Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

[madd0ct0r]

I watched first section. I started sympathetic to corbyn and finished sympathetic to corbyn.

I also forgot boris was pm. It feels unrealistic sonehow.


Most of the questions seemed sharply pointed "do you have the personal integrity to do this job".

[His Divine Shadow]

Jo Swinson confirmed to be MKSheppard.

https://twitter.com/tristandross/status ... 3181086721?

[madd0ct0r]

Debate record linked below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kEB5pq ... e=youtu.be


the bit at 46min in where people in the audience are booing the mention of poorer countries and climate change... well that's pleasent.

[His Divine Shadow]

Hahaha
https://twitter.com/tristandross/status ... 8056026112

[His Divine Shadow]

The above apparently rattled some liberals, so they had it taken down (despite falling under fair play, but hey, scratch a liberal, find a fascist), so here it is still on facebook, and anywhere else it can go
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentu ... 8247657240

[Darth Yan]

Oh screw that nonsense. I'm progressive but I also realize that communism is a stupid ideology.

[His Divine Shadow]

Oh yeah I remember that went real well for you last time.

[His Divine Shadow]

On the BBC and their objectiveness, two articles actually.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... uenssberg/

Last night the BBC was reporting on the Conservative manifesto. This is a document whose most striking pledge is to fill in some of the potholes in roads that have proliferated due to massive cuts in local authority funding, and to give free hospital car parking to those visiting a terminally ill relative. Just think of the last one. How do you prove your relative is terminally ill? What if there is a chance they might get better? The administration of this system is going to require people to have some form of certificate or token that all hope is now lost. For the car park. The Tories are all heart.

As the News continued, Laura Kuenssberg told us that the battle lines between the parties are now clearly drawn, and the major division is over how much the government “should interfere in the economy”.

Interfere. Not intervene. Not regulate. Interfere. It is a very deliberate choice of word. Let me turn to the Oxford English Dictionary:

Interfere

1) Prevent from continuing or being carried out properly
2) Handle or adjust without permission
3) Become involved in something without being asked
4) Sexually molest

Words matter. Kuenssberg chose a word with powerful negative connotations and no possible positive meaning, to describe the alternative to the Tories. Kuenssberg talking of government interfering in, rather than intervening in, the economy is in itself a very strong and explicit declaration of Kuenssberg’s belief in an Ayn Rand, “Britannia unchained”, free market, ultra neo-liberal world view. To explicitly frame the choice in the election as between the Tories and “interfering” is just another example of the way the BBC slants their election coverage, permanently.

Now I started to draft an article three days ago, before that particular Kuenssberg propaganda masterclass.

Here is what I wrote as a draft three days ago:

“Maybe I am just unlucky. I have had television news bulletins transport me to hear vox-pops featuring former Labour voters in Dudley who now want to vote Conservative to GET BREXIT DONE. I have seen vox pops in fishing wharves in Peterhead and Grimsby, in dismal cafes in Hartlepool, in bingo halls in Yarmouth, in pubs back in Dudley, on high streets in Wakefield, in a shopping mall in Thurrock, in hardware stores back in bloody Dudley again. The country is full of people who want to GET BREXIT DONE, and who will NEVER VOTE LABOUR AGAIN.

The strange thing is that I have not seen a single vox pop from Richmond, featuring an educated woman who is switching from a lifetime of Tory voting because they have become a far right party and are going to crash the economy with hard Brexit. But there are many people like that in Richmond, and indeed all over London, and throughout much of southern England. They exist but are not worth vox-popping, apparently. Because they are not the broadcasters’ chosen “narrative”.

The BBC, ITN and Sky will doubtless defend the very obviously targeted demographic and destination of their “vox-pops” on the grounds that this is the “narrative” of the election. But that is a self-reinforcing prophecy. The public are relentlessly being told that what ordinary people want is to “GET BREXIT DONE” and to vote Tory. But that is actually only what about 40% of the people want. We just aren’t being shown the other 60% as the broadcasters focus relentlessly on areas with the highest leave vote, and on vox pop subjects with the least possible education.”

While that passage was atill on the stocks, last night, alongside the Kuenssberg analysis, the BBC gave us a vox pop from the Rother Valley that fitted perfectly the above description. It came from a Yorkshire Labour seat that voted Leave. It featured Labour voters who will now vote Conservative. The ladies interviewed were perfectly primed with precisely the main Tory slogans. A lady told us she wanted Boris so we could “get Brexit done and get on with domestic reforms”. Another ex-Labour voter told us she would vote for Boris because “he may not be trustworthy, but I like him”. Trust and likeability are two factors the pollsters regularly measure. It is important for the Tories that voters prioritise likeability over trust, because Johnson’s Trust numbers are appalling. How fortunate that the BBC happened to find a little old lady in the Rother Valley who could express this so succinctly!

Or maybe it is not so surprising. With the mainstream media as such a reliable echo chamber of public slogans, perhaps it is not surprising to find the public just echo them too, as they do in North Korea. The state media in the UK is of course not the only propaganda outlet. Billionaires control 87% of print news media by circulation, and are aggressively Tory for obvious reasons of self-interest.

This leads to the incredible circularity of the “Newspaper Reviews” that take up such a high proportion of broadcast news output. The broadcasters “review” the overwhelmingly right wing print media. And who do they invite to do the reviewing? Why the billionaire employed journalists of the overwhelmingly right wing print media, of course! So we have the surreal experience of watching journalists from the Times and the Spectator telling us how great an article in the Daily Mail is, about how Corbyn is a Russian spy and Scotland not really a country at all.

If that was not bad enough, we then get deluged by “commentators” from “think tanks” which are again billionaire funded, like the Institute of Economic Affairs and scores of others, sometimes with money thrown in from the security services, like the Quilliam Foundation and scores of others. It is a never-ending closed circular loop of propaganda.

The truth is that it largely works. Social media is overwhelmingly sceptical of the government narrative, but we still live in a society where the power of mass broadcasting and even print retains a remarkable amount of influence, particularly on the old and the poorly educated. It is no coincidence that it is precisely the old and the poorly educated that are the targets of Cummings’ “Brexit election” strategy. If it comes off, Kuenssberg and her fellow hacks will have proven that the power of the mainstream media is as yet unbroken.

Guardian also had something to say
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... legitimacy

The BBC’s friends are starting to worry about it. At a time when we urgently need public media to reinvent itself, its leadership seems insular and inert. The only real signs of life are during a reputational crises, when the management swings into action only to look both autocratic and anarchic. We saw this most recently with the Editorial Complaints Unit’s baffling ruling against Naga Munchetty for her remarks about racism. BBC staff spoke privately of a climate of fear as the criticisms mounted, only for the director general, Tony Hall, to eventually overrule the decision after days of fierce public controversy.

Meanwhile, the BBC’s political reporting, which lies at the heart of its public service remit, seems ever more entangled in the world of Westminster, managing to appear both frivolous and elitist. Leading figures at the BBC have made much of the rise of “fake news”, yet too often its journalists have failed to challenge disinformation at the heart of our political system.

Earlier this week, after Peter Oborne wrote that senior BBC executives told him they were reluctant to expose the lies told by a prime minister for fear of undermining public trust in politics, the BBC responded by defending its willingness to identify untruths – but confirmed that it would not say a prime minister was “a liar”.

From many traditional supporters there is disillusionment, even anger. Parts of the left have long been wary of the BBC, but equally if not more worrying for the BBC is the growing antipathy of many centrists. Once its strongest supporters, they now accuse the BBC of biased reporting on Brexit.

As defenders of the BBC never tire of pointing out, allegations of bias come from all sides. Many are misconceived or overwrought. But this doesn’t mean that all criticisms can be dismissed as if every claim were equal.

Those alleging rightwing bias at the BBC often point to the role of Sarah Sands – the former editor of the Sunday Telegraph and Evening Standard – as editor of the Today programme, or the Tories’ recruitment of Craig Oliver and Robbie Gibb to No 10 from the BBC.

But the influence of rightwing editors and journalists, while not insignificant, misses the longer standing establishment orientation of the BBC. Academic research shows that its reporting is strongly shaped by corporate interests, state officials and the political elite – the government of the day in particular. And even some BBC loyalists concede that it too often follows the agenda set by the rightwing press.

Behind these patterns of reporting is an organisation long shaped by officialdom – which, since the market-based reforms imposed by John Birt in the 1990s, has been increasingly influenced by the commercial culture of the private sector. More recently it has drifted further right, pushed and pulled by Tory and Tory-led governments that squeezed its funding and reshaped the political culture and agenda to which its editors defer.

Former executives now lament George Osborne’s abuse of the last charter renewal process, which drew the BBC into the government’s austerity agenda by forcing it to cover the cost of the licence fee for over-75s. But the longstanding structural limits to the BBC’s independence and impartiality are still rarely acknowledged. Ultimately it is an organisation accountable not to the public, nor even to parliament, but to the heart of government – and this continues to shape the culture of its newsrooms and its political programming. It’s not that presenters and reporters take instructions from the government or anyone else, as is sometimes alleged. But like any organisation, the BBC has a particular working culture based around policies, conventions and incentives that influence how the people who work there behave, as well as who is appointed or promoted.

At the top, there is a board made up of a mix of senior BBC managers, government appointees and other establishment figures. Beneath them is a highly paid group of executives, disproportionately drawn from private schools and Oxbridge, who know that the BBC depends on governments for its funding and its long-term survival. Then there are the BBC’s senior political journalists, whose work defines the tone of its output. Fiona Bruce, Evan Davis, Mishal Husain, Laura Kuenssberg, Emily Maitlis and Nick Robinson are all paid upwards of £250,000 a year and, with the exception of Kuenssberg, all attended Oxbridge colleges. All this shapes the BBC’s collective sense of how political stories should be reported, how “due impartiality” should be construed, and how competing claims of bias should be negotiated.

And it is this basic establishment orientation that accounts for the current crisis of legitimacy the corporation faces. The BBC has always had an extremely close relationship with the British state – until the 1990s its staff were secretly vetted by MI5 – and a certain common sense around macroeconomic issues became embedded in its economic and business reporting even before the 2008 crash. Thus the leftward shift of the Labour party, and the rise of the anti-austerity, anti-war politics that underpin it, were as much of an anathema to the BBC as they are to the broader establishment of which it is part.

Brexit, meanwhile, poses enormous challenges to journalism in general, but for the BBC they are especially acute since it has similarly disrupted its typical compass for impartiality: elite consensus. The majority of officials and business executives are opposed to Brexit, as are the vast majority of independent experts, but the government has sought to press ahead nevertheless. The electorate, meanwhile, remains fairly evenly split. In such circumstances, balancing opinion – public or elite – with expertise poses significant editorial dilemmas, and the BBC has been widely criticised for failing to challenge misinformation and misconduct by Brexit campaigners.

BBC political journalists have sought to ride the storm by sticking to their conventional model of embedded reporting: describing the political wrangling and relaying the competing claims and counterclaims. But this has only exposed it to further accusations of bias. Even at the best of times BBC journalism tends to lean towards the government of the day, while the ostensibly neutral “he said, she said” approach too often means relaying disinformation at odds with the BBC’s public purpose. The current election will be a major test for the BBC, but in the long run we will need to address some of the longstanding structural problems that our current circumstances have brought to the surface.

The bolded part says a lot why these people cannot be trusted. No wonder they fear Corbyn, they will have to pay a little more in taxes.

[His Divine Shadow]

Financial Times, the labour party deserves to form the next government
https://www.ft.com/content/d6f56834-0f7 ... 2f231cfeae

Also Financial Times, 163 economics and academics support Labours spending plans
https://www.ft.com/content/d29b4cbe-0fa ... 2f231cfeae

The links above might not work, but it seems to work if you go to them from this tweet
https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/1 ... 6572960768

[His Divine Shadow]

Man another awesome video on how Billionaires control the media, and how the BBC amplifies their message. So your BBC fee pays to help billionaires to tell you what to think.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status ... 2486959104

[His Divine Shadow]

I think the BBC must be violating the impartiality laws now.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/ ... 2060913667

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Somehow none of this surprises me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 19106.html

On a lighter note, the Independent has claimed that 3.8 million people have registered to vote since the election was announced; and that 67 per cent of them are aged under 35. Unfortunately, they added that 1.2 million are likely to be duplicate entries by people already registered; so the gain could be as little as 2.6 million.

This still looks good for Labour, but also the Lib Dems too; as this demographic also tend to be Remainers.

The Independent has also put forward a list of 25 key seats that, if kept out of Tory hands, will prevent a majority. According to Vote for a Final Say, which provided the list, tactical voting is needed for Labour in 17 seats, Lib Dems in 7 seats, and SNP in 1 seat.

Looks like there's still all to play for. The polls are still putting Bojo ahead, but they've been wrong before; and even then at least some of them show Corbyn creeping up slowly.

[His Divine Shadow]

Boris Johnson sent his fucking dad
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1200362065430536193

And his dad just let the mask drop on television

[madd0ct0r]

Boris Johnson sent his fucking dad
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1200362065430536193

And his dad just let the mask drop on television

have you autmoated your twitter to crosspost here or something?

[His Divine Shadow]

Nope, it's just the main way I find news nowadays. I think the content was more interesting than how it was delivered though.

[madd0ct0r]

Nope, it's just the main way I find news nowadays. I think the content was more interesting than how it was delivered though.

Maybe, but its tedious for me to get an update of less than twenty words from you (with no context or insight added), click on a link to get to twitter to get another vacous twenty words and possibly another link to actual story (or in this case a sixty second vacuous clip)

Articles are expected to be linked with a precis, tweets may as well be copied, or ignored if they are just another person delivering a witty epigram (aka shitposting).

[His Divine Shadow]

What was vacuous about it? In the context of the election, it's pretty relevant to see what Boris Johnsons father really thinks about the british public. Don't you? Seems a scandal in the making to me if it gets traction.

And my earlier link was to a BBC Politics post pretty deliberately making false claims about labour, I thought that was pretty darn hot stuff myself.

Before that it was a 9 minute video that I do not see the vacuousness of either, it seems pretty important.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

There has been a terrorist incident in London. Apparently a single attacker used a lorry to block London Bridge, then attacked bystanders with a knife before being shot dead by police. The latest report is two dead and three injured.

I only bring this up in this thread because it has rebounded on the Tories. I was afraid that Bojo would try to play the 'stop the terrorists' card, but the other parties got their response in quick; wondering aloud what became of those twenty-thousand missing police officers.

Tories criticised over police cuts in wake of London Bridge attack

Rival parties point to loss of 20,000 officers in TV debate hours after terrorist incident

Rowena Mason Deputy political editor

Fri 29 Nov 2019 21.32 GMT

The Conservatives faced criticism over cuts to police numbers as politicians took part in a seven-way television debate just hours after the London Bridge terror attack.

Labour, the SNP, Green party and Plaid Cymru politicians all took the Tories to task for having reduced police numbers by more than 20,000 over the last nine years.

Their coordinated attack in the debate hosted by the BBC was a sign that the issue could become problematic for Boris Johnson in the same way that Theresa May was held accountable for falling police numbers in the wake of terror attacks during the 2017 general election campaign.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary representing Labour in the debate, raised the issue of police cuts as she was asked about what should be done to increase security.

After paying tribute to the bravery of the emergency services and public in responding to Friday’s attack, she said: “This was an extreme event but what we can’t ignore is that over recent years we’ve seen increases in violent crime right across the country and at the same time since 2010 we’ve seen over 20,000 police officers cut from frontline services.

Adam Price, Caroline Lucas, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Rishi Sunak, Richard Tice, Nicola Sturgeon and Jo Swinson with the BBC presenter Nick Robinson before the debate. Photograph: Hannah McKay/PA

“It is right to recognise that that would have a direct impact and of course we’ve got to invest more in community neighbourhood policing and Labour has pledged to do that, but we’ve also got to invest in counter-terrorism measures and make sure they are properly funded.”

She was backed up by Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and first minister of Scotland, who said no amount of police officers could prevent a terror attack but added: “The numbers of police officers is important in ensuring the speed of response we saw today. The government in Scotland has increased and maintained police numbers. I think it’s regrettable that hasn’t happened elsewhere in the UK.”

Adam Price, the Plaid leader, said “resources are always part of the answer” as he criticised lower police numbers in Wales, while Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, said: “More police numbers would certainly help.”

Rishi Sunak, the chief secretary to the Treasury representing the Conservatives, defended his party’s record on security and said voters could “rest assured” that Johnson’s government would keep them safe.

He said: “The first duty of every government is to keep us safe. Investing in the police. Giving them the powers and resources that they need. And you can rest assured on that.”

The 90-minute debate covered a huge range of issues, with opposition parties attacking Sunak on Brexit, the NHS and the use of nuclear weapons.

Richard Tice, the Brexit party chairman, lined up with Sunak to make the case for Brexit and to argue that the NHS is not at risk of being privatised in a US trade deal.

However, the other representatives were scathing about the Tory approach to Brexit and the NHS. Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, said: “I’m sorry to have to say this but we’re so not far along on this Brexit journey – we’re like in episode one of a 10-season box set, and if you don’t like what you’ve seen up to now you don’t have to watch the rest.”

Sturgeon added: “This ‘get Brexit done’ is the biggest con of this election. The deal Boris Johnson has negotiated, I think a bad deal, is only a withdrawal deal – the trade talks haven’t started yet.”

Long-Bailey also went on the attack with Labour’s claim that Johnson would put the NHS on the table in negotiations with Donald Trump, backed up by Sturgeon.

The SNP leader said: “I’m going to be pretty blunt here: when Boris Johnson says the NHS is not on the table in a future trade deal, I simply do not trust him and I do not believe him on that point.”

Sunak branded the idea that the NHS would be for sale a “desperate conspiracy theory”.

On whether they would use nuclear weapons, Price, Lucas and Sturgeon all said they would definitely not use them. Sunak said “yes, if the circumstances demanded”, Swinson said she would be “prepared to” and would assess the situation, while Tice said: “After careful consideration, yes, if it was essential.”

Long-Bailey said the protection of the British people was “paramount” for any prime minister, adding: “They would need to look at the circumstances and of course they would need to take action if necessary.”

I was worried that Bojo would try to make hay out of this, but it didn't work for May and it seems unlikely to work for him.

[Vendetta]

What was vacuous about it? In the context of the election, it's pretty relevant to see what Boris Johnsons father really thinks about the british public. Don't you? Seems a scandal in the making to me if it gets traction.

And my earlier link was to a BBC Politics post pretty deliberately making false claims about labour, I thought that was pretty darn hot stuff myself.

Before that it was a 9 minute video that I do not see the vacuousness of either, it seems pretty important.

I think the argument is not with the content of the tweets, but that you just post links to the tweets when you could repost their content here and save the clickthrough.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Best news in a long time.

General election: Boris Johnson’s lead halved, putting UK in ‘hung parliament territory’, latest poll reveals

Conservatives now only six points ahead of Labour, exclusive survey for The Independent finds – the minimum needed to deliver Commons majority

Rob Merrick

The Conservative lead in the general election campaign has been more than halved in just one week, putting the UK in “hung parliament territory”, an exclusive poll for The Independent shows.

Boris Johnson’s party is now only six points ahead of Labour, it has found – matching other surveys suggesting the race is tightening dramatically, amid growing Tory nervousness.

Jeremy Corbyn is successfully winning back the support of voters threatening to defect to other parties, the poll by BMG Research shows, taking his party’s rating up five points to 33 per cent.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have dipped two points to 39 per cent, six points ahead instead of the 13 points in BMG’s survey a week ago.

Crucially, polling experts believe a lead of at least six points will be needed to deliver the Commons majority Mr Johnson is seeking – and his Brexit deal in January.

Robert Struthers, BMG’s head of polling, said there was growing evidence Labour is “starting to build momentum” ahead of the election on 12 December.

“The shifts we have witnessed in our headline voting intention figures take the Conservative lead from a likely majority into possible hung parliament territory,” he said.

The results come at the end of a week when Mr Johnson has faced a torrent of criticism over everything from his previous attacks on single mothers and working class men to ducking out of a grilling by Andrew Neil.

In the wake of the London Bridge terror attack, the prime minister faced difficult questions over the early release from prison of the attacker, although the BMG research was carried out before the atrocity.

Tory strategists are worried the arrival of Donald Trump for a Nato summit in London on Tuesday is a moment of potential danger, fearing what the unpredictable US president will say or do.

On Friday, Mr Johnson took the highly unusual step of urging him not to intervene in the election campaign – knowing his backing would backfire – and the pair are unlikely to hold a face-to-face meeting.

The BMG research shows the Liberal Democrats continuing their slide, down five points, while the Brexit Party is marooned on just four per cent, behind the Greens on five per cent.

Jo Swinson’s party had hoped to scoop up most Remain voters from the 2016 referendum, but the poll shows more drifting to Labour – 46 per cent, up from 39 per cent last week.

The Conservatives are worried the Lib Dems’ troubles are leading to the Remain vote coalescing behind Labour and its promise of a Final Say referendum.

Vince Cable, the former Lib Dem leader, criticised his party’s policy of revoking Article 50 – now all but ignored in its campaign – as always “wildly improbable”.

“We were never going to get 350 MPs, so the policy had been and should be to argue for the people’s vote, going back to the public, to the referendum with support for Remain,” he said.

Mr Struthers pointed to Labour voters coming home, with 73 per cent of those who backed the party at the 2017 election now planning to do the same on 12 December – up from 67 per cent a week ago.

In contrast, the Tories had “less room for growth”, having already banked most Brexit Party supporters, after Nigel Farage’s decision to pull out of Conservative-held seats.

Mr Johnson’s party is backed by 70 per cent of Leave voters, and although Labour has attracted only 17 per cent, that figure is up four points in a week.

“The key question for the remainder of the campaign is the extent to which Labour can continue to squeeze the Liberal Democrat and Green vote,” Mr Struthers said.

“If this trend continues, this election could be much closer than it looked just a matter of weeks ago.”

Yes, I know polls aren't all that reliable, but I really needed that.

It looks like that terrorist incident is indeed biting Bojo very hard on the proverbial. May only had three terrorist attacks in rapid succession on her watch. Bojo has a convicted terrorist being released and carrying out an attack on his watch. Somehow, I don't expect that to go down well.

Also, it looks like Labour is hoovering up Remain voters. Mostly likely they're focussing on denying Bojo his majority. It's all that can be hoped for, and all that's really needed.

[Bedlam]

Mostly likely they're focussing on denying Bojo his majority. It's all that can be hoped for, and all that's really needed.

Personally I'd much prefer a majority in one way or another in a hope to actually get something done, even if it's an outcome which is not my personal preference. I can see something like that just dissolving into further months of squabbling (probably after another extension, at it stands nothing significant is going to get done by the end of January). I'm personally against Britxit, however, I do also feel that the outcome of the original referendum should be respected but that that does not automatically mean we should leave without a deal. I also feel that a further referendum is not ethical but also see it as the best way to legitimise my own wants, so I'm rather torn on all the issues.

[madd0ct0r]

Mostly likely they're focussing on denying Bojo his majority. It's all that can be hoped for, and all that's really needed.

Personally I'd much prefer a majority in one way or another in a hope to actually get something done, even if it's an outcome which is not my personal preference. I can see something like that just dissolving into further months of squabbling (probably after another extension, at it stands nothing significant is going to get done by the end of January). I'm personally against Britxit, however, I do also feel that the outcome of the original referendum should be respected but that that does not automatically mean we should leave without a deal. I also feel that a further referendum is not ethical but also see it as the best way to legitimise my own wants, so I'm rather torn on all the issues.

"Get brexit done" is bullshit platitudes. If we formally withdraw from membership then we will have years of trade agreement wrangling and ongoing second guessing. This is never going away, whatever happens.

[Bernkastel]

I'd like to point out that even a direct democracy like Switzerland has the option to redo a referendum if the public is sufficiently misinformed. Why should we hold ourselves to a higher standard by insisting that a redo for a non binding referendum conducted without election rules for a binding referendum can't be done? Ignoring issues about the precedent of treating a referendum like a permanently binding vote, the Brexit vote was conducted in such a way that a redo should be done to get an actually valid result.

Also, preferring a terrible government that will implement/continue terrible policies that actively screw over the UK over stalemate because the former involves getting things done seems stupid to me. I would rather not have the Tories "get something done", if simply because those somethings will almost certainly continue to worsen things for a lot of people, including myself.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Mostly likely they're focussing on denying Bojo his majority. It's all that can be hoped for, and all that's really needed.

Personally I'd much prefer a majority in one way or another in a hope to actually get something done, even if it's an outcome which is not my personal preference. I can see something like that just dissolving into further months of squabbling (probably after another extension, at it stands nothing significant is going to get done by the end of January). I'm personally against Britxit, however, I do also feel that the outcome of the original referendum should be respected but that that does not automatically mean we should leave without a deal. I also feel that a further referendum is not ethical but also see it as the best way to legitimise my own wants, so I'm rather torn on all the issues.

Here's how I see it.

If a political party gains a majority in the UK parliament, it effectively gains untrammeled power to to as it pleases; at least so long as no MPs rebel, and Whipping is usually an effective preventative. A Hung Parliament, by contrast, forces the ruling party to subject its Bills to debate, and to political consensus. If nothing else, the latter is somewhat more democratic.

Also, in this case, a Hung Parliament favours Labour over the Tories. For one, Corbyn is in a stronger position to make allies than Bojo. To the other parties, with the likely exceptions of UKIP, BXP, and DUP, Corbyn is infinitely preferable to Bojo. As a result, they'll go easier on him in coalition negotiations than they will on Bojo.

The Lib Dems aren't doing all that well, but they might still be a kingmaker. Despite what some have sneered or ranted online, they won't go meekly into a coalition; not after what happened with the Tories. Their prices for coalition are likely to be Article 50 retraction and possibly voting reform. On the former, Corbyn could almost certainly haggle them down to to a second referendum; in which they have already expressed interest. On the latter, a hung parliament might convince Labour to abandon its resistance to voting reform; if they can't get what they want under FPTP, why stick with it? For the Tories, both are red lines.

For the SNP, their price will definately be a second Independence referendum; and they might seek an Article 50 retraction or 2nd Brexit Referendum just to maintain their Remain credentials. Corbyn might be persuaded to allow a 2nd Indyref, under certain conditions, but Bojo definitely won't.

For another, failure to get a majority will likely be the end for Bojo. The Tories voted him in either for the promise of Hard Brexit or because he seemed their best hope of winning an election. If he can't deliver the latter, he can't deliver the former; and his recent behaviour makes him a serious liability. If he fails, he goes.

With regard to a second Brexit referendum, it's probably the only fair way to resolve the issue; or at least to break the current deadlock. The matter will likely rumble on for years, if not decades.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Brexit Party MEPs quit to back Boris Johnson's Brexit deal

Nigel Farage has said it did not "surprise him at all" that three Brexit Party MEPs resigned the party to join the Conservative.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg - sister of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg - Lance Forman and Lucy Harris all resigned from the Brexit Party, launching a scathing attack on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

They resigned the whip and urged voters to back the Conservatives to "get Brexit done."

Mr Farage told ITV News: "I'm never disappointed by human behaviour, I'm big enough and ugly enough to see stupidity and greed, I've seen it many times before.

"I'm not surprised at all...I've seen this coming a long, long way off. I've witnessed from Number 10 the attempts to either intimidate people or to buy people off.

"I'm not suggested in the case of three of the people we are talking about that offers have been made, but we all know they'd be ringing up offering jobs, peerages, it just shows you how corrupt politics is and why the whole thing needs changing."

Indeed, just not in himself or his supporters!