Brexit and General UK politics thread

[His Divine Shadow]

Honestly after all the shit that is being heaped on the man, the constant BS, distortion of facts, the insane british media, he must be some kind of super human to even remain in his seat this far in what to me seems like the most dysfunctional political system in western europe with the most blatantly bought out murdoch media setting the tone. Apparently we're already forgetting that it's the PLP who has been fighting Corbyn from day one and split the labour party when it most needed unity and pulled every dirty trick in the book and are still doing so today.

And lets say Labour goes back to blairite/third way/end of history politics, do you really think that will bring any voters back? The third way politics, blairism, neoliberalism, it has failed, it has died, the corpse just doesn't know it yet but the evidence is in all over europe with the collapse of these center left parties and the rise of populism. We're at a similar breaking point today as in the 70s 80s when one economic regime was giving way to another. The only question is what kind of new politics will come out of this breaking we're experiencing.

Good read:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uv4Gc ... jGah3/full

[Dartzap]

The most dysfunctional political system in Western Europe?!

You, uh, have heard of Belgium, right? Had no government for years?

[Zaune]

Yes, but everything seemed to keep ticking over fairly well in its absence, didn't it?

[Dartzap]

Well obviously. That's what a civil service is for! I think the principles behind my spluttering are sound!

[Tribble]

Honestly after all the shit that is being heaped on the man, the constant BS, distortion of facts, the insane british media, he must be some kind of super human to even remain in his seat this far in what to me seems like the most dysfunctional political system in western europe with the most blatantly bought out murdoch media setting the tone. Apparently we're already forgetting that it's the PLP who has been fighting Corbyn from day one and split the labour party when it most needed unity and pulled every dirty trick in the book and are still doing so today.

And lets say Labour goes back to blairite/third way/end of history politics, do you really think that will bring any voters back? The third way politics, blairism, neoliberalism, it has failed, it has died, the corpse just doesn't know it yet but the evidence is in all over europe with the collapse of these center left parties and the rise of populism. We're at a similar breaking point today as in the 70s 80s when one economic regime was giving way to another. The only question is what kind of new politics will come out of this breaking we're experiencing.

Good read:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uv4Gc ... jGah3/full

The U.K. political structure is many things, but dysfunctional? Please define that one a bit more.

The Conservative Party ran an election where they promised an "in/out referendum" on the EU and that they would abide by the results.
The Conservatives won the election and parliament passed legislation for the referendum.
The referendum was held, and the majority voted to leave.
Parliament then passed legislation specifically authorizing the PM to begin the withdrawal process.
The PM then invoked Article 50.

While you may disagree with the decision, what part of that was dysfunctional? You had both democratic legitimacy via the election and the referendum, and parliamentary legitimacy via the votes in parliament. The Conservative's primary mandate was completely fulfilled - something pretty damn rare these days.

As the PM had no specific mandate over what form Brexit should take and it became apparent that she may lose confidence of the House at a critical juncture she has now called an election, and parliament overwhelmingly passed it. Which, again, is precisely what should be done under the circumstances.

Arguments over FPTP and the role of the House of Lords aside, parliament is more or less functioning exactly as it should. So what exactly do you mean?

[streetad]

The most dysfunctional political system in Western Europe?!

You, uh, have heard of Belgium, right? Had no government for years?

Very true. Or Spain for that matter - how many goes did they need to form a government?

The UK may, on the other hand, have some of the most dysfunctional political PARTIES in Western Europe. Although they have some pretty stiff competition there as well.

[SpottedKitty]

The UK may, on the other hand, have some of the most dysfunctional political PARTIES in Western Europe. Although they have some pretty stiff competition there as well.

Indeed. Quite apart from the UKIP's recent self-destruct, I can't be the only one with fond memories of a newspaper cartoon of the Two Davids (Owen and Steele) at the time of the SDP-Liberal Alliance; one of them grumbled about foreseeing a time when the whole party could go to Parliament on a skateboard.

[His Divine Shadow]

Honestly after all the shit that is being heaped on the man, the constant BS, distortion of facts, the insane british media, he must be some kind of super human to even remain in his seat this far in what to me seems like the most dysfunctional political system in western europe with the most blatantly bought out murdoch media setting the tone. Apparently we're already forgetting that it's the PLP who has been fighting Corbyn from day one and split the labour party when it most needed unity and pulled every dirty trick in the book and are still doing so today.

And lets say Labour goes back to blairite/third way/end of history politics, do you really think that will bring any voters back? The third way politics, blairism, neoliberalism, it has failed, it has died, the corpse just doesn't know it yet but the evidence is in all over europe with the collapse of these center left parties and the rise of populism. We're at a similar breaking point today as in the 70s 80s when one economic regime was giving way to another. The only question is what kind of new politics will come out of this breaking we're experiencing.

Good read:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uv4Gc ... jGah3/full

The U.K. political structure is many things, but dysfunctional? Please define that one a bit more.

The Conservative Party ran an election where they promised an "in/out referendum" on the EU and that they would abide by the results.
The Conservatives won the election and parliament passed legislation for the referendum.
The referendum was held, and the majority voted to leave.
Parliament then passed legislation specifically authorizing the PM to begin the withdrawal process.
The PM then invoked Article 50.

While you may disagree with the decision, what part of that was dysfunctional? You had both democratic legitimacy via the election and the referendum, and parliamentary legitimacy via the votes in parliament. The Conservative's primary mandate was completely fulfilled - something pretty damn rare these days.

As the PM had no specific mandate over what form Brexit should take and it became apparent that she may lose confidence of the House at a critical juncture she has now called an election, and parliament overwhelmingly passed it. Which, again, is precisely what should be done under the circumstances.

Arguments over FPTP and the role of the House of Lords aside, parliament is more or less functioning exactly as it should. So what exactly do you mean?

I'm no EU fan and brexit doesn't bother me, if you recall... None of the things you said bother me.

I'm talking mainly about the media, Labour and Corbyn and the whole mess that is. The latest rounds of statements being dropped about corbyn, even by what I'd think are left wing people, shows how well said attacks are working, like the membership voting him in is bad now, that the PLP tried to stop the membership voting with all kinds of dirty undemocratic tricks, or the leadership challenges when it was labour times to shine (with no replacement candidate, the lineup was a joke), that's all under the rug now. Now we're having literal 1984 historical revisions of how it's corbyns fault the labour is divided. Given how well it's actually working and what the actual facts are this says to me it reeks of dysfunctionality. I've never seen such dirt throwing and undermining, not even in the states.

[Tribble]

Honestly after all the shit that is being heaped on the man, the constant BS, distortion of facts, the insane british media, he must be some kind of super human to even remain in his seat this far in what to me seems like the most dysfunctional political system in western europe with the most blatantly bought out murdoch media setting the tone. Apparently we're already forgetting that it's the PLP who has been fighting Corbyn from day one and split the labour party when it most needed unity and pulled every dirty trick in the book and are still doing so today.

And lets say Labour goes back to blairite/third way/end of history politics, do you really think that will bring any voters back? The third way politics, blairism, neoliberalism, it has failed, it has died, the corpse just doesn't know it yet but the evidence is in all over europe with the collapse of these center left parties and the rise of populism. We're at a similar breaking point today as in the 70s 80s when one economic regime was giving way to another. The only question is what kind of new politics will come out of this breaking we're experiencing.

Good read:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uv4Gc ... jGah3/full

The U.K. political structure is many things, but dysfunctional? Please define that one a bit more.

The Conservative Party ran an election where they promised an "in/out referendum" on the EU and that they would abide by the results.
The Conservatives won the election and parliament passed legislation for the referendum.
The referendum was held, and the majority voted to leave.
Parliament then passed legislation specifically authorizing the PM to begin the withdrawal process.
The PM then invoked Article 50.

While you may disagree with the decision, what part of that was dysfunctional? You had both democratic legitimacy via the election and the referendum, and parliamentary legitimacy via the votes in parliament. The Conservative's primary mandate was completely fulfilled - something pretty damn rare these days.

As the PM had no specific mandate over what form Brexit should take and it became apparent that she may lose confidence of the House at a critical juncture she has now called an election, and parliament overwhelmingly passed it. Which, again, is precisely what should be done under the circumstances.

Arguments over FPTP and the role of the House of Lords aside, parliament is more or less functioning exactly as it should. So what exactly do you mean?

I'm no EU fan and brexit doesn't bother me, if you recall... None of the things you said bother me.

I'm talking mainly about the media, Labour and Corbyn and the whole mess that is. The latest rounds of statements being dropped about corbyn, even by what I'd think are left wing people, shows how well said attacks are working, like the membership voting him in is bad now, that the PLP tried to stop the membership voting with all kinds of dirty undemocratic tricks, or the leadership challenges when it was labour times to shine (with no replacement candidate, the lineup was a joke), that's all under the rug now. Now we're having literal 1984 historical revisions of how it's corbyns fault the labour is divided. Given how well it's actually working and what the actual facts are this says to me it reeks of dysfunctionality. I've never seen such dirt throwing and undermining, not even in the states.

Ah yes, the media has given up all pretenses of being sane for awhile now.

[madd0ct0r]

They are extremely sane, just following their owners interests

[jwl]

Honestly after all the shit that is being heaped on the man, the constant BS, distortion of facts, the insane british media, he must be some kind of super human to even remain in his seat this far in what to me seems like the most dysfunctional political system in western europe with the most blatantly bought out murdoch media setting the tone. Apparently we're already forgetting that it's the PLP who has been fighting Corbyn from day one and split the labour party when it most needed unity and pulled every dirty trick in the book and are still doing so today.

And lets say Labour goes back to blairite/third way/end of history politics, do you really think that will bring any voters back? The third way politics, blairism, neoliberalism, it has failed, it has died, the corpse just doesn't know it yet but the evidence is in all over europe with the collapse of these center left parties and the rise of populism. We're at a similar breaking point today as in the 70s 80s when one economic regime was giving way to another. The only question is what kind of new politics will come out of this breaking we're experiencing.

Good read:
http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/uv4Gc ... jGah3/full

The U.K. political structure is many things, but dysfunctional? Please define that one a bit more.

The Conservative Party ran an election where they promised an "in/out referendum" on the EU and that they would abide by the results.
The Conservatives won the election and parliament passed legislation for the referendum.
The referendum was held, and the majority voted to leave.
Parliament then passed legislation specifically authorizing the PM to begin the withdrawal process.
The PM then invoked Article 50.

I'd hardly call Britain "the most dysfunctional political system in western europe" either, but why does the EU referendum have anything to do with it? The main focus of the 2015 conservative campaign was not the in/out referendum, but the deficit and not forming a coalition with SNP. They didn't form a coalition with SNP, but their deficit reduction plan is not happening as they plotted out before the election.

I mean, I've searched "2015 conservative election posters" and these turned up:




Nothing about the in-out referendum here, plenty about the deficit and SNP.

[Crazedwraith]

Don't pretend that the In-Out Referendum wasn't a significant issue. It may not have been front and centre but it was very definitely there. Why do you think we had it?

It was basically a plank to beat off the UKIP threat to the Tories. IIRC it was introduced later on in the campaign not straight away when they started getting nervous.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, yes. Cameron gambled that he could win the referendum, and lost. The UK will probably cease to exist within a few years, meaning that Cameron will have literally destroyed his country to win an election.

If their is any justice, history will remember David Cameron for only two things: the Brexit disaster, and pig fucking.

[jwl]

Don't pretend that the In-Out Referendum wasn't a significant issue. It may not have been front and centre but it was very definitely there. Why do you think we had it?

It was basically a plank to beat off the UKIP threat to the Tories. IIRC it was introduced later on in the campaign not straight away when they started getting nervous.

It was. But it was a side issue, not the main one. The way Tribble was talking it sounded like it was the only thing the conservatives campaigned on.

[Crazedwraith]

Don't pretend that the In-Out Referendum wasn't a significant issue. It may not have been front and centre but it was very definitely there. Why do you think we had it?

It was basically a plank to beat off the UKIP threat to the Tories. IIRC it was introduced later on in the campaign not straight away when they started getting nervous.

It was. But it was a side issue, not the main one. The way Tribble was talking it sounded like it was the only thing the conservatives campaigned on.

I'm not sure that materially changed his point. They made an election promise. (one of a few) They won the election so they enacted their promise. The results of the referendum were then honoured and we trigger article 50.

"That's democracy working" was the point.

[jwl]

Don't pretend that the In-Out Referendum wasn't a significant issue. It may not have been front and centre but it was very definitely there. Why do you think we had it?

It was basically a plank to beat off the UKIP threat to the Tories. IIRC it was introduced later on in the campaign not straight away when they started getting nervous.

It was. But it was a side issue, not the main one. The way Tribble was talking it sounded like it was the only thing the conservatives campaigned on.

I'm not sure that materially changed his point. They made an election promise. (one of a few) They won the election so they enacted their promise. The results of the referendum were then honoured and we trigger article 50.

"That's democracy working" was the point.

Yes, but that wasn't their only election promise. Their main one was their deficit reduction plan. Considering that plan is not being followed right now, they either did not enact it or they tried and failed. "That isn't democracy working" could be a point.

[Tribble]

It was. But it was a side issue, not the main one. The way Tribble was talking it sounded like it was the only thing the conservatives campaigned on.

I'm not sure that materially changed his point. They made an election promise. (one of a few) They won the election so they enacted their promise. The results of the referendum were then honoured and we trigger article 50.

"That's democracy working" was the point.

Yes, but that wasn't their only election promise. Their main one was their deficit reduction plan. Considering that plan is not being followed right now, they either did not enact it or they tried and failed. "That isn't democracy working" could be a point.

IIRC a referendum on the EU has been a central part of the Conservative Party's platform since at least the early 2000s, and particularly since the Lisbon Treaty was signed (which incidentally was when UKIP really started taking off). Remember David Cameron's "Iron-Cast Guarantee"?

At any rate my reply was towards His Divine Shadow as I wasn't sure what he meant. Given that the present election is 100% about Brexit I had thought that he was referring to the actions that led to Article 50 being triggered, which was not the case.

And no one in Europe holds a candle to how dysfunctional things can get over here. Even if the UK is the most dysfunctional political system in Europe we'd still take it over our own governments in a heartbeat. The last premier in Ontario set a sort of record for the province when it came to election campaigns; the moment he got elected he actually went to a judge to ask if any of his promises were legally binding, and the moment he found out they weren't he promptly broke most of them. Starting with the biggest tax hike in Ontario history (even though we were running a surplus at the time) after saying no new taxes. And it went downhill from there, believe me. We literally went from a #1 "have" province (that is we contributed a lot more money to Canada than got back) to "province with largest sub-sovereign debt in the world" in the span of just 10 years. Despite tax increases like the one above. Yay.

[Minischoles]

On the other hand, the Labour Party in its current form would be no less dysfunctional without Corbyn; in fact arguably more so. The Parliamentary party want another 'moderate' like Blair who'll pander to the tabloids and the vested interests and 'compromise' and 'modernise' until Labour policy is nothing more than a slightly watered-down version of Cameron's Tories. The actual party membership* are rather less enthusiastic about this idea, which is why they voted Corbyn into his post in the first place and have been steadfastly resisting every attempt to oust him. That disconnect is something they're going to have to deal with at some point, one way or the other.

* And yes, I'm aware that an awful lot of people joined specifically to help him get and keep the job, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that myself. But most parties would consider a sudden surge in membership applications, particularly from the 18-25 demographics they've been struggling to attract for some time, to be a good thing!

The people against Corbyn are almost completely blind to the part the PLP play in the current party chaos, they seem to believe the PLP are all saints and that Corbyn is the devil himself who is warping and destroying the party.

The idea that the PLP waging a war against the party membership itself is a good idea, that they should ignore them and install their own leader is incredibly damaging; you can't have MPs going to war with their own party, down that way ruin lies.

Honestly after all the shit that is being heaped on the man, the constant BS, distortion of facts, the insane british media, he must be some kind of super human to even remain in his seat this far in what to me seems like the most dysfunctional political system in western europe with the most blatantly bought out murdoch media setting the tone. Apparently we're already forgetting that it's the PLP who has been fighting Corbyn from day one and split the labour party when it most needed unity and pulled every dirty trick in the book and are still doing so today.

And lets say Labour goes back to blairite/third way/end of history politics, do you really think that will bring any voters back? The third way politics, blairism, neoliberalism, it has failed, it has died, the corpse just doesn't know it yet but the evidence is in all over europe with the collapse of these center left parties and the rise of populism. We're at a similar breaking point today as in the 70s 80s when one economic regime was giving way to another. The only question is what kind of new politics will come out of this breaking we're experiencing.

Good read:

It's the media narrative; almost as soon as Corbyn was put on the leadership ballot, the media started cranking out the anti-left rhetoric, the 'unelectable' tag was applied to him before the votes had even been cast. It's a narrative they've kept building, through outright lies and distortion.

Corbyn is hanging on because he knows that if he steps down or leaves, Labour won't ever elect a left wing candidate again; hopefully the McDonnell amendment gets approved finally and he can step down, since then a left wing candidate can actually get on the ballot against the Blairities.

[jwl]

The thing is, if Corbyn doesn't have the confidence of his MPs and the media hate him, that makes him a worse party leader. Two good characteristics of a party leader are the ability to work well with your fellow MPs and to get the media on-side. If you can't do that, that's a minus to your leadership. (Another good characteristic, of course, is to be popular with the party activists, which arguably e.g. Blair wasn't very good at).

[Zaune]

It's logistically impossible to hold Corbyn's political views and get the media on-side in this country when stuff like this happens:

Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

There's a PDF copy of the report with a long list of citations at the link. It's disturbing reading, the kind of thing I'd dismiss as rampant tinfoil-hattery if it was coming from any less reputable source.

As to his fellow MPs, criticising Corbyn for not working well with them when they were scheming to get rid of him practically before he'd even had his first cabinet meeting as party leader strikes me as somewhat unfair at best.

[Minischoles]

The thing is, if Corbyn doesn't have the confidence of his MPs and the media hate him, that makes him a worse party leader. Two good characteristics of a party leader are the ability to work well with your fellow MPs and to get the media on-side. If you can't do that, that's a minus to your leadership. (Another good characteristic, of course, is to be popular with the party activists, which arguably e.g. Blair wasn't very good at).

A large number of MPs literally refused to work with Corbyn from Day Zero; before the official count had even been made and early returns looked like giving him the lead, they were going to the press and (quite literally) putting it in writing that they would refuse to work with Corbyn under any circumstances.

It's not like they gave him a chance, then after this decided they couldn't work with him; they outright refused from before he was even announced as leader.

You can't form a relationship with people whose default starting position is 'we hate you, don't want you to be leader and absolutely 100% refuse to ever work with you under any circumstances' because where do you even go from that?

It'd be like a gay rights activist trying to form a relationship with the WBC.

As for the media, as Zaune pointed out, they are not above completely misrepresenting, bordering on outright lying, when it comes to Corbyn; they are completely 100% against him, especially the Murdoch owned media.

[jwl]

It's logistically impossible to hold Corbyn's political views and get the media on-side in this country when stuff like this happens:

Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

There's a PDF copy of the report with a long list of citations at the link. It's disturbing reading, the kind of thing I'd dismiss as rampant tinfoil-hattery if it was coming from any less reputable source.

As to his fellow MPs, criticising Corbyn for not working well with them when they were scheming to get rid of him practically before he'd even had his first cabinet meeting as party leader strikes me as somewhat unfair at best.

If Corbyn's (perceived) political views make it impossible to get the media on-side, they also make him a worse party leader, at least if you don't take into account the positive impact of these views can have (e.g. bringing forward new campaign bases like Momentum). It doesn't matter what the reason is for the media to dislike him, if the media dislikes him, that's a minus for his leadership.

Although I don't happen to think you necessarily need the media to agree with you to have a good media relationship. Look at Nigel Farage. With the exception of the Express, none of the media agrees with him. However, he is still able to work the media to his advantage, partially because he acts in a way the media find entertaining, and partially because he knows how they function so can frame things that even when the media is attacking him it impacts positively on him.

When Corbyn complains that the media is attacking him, it's because he allowed them to get to him. When Farage does it, it's a highly calculated move to maximise his anti-establishment "people's army" image; in actuality if anything he's glad the media are attacking him.

The thing is, if Corbyn doesn't have the confidence of his MPs and the media hate him, that makes him a worse party leader. Two good characteristics of a party leader are the ability to work well with your fellow MPs and to get the media on-side. If you can't do that, that's a minus to your leadership. (Another good characteristic, of course, is to be popular with the party activists, which arguably e.g. Blair wasn't very good at).

A large number of MPs literally refused to work with Corbyn from Day Zero; before the official count had even been made and early returns looked like giving him the lead, they were going to the press and (quite literally) putting it in writing that they would refuse to work with Corbyn under any circumstances.

It's not like they gave him a chance, then after this decided they couldn't work with him; they outright refused from before he was even announced as leader.

You can't form a relationship with people whose default starting position is 'we hate you, don't want you to be leader and absolutely 100% refuse to ever work with you under any circumstances' because where do you even go from that?

It'd be like a gay rights activist trying to form a relationship with the WBC.

As for the media, as Zaune pointed out, they are not above completely misrepresenting, bordering on outright lying, when it comes to Corbyn; they are completely 100% against him, especially the Murdoch owned media.

So? If your fellow MPs don't like you from the start, it's a minus for how well qualified you are as party leader. It doesn't matter why they don't like you, the fact they don't like you means it's a minus for how well-qualified you are as leader. Brown having one eye was a minus to his leadership, Miliband being bad at eating a bacon sandwich was a minus to his. It doesn't matter if it's "fair" or not, the fact is it loses them votes.

[Zaune]

Take that to its ultimate logical conclusion and we might as well nominate Zaphod Beeblebrox for leader of the Labour party. He'd be perfect, in fact! He'd make some entertaining speeches and look good in the media, but being an amiably dimwitted poser whose only convictions or goals in life revolve around his own vanity he'd sign on the dotted line where he was told to and let someone else do the complicated thinking.

[jwl]

Take that to its ultimate logical conclusion and we might as well nominate Zaphod Beeblebrox for leader of the Labour party. He'd be perfect, in fact! He'd make some entertaining speeches and look good in the media, but being an amiably dimwitted poser whose only convictions or goals in life revolve around his own vanity he'd sign on the dotted line where he was told to and let someone else do the complicated thinking.

Obviously being able to do sensible policy-making is also a mark of a good labour leader, but that doesn't mean that you can dismiss the role of good media relations and getting your fellow MPs on-side. Corbyn is a Labour leader, not an economics professor, getting people to like him is part of his job title.

Also, can I ask I question: I presume you support Labour, right? What would you rather happen in this election; if Labour were to win the election under Zaphod Beeblebrox and he were to carry out whatever policies his fellow Labour MPs tell him to, or if Labour were to lose the election under Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May were to carry out whatever policies she felt like? That's not necessarily to say that Corbyn won't win the election, and if he does that he will be vindicated in his role as Labour leader, but it does illustrate that things like media relations are important.

[madd0ct0r]

The thing is, if Corbyn doesn't have the confidence of his MPs and the media hate him, that makes him a worse party leader. Two good characteristics of a party leader are the ability to work well with your fellow MPs and to get the media on-side. If you can't do that, that's a minus to your leadership. (Another good characteristic, of course, is to be popular with the party activists, which arguably e.g. Blair wasn't very good at).

Both of those two things: confidnece of entitled labour MPs and media, are created by the approval of 4 old men. Lord Rothmere, Rupert Murdoch, and the Barcley Brothers, with an hnoury nod to the CEO of Trinity Mirror. These are the men who backed/created the will for Brexit to maintain their own power.

Rothmere and Murdoch alone control more than half of the papers in the UK. If they think you will not listen to them, they will not supprt you, and that will loose you the confidence of MPs who feel that dealing with that devil is better than allowing the tories to do the same.