How much "lefty" media is there out there ??
There appears to be a hell of a lot more of the right wing persuasion and whilst I'm no fan of Corbyn, the media assassination of his character is significantly worse than anything that Blue Eyed Boris will ever endure.

Corbyn's only hope is for Farage and Boris to knock lumps out of each other (politically) and there still remains a strong chance of a hung Parliament, which will keep the merry go round spinning.

On question that should be answered before the off is, why the hell did we have the charade of The Queens Speech, which wax clearly some early electioneering by the Tories and should be fully called out and should Boris actually secure a majority, will there be another Queens speech ?

Plenty. Despite what some believe, the BBC is not some Tory puppet. QT's panels are consistently majority left and/or remain. Newsnight has always been left-leaning. Andrew Neill was a tw6t to everyone he interviewed whatever his personal views. Channel 4 News is hugely left leaning. The Indy, Guardian & Mirror are leftist. Even the Economist is brazenly left-wing these days.
However - perhaps more importantly in this day and age are the online influences; the places out youth go for their news: Huff Post, Buzzfeed, The Canary, Evolve Politics, Novara Media, Skwawkbox, Another Angry Voice, Joe - the vast majority of online media are massively left-leaning.


I agree, though even if Farage & Boris go head to head, Corby still has to contest with the Lib Dems, who are likely to steal many of his hard remain votes, and the Greens, who will attract many influenced by the climate emergency and Extinction Rebellion.

The Queen's speech was a time-killer. No-one actually listened to it. We all know that.

Boris doesn’t deliver on promises. It’s kind of his thing. Beneath his contrived bumbling affectations, he views himself as some sort of Ubermensch, above parochial bourgeois concerns about things like honesty. I, in contrast, view him as a conceited, narcissistic div and so assume that through a combination of lies and incompetence he won’t deliver half of what he’s promising. Those things he does get done, will no doubt be those I find least palatable.

I daresay he’ll win the upcoming GE though. His Brexit deal is hard enough to stop too much bleed to Farage, but dealy enough to get most of the remaining Tory wets on board. Labour’s fear of upsetting leavers or remainers has, in the end, upset both. The Lib Dems will pick up some seats, and the SNP will likely sweep Scotland, but it looks like 5 years of Boris Johnson as leader of her majesty’s government. 5 years. Raab, Mogg, Gove. 5 years. Feckin’ absurd.

I’d like to think this is as bad as it gets, but recent experience has shown me that, that is tempting fate.

As we slowly, finally approach the end of the divorce phase, I do wonder whether the difficulties in getting here have been more accidental-procedural, than reflecting underlying polarisation among the public. The conflict and angry blame game makes a more compelling news story, but was it really, mostly just a balls up in the way the original referendum was structured?

It’d be nice to think so, as we try to move on from it.

Key lessons, imo, are:

1. It is a bad idea for a Government to hold a referendum, when that Government favours the continuity position over the change position, and has no plan to implement the latter

2. It is a bad idea to have a referendum on a foreign policy issue ahead of agreement with foreign partners about what the change will look like. If we want to change domestic laws via referendum from time to time, that could work, as it can be enacted independently. But as an approach to Brexit, it was pretty daft.

Polls show a probable winning majority for Johnson. We'll see.
Polls don't usually take account of tactical voting and political parties doing their bit in standing down candidates. Both which will happen like never before.
Polls won't have taken into account the 2m people who have registered to vote in the past 8 weeks.
May was a dreadful election campaigner, Johnson isn't as bad but ain't good either. A polished performer from an opposition party would destroy him.
There is all to play for. Labour have started with the NHS which is a winner for them. Their ascertion that the NHS will be for sale to USA Pharma and Med Companies won't go down well to Leave or Remain voters. Johnson's closeness to Trump and his desperation for a FTA with America could well be his undoing.
Given the number of seats he's going to lose in Scotland, West of Bristol and London and South East I just can't see him winning a majority.
Unless Johnson wins an overall majority Brexit is dead!

So, prove me wrong.

I've outlined many reasons I distrust Corbyn, and how his response to world events is - almost without exception - never in support of this nation, but reeks of hand-wringing and excuse-making. He has consistently taken an apologist stance for Islamic extremism, Russian aggression, the IRA and others.

Answer me this: is Northern Ireland part of the UK? Do the majority of the population of NI identify as British or Northern Irish and wish to remain part of the UK? Do only a minority of the population support reunification (even amongst Catholics - just)? The answer to all of this, btw, is yes.
So, the British MP Jeremy Corbyn, in the face of an armed conflict on British soil, campaigned against his own people and the wishes of the majority of British citizens both in NI and the wider UK. Throughout the Troubles he supported and campaigned for the IRA and condemned the killing of Republican terrorists, all the while condemning the British Army and government for any activity damaging the Republican movement. He's the Lord Haw Haw of the Irish Republican movement.

Hardly pro-UK so far, is he?

Furthermore, he can never bring himself to condemn Islamic extremists without trying to bring moral equivalence to Western actions. He can only condemn ISIS if in the same breath he lambasts Western imperialists: ISIS is “brutal, yes, some of what they have done is quite appalling” but “likewise, what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling.” He could only say, “I have no support for ISIS whatsoever,” by comparing “The way in which they (the Mau Mau) had been treated by the British Army in Kenya in 1955 was disgusting.” He was only willing to concede that the 9/11 attacks were a tragedy only in the context of what he regards as equal tragedies - Bin Laden’s death, the Iraq War, the “attack on Afghanistan,” Guantánamo Bay, and Bagram.

My argument doesn't fall down in the slightest, because the evidence is out there. That you can't see it exposes your blinkered outlook.

Ahh I see. Anyone who questions the foreign policies of any British government is "anti-British". I'm with you, no wonder you have a warped view of who can and cannot be deemed to be patriotic.

I have no truck with Corbyn, am a member of a different political party and have never voted Labour. But I've got even less time for right wing extremists claiming for themselves the mantles of Britishness and of patriotism based on simplistic jingoism and Daily Mail levels of misinformation.

Ahh I see. Anyone who provides inconvenient facts about Jeremy Corbyn is a right wing, Daily Mail-reading, jingoistic extremist. Sorry but you'll have to tell me what the Mail prints these days, it's been a very, very long time. In the words of Ross Geller, "you could not be any more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful." Sling your insults elsewhere, they simply don't work on me.

Corbyn has a decades-long track record that speaks for itself. He doesn't simply question British foreign policy, he supports opposing views almost without fail. As I demonstrated, he will only ever condemn his violent pet causes by bringing equivalence to Western actions. One might almost say that if you are socialist, communist, Islamist or a person of colour, you're on Corbyn's list of acceptable causes but that's probably unacceptable.

Typical of the left, you choose to ignore the awkward truth staring us all in the face. You must be Lib Dem.

Sorry, I digress. Once again: prove me wrong. Less of the rhetoric. Let's have some facts from our resident EU academic. I've quoted plenty of Corbyn's own words in his own context. Misinformation? Let's see you prove it.

BTW, I never mentioned the word 'patriotism'.

That's pretty much how I see it too.
Labour, for all of it's confirmatory referendum promises, needed to pick a side in the Brexit debate and fully commit to it.
Unfortunately, the party is split down the middle on the issue and I believe that this will see them hit from both sides of the argument.
Anyone that wants "leave" will vote Tory or Brexit and anyone who wants to remain will vote Libdem (or SNP). Unless they come up with something really significant on Boris, a fatal blow, they could take a bath, similar to the shambles under Michael Foot and as you say, the thought of Johnson, Gove, Raab, Patel etc "leading" the country makes you want to emigrate.

Why?

Their position couldn't be more straightforward - it just happens to be a bit too grown up for most people to tolerate.

Especially for you, here it is in just 19 words:

"You can have a second vote on whether to choose a Labour Brexit, or remain in the EU."