Yes I agree about the airbrushing of history, my family comes from Huddersfield by the way, so Yorkshire a region with its own traditions and history. Going back to identity though, we don't have an equivalent to the Eisteddfod, and we can't shut the knobs out, because they come from England (actually I suspect France with William the conqueror). So we're stuck with them.

My reading of what Johnson is up to with the Benn act is that he will capitulate and ask for the extension when it is clear that he won't get his deal with the EU. He is keeping up the pretence of defying the law in an attempt to put pressure on the EU to compromise.

When he asks for the extension there is going to be an almighty push to put the blame on everyone else trying to thwart Brexit, the will of the people. The idea being that it will build up a head of steam and give him a majority in the looming general election. When he gets this majority he will carry on from where he left off, but with an offer which he can get through Parliament. Thus giving the EU a way out through some fudge over the Irish Border, then we will get the Canada plus deal.

The problem as I see it is that he will split the leave vote in the general election, by running on a negotiated deal ticket, to try and get the moderate vote. Surely he can't still be facing both ways this far down the line. People will smell a rat and won't trust him anymore.

Eton is the finishing school for Tory Prime Ministers. It's just like a Victorian museum, you expect Phileus Fogg, or Jacob Rees Mogg to walk round the corner at anytime. Plus it's a five minute walk from Windsor castle and many Royals went to school there.

I respect the Welsh for their insistence on keeping their culture alive. Here in England, I don't know what our culture is, as to a large extent it is defined by the notion of a United Kingdom and Commonwealth and as a mixing bowl for all the cultures found in the different regions of that. So now that those other regions have left or may soon leave, what are we left with? Even our language is not ours anymore, it is owned by the whole world.

What would we call our country, Great England? Or maybe Boris Isles, which might be appropriate.

I will coin my phrase again,

Remember Remember the 1st of November.

Yes, and growing. But the centuries of serfdom take a hell of a time to get over.

I don't disagree, but do you realise there are millions of serfs in England to, just on this side of the border rather than that?

In my world, places where I have lived, or that I know of have been " gentrified", which is a polite way of saying the privelidged, private school educated, self appointed important people, knobs(for want of a better word) have moved in. They have decimated many a nice old fashioned village, or town. Only the desirable ones of course. A classic example you may know of as it's right on the Welsh border, is Haye on Wye. When I used to visit as young boy it was untouched( well relatively, as there was a draw for secondhand book collectors, as I was). But over the last 30 years it has become gentrified, to the extent that every other shop has been set up by moneyed people playing at being cool and stylish, living the dream( country living magazine style). You trip over them in the streets and in the skinny latte, coffee houses. ( I know there is still a strong local community there, but it has been pushed to the sidelines and into the shadows.)

This split, them and us divide in our society, our country has been going on overtly since people (some poeple, the privelidged of course) found they had wealth, new money and started spilling out of their middle class enclaves in the Home Counties where their privelidge, their important private schools and routes ( a nod and a wink) into all the privelidged and important jobs, was confined. Now they spill out into every quaint, beautiful, desirable place in the country and pollute it with big black four wheel drive vehicles, with their sharp elbows buy up all the best property's, and make everywhere look like a country living magazine cover.

Where as there is an equal, infact larger, phenomena of regions and towns becoming deprived, wealth drained away, work going in the direction of short term contracts and zero hour contracts. Dying High streets, filled with chicken cafes, porn shops, betting shops and discount retailers. These are the towns where sizeable numbers of immigrants have been put, adding to the feelings of discontent due to the deprivation, with one of demographic fears too.

Weirdly not only do these left behind deprived populations feel they want to hit back at the establishment with a leave vote. But the privelidged interlopers on mass want to leave as well. But their reasons are predominantly to increase unregulated capitalism, along with some myth that the Germans are going to suck us into some kind of superstate, which they are in charge of. To become a German colony.

And so we have Brexit.

Interesting, as Wales as a whole voted to leave the EU. But lastnight Plied Cymru's Adam Price was speaking of an independent Wales in the EU.

And yet the current Tory Chancellor, Sajid Javid, has the nerve to declare at the Tory party conference, "It's clear it's the Conservatives who are the real party of labour - we are the workers' party".

I can't imagine who would believe the pledges of the Tory party now, they have no credibility left. It will go down as the worst Tory conference in history I think, they really have lost the plot.

If the rebellious crowd keeps going on, sooner or later the Red army will restore law and order and lock up the most recalcitrant elements in countryside re-education camps, of which China undoubtedly has ample left from the Cultural Revolution

The camps are full of muslims right now and they're building lots more. Sounds like paranoia at the top to me.

The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'

It's what I was saying a couple of posts back, Johnson is facing both ways, one way for the hard brexiters in his party and the Brexit party, the other way to his moderate and remain conservative supporters. He can often be heard saying the opposite to what he said a moment earlier, or saying something which means exactly the opposite of what he's doing.

It has been coined "double speak" ( like doublethink in George Orwell's Animal Farm). The problem with it is, that his leave supporters, know it but don't care because they're in on the roose. The people on the remain side, see it, but when they call it out it is denied, or ignored. And the worst thing is the leave supporting newspapers print his rhetoric aimed at leavers and are read by a large swathe of less knowledgeable leave voters, who follow slogans, rather like the Trump base. But they don't realise what he's up to, or that he is continually contradicting himself and lying. This constituency is considered to be the Labour leave areas in the north of England, who Johnson wants to poach from Corbyn. I noticed that some EU politicians were commenting on it lastnight and this morning, it is why they think Johnson is disingenuous and playing to a UK audience in preparation for an election.

I would say that those who don't care about our union are a minority. The Lib Dems hold a legitimate position. Is there much of a Welsh independence sentiment in your area?

I've just heard an electoral analyst on LBC, stating that the leave vote is split between the Conservative party and the Brexit party, which is a "fight to the death". Whereas the remain vote is mainly divided between Labour and Lib Dems. Who may well cooperate, at some point.

The important observation he made was that on the leave side there are a lot of seats which are marginal between the Lib Dems and Conservative, which could swing in the Lib Dem's favour if Johnson starts to loose support. Whereas the majority of Labour marginal seats are between Labour and the Conservatives, with some Brexit party. Labour and Lib Dems are predominantly in different areas of the country and don't overlap much. So if Lib Dems do well, it will mainly be at the expense of the Conservative party.

They will even support the NHS in theory, if they think it is a winning strategy

They don't have to support the NHS, just say they will and their base believes it. Everyone else is highly sceptical, there is a feeling going around that they can't be trusted on anything. Johnson's splash the cash announcements in his speech yesterday, had a hollow sound to them. He's trying to appeal to the Labour heartlands in the north who voted leave. I doubt if they will fall for it, although they may still support him, or more likely the Brexit party. They are in deprived areas often where there are a lot of immigrants, they will become more deprived after Brexit, they know it and will still vote to leave. Talk about stubborn. Labour will campaign hard in these areas, sincerely promising to help with socialist policies, which they will implement and will work. I wonder if it will have any impact.

The government's (Johnson's) eagerly anticipated proposals to the EU have been published. It's a great big slice of fudge. As I was beginning to suspect, his team and strategy is limp, limping along. It confirms that the plan all along was to secure a general election, unfortunately for him he is going to become cornered now into adopting no deal as his policy, which will divide his party further. There is some murmuring about bringing back the May deal again and holding a gun to their heads, but I can't see how they can achieve that with such a limp and it would destroy his party if it is passed.

It's beginning to look like a crash and burn.

I think I am doing something akin to discussing a game of chess without actually moving the chess pieces on the board. When I read your posts, it all makes sense, but I have notions and suspect notions in the minds of the group running Downing Street which differ. I suppose I have a different view of the primary motivation within that group. Although having just listened to Johnson's speech at the party conference, I am beginning to think that it is more chaotic, naive and short sighted than I had been thinking.
I suppose what I mean by saving the party is that where the fatal split will be is the focus. I think this split would cleft the party in two with hardened leavers and supporters who are sympathetic to the lurch to the right and populism, but who may have been quite ambivalent on the issue of Brexit (before the referendum) on one side and an equal group of staunch remainers and supporters who are sympathetic with preserving a one nation broad church of a party, who were quite ambivalent about Brexit ( before the referendum)on the other side. At the moment the party is leaking support to the Brexit party on one side and the Lib Dems on the other.

The fear being (justified or not) that the party is loosing support to the Brexit party and that is why Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have had to tow a more right wing approach than they would naturally adopt and why the leadership has been replaced by hard brexiters. As this becomes more extreme, as it appears to be doing, the members and supporters on the other side of the divide will be looking on in horror and wondering what happened to their party. They might be seriously considering changing their allegiance to the Lib Dems.

Add to this schizophrenia the body blow of the referendum result and the rise of a truly socialist opposition and it seems to me that the leadership is struggling to hold the party together, while becoming paranoid of a socialist government. An illustration of this is the way that May and Johnson are repeatedly seen facing both ways at once talking to the two opposing constituencies in their own party. Developing strategies and policies which are shoring up the splits. This is why Johnson appears to both really really want to get a deal, and simultaneously gunning for no deal.

There is one thing however which all sides of the party and their support is united on, which is that they really really don't want to let a socialist party to get into government. I noticed in his speech some serious attacks on Corbyn, for example, if he got into government, he would close down all private schools, abolish ofstead, disband the army and a string of other dubious claims and slurs.

However he failed to make the expected ultimatum to the EU and was quite subdued in his bravado on the Brexit issue.

I agree, your assessment is pretty much what I had been thinking of when thinking of reform of our system.

There is one thing that our democracy gives us which is an improvement on the alternatives, which is the ability for the electorate to remove the government every 5 years if required. And to be able to put another government, selected through democratic processes in their place.

Can you suggest a better system?

he just needs someone to blame if things go wrong.

l don't disagree with your assement, I would add though, as before, the importance of keeping the Conservative party together in his motives. This is very important because it is the only way of preventing Corbyn getting into No10 and no one should underestimate how bad that would be in the eyes of supporters of the Conservatives. I put it to you that in their eyes this is far worse than Brexit being cancelled, or a soft Brexit. I admit that the Conservatives are doomed in either case, but they are clutching at straws and their focus at this point is in fighting off the Brexit party, who will decimate his support if Brexit is delayed again, cancelled, or a soft deal is agreed, again, letting Corbyn in. The Conservatives would far rather wreck the country and the union wherever the blame lands, than enable Corbyn to get his hands on No10, although they will try to blame someone else if they can.

Imo the only way he can succeed in holding the Conservative party together and fend off Corbyn, is to get a no deal, or a hard Deal Brexit by 31st of October. The only way he can do that is to hoodwink the soft brexiters in his own party and the Labour Party. Until either he can force through a no deal, or hold a metaphorical gun to the heads of a large number of MPs and get them to vote a hard deal through before 31st October.

There is a second way, which as you say, is that if he is removed by parliament and fails. He will then try to pit the people against parliament in a general election and if he wins, he will try it all again. But I doubt this would work due to the rise of the Brexit party by that point. Perhaps if some sort of pact with the Brexit party were secured he could win, but that is looking a long way into the future.

Just to add, as I understand it, if Johnson resigns, or refuses to ask the EU for an extension, the Supreme Court will issue an injunction very quickly requiring him to go and ask, and/or instruct another person to do so in his stead by order of the court. Which would be acceptable to the EU. As has been stated by the EU, they are negotiating with her Majesty's Government, they care not who the Prime minister is, or whom her Majesty sends in his stead.

Yesterday at the Conservative party conference, James Cleverly, Conservative party chairman said that there could be civil disobedience and rioting if Brexit is not done by 31st October. While in the Yellow Hammer report ( commissioned by the government to identify what the risks of a no deal Brexit are), if there is a no deal Brexit there is a risk of civil disobedience and rioting.

So the government is leading us down a road in which either way we will have civil disobedience and rioting. Of course they would say that there is an alternative, to agree a deal, but it is well known that there is no deal and they won't bring back the May deal. There is talk today of the outline of a deal being published, but everyone ( who's not a leaver) knows it's a sham.

It looks to me that Johnson's strategy is to be all things to all people. To face both ways promising what the hard Brexiters and the Brexit party want, that his policy is no deal and it's going to happen come what may, do or die. While at the same time promising the more moderate Conservatives and Labour leavers that he is on the verge of agreeing a deal, he really wants a deal and threatening a no deal is the best way to get a deal, the EU always compromises at the very last minute.

He needs to bring everyone with him right to the very last day and hold a metaphorical gun to their heads. To either agree a deal, a deal which few will actually support, or push them of a cliff, which will take everyone else over with them. This also gives him the opportunity with Cummings to conduct some chicanery in the chaos at the point of the acute crisis he will create.

The problem he has is that if he commits one way, or the other, he looses the support who want to go the other way and he would be finished and Corbyn would get in ( a worse outcome than Hell itself to all Conservatives). So he has to hold them in a close hug, or clench with a gun to everyone's head until a second before midnight on 31st of October. Once this point has passed then he can resurrect the Conservative party out of the flames, as any opposition would have been neutralised, it would have no purpose any more. Boris would be proclaimed a hero, all hail Boris, all hail the Emperor.

He has saved the country from the tyranny of a Corbyn government.

Farage is not much of a threat at the moment. It's more of a protest movement. From my side as a remainer, he is useful because he can split the leave vote. Although if he forges some sort of alliance with the Conservative party, he could swing the vote in their favour. I expect all sorts of shenanigans during the election campaign.

At the moment Conservatives are saying that would never happen, but I am suspicious that there are deals going on in secret. It is high risk because if it happens it will almost certainly have a devastatinga effect on the Conservative party. So Johnson will have to choose between a hard Brexit selling the soul of his party to the Brexit party and all the consequences of that. Or try and drain support from the Brexit party and save the Conservative party (if that's even possible), although it would probably mean loosing Brexit and could let Corbyn in.

Either way, it's a loose loose for Johnson.

It looks a though there's going to be a no confidence vote in Parliament next week and an attempt to install a caretaker government. Fasten your seatbelts and get ready for a rollercoaster ride, right into a general election.

It does look like we're getting the Boris Party, a fully fledged Machiavellian tyrant. Heading at full speed for a no idea Brexit (no deal Brexit), and a Trump deal. Fasten your seat belts.

The trouble is it is very high risk and he is a flawed character, the phrase on my lips today is,
Beware the ides of March.

Johnson plumbed a new low yesterday in Parliament, the sickest bit was when he said that the best way to honour the death of the mudered politician Joe Cox, was to leave the EU ( she was murdered by a far right extremist during the referendum campaign).

If you're not in the UK you can hear it by downloading the podcast on LBC radio, it was about 6pm last night.

Nooooooooooo! That's evil! :scream:

They're literally shaking in their boots, lol.

Boris's strategy - and Cummings' is simple. To be the man who despite all the remoaners and cowards achieved Brexit.

Yes the two aims are intertwined. I have long been of the opinion that he would prefer to go for a softer Brexit deal if his party was happy and the Brexit party wouldn't punish them at the ballot box. Firstly because he wasn't a brexiter until the referendum campaign and so is not himself a rabid leaver. Secondly he's intelligent enough to realise that a no deal Brexit will be hugely damaging, or at least a great risk and that he as prime minister would be in the firing line and fire fighting in crisis mode for months or years.

Also if you look back to Theresa May's term in office, she was visibly scared of the wrath of the ERG. This is why she felt unable to reach across the house and build a deal around a cross party consensus. Why she had to lay down her red lines and why they brought down her deal repeatedly, because they have always intended to ram through a no deal.

To me Johnson is like a cornered animal, not just cornered by parliament, but within his own party. With the spectre of Farage looking over his shoulder.

I don't think he's much interested in the Tory party as a historical institution, but only as a party in his own image - just like Trump and the Republicans. All the older generation who care about the party's past have gone from the Cabinet, replaced by young hard-liners who will follow his will. Populism is about individual demagogues. The disillisioned Brexit voters trust leaders, not parties..

I don't want to underplay the size of his ego/egomania. But party really does matter, because the support for the Conservatives is being squeezed in a few ways. To be in government requires a large number of MPs behind you and in our electoral system for those MPs to become elected comes down to votes on the ground, which are not easy to secure. And don't underestimate the fear amongst the party of a Corbyn government.

I don't know what his long time aims are, or his party, as he is surrounded by chaos and it is accepted that the strategy is in the hands of a shady unelected advisor Dominic Cummings. Who is a clever strategist who is well aware of how populism works at this time.

In my opinion, Johnson's long term strategy is to achieve the survival of the Conservative party, principally by winning back his support which has drained away to the Brexit party. This split has been going on for a couple of decades and will destroy the party if leaving the EU is not achieved. If he manages to secure a no deal Brexit he is the hero who fought off the Brexit party and restored the supremacy of the Conservative party. If he fails the party will sink into electoral oblivion and his supporters will be under attack from the socialist policies of a Corbyn government( they will have to pay fair taxes).

One might consider that the Conservative party is not in such peril considering their performance over recent times. But they are heading towards a demographic time bomb. They have virtually no support amongst the younger generation, which is swinging to the left. While their core support is steadily dying of old age.

So to answer you question he is not aiming to create an insensly partisan base, or something like that. But rather to restore the party and then everything can get back to normal and restore the good old days, which is, of course, a pipe dream.

Yes, Lord Sumption (former Supreme Court judge), on radio 4 this morning said that it was important that the court spoke with one voice because of the possibility that judges could be singled out for criticism of their judgement in the light of their views on the issue of Brexit. Thus compromising the independence of the judiciary. I'm sure that brexiters will be trying to do this and also worse, Johnson and his advisers are going to try to pit the people against the establishment remoaners, with Johnson as the champion of the people and their democratic decision. That the establishment is ignoring them and thinks that their decision was wrong and must be corrected.

Unfortunately for him, this course results in him undermining the constitution, parliament and the Crown, which will reflect very badly on him and his government. Also it will strengthen the opposition in Parliament.

Yes, the purpose of the Judgement was to maintain the integrity of the constitution, it had nothing to do with politics and certainly didn't stray into political affairs. It was necessary because if the judiciary hadn't acted in this way, it would have given carte blanche to Johnson to run rough shod over ( act as a dictator with) our political system at a critical juncture in our constitutional history. There was no choice, or alternative.

I doubt Trump is coming to the rescue, he's still being chased round the room by Greta.

This is what I expected, and is the crux of the attack on the constitution by those who are trying to ram through a no deal Brexit. The guarantee, which once I realised this is gave me confidence, was the realisation that once the request was made by Jacob Rees Mogg to the Queen to prorogue, the government had put the Queen and therefore the Crown in a compromised position, for political expediency. The courts would never allow this to happen. Which is why the judgement was kept as far away from the Queen as possible.

The Thick of it and In the Loop. Love 'em.

I like Dead Ringers too. The highlight at the moment is Alexie Sayle's imaginary sandwich bar.

True, but I hope it gets cancelled. I'd rather watch someone less interesting.

You could try political satire, it can be just as interesting, but less worrying, and It can be funny too.

Prepare for the second great sulk.

Yes, I had faith in Dominic Grieve, but Gina picked up the baton first.

All thanks to Gina Miller.

Sorry, you're right, I don't think I need to say any more though.

Then why did he turn up? He looked like petulant bully in a school playground, surrounded by his goons, who felt he needed to show his face because there was some other gig more important than his own going on.

Trump was upstaged by a sixteen year old girl today. I bet he didn't even recognise who she was when he breezed through the climate summit and breezed out again.

The Labour Party finds itself between a rock and a hard place on the Brexit issue. It will be decided in the next couple of days, as the party is deeply democratic and policy is made through a democratic process at the party conference. The split is over whether the policy is to campaign in favour of remain during a confirmatory referendum, or to campaign for the deal which the party will offer in the referendum on the assumption they win an election. I am personally conflicted over the issue, as which ever way it goes it could have either a good, or a bad outcome. It could help to win the election, or loose it and we know what might happen if they loose it.

It's difficult to say I think whether the lack of confidence in Corbyn is critical, as the media faces criticism of anti Corbyn rhetoric, also many people who don't like him might prefer him to the alternative. It has just been announced that the Supreme Court decision will be published Tuesday morning.

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option

l mentioned Pr because we are in a position of constitutional crisis and weaknesses in the system have become apparent. I realise that constitutional reform is a challenge, and that it should not be done now, but looked at when the dust settles.

I think our politics is very different to how it was in 2011. We have the two main parties moving further apart, to the right and the left before our eyes, unable to do anything about it, other than to swing one way or the other with them. The centrist ( Lib dems) party is not able to fill the gap electorally due to the way the constituency system is set up. We have the Greens growing in popularity, with an increased growth expected due to the climate change crisis developing at the moment.

I have been voting since the early 80's and my vote has never counted, as I have always lived in seats where there was a comfortable majority for either Conservative, or on one occasion Labour. There are many people in the same boat, their voices are ignored by the system as it is. The two main parties can become complacent, this has certainly happened with the Conservatives, I welcome Labour's return to socialism, but there may have been a complacency in their safe seats in the north(I'm no expert).

Take for example a talented person interested in politics who is thinking of a career in politics. If they are not a dyed in the wool Conservative, or Labour person, what choice do they have? If their politics is different to this choice they will have to spend years volunteering for the party they join, virtually no chance of becoming an MP and no chance of their party getting into the position to put their policies into action. There may be an issue with a brain drain in our jaded political system.

Dr Strangelove

The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since

Yes, there should have been more detail, or follow up on what kind of Brexit the people want and I think a super majority of 60%. As soon as one looks into this, the means of using a referendum to decide these things rapidly becomes problematic, or divisive. Which leads into my other point "the view of the people". I agree that the way I put it "the view of the people is not of importance in democracy" might give the impression to the populous that it sounds as though the democracy doesn't serve the people. But the way in which I use it is as part of a philosophical discussion amongst people who have a more intellectual grasp of the issues we are discussing.

What is the view of the people? Well it may be very difficult to find out, and when you find out, it might not actually be their view, but rather them saying something else with the limited options you gave them when you asked. Or it might be an amplified view of a small focussed group of people, while the silent majority didn't bother speaking for some reason. Half the people asked might not understand the question, or might for some reason mis construe it. An example I heard from a political analyst while discussing this recently, I don't remember who, was "you might ask the population whether they want an apple, or an orange, and the answer is I want a ham sandwich. Then what do you do". This kind of situation might have come about because in the run up to the referendum, a prominent person in the public sphere might have done something with a ham sandwich.

I suggest that all of the above did to some degree happen in this referendum and that the actual view of the people may have been more nuanced or conciliatory on the issue. They might vote "out" so as to have curved cucumbers, rather than straight, but "remain" to maintain the integrity of NATO in the current global political turmoil.

Many people in the UK have an idealised view of democracy, that it must be upheld to the ends of the earth, or something like that. But that is a naive view, along with the thought that a one off referendum is democratic and must be respected even after much time has passed, or circumstances have changed. I think that this is due to the perception that Great Britain is where democracy was born and that it is in some way sacred. That democracy is more important than anything else. They don't realise that a perfect democracy is an impossibility and that our democracy only expresses a very remote and handfisted view of what the people think.

Such, views are flawed and vulnerable to exploitation by forms of nationalism and populism. In reality democracy works in two ways, firstly that some vestige of a democratic process is maintained, even if the people are not actually expressing their view on issues. Secondly the government can be changed at short notice and regularly through a process of a public vote. Hence we have the sovereignty upheld by a representative parliamentary democracy. At no point is any specific issue democratically decided by the people, it is only the parliamentarians who are chosen by the people and they then appoint a government to carry out their wishes. The important democratic principle in this system is that they can be thrown out, if they go wrong, as is the case at the moment. We have adopted this system to prevent rule by despots and people who don't have a democratic mandate, or who can hold on to power beyond the point when they fall out of favour. These things are what are important in democracy, not what the people think about something at some point.

A referendum does not follow any rules like these and the view of the people is inevitably going to change over time, but the result of the referendum is set in stone. so it is a mistake to think that the result of the referendum must be upheld and that another referendum cannot be held at a future point, to test the view of the people. People who support leave keep stating that the referendum must be honoured, or democracy is broken, but this is a flawed argument, as the democracy we have is in the form of a parliamentary democracy as I pointed out above and the referendum was simply an advisory snapshot of the people's view about something at some point. Actually the view of the people is not of importance in democracy, their view can be expressed, although in a remote and broad brush way through a general election.