Brexit process

[UndercoverElephant]

And why is Mr Cummings so relaxed?

His strategy seems to be;

1/ Goad the remainer MP's

2/ Use divisive language to tickle the populists amongst the public

3/ Use the European council meeting to publicly state that the UK is now a vassel state, Parliament forced a surrender against the peoples wishes, a court appointed person (not Boris) will sign the humiliation bill etc etc.

Mr Cummings said yesterday: “To put your mind absolutely at rest on that we are not under pressure at all. The referendum was pressure, the referendum was difficult.

"This is a walk in the park compared to that. All the Vote Leave team, we are enjoying this, we are going to win, we are going to leave, don't worry."

Thoughts?

He's trying to wind up remainers and fire up the no-deal base at the same time. It is deliberately an confrontational as possible, and the relaxed attitude is to encourage people to think they've got some sneaky plan. The idea is that remainers will be worried enough that they VonC the government so Johnson can try to capitalise on the "elite remainers" trying to stop brexit.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49850484

The SNP has given its most explicit suggestion yet that it could back a time-limited government led by Jeremy Corbyn to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

Party leader Nicola Sturgeon said she "agreed" installing the Labour leader or "someone else" after a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson was the only" failsafe" option.

This is interesting. Firstly it sheds some light on what Cummings and Johnson are up to - they are trying to provoke something like this.

Secondly it confirms we are drifting towards a Lab+SNP alliance of sorts, while the libdems woo tory remainers and continue to slag Corbyn off at every opportunity. Lab+SNP = 281 MPs. Not quite enough, but Plaid would probably join them, as well as some of the new independents. Would put a lot of pressure on Swinson to sign up.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

Watch out for the shifting politics of Brexit

In today’s briefing we bring you two separate Brexit stories, one on the shifting politics of Brexit, and on fears of another tactical ruse by Johnson. The short answer is that people overestimate the likelihood of latter, and underestimate the former. Especially in Brussels.

What is widely underestimated is the sheer unpopularity of the Brexit extensions. We recalled a Tory MP telling us in June that they had underestimated the electoral effect of the April extension, which resulted in the victory of the Brexit Party at the European elections. 

Experience has taught not to predict elections, and certainly not elections that have not even been scheduled. But one micro prediction we are happy to make is that the person who extends will not be elected in a general election. That person might well be Jeremy Corbyn. If there ever were a government of national unity, it would be under his leadership. We don’t want to discount that possibility completely, but we don’t think that Labour would do itself any favours by forcing a Brexit extension followed immediately by an election. Just as we don’t think the Tories would do themselves any favours with a no-deal Brexit followed immediately by an election.

Boris Johnson’s bulldozing strategy is not pretty, but it is working. His repeated use of the term surrender bill strikes a cord not only with core Tory voters, but with many people in the country. Steven Swinford of the Times tells us that the Tories have done a lot of polling on this specific term, and they have come to the conclusion that it damages the Labour Party. We are reminded of the late 1980s, when it was Labour Party that used the damaging term of a poll tax to describe what was officially known as the community charge. It was the poll tax that sank Margaret Thatcher’s government - not her position on Europe.

In his Times lead story this morning, Swinford writes about a warning by government ministers of riots on the scale of the Gilet Jaunes in France if Brexit were frustrated. We made a similar prediction right after the referendum. Dominic Cummings yesterday provoked a Labour MP who complained to him about death threats, by telling him to pass Brexit. This is politics on an extremely ugly scale. Johnson himself pulled back a little yesterday, promising to moderate his language a little bit, but his team and his ministers are clearly doubling down.

The YouGov poll, with polling done on Sep 25, shows the Conservatives at 33% and LibDems and Labour both at 22%. This would translate into 348 seats for the Tories which is an absolute majority of 30, 163 for Labour and 77 for the LibDems. The Brexit Party scores 14% but does not get a single seat.

What one needs to understand about this and other polls is the interplay of two conflicting dynamics. On the pro-Brexit side the Tories are competing with the Brexit Party. The pro-Remain vote is split between Labour and the LibDems. Johnson is managing to squeeze out the Brexit Party more than Labour is managing to squeeze out the LibDems. These dynamics might change, for example if Johnson himself were to extend Brexit. It is best to understand the relation between percentage votes and seats in the UK in terms of thresholds. For the LibDems to get more seats than Labour, they would need to poll a lot more than 22%. At 14%, the Brexit Party’s potential to deprive the Tories of seats is limited only to a few marginals. But, once they get above 20%, they would become as dangerous to the Tories as the LibDems are to Labour.

Next week, the Tories will hold their party conference in Manchester despite the vote in the Commons against a customary recess. We expect another rabble-rousing performance by Johnson. Since he became leader, the party’s fundraising has skyrocketed. September was their best month ever. There is a lot of support for him from business

.

[UndercoverElephant]

Beria

Experience has taught not to predict elections, and certainly not elections that have not even been scheduled. But one micro prediction we are happy to make is that the person who extends will not be elected in a general election. That person might well be Jeremy Corbyn. If there ever were a government of national unity, it would be under his leadership.

This is wrong. The electorate's response to an extension will be different depending on who does it. If Johnson were extend article 50, half his potential voters would defect to the brexit party. If Corbyn extends it then it is not likely to make a whole bunch of difference, because the rump Labour vote which still supports him simply does not care about brexit as much as it cares about a Labour election victory, and for remainers of any political persuasion it would be welcomed because it keeps the chance of revoke alive.

Secondly, if Corbyn ends up in charge of a temporary government, it most certainly will not be a "government of national unity". Far from it. It will be an alliance of anti-no-dealers and that is all. You can't have a government of national unity which 80% of the tory party isn't signed up to.

We don’t want to discount that possibility completely, but we don’t think that Labour would do itself any favours by forcing a Brexit extension followed immediately by an election. Just as we don’t think the Tories would do themselves any favours with a no-deal Brexit followed immediately by an election.

It's not just Labour who is "forcing a brexit extension". It is a cross-party majority in the commons. Labour actually wants an election following an extension. Also, the tories would happily take an election following a no deal brexit.

[Lord Beria3]

Out of interest ue if you could get your destruction of the tory party but the price would be a similar implosion of labour would you still go for it?

[UndercoverElephant]

Out of interest ue if you could get your destruction of the tory party but the price would be a similar implosion of labour would you still go for it?

No, but I don't think it is a realistic scenario. Labour has already been through the process of the "extremists" taking and control and the "moderates" leaving, being ejected or giving up and accepting the control of the extremists. It can't split again, and the very fact that it has been through this is driving the unity you saw at the Labour conference. Half of Labour's vote at the last election is threatening to vote either libdem or brexit party, but the party itself is basically united behind Corbyn. The remaining Blairite MPs know they can't make any progress until Corbyn has gone.

[Lord Beria3]

So you would rather the Tories thrive if the cost would be the destruction of labour.

Interesting. Not such a rabid anti Tory after all!

Second question. If the implosion of the Tories triggered the rise of a semi fascist Brexit Party which got to power would you still go along with your current agenda of seeing the end of the tory party?

[UndercoverElephant]

So you would rather the Tories thrive if the cost would be the destruction of labour.

No. I think the tories are in serious trouble anyway. But if both the tories and labour were to implode, I suspect one faction of the tories would just become the tories again. There needs to be something pulling the other way.

Second question. If the implosion of the Tories triggered the rise of a semi fascist Brexit Party which got to power would you still go along with your current agenda of seeing the end of the tory party?

Yes. It is the class system I hate the most. A semi-fascist brexit party would not have the same allegiance with the rich as the tories do.

[Lord Beria3]

Funny you say that given Kensington and Chelsea voted labour in 2017! Only the older rich vote Tory these days!

Your 30 years behind the times UE!

[stumuz1]

Yes. It is the class system I hate the most. A semi-fascist brexit party would not have the same allegiance with the rich as the tories do.

Using this BBC definition, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48759591

What would you consider 'rich'?

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes. It is the class system I hate the most. A semi-fascist brexit party would not have the same allegiance with the rich as the tories do.

Using this BBC definition, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48759591

What would you consider 'rich'?

We were talking about the tories. I would say they govern in the best interest of the richest 10%. Fewer than 10% go to private schools (I think the figure is 7%).

[stumuz1]

We were talking about the tories. I would say they govern in the best interest of the richest 10%. Fewer than 10% go to private schools (I think the figure is 7%).

Do you make a distinction between earnings and wealth?

[Little John]

Government plan to invoke EU law's supremacy to ensure Brexit on Halloween

https://www.cityam.com/exclusive-govern ... tter-ukThe

[adam2]

Government plan to invoke EU law's supremacy to ensure Brexit on Halloween

https://www.cityam.com/exclusive-govern ... tter-ukThe

Oh the irony, if it works.

[UndercoverElephant]

We were talking about the tories. I would say they govern in the best interest of the richest 10%. Fewer than 10% go to private schools (I think the figure is 7%).

Do you make a distinction between earnings and wealth?

No, although I accept they are different aspects of the problem. The worst problem is entrenched wealth, which would best be dealt with a land tax, and something to attack the ownership of multiple residential properties. BTL mortgages should also go.

Earnings are different, since at least that is not being passed down the generations such that the descendants of Norman invaders are still rich. Very high earnings could also be taxed more. 75% on anything over 200K wouldn't be unreasonable.