Brown was atrocious.

This is the article, https://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blairs-decision-to-allow-eastern-european-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077

If MPs did echo the public views on every issue there'd be no point in having them! I've never believed that they should just parrot the views of their constituents. We elect them to use their experience and knowledge to govern on our behalf. If we're never going to accept their views can differ from the majority then we end up with government by referendum, which anyone can see would be absurd. The conclusion therefore is that referendums are a bad idea.

I agree, the decision to call the referendum was a tragic mistake, Cameron should have denied the Eurosceptics in his own party the opportunity. I think the problem was that for electoral reasons Cameron along with Blair before him had waived the idea of a referendum actually happening to bring Eurosceptics in line. This had the unfortunate effect of giving people the idea that it was going to happen and by the time of the 2015 election it became evident to Cameron that the momentum for a referendum had become irresistible. Perhaps he could have stopped it in the run up to the election, but he was complacent in the thought that he would be returned in coalition with the Lib Dems and they would block it, or he could hide behind them in denying it.

From the other side of the divide, UKIP had been thriving for a number of years on fears of immigration,due to the large numbers that entered following the accession of the A8 countries in Eastern Europe. The UK alone allowed unfettered access, expecting the other members to follow suit, but they didn't, they all imposed restrictions at the last minute. Thus the seeds were sown for the referendum in the mid naughties, which led to the defeat of Labour in 2010. By this time the strength of UKIP was threatening the Tory's and with the pressure from the hard right within the party, the cracks were beginning to show and the struggle to save the party began.

Ultimately they put party before country, which laid the blame for the Tory Brexit firmly at their door.

I think you misunderstand what leavers are all about. The idea that now they're better informed they'd vote to remain is flawed, as the unchanging Brexit opinion polls prove.

I don't think you can presume that all leavers are this hardline. A significant proportion are likely to be less decided and are either concerned about the behaviour of the government, or are waiting to see how the campaign goes before deciding. There is plenty of evidence for this in interviews with the public on the media.

exploiting the public fear of immigration and justiying the necessary counter-measures in the name of national identity. Populists don't care a fig for tradition or convention - which makes BJ one - the end justifies any means. Because their targeted voters are basically uneducated, populists can u-turn, contradict their previous policies and just smile whilst doing so; secure that their followers still trust them

I think this sums it up quite well, but what I have been trying to say is that this course has only been adopted by the Conservatives as a last resort. Putting Johnson into No10 was their last throw of the dice, their last ace card(or so they thought), after the failure of their "strong and stable" Theresa May. Also I think we only got to this point due to the clash of two democratic outcomes, the referendum result saying one thing and the elected MPs saying something else. Resulting in deadlock. Johnson is supposed to break the deadlock by adopting populism and somehow trying to bypass or hoodwink parliament, so as to implement the result of the referendum. So if the referendum had not been called British politics would have carried on as normal with no populism.

Unfortunately while being their greatest asset, Johnson is turning out to be their greatest liability. Today he was found to be burbling during a speech and swearing blind that there will be no checks of goods crossing the Irish Sea. This is clearly irrational and incoherent, as was pointed out by Chris Morris the BBC fact checker, today. Who pointed out that if there is going to be regulatory divergence, then the single market rules will require checks to establish compliance. Now Johnson said we won't carry out these checks, if the EU require it, they can do it. But the problem with this approach is that the border where the checks will be required is within the UK, i.e. The Irish Sea and this is not to mention tariffs either, which will require checks, in the UK.

The flaws in his deal are beginning to show.

Just a thought about Le Pen, I put it down to the rapid communication amongst the intelligentsia in France via "La Grande Conversation", who then adopted Macron as their representative in a remarkably short space of time. If only we had a grand conversation in this country, we wouldn't have got into such a pickle.

Nice article, chuckle.

Yes, the article does lean slightly in Favour of Labour, but I recognise that reality. It is one of the numerous means used by the right wing elite and media to discredit Corbyn. The privelidged elites really do seem to be scarred of something, their tried and tested ways of slamming Labour and keeping them out of power while they practice their wealth creation, only for people who are in the know, are failing, there is a younger generation coming through who aren't aware of the slamming and discrediting of the Labour Party on their performance in the 1970's. Ever since the Credit Crunch in 2008, it has been going wrong for the Tory's. The death nail being when they had a group lobotomy around 2014/15.

Interesting that Stormzy tweeted about Rees Mogg's comments about Grenfel, which went viral.

Its not populism, although populism played a part. If it were that simple Le Pen and others like her would be in office now. Trump got into power because when the populism struck the US population was already hopelessly divided and he was a brilliant exploiter of the media. Which he used to divide and rule.

In our country the seed of the Brexit phenomena was sown when we joined the common market in 1973 and had grown steadily among the Tory twits over the next couple of decades I know this because I was there as it was happening. The populism was exploited by Farage in a relatively small demographic. It's true that the Tory twits began defecting to UKIP, but it was not populism which infected them. They were already converted by the drip feed of the Tory poison administered by a group of hard right right wing Tory's. This gets quite murky when one starts looking at the power and wealth brokers behind the Tory's.

Johnson is an opportunist who found himself in the right place at the right time. I suppose one could call him a populist, but Cummings is working through social media primarily and any populism is consequential. Now like Trump, it is divide and rule. People against Parliament is Johnson's catch phrase, but I don't see it having all that much effect, because the decision to leave was taken at the beginning of the process in the referendum. He is having to use such tactics now due to the laughable incompetence of the government in leaving the EU in a sensible way. The man can't even lie straight in bed let alone lead a populist revolution.

I agree that populism as used by Farage capitalised on the fears of immigration and racism. I expect that he saw what the Tory twits were up to and thought that there was an opportunity for a snake oil salesman like him. To team up with them at some point, they don't seem to like him for some reason. I wonder why.

An interesting interview on Politics live today(BBC) with Anthony Seldon, who has written an in depth analysis of Theresa May's term in office. He describes her performance on Brexit as a failure because she not only made it into a party issue, rather than cross party, which was required. But a narrow sectional internal party issue. Resulting in the biggest self inflicted own goal in the history of British politics.

Quite, and compounded by the finality of the cut off date of the article 50 process. Our political process is not designed for such deadlines on profound constitutional issues. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, whereby if you don't fit it into the hole, by a point in time, you loose. Cummings knows that all he needs to do is distract you with jiggery pokery, including trashing the constitution and the economy if required, until the deadline is passed. It is despicable.