Kuenssberg has been pushing the idea that it is possible and morally acceptable to bin Brexit, to betray those who voted in the referendum to leave the EU….just vote Labour and seee your EU dreams come true!…what she misses, apart from the fact that such a move would indeed be a betrayal, not just of the voters but of democracy itself, is that most people, even Remain voters, now want Brexit to be implemented with as little fuss and as quickly and efficiently as possible….even the lefty New Statesman can see that…
The Remain delusion: “the 48 per cent” do not exist
The number who want Brexit stopped or radically softened is only 25 per cent.
Almost a year on, Theresa May is pursuing a “hard Brexit” (the Prime Minister prefers “clean”) and is on course to secure a landslide election victory. But Remainers hope that tactical voting by “the 48 per cent” against anti-EU candidates could yet thwart the Conservatives. Their ambitions, however, are likely to be disappointed. The truth, which few have recognised, is that “the 48 per cent” no longer exist.
After voting Remain, they ceased to act as a unified political bloc. The crucial figure for understanding May’s decision to pursue Brexit is not “the 48 per cent” or “the 52 per cent” but the 69 per cent – the number who believe the government has a duty to leave the EU (more than a third of whom voted Remain). A mere 21 per cent agree that the government should either block Brexit or seek to prevent it through a second referendum.
“The 48 per cent” are not even united on the desirability of a “soft Brexit”. Only 24 per cent, according to YouGov polling, believe it is more important to enjoy tariff-free trade with the EU than it is to control immigration (16 per cent believe the reverse, while 40 per cent, like Boris Johnson, want to have their cake and eat it). Fifty two per cent believe May’s proposed Brexit deal would be “good for Britain” (only 22 per cent believe it would be bad) and 61 per cent believe it “respects the referendum” (only 11 per cent believe it does not). Far from believing the government has no mandate for a “hard Brexit”, 64 per cent believe this version respects the vote and only 12 per cent believe it does not. Finally, 55 per cent support May’s assertion that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, while only 24 per cent oppose this stance.
Politics, of course, is about leading opinion, not following it. But to grasp their predicament, Remainers most recognise that they enjoy the support not of “the 48 per cent” but “the 25 per cent”. These figures help explain why the Conservatives enjoy a mammoth poll lead (leading among Remainers in yesterday’s ICM poll), why the anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats have not surged and why promising a second referendum would not be an electoral panacea for Labour or a new party.
As long as Remainers speak as if there is a nascent “progressive majority” built on “the 48 per cent”, they will repeat the very mistake that led to Brexit: misreading the electorate.
Take note Kuenssberg.
I have seen the future, and the LibDems win the General Election.
King Charles III: It seemed like a comedy rather than a serious play, but the comedy hasn’t got any plausible scenarios, and seems to have been written by someone without any life experience, wisdom or understanding of human motivations. For a start, Prince Charles wants to be George VII, not Charles III. Looking at Williams children indicates that it is set in the near future, just after the general election. The Queen dies shortly after Prince Phillip, and we see that most of the mourners are black people and young white females. Then we see that the Prime Minister does not look like either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. So the BBC has the LibDems wining the election because of Remain supporters, and Theresa May has been replaced as leader of the Tory opposition by Priti Patel, who has also married a Mr Stevens. Prince Harry seems to have run off with his girlfriends mother, and wants to socialise with the black population for the rest of his life, as a normal person. The BBC’s message seems to be that the Royals are like Black people, they both take more from the system than they give in taxes.
Then a Civil War beckons as King Charles III refuses to sign away the freedom of the press, won in a Civil War against King Charles I and King Charles II. The LibDems supported by Hacked Off rioters are trying to put the right-wing free press under state control. But Charles dissolves Parliament, causing a General Election. But the LibDems are refusing to hold a General Election, and tanks at Buckingham Palace are defending Charles from the mass riots from Hacked Off supporters. William calls for his father to abdicate because the people do not want a “Free Press” General Election, just after that “Brexit” General Election. The people have become tired of General Elections and would prefer Charles to abdicate. But Camilla becomes violently angry, and slaps William across the face.
But all decisions are made by emotions, so Charles signs the instrument of abdication. William then hastily signs away the freedom of the press, the people rejoice and William is then crowned King William V, King of Australia, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and twelve other Realms, including all one hundred territories of the Royal Commonwealth.
Charles crowns William, King, to the sounds of a Catholic Choral piece in Latin? Wah, Wah, Wah.
“King Charles III: It seemed like a comedy rather than a serious play”
That’s probably because it was written as a comedy rather than a serious play. Blimey, nothing gets past the massive intellect of you Mensa members does it?
Al Beeb don’t do comedy any more .
it certainly doesn’t. It only does political propaganda making a weak pretence of being comedy.
Stop the ad hominems, it doesn’t give you any credibility.
The play was actually toured before the Brexit vote, so I don’t think you can read anything into the representation of party leaders. Authors will often be ambiguous with such matters to ensure their plays don’t date.
“Kuenssberg has been pushing the idea that it is possible and morally acceptable to bin Brexit, to betray those who voted in the referendum to leave the EU….just vote Labour and seee your EU dreams come true!”
No she hasn’t. This is typical;
make a sweeping (strawman) statement with no evidence whatsoever and then argue against it.
Sometimes you try to provide evidence, but only by referring back to some other post you made; based on yet another strawman argument.
Kuenssberg has not been “pushing” any such thing. You are, as usual, presenting your own made up fiction as fact and hoping that no one will notice
Maxi
You appear to have a soft spot for her ?
He has a soft spot, it’s called his head.
I think he is very much in love with her, and that tells me all I need to know about both Kuenssberg and Maxi. Talk about two people who are made for each other!
Maxi, Alan may not have chosen his words – “Kuenssberg has been pushing the idea that it is possible and morally acceptable to bin Brexit, to betray those who voted in the referendum to leave the EU….just vote Labour and see your EU dreams come true!” – too well but if you, like me, heard that clip of the interview the clear implication of of Laura’s repetition of that question was clear, was it not?
1. Laura wanted a commitment from a ‘decent, principled man who doesn’t want to be in the EU but led Labour to campaign Remain but then sat on his hands during the EU-Ref campaign’ to offer the voter something less than Brexit, and,
2. By so doing, she was seeking to disadvantage a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party because she doesn’t like Corbyn and/or some of his style and policies.
Sabotage was obviously in the air AND in the words of the questions, was it not?
Up2snuff,
The Labour Party has a problem over Brexit in that many of it’s traditional supporters wanted to remain but it needs to attract voters who also wanted to leave. They are trying to appeal to both sides at the same time, which makes it the weakest point of their campaign.
Hence the Tories want to make the Election “all about Brexit” and Labour want it to be “anything but Brexit”.
Kuenssberg was repeatedly questioning Corbyn in terms of “no matter what” & “come hell or high-water”, knowing full well it was a question he could not answer.
Say yes and the next question is; “so you’d take the UK out of the EU even if the economy was rapidly going to hell in two years time?”
Say no, “not no matter what”, and the next question is; “so you’d go against the will of the British people?”
The argument that Kuenssberg spent so much time pressing Corbyn about Brexit in order “to help him”, is just laughable.
“typical; make a sweeping (strawman) statement with no evidence whatsoever and then argue against it”
***
Tx for that. Topped up my irony bank for the day.
Care to add that to my list of BBC Editorial techniques?
“Don’t tell him, Maxi!”
The irony of someone using a straw man to criticise others who use straw men is clearly lost on you.
The first time I saw Laura on TV I immediately thought, ‘Shit! Standards have really dropped.’
I have not seen anything she has produced since then to change my mind that she is leading the charge into the media abyss. And what really grates is, I presume, she gets paid for this bollocks!
I am afraid Lauras award in 2016 as “Broadcaster of the Year” by the Political Studies Association. Tells me pretty much everything I need to know about Laura. Obviously a favourite with an organisation full of academics and political “scientists” (whatever they are – sorry to show my ignorance but I thought scientists invented stuff like penicillin and graphene) Still you learn something everyday.
She is ideal for the BBC combining the perfect amount of progressive views with an intellectual arrogance that means that she just KNOWS that she is always morally and intellectually right even if her viewpoint flies in the face of what the majority of us voted for in the referendum.
Like most of the BBC I expect she is quite aware of what she is doing and by constantly pushing the agenda further to the left eventually even the unlikely becomes possible as the whole mainstream debate moves leftwards to fill into territory that was once considered radical . Migration policies, NHS, Social Care, Education even History all of these have been changed by the combination of weak politicians and focussed journalists like Laura.
I expect democracy too is considered something that is just a temporary impediment to be shuffled off like some sort of straight jacket – as soon as the Socialist Nirvana is established with justice for all and endless supplies of money. However until that glorious time comes about “Our Laura” and all her fellow imps will need to keep at it.
She may look well scrubbed but underneath it all she is just another swamp creature that needs to be drained.
Oak,
“I am afraid Lauras award in 2016 as “Broadcaster of the Year” by the Political Studies Association. Tells me pretty much everything I need to know about Laura.”
Equally, tells me all I want to know about the cabal known as the, Political Studies Association!
Speaking of ‘reporters’ setting up hard balls for those they don’t like, and softies for softies they do:
Awww, Nick, how sweet.
Jez missing a trick there if seeking to seduce da yoof of today, innit.
Would have been better to draft in Owen, Evan, Shami and Yvette to reform the Spice Boys and reprise ‘What we really, really wanna…”.
How long have we had a Tory government?, and plenty of working class kids have been still going to university (maybe too many) my son was one of them.
Young dozy girls with coloured hair and peirced noses seem to worship Corbyn, my 20 year old daughter thinks he’s ‘lovely’ but hasn’t a clue about politics.
My niece, double first Cambridge in Politics; Labour Party member. Says it all really.
Surrounded as usual by his pretty long haired groupies smiling at Corbyn in a way only love-sick teenagers know!
Have to hand it to Laura, for once she actually managed to pull off a straight face:
Laura Cuntsberg is totally deluded. Her shrill, acrid fish-wife tones suggest she thinks she is actually important.
Unfortunately, a sadly large % of the public have succumbed to the bBBC publicity/ propaganda that comes with a £4bn unearned budget and think that she is.
The big headline today is “General election 2017: Labour manifesto draft leaked”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39877439
And we get some dubious analysis not from Laura but an Iain Watson who somewhat surprisingly thinks “Many individual policies are likely to be popular”!!! Not sure with whom Iain
Put the television on earlier today to look for something. Only half listening but a reporter asked a number of people about Labour’s plan to put the railways back to the dark ages and every single one said that it was a great idea and brilliant for nostalgia. Most interviewed, that I noticed, were too young to remember BR. Then they had people saying what a disaster it will be when Brexit comes and I thought “bloody hell Sky really is getting as bad and biased as the BBC”.
Just before I turned off I saw that it was actually the BBC not Sky. They just don’t even try to appear even-handed. Even Kuensberg’s tedious repetition of the same question to Gummidge was from a fanatically anti-Brexit viewpoint.
Maybe I am wrong but I thought the EU policy was no state ownership of railways in the long term.
“bloody hell Sky really is getting as bad and biased as the BBC”.
Members of the NUJ ?………..
“The Convention is the first large-scale event to offer organisations and individuals the chance to hear and take part in crucial debates about the United Kingdom’s future and the populist insurgencies that are sweeping Western democracies.”………
https://www.nuj.org.uk/events/the-convention-on-brexit-and-the-political-crash/
IMHO, most media employees are Anti Brexit including ‘small time’ local journolists .
I don’t think that Kuenssberg is particularly interested in having a Momentum government. She just pushes anything that wants to stop brexit. if that were, I don’t know, the Taramasalata Party, well, she would push that one.
On social media BBCphiles often try and confuse Labour idiots tripping up as balance.
It is usually either they are so thick the BBC can’t help them any more, or they are deemed ‘balance’ collateral.
It would appear that even the lefties can’t stand Kuntsberg…
https://mobile.twitter.com/BritishGovWatch/status/864480281239191552?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet