web analytics

THE TORIES ARE ON THE BRINK

By Pete Moore On April 13th, 2019

These numbers are already extraordinary, and they’ll get worse for the Tories. I suspect that some of the survey work was done before this week’s surrender and extension and all before The Brexit Party gets its European election campaign going. Even before they dive further, the numbers suggest that if a General Election were held now, the Tories might score the lowest vote share since 1832.

Theresa May inherited a Commons majority and a country wishing to leave the EU. She decided instead to ignore the country while making Tony Blair look honest. Now she has nowhere to go in the Remain Chaos, a country desperate to leave the EU and spitting mad at the deception, a majority of party members who want to leave the EU, so little party support that Tories are running from the European and local elections and some members and even Tory MPs hinting they will vote for The Brexit Party. The result is that an anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting Marxist is likely to be the next Prime Minister. That’ll be for six months, then Corbyn will be ousted and John McDonnell, a truly dangerous man, will move in.

And still May clings on. I’m convinced now that the woman is mad. There’s something not right in that head. It’s not a bunker mentality, but an inability to process reality and be told anything.

The Tories might now disappear, and that would be a good thing. It has survived these last few decades by deception, fooling people that it is “eurosceptic”. That doesn’t wash now. When called to deliver, senior Tories have demonstrated that they would even see their party destroyed rather than restore British liberty and independence. Two years ago they had an open goal. Now they’ve lost millions of votes for good and will never be believed, on anything, ever again.

11 Responses to “THE TORIES ARE ON THE BRINK”

  1. Apologies for OT at first bpost, but what the Hell is this……?

    https://dailystormer.name/uk-judge-tells-drunk-driving-female-he-would-have-jailed-her-if-she-were-a-man/

    Birmingham Mail:

    A judge told a banned drink-driver who smashed into three other vehicles that she would have been jailed if she were a man.

    Judge Sarah Buckingham said “alcoholic” Victoria Parry would have been “straight down the stairs” to prison had her sex been different.

    DS – Even though you’re not supposed to say it – because saying it is against feminism – everyone knows that the sentencing guidelines for women are completely different than those for men.

    People commenting on this are saying it was female solidarity because it’s a female judge. It isn’t. If anything, female judges are more likely to be harder on women. The difference is, a man would never be so fucking stupid as to come out and say “I’m letting you go because you’re a woman.”

    Male judges – and the cops that are supposed to arrest them in the first place – are much more likely to give privileges to a woman, because it is natural in a man’s mind, whether he knows it or not, to view a woman as a child with no agency.

  2. Theresa May inherited a Commons majority and a country wishing to leave the EU. She decided instead to ignore the country

    No, she decided to ignore the 48% who voted Remain and put Tory unity first and the country second. That meant continually kow-towing to the hard Brexit minority of Tory MPs (80 out of 300) until she ran out of road and was forced to reach out to Labour in attempt to get any form of Brexit over the line.

    She could have chosen a more consensual approach when invoking Article 50 in 2017 but her Lancaster House speech (“Brexit means Brexit”) delighted the hard Brexit minority and has caused all the trouble since.

  3. Pete – you must watch this. It’s the truth about Brexit

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=82&v=yGL-XJPuCuo

    Steven Dean
    1 day ago
    Brilliant! You’ve just gained 17.4 million fans…😁

  4. Labour will support May’s deal if she agrees to continued membership of the Customs Union. But most Tories seem to buy the myth that “Global Britain” would be better off outside that union, striking “free trade deals” with the USA and China and India. That’s total bunkum of course, and here is an excellent explanation of why:

    “If we end up crashing out by accident, or the May government tears itself apart, it will be on the pretext that significant numbers of Tory MPs want that independent trade policy and cannot stomach the restrictions that a customs union would put on Britain’s freedom over trade…

    In trade, size matters. Bigger trading partners are better able to set terms for smaller ones. In the words of Dennis Novy of the Warwick University economics department, in trade talks you’re either the bully or you’re bullied. As part of the EU, Britain was one of the bullies of global trade. Outside, not so much. Yes, we have a population of 70 million and GDP of almost $3 trillion. But for comparison, the EU (including the UK) and US both have GDP of more than $19 trillion and hundreds of millions of consumers; Chinese GDP is somewhere over $12 trillion. India’s economy will soon be bigger than ours, if it isn’t already…

    How would this look and feel in reality? How would Britain fare as it exercised its newfound ‘freedom’ via its independent trade policy? Let’s start with America, since that’s where many Brexiteers look when they talk about trade. That’s quite reasonable: it’s still the world’s No. 1 economy and Britain’s strategic ally, after all. Any trade talks with the US would be unequal, possibly painfully so. Some of that is about numbers: the US is just a lot bigger than the UK, and has less to gain from a deal.

    There’s also an inequality of urgency. Outside the EU, the UK will need a trade deal with the US very badly, for both political and economic reasons. Many Brexiteers have admitted as much, at least tacitly. UK-US talks would be a negotiation between a large player who didn’t need a deal and a smaller player who not only needs to do a deal, but who had publicly stated that desire. How do you think such a negotiation would go?

    …Perhaps you think the US would approach trade negotiations focused on anything other than its own national interest. Perhaps you think any US administration would cut Britain a bit of slack in trade talks because of our shared history and culture. Perhaps you think a British government could win popular British consent for hormone-treated beef, GM food and a role for US business in the NHS. If so I have a bridge over the English Channel to sell you.

    A glance at a recent US Trade Representative paper setting out US negotiating objectives also suggests another potential condition of any such deal. In any trade deal with Britain, the US would want the option to ‘take appropriate action if the UK negotiates a free trade agreement with a non-market country’. In other words, if you want to deal with us, don’t do a deal with China too…”

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-myth-of-the-great-british-brexit-trade-policy/

  5. That meant continually kow-towing to the hard Brexit minority of Tory MPs ..

    What are you on about? We are not even on course to leave the EU. She stated hundreds of times that we leave on the 29th March, that we will not be in a customs union, that no deal is better than a bad deal, that leave means leave. Every promise and every red line has thrown in the bin.

    There is no “trying” to leave the EU. You simply leave it or not. May never chose to leave, she always intended to remain.

  6. There was no commitment by the Brexiters (including I believe your good self) in the referendum campaign to leave the Single Market, never mind the Customs Union. So there was no necessity for May to take the hard Brexit line she chose, except in a vain attempt to appease the likes of Mark Francois and the other anti-EU bigots in the ERG.

    As I have posted before, given a 52:48 result the obvious compromise was and still is to leave the Single Market and remain in the Customs Union. Please respond to my 8.19 if you really believe we would be better trying to negotiate free trade deals on our own. However I asked you the same question last week and there was no response.

  7. So there was no necessity for May to take the hard Brexit line she chose ..

    What “hard Brexit” (you mean “Brexit”) line? We’re not leaving! Nurse!

    As I have posted before, given a 52:48 result the obvious compromise was and still is to leave the Single Market and remain in the Customs Union.

    Have you completely lost your mind? You don’t make strategic decisions on the balance of a vote. There is no being 48% in the EU. Government doesn’t invite the opposition into Cabinet. You are in or out. We voted out.

    I didn’t answer you because I went to bed. You didn’t put anything to me at 8.19pm. You pasted an ignorant and ill-informed article by James Kirkup, a social commentator who knows nothing of economics. You ask me something and I’ll answer, though maybe tomorrow.

  8. Cheers Pete, you win.

  9. Pete, it is obvious that Peter did not know what he was voting for, assuming he was allowed and did vote. Perhaps he needs reminding.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/eu-referendum/about

    The referendum question will be: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

    We chose the latter. That means ‘we’, the Leavers, get to have what we voted for. You had a referendum in 1975 which asked whether you wanted to Remain in the ‘Common Market’. You chose Remain and got what you wanted. Now it’s our turn. Or would have been if we were not betrayed by Remainers.

  10. Here’s an excellent summary of the treasonous Tories, by Melanie Phillips

    https://www.melaniephillips.com/appalling-treatment-roger-scruton/

    The shocking character assassination and sacking of Sir Roger Scruton is beyond belief.

    Scruton, Britain’s pre-eminent philosopher, was interviewed by the New Statesman for its current issue.

    The interviewer, deputy editor George Eaton, tweeted that Scruton’s remarks were “outrageous”. What was outrageous, however, was the use Eaton made of them. For he tweeted about what Scruton had said:

    “On Hungarian Jews: ‘Anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts.’”

    But in the interview Scruton didn’t mention that Soros was a Jew. He referred merely to Soros’s activities in Hungary. Yet Eaton falsely presented this as an adverse comment about Hungarian Jews.

    In the interview, Eaton observed that Scruton was “heedless of the antisemitic portrayal of the philanthropist George Soros as a Jewish puppet-master”. Yes, Soros is vilified as such by real antisemites. But Scruton’s observation about Soros’s activities was broadly correct.

    Soros has an antipathy to the western nation state. He aims to destroy national borders and promote mass migration, an agenda he has bankrolled to the tune of many millions of dollars under the aegis of his multinational Open Society organisation and which Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, not unreasonably regards as a threat to the integrity of Hungary itself.

    Anyone who thus criticises Soros, however, is smeared as an antisemite by those who weaponise antisemitism in order to silence criticism of Soros and demonise Orban.

    The manner of Scruton’s dismissal leads MP to conclude that……

    This contemptible party, unwilling to defend either the independence of the country or its bedrock values of truthfulness, fairness and moral decency, really, really doesn’t deserve ever to hold office again.

    Does anybody have reason to disagree with that?

  11. Allan

    I’m truly amazed. But I’m sure you know that Melanie is Jewish, because you are very “Jew-aware” as you call it. I can’t recall you ever ever ever posting a single positive comment here about a Jewish person, like ever. But I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.