Poll: Brexit - Two Years After

Stay or Leave

  • Stay

    Votes: 23 60.5%

  • Leave

    Votes: 15 39.5%
  • Total voters
    38
Brixworth (Daventry) result:

LDEM: 49.5% (+38.6)
CON: 37.3% (-28.2)
LAB: 13.2% (-10.5)

Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.

Probably the most significant result seen since euros this seat was LEAVE 58.6%There's your referendum try explaining that away...Shockedthey know what they voted for lol..they do now..
 
22,000 tory majority leave seat now looking under threat from the liberals:lol::lol: incredible if this is a reflection that people are changig theur minds then these leave seats aint brexit certs anymore..:whistle:
 
Watched the last this week against my rules,:lol::lol: turned out to be a cenrists dads convention rancid way to finish portillo and johnson so smug and as per usual the corbyn bashing with the gravy trainer journalist audience deary me,absolute utter dross thank **** its finished you could see the way it was going..The more you open your eyes the more you realize wgat utterly biased tripe this stuff is...
What the **** ws Micjk hucknall doing on it serenading Andrew neil,what a load of self indulgent garbage that was cringeworthy centrist dads..tv..:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Tuesday, 16 July 2019
There is only one alternative to Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Corbyn may not be a great or even a particularly good leader, but it seems few in the media recognise he is the only viable opposition to the far right we have.

While I have been critical of the Labour leadership’s Brexit stance for some time, and still do not think Corbyn has gone far enough to maximise Labour's chances of General Election victory, he has done enough to ensure one thing: his survival. While his Brexit stance, together with continuing problems with antisemitism, will have lost some members and made others luke warm, there is little appetite to replace him amongst most members. This view will only strengthen as the likelihood of a General Election increases. It is Labour party members who choose the party’s leader.

But what about antisemitism? Could this issue be the downfall of the Labour leadership? The answer is almost certainly no. As the poll discussed here shows, while 66% of Labour members think antisemtism within the party is a genuine problem, 77% think the problem is deliberately exaggerated to damage Labour and Corbyn himself. On the basis of current evidence, and that includes any rebuke from the EHRC investigation, Corbyn’s position among members on this issue is secure.

The only other factor that might raise questions among the membership about their leader is very bad poll ratings. But two factors mean this is not a risk factor for Corbyn’s leadership. First, the new Brexit policy will win some voters back. As Rob Ford notes here, there are signs that the electorate’s flirtation with four party politics is coming to an end, as both Labour and the Conservatives move their own Brexit position. Second, Labour under Corbyn have been there and done that in 2017, such that there will always be the hope of a pre-election surge for Labour.

Could Labour’s continuing antisemitism crisis create another serious split between MPs and the leadership, along the lines of the vote of no confidence in 2016 after the Brexit vote? A split of this kind would only make sense if Labour MPs believed that they had a chance of defeating Corbyn in a ballot of members, and as I have already suggested they would be delusional. MPs may demand this and that in terms of how disciplinary procedures are handled within Labour, but any attempt to unseat Corbyn, or mass defections by Labour Mps, seems unlikely.

The security of the Labour leadership’s position within the party is one of two key factors in which to evaluate the impact of continuing criticism of Labour within the mainstream media and elsewhere. The second is the threat we face from what has become the most far right and dangerous government the UK has experienced for decades if not centuries.

The Conservative party is looking increasingly like the US Republican party, and its likely leader increasingly looks like a UK version of Donald Trump. However the Conservative party has got itself into a far more dangerous position than the Republican’s have ever faced. The Tories have Nigel Farage and a right wing press pushing them to implement a No Deal Brexit that goes way beyond anything Trump might be contemplating with tariffs. Furthermore opposition within the Tory party towards Johnson’s leadership ideas and No Deal looks vanishingly small.

Two recent events have underlined how far the UK government has descended into far right territory. The first was of course Johnson’s failure to stand up for one of our own ambassadors in the Darroch affair. A corrolorary of No Deal is that a trade deal with the US becomes politically essential, and that in turn means that Trump’s not so polite requests become the UK’s actions. This is a President who tells non-white Congresswomen born in the USA to go back to “the crime infested places from which they came”. In practice a US trade deal that UK politicians desperately want will be disastrous for UK agriculture, UK consumers and many more, people already hit hard by the UK leaving the EU with no deal.

The second recent event was Amber Rudd preferring a job in any future Johnson government to her previous opposition to No Deal. It has been an object lesson to those who thought Conservative MPs would always stand up for business and the Union to see how quickly all but a few have chosen political expediency instead. Again parallels with the Republican party in the US are instructive. Just as the right wing media in the US was able to use the Tea Party movement to shift the Republicans to the right, so the right wing press have used Farage to shift the Conservative party in a similar way.

The net result will be the normalisation of a No Deal Brexit over the next few months. Leaving without a deal was not what all of the 52% of Leave voters in 2016 voted for, but virtually no one in the broadcast media will be brave enough to push this point. The lie that the 2016 vote provides a mandate for No Deal will go unchallenged. Broadcasters will balance the nonsense that the impact of No Deal on the UK will be, to quote Johnson, “infinitesimally small” against the truth that it is the biggest act of political and economic self-harm ever inflicted on the UK.

Allowing Johnson to become leader shows that the Conservative party has completely lost its moral compass. All of Johnson’s misdeeds in his past mean nothing, just as Trump’s behaviour means nothing to his supporters and the Republican party. Both individuals lie all the time, but it doesn’t matter to his own side. Johnson encourages a friend to beat up a journalist, but it doesn’t matter. Johnson uses racist language on many occasions, most recently comparing Muslim women wearing the niqab and burqa to letterboxes, but this was deemed acceptable by his party. Johnson gets advice from Steve (“Let them call you racist. Wear it as a badge of honour”) Bannon, and even the BBC does not think Johnson lying about these contacts matters.

And so, as the Conservative party loses its moral compass, the chances are that large sections of the country’s elite will do so as well, and our standing overseas will plummet even further. Although Tory party members may find Johnson’s insults acceptable, don’t expect other countries to take a UK run by Johnson as more than a bad joke. Don’t expect other countries to do business with a UK that proposes to destroy its trade relationship with the EU and many other countries at a stroke. An elite that treats threats to prorogue parliament as acceptable will not be respected by countries that value democracy, although some others will welcome the development.

Yet those who say not in my name need to ask themselves whether they are prepared to make the choice required to stop this happening. There is only one realistic opposition to a Johnson led government. Believing the Liberal Democrats could ever play that role was unrealistic, because Labour has enough loyal voters to ensure that the anti-government vote would be split. Farage along with the LibDems might also take away votes from the government, but it would be foolish to rely on an English vote split four ways just happening to go against a Conservative government.

The awkward truth for those who for whatever reason dislike Corbyn’s Labour party is that Labour is the only party that can defeat this government, and its leader in the next election will be Corbyn. Voting is always a choice between the lesser of two evils. Supporting smaller parties when that lets the Conservatives win, or supporting none, may make those who dislike Corbyn’s Labour feel better, but it is in effect a statement that Corbyn’s Labour party would be just as bad for the country as a whole as out current government, and that is simply not a credible belief. Corbyn is not going to leave the EU with no deal, and in practice will be unable to leave the EU in any way. Corbyn is not threatening to prorogue parliament, is not desperate to do a trade deal with Donald Trump, does not lie all the time, does not get friends to beat up opponents, and does not have a history of using racist language. Whereas Johnson promises tax cuts for the rich, a Corbyn led government would help the many, not the few.

Yet there are few in the mainstream media who seem prepared to recognise the choice we face for what it is. Even wise and perceptive commentators like Martin Wolf, who lament the situation the Conservative government has led us to, often feel it necessary to balance their piece with a derogatory remark about the Labour leadership. Those remarks may or may not be accurate, but a plague on all your houses just allows this Tory government to stay in place.

Worse still are those in the centre or centre-left who refuse to give up hope of getting ‘their party’ back and will do anything that in their view helps that cause. In the first year after Corbyn was elected many MPs and journalists waged a constant war against the left in the media. I said at the time it was utterly futile and self-destructive, and I was right. It led to an attempt to unseat Corbyn that everyone on the left calls a coup, and a clear majority of members saw it the same way. Polls suggest the same is true today. Those in the centre and centre-left need to realise that for all Corbyn’s faults and mistakes he will be Labour’s leader going into the next election, and if they repeatedly attack him they are helping Boris Johnson do terrible damage to our country.

Of course the right wing press will do anything to discredit Labour: that is what their owners pay them to do. But often their task is made easier by the non-partisan media who think they are making choices using simple journalistic criteria, such as going with the story. What we are in danger of seeing with 24/7 criticism of Corbyn is a repetition of what happened to Hilary Clinton in the US elections. As I showed here, the mainstream media spent much more time talking about her email server than any of the sins of Donald Trump, or indeed all those sins combined. In that sense the US media chose Trump over Clinton. It was of course not a thought-through or considered choice, but just the outcome of lots of individual decisions that seemed to make sense in journalistic terms, but were disastrous in political terms.

Of course the constant tunes the media play matter. One of the incredible poll findings of that US election was that more people trusted the serial liar Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton. That makes no sense unless you note the constant stream of media stories suggesting Clinton had something to hide. No one is suggesting Labour’s failures over antisemitism should not be exposed, just as no one was suggesting that Clinton should not have been criticised for using her own email for government business. What is missing in both cases is a sense of perspective, as here for example, or here. Without that perspective constant attacks on Corbyn will have an impact. The impact will be to keep a destructive far right government in power....


Simon wren lewis blogger for The New statesman


My last post was published by the new staesman as usual.And then sometime later it was unpublished.The line my post took was one the NS didn't want to carry.Ido not know the details of what happened but i can guess.The post was hardky extolling the virtues of corbyn as Labour leader,but it suggested any attempts at removing him were futile and would increase johnsons chances of winning an election.I dont think thst message was welcome...




So now we have the guardian removing cartoonist steve bell and a jewish letter from a hundred prominent jewish people went to be published then taken out backing corbyn,now we have the new statesman removing this,seriously this country is fucked another media outlet i will not be reading anymore..I'm onto the scotsman currently!!It's a complete shutdown on anything remotely left of centre and everythings become a tory propaganda machine,WTF is going on..
 
Last edited:
If we're anything to go by, pretty much the whole of my family have switched from Labour to LibDem.
 
There's absolutely no point in voting lib dem if it damages the labour party,that's just another centrist way to get the tories in,voting in a seat for liberals to get torues out fine if voting libs in a labour seat then another self fulfilling prophecy,as the article above says.I wouldn't vote lib dem unless it could beat the tory candidate,what would be the point otherwise..I keep saying it,you are either right or left in current climate there is no centrists anymore,tom watson and co can forget that,because labour members want a left wing government to change things not keep a status quo,you can't combat a rightwing disaster capitalist party with blairrite policys its regressive politics of the past...Even if corbyn doesn't win the next election,its inevitable that labour wll be winning the following election/s just look at the voting profiles and age groups,its the last stand of the older tories,it's staring the establishment in the face and they hate it their time will come even if it has to be in another 5 years time...the young have had enough and me i'm more staunchly labour than ever now despite corbyn after wants happened with the massive establishment onslaught you have to take a stance i've had enough of it..The last 9 months the media and corruption through the press,rabid rightwing lies trying to destroy a party,that opposes everything the tories stand for,never did i think i would see this country go so far to the right not just that but the scandal of trying to destroy a national party..
Am hoping that labour and liberals will be voting tactically in the rught seats and then a chance of a coalition,otherwise it will be 5 years of johnsons diasters capitalism not that i think he will last that long but he will have wrecked the country before then anyway..and when they get rid of corbyn i hope and prey they get a decent left wing leader in because any veering back to old fashioned centrist politucs will result in annihilation ..
Voters are so complicit,they believe this drivel from the media its been happening for 40 years but the last three have been unbelievable especially since brexit and the last 9 months its just pure propaganda and lies,i have no doubt the tories will win the next election becase of the older voters
they've been doing the same thing for 40 years..But without doubt there is a big change coming,if this brexit garbage hadn't happened labour wouldv'e stormed the next election even with corbyn,just a matter of biding and waiting for the tory pary to eat itself..
 
Last edited:
By George Monbiot..

Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.

The commonest current excuse is this: “I bet those protesters have phones/go on holiday/wear leather shoes.” In other words, we won’t listen to anyone who is not living naked in a barrel, subsisting only on murky water. Of course, if you are living naked in a barrel, we will dismiss you too, because you’re a hippie weirdo. Every messenger, and every message they bear, is disqualified, on the grounds of either impurity or purity.

As the environmental crisis accelerates, and as protest movements like YouthStrike4Climate and Extinction Rebellion make it harder not to see what we face, people discover more inventive means of shutting their eyes and shedding responsibility. Underlying these excuses is a deep-rooted belief that if we really are in trouble, someone somewhere will come to our rescue: “they” won’t let it happen. But there is no they, just us.

The political class, as anyone who has followed its progress over the past three years can surely now see, is chaotic, unwilling and, in isolation, strategically incapable of addressing even short-term crises, let alone a vast existential predicament. Yet a widespread and wilful naivity prevails: the belief that voting is the only political action required to change a system. Unless it is accompanied by the concentrated power of protest, articulating precise demands and creating space in which new political factions can grow, voting, while essential, remains a blunt and feeble instrument.

The media, with a few exceptions, is actively hostile. Even when broadcasters cover these issues, they carefully avoid any mention of power, talking about environmental collapse as if it is driven by mysterious, passive forces, and proposing microscopic fixes for vast structural problems. The BBC’s Blue Planet Live series exemplified this tendency. As TV comedy and drama have become ever more daring, factual and current affairs programmes have become ever more timid. Truth now has to be smuggled into our homes under the guise of entertainment.

Those who govern the nation and shape public discourse cannot be trusted with the preservation of life on Earth. There is no benign authority preserving us from harm. No one is coming to save us. None of us can justifiably avoid the call to come together to save ourselves.

I see despair as another variety of disavowal. By throwing up our hands about the calamities that could one day afflict us, we disguise and distance them, converting concrete choices into indecipherable dread. We might relieve ourselves of moral agency by claiming that it’s already too late to act, but in doing so we condemn other people to destitution or death. Catastrophe afflicts people now, and, unlike those in the rich world who can still afford to wallow in despair, they are forced to respond in practical ways. In Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi, devastated by Cyclone Idai, in Syria, Libya and Yemen, where climate chaos has contributed to civil war, in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, where crop failure, drought and the collapse of fisheries have driven people from their homes, despair is not an option. Our inaction has forced them into action, as they respond to terrifying circumstances caused primarily by the rich world’s consumption. The Christians are right: despair is a sin.

As the author Jeremy Lent points out in a recent essay, it is almost certainly too late to save some of the world’s great living wonders, such as coral reefs and monarch butterflies. But, he argues, with every increment of global heating, with every rise in material resource consumption, we will have to accept still greater losses, many of which can still be prevented through radical transformation.

Every nonlinear transformation in history has taken people by surprise. As Alexei Yurchak explains in his book about the collapse of the Soviet Union – Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More – systems look immutable until they suddenly disintegrate. As soon as they do, the distintegration retrospectively looks inevitable. Our system – characterised by perpetual economic growth on a planet that is not growing – will inevitably implode. The only question is whether the transformation is planned or unplanned. Our task is to ensure it is planned, and fast. We need to conceive and build a new system, based on the principle that every generation, everywhere has an equal right to enjoy natural wealth.

This is less daunting than we might imagine. As Erica Chenoweth’s historical research reveals, for a peaceful mass movement to succeed, a maximum of 3.5% of the population needs to mobilise. Humans are ultra-social mammals, constantly if subliminally aware of shifting social currents. Once we perceive the status quo has changed, we flip suddenly from support for one state of being to support for another. When a committed and vocal 3.5% unites behind the demand for a new system, the social avalanche that follows becomes irresistible. Giving up before we have reached this threshold is worse than despair: it is defeatism.

Today, Extinction Rebellion takes to streets around the world in defence of our life support systems. Through daring, disruptive, non-violent action, it forces our environmental predicament onto the political agenda. Who are these people? Another “they”, who might rescue us from our follies? The success of this mobilisation depends on us. It will reach the critical threshold only if enough of us cast aside denial and despair, and join this exuberant, proliferating movement. The time for excuses is over. The struggle to overthrow our life-denying system has begun
 
Comment on macroeconomic issues
Winner of the New Statesman SPERI Prize in Political Economy 2016


Friday, 19 July 2019
Reaction to “There is only one alternative to Prime Minister Boris Johnson”

I anticipated that my last post would not be popular in many circles. I want to respond to some of the common themes from the responses in this post, but there was one reaction I was not expecting. First some background. Since the beginning of the year I have had an arrangement with the online edition of the New Statesman (NS) that my Tuesday post should be simultaneously published on my blog and in the NS. The arrangement was working well.

My last post was published by the New Statesman as usual. And then sometime later it was unpublished. The line my post took was not one the NS wanted to carry. I do not know the details of what happened but I can guess. The post was hardly extolling the virtues of Corbyn as Labour leader, but it suggested any attempt to get rid of him was both futile and would increase the chances of Johnson winning the next election. I don’t think that message was welcome.

Of course any publication has a right to chose what it publishes, and I have no quarrel with that. What was unfortunate was the implicit confirmation of the main concern in the post, which was that the non-partisan and even left leaning media with the support of the Labour centre really believes they can depose Corbyn using the issue of antisemitism. I gave in the post the reasons why I think Corbyn is unlikely to depart as a result of this pressure and any challenge is unlikely to succeed, and none of the responses to my post questioned this logic.

Among comments on twitter, the most offensive was to suggest my post was itself a product of antisemitism, along the lines that I didn’t care about Jews. By implication anyone voting Labour in the future is also antisemetic. The most moderate remark I can make about this kind of comment is that it gives the drive to remove antisemitism a bad name. The implication that you are antisemitic if you support a party accused of badly handling internal cases of antisemitism is an extension of a far more frequent argument: the idea that it was not virtuous to vote for Labour.

A common response was that it was morally wrong to support a racist party or party leadership. Of course Labour is not a racist party and I doubt very much that its leadership are antisemitic, but lets put that to one side until later. The problem with this argument is that you can make lots of other similar arguments. Is it morally right for someone to support a party that was part of a government that caused untold misery through austerity, and where neither of the possible future leaders have apologised for supporting austerity? Is it morally right to support politicians that voted for the hostile environment policy?

Voting should be about weighing the pros and cons of each party’s stance on different issues, and in a FPTP system it means also thinking about whether voting for some parties in your constituency is a wasted vote. It is very hard to rationalise voting or not voting on the basis of I couldn't possibly vote for a party that showed any sign of racism. Would you really not vote if a party that failed to deal with antisemitism adequately even if it meant that another party whose leader actually uses racist speech and has voted for racist policies would stay in power? This is not a trolley problem: it is part of being a good citizen to make this choice.

Another comment I received is that there are no degrees of racism. I think this is nonsense. Once again it is useful to compare the two main parties. Both leaders are accused of being racist. With Corbyn the evidence amounts to things like not recognising antisemitic tropes in a painting, not mentioning someones antisemitism in an introduction to a book, or being associated with antisemitic people as part of his support for statehood for Palestine. With Johnson we have someone who has compared Muslim women in a certain dress to letterboxes (and those are not his only racist slurs), and who has supported a racist policy: a hostile environment that saw the deportation of members of the Windrush generation. Are these really equivalent?

Or let us look at the two parties. The Labour party has been accused at operating an inefficient disciplinary process for antisemitism or worse, of leadership interference in this process. The Conservative party routinely lets those exposed of making racist comments back in after a few months of ‘re-education’, and has just voted for a leader who makes racist remarks because most members show racist tendencies (to put it too mildly). Are these really equivalent?

Going beyond the UK, is telling non-white Congresswomen born in America to go back home to the crime infested countries they came from the same as anything Corbyn has done? The thing about the antisemitism in the Labour party is it involves no policy against Jewish people and it involves no language by members of the Labour leadership team against Jewish people. Some Labour party members are antisemitic, but there is no evidence that this number is unusually high compared to the population at large. When people try to equate antisemitism within the Labour party to racism in the Tory party they ignore these points.

The most depressing aspect in comments on my post was the number of people who just talked about antisemitism within Labour as if it was the same as racism within the Conservative party. This lacks the key ingredient that is also lacking in the media’s response, and that is a sense of perspective. One of the cheap remarks made in comments was that I was equating antisemitism within Labour to Clinton's email server. This was obvious nonsense, as I was clearly using the Clinton case to show how the media as a whole can lack a sense of perspective, and when it does that it can have terrible consequences.

Perhaps the most common response in comments was that a choice between Labour and the Tories could be avoided by voting Liberal Democratic. Despite the arguments in my post, I was told that the era of two party politics was over. Let me make one final point. The disastrous events that we have recently seen in the UK started in 2010, with in particular an austerity government during the worst recession since WWII. For more than half of the 9 years since 2010 the Liberal Democrats were in power, and the two candidates for leader were both ministers in the Coalition government. Their actions and voting records speak for themselves. As I have said in the past, I think the UK needs radical change to ensure nothing like the disaster of the last 9 years happens again. Only Labour at present provides that. Simply returning things to how they were before 2010 allows what happened from 2010 to happen all over again..


Simon wren lewis updating from the earlier piece i put up,sums up perfectly what i said about brits and the way they think and percieve media bias and then turnaway and vote for staus quo.
 
Last edited:
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating people who are being oppressed and loving people who are doing the oppressing."
- Malcolm X
 
Tommy Robinson was punched in the face by a 70-year-old inmate just days after being thrown behind bars, it is claimed.

The English Defence League founder, 36, was reportedly "decked" by the elderly lag for acting "like a celebrity" in the showers at HMP Belmarsh, reports the Daily Star Sunday


Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was jailed for nine months for contempt of court after putting an ongoing child grooming trial at risk of collapsing.

He pleaded with Donald Trump to offer him asylum in the US and claimed he would be killed in a British prison.

But the far-right extremist's words fell on deaf ears and he was punched within 72 hours of arriving at Belmarsh, south-east London, 10 days ago.


Robinson was punched by a "very hard" prisoner, a source claims (Image: AFP/Getty Images)
READ MORE
Tommy Robinson supporters attack BBC crew live on air outside Parliament

A source told the paper: "There was a bit of pushing then one prisoner, a 70-year-old, very hard pensioner, decked Robinson with a punch to the jaw.

“He didn’t have any idea who he had hit, but he wasn’t going to back down. Those are the rules in Belmarsh, you fight or back down.

“It was all over in a flash. One of the prison officers asked what was going on, but he said he slipped so no official report was made.


He was jailed for contempt of court earlier this month (Image: Luke Dray)
“If you start acting as though you are big time, someone will take you down.

"If you come into the prison and start acting like you are the boss they will take you down quickly.”

The Ministry of Justice said: “We do not comment on individuals.”


Fantastic news!!:lol::lol::lol::cool:
 
A middle aged white fat racist,privileged sycophantic self serving bullshitter who else would they vote for..
 
I could wrute a 10,000 word preview of the bias in the news everyday now,it's just totally out of control anti labour propaganda every single news programme and CH4 even managed to interview some nottingham working class that saId would vote johnson if we leave the EU,same on politucs today 3 pro johnsons on there today and one labour MP that may as well have been a tory..They love hand picking the labour representatives the BBC and theresa may has given john mann the role of advising ministry of housing on antisemitism 45 mins befire jihnson got elected..You couldn't make this stuff up:lol::lol::lol: what could possibly be her thinking behind that :lol::lol: he may as well join brendan o'neill on spiked what an odious little man he is. he said may was ''a woman of integrity'':lol::lol: just **** off to the libertaran right.In other news not reported on BBC or likely to see anywhere surprise surprise..
https://twitter.com/bbcasiannetwork/status/1153689472388751360

Only been in tory party for 36 years...good luck seeing this in the news..
 
Last edited:
Priti Patel as Home Secretary? The person who secretly met with Israel behind the PM’s back, suggested we threaten Ireland with food shortages in Brexit negotiations, backs the death penalty votes against LGBT rights, and praised ultra right-wing youth organisation Turning Point..the woman who wanted to send money to support israel and then got found out..was endorsed by johnson as well..Multi miliionaires ones a a banker and the other a tobacco lobbyist!!

And Beth rigby...
@patel4witham
is pencilled in for Home Sec. Priti Patel as Home Sec and Sajid Javid as chancellor really would be a top team reflecting modern Britain. Does Hunt stay in the other top slot? Not nailed down. We’ll know later today. Reshuffle kicks off after 5pm

Well done beth nice to see what you think is modern britain,these people are ******* archaic like going back to the 70s should fit in beautifully with old conservative england,nice to see you are not biased as well as clueless,it's only 9am and it's started already :lol::lol: modern britain that's a corker i'd hte to see what the B team looks like...this is going to look like something from the SS by the time its complete..:lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
UK, YouGov poll:

CON-ECR: 25%
LDEM-RE: 23% (+3)
LAB-S&D: 19% (-2)
BREXIT-NI: 17% (-2)
GREENS-G/EFA: 9% (+1)
SNP/PC-G/EFA: 5%
UKIP-ID: 1% (+1)
ChUK-RE: 0%

+/- vs. 16-17 July 2019

Election coming and with these figures a landslide,have already bet tories most seats 9 months ago at 11/8 and corbyn to resign by the end of the year at 3/1,the tories are going to win with the vilest cabinet since the 80s...
 
Back
Top