It looks a though there's going to be a no confidence vote in Parliament next week and an attempt to install a caretaker government. Fasten your seatbelts and get ready for a rollercoaster ride, right into a general election.

Question for the Brits here - this Nigel Farrage - how much of a threat is he, really? My impression here in Oz is that he is a small-time demagogue who's leveraged xenophobia to get himself elected. But if the Conservatives lost a bunch of seats, what would that mean for Farage and the Brexit Party? They couldn't conceivably become a government, could they?

They couldn't conceivably become a government, could they? — Wayfarer

So many things have happened that were inconceivable not long ago. But the currently conceivable danger is to the conservatives that they will split their general election vote, and let the labour party in.

Thus if parliament can frustrate the Borexit plan, that will probably eventually end the whole brexit thing and destroy the conservative party for the foreseeable.

Farage is not much of a threat at the moment. It's more of a protest movement. From my side as a remainer, he is useful because he can split the leave vote. Although if he forges some sort of alliance with the Conservative party, he could swing the vote in their favour. I expect all sorts of shenanigans during the election campaign.

At the moment Conservatives are saying that would never happen, but I am suspicious that there are deals going on in secret. It is high risk because if it happens it will almost certainly have a devastatinga effect on the Conservative party. So Johnson will have to choose between a hard Brexit selling the soul of his party to the Brexit party and all the consequences of that. Or try and drain support from the Brexit party and save the Conservative party (if that's even possible), although it would probably mean loosing Brexit and could let Corbyn in.

Either way, it's a loose loose for Johnson.

We should keep talking about this. Cummings, Johnson and the (twattish wing of the) Tories want us to become apathetic due to their ludicrous charade.

Yesterday at the Conservative party conference, James Cleverly, Conservative party chairman said that there could be civil disobedience and rioting if Brexit is not done by 31st October. While in the Yellow Hammer report ( commissioned by the government to identify what the risks of a no deal Brexit are), if there is a no deal Brexit there is a risk of civil disobedience and rioting.

So the government is leading us down a road in which either way we will have civil disobedience and rioting. Of course they would say that there is an alternative, to agree a deal, but it is well known that there is no deal and they won't bring back the May deal. There is talk today of the outline of a deal being published, but everyone ( who's not a leaver) knows it's a sham.

It looks to me that Johnson's strategy is to be all things to all people. To face both ways promising what the hard Brexiters and the Brexit party want, that his policy is no deal and it's going to happen come what may, do or die. While at the same time promising the more moderate Conservatives and Labour leavers that he is on the verge of agreeing a deal, he really wants a deal and threatening a no deal is the best way to get a deal, the EU always compromises at the very last minute.

He needs to bring everyone with him right to the very last day and hold a metaphorical gun to their heads. To either agree a deal, a deal which few will actually support, or push them of a cliff, which will take everyone else over with them. This also gives him the opportunity with Cummings to conduct some chicanery in the chaos at the point of the acute crisis he will create.

The problem he has is that if he commits one way, or the other, he looses the support who want to go the other way and he would be finished and Corbyn would get in ( a worse outcome than Hell itself to all Conservatives). So he has to hold them in a close hug, or clench with a gun to everyone's head until a second before midnight on 31st of October. Once this point has passed then he can resurrect the Conservative party out of the flames, as any opposition would have been neutralised, it would have no purpose any more. Boris would be proclaimed a hero, all hail Boris, all hail the Emperor.

He has saved the country from the tyranny of a Corbyn government.

The Tory project, ever since about 1910, has been to prevent any government from representing the working majority's interests and those interests ever being seriously considered by a majority, and Farage is a part of that nonsense, as is the constant hymn of hate let out by the boss-class media against a famous villain called 'Corbyn', a literary creation on which they have worked very hard. The purpose of this Brexit crap is to distract the people from their worsening conditions, and Farage is meant to mop up those who are pissed off, as did the Brexit project itself. A dictatorship would be a lot less tedious and messy. Perhaps they'll bring Bliar back from the grave: he is totally unpopular and could still (just) be associated with 'Labour'.

He needs to bring everyone with him right to the very last day and hold a metaphorical gun to their heads. To either agree a deal, a deal which few will actually support, or push them of a cliff, which will take everyone else over with them. This also gives him the opportunity with Cummings to conduct some chicanery in the chaos at the point of the acute crisis he will create.

The problem he has is that if he commits one way, or the other, he looses the support who want to go the other way and he would be finished and Corbyn would get in — Punshhh

I think you've answered your own question - chicanery. No deal will be blamed on the EU for being intransigent despite the UK 'working flat out' to get a deal. Or if a deal is agreed and parliament rejects it, then they get the blame. If a deal is agreed and voted through then Boris is the hero. Boris doesn't need to win, he just needs someone to blame if things go wrong. He can then hold an election against the backdrop of a discredited parliament.

The only fly in the ointment is the doubt that he can force a no-deal Brexit through - seemingly against the law, as he insists but no-one outside the Cabinet believes. If he has to ask for an extention to article 50 he will presumably refuse. If he resigns, triggering an election, can he be prosecuted for disobeying the law? If I understand correctly, he can resign, but he is still PM and his govt are still in place until the election, so subject to the law. So we end up back in the Supreme Court?!

The only fly in the ointment is the doubt that he can force a no-deal Brexit through - seemingly against the law, as he insists but no-one outside the Cabinet believes. If he has to ask for an extention to article 50 he will presumably refuse. If he resigns, triggering an election, can he be prosecuted for disobeying the law? If I understand correctly, he can resign, but he is still PM and his govt are still in place until the election, so subject to the law. So we end up back in the Supreme Court?! — Tim3003

If the EU is done with it come end of October there will be a no-deal Brexit despite what the UK Parliament thinks of it.

bad idea. governments are too corrupt for the democratic experiment to continued ad naseum. it always seemed curious to me why an old greek concept like democracy should be brought up like it's some kind of natural right, when it was a rarity back in the day. the only conclusion is that the united states' declaration of independence was wartime propaganda and that the legitimacy of democracy is something far more fleeting. it's too hard to vote anymore, to be complicit in a farce. institutional power. now that's pretty much self-evident.

governments are too corrupt for the democratic experiment to continued ad naseum — Hassiar

What's your definition of corruption here? Being able to nudge the scales of justice towards arbitrary power for oneself? How would a form of minority rule fix that? not to mention democracies existing today where corruption is low.

a democracy is advertised as a system where the common people control the policies. brexit is another example, the others may be seen by polling figures, where this is apparently not the case. stop the madness.

he just needs someone to blame if things go wrong.

l don't disagree with your assement, I would add though, as before, the importance of keeping the Conservative party together in his motives. This is very important because it is the only way of preventing Corbyn getting into No10 and no one should underestimate how bad that would be in the eyes of supporters of the Conservatives. I put it to you that in their eyes this is far worse than Brexit being cancelled, or a soft Brexit. I admit that the Conservatives are doomed in either case, but they are clutching at straws and their focus at this point is in fighting off the Brexit party, who will decimate his support if Brexit is delayed again, cancelled, or a soft deal is agreed, again, letting Corbyn in. The Conservatives would far rather wreck the country and the union wherever the blame lands, than enable Corbyn to get his hands on No10, although they will try to blame someone else if they can.

Imo the only way he can succeed in holding the Conservative party together and fend off Corbyn, is to get a no deal, or a hard Deal Brexit by 31st of October. The only way he can do that is to hoodwink the soft brexiters in his own party and the Labour Party. Until either he can force through a no deal, or hold a metaphorical gun to the heads of a large number of MPs and get them to vote a hard deal through before 31st October.

There is a second way, which as you say, is that if he is removed by parliament and fails. He will then try to pit the people against parliament in a general election and if he wins, he will try it all again. But I doubt this would work due to the rise of the Brexit party by that point. Perhaps if some sort of pact with the Brexit party were secured he could win, but that is looking a long way into the future.

Just to add, as I understand it, if Johnson resigns, or refuses to ask the EU for an extension, the Supreme Court will issue an injunction very quickly requiring him to go and ask, and/or instruct another person to do so in his stead by order of the court. Which would be acceptable to the EU. As has been stated by the EU, they are negotiating with her Majesty's Government, they care not who the Prime minister is, or whom her Majesty sends in his stead.

a democracy is advertised as a system where the common people control the policies. — Hassiar

Yes, I agree.

brexit is another example, the others may be seen by polling figures, where this is apparently not the case. stop the madness. — Hassiar

The general analysis of democratic proponents is that the UK is not democratic enough, first-past-the-post vs. proportional representation. Other than simply being more inline with majority rule (first-past-the-post is only majority rule sometimes, which doesn't somehow magically turn cases of when it produces minority rule into majority rule, that's an obvious contradiction and nonsense argument; arguments for first-past-the-post are minority-rule arguments, and made by people that don't like democracy).

So other than being inherently more democratic, the practical consequence of proportional systems is that there is more space for more diverse views at the seat of power (any party with a few percent support can have a seat or two), and so this creates more nuanced discussion between adjacent parties and, critically, if a party get mired in corruption people can switch to a party that's very close in platform.

In first past the post, "whoever has the most votes wins" and so small parties are completely meaningless and the only numerical strategy to beat the incumbent is to merge all opposition into a single party (avoid vote splitting). This naturally tends to a two-party system, with fairly irrelevant exceptions of regional parties. Without stepping stones of platforms in between these polarized positions, debate cannot be nuanced as each party is simply a "cobbling together" of various views in that general space of political opinion and, critically, the only way to punish corruption or incompetence is to switch to a radically different party; both these factors result in coherent policy being left-by-the-wayside, and as a consequence the whole system loses focus on coherent policy, and so, surprise-surprise, the electorate, when polled, don't have a clue. Whereas, in a proportional representation system, parties need to compete by making more sense next to the adjacent parties and people can easily engage in debate with adjacent parties; coherent arguments sort of "win locally" and then move along the ideological space, being adopted by the like-minded and requiring a critique from those opposed to that view (which generally, if the argument is really good, requires modifying the platform to either "take the good parts", explain the argument is simply wrong or then recognize the problem but deal with it by a combination of other policies); all of which promotes a much more coherent understanding of things overall.

But there's a quick empirical take, which is the advanced democracies with proportional representation are never in the news for electing stupid people or having stupid referendums. In other words, people become frustrated with the non-democratic nature of first-past-the-post and over time "anti-establishment" becomes a predominant opinion that expresses itself in eventually supporting disruption to the system. Of course, it would be more productive for this frustration to be directed at the first-past-the-post system, but it takes a lot of time to build that awareness and there's all the incumbent power of the entire country (main political parties, media, the rich) that want the status quo. The whole point of first-past-the-post is that it allows minority rule while being advertised as democratic; the result is the worst of both worlds: the minority that rules becomes detached from reality and stupid and corrupt, and the people are not accustomed to real policy debates mattering so are equally ill equipped to guide the country when their effect is felt from time to time.

There is one thing that our democracy gives us which is an improvement on the alternatives, which is the ability for the electorate to remove the government every 5 years if required. And to be able to put another government, selected through democratic processes in their place.

Can you suggest a better system?

I agree, your assessment is pretty much what I had been thinking of when thinking of reform of our system.

I don't see what you mean about Boris having to hold the Tory party together. Surely he has already split it by ejecting those last few Remainers. It is now a Brexit party, cast in his image. His votes in the leadership contest were cast on this understanding and the Tory vote at the next election will be leavers-only. The Brexit party cannot amass enough support for a 'clean' no-deal Brexit - its preference, as even the most fanatical right-wingers in the Tory party know a deal is better than no-deal. Farage preaches to the simplistic Brexiteers who want it at any cost ASAP. These are surely only a minority of the Brexit vote. But the Brexiteer vote won't be split in an election because the Tories won't be standing on a leave-with-a-deal platform: Either we will have done that, or Boris will have had to extend Article 50, and it will be clear no deal is the only future option for him. Hence the Brexit Party has no USP. Recent polls have the Tories well ahead of Labour, and a majority is quite possible for them. It's probable that the Lib Dems and Labour will split the Remainer vote so Boris's path back to No 10 with a majority is clear - assuming he can shed all blame for having to extend Article 50 that is. But he can doubtless blame the Remainer parliament for ignoring the wishes of the people and forcing him as he's done successfully already.

I think I am doing something akin to discussing a game of chess without actually moving the chess pieces on the board. When I read your posts, it all makes sense, but I have notions and suspect notions in the minds of the group running Downing Street which differ. I suppose I have a different view of the primary motivation within that group. Although having just listened to Johnson's speech at the party conference, I am beginning to think that it is more chaotic, naive and short sighted than I had been thinking.
I suppose what I mean by saving the party is that where the fatal split will be is the focus. I think this split would cleft the party in two with hardened leavers and supporters who are sympathetic to the lurch to the right and populism, but who may have been quite ambivalent on the issue of Brexit (before the referendum) on one side and an equal group of staunch remainers and supporters who are sympathetic with preserving a one nation broad church of a party, who were quite ambivalent about Brexit ( before the referendum)on the other side. At the moment the party is leaking support to the Brexit party on one side and the Lib Dems on the other.

The fear being (justified or not) that the party is loosing support to the Brexit party and that is why Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have had to tow a more right wing approach than they would naturally adopt and why the leadership has been replaced by hard brexiters. As this becomes more extreme, as it appears to be doing, the members and supporters on the other side of the divide will be looking on in horror and wondering what happened to their party. They might be seriously considering changing their allegiance to the Lib Dems.

Add to this schizophrenia the body blow of the referendum result and the rise of a truly socialist opposition and it seems to me that the leadership is struggling to hold the party together, while becoming paranoid of a socialist government. An illustration of this is the way that May and Johnson are repeatedly seen facing both ways at once talking to the two opposing constituencies in their own party. Developing strategies and policies which are shoring up the splits. This is why Johnson appears to both really really want to get a deal, and simultaneously gunning for no deal.

There is one thing however which all sides of the party and their support is united on, which is that they really really don't want to let a socialist party to get into government. I noticed in his speech some serious attacks on Corbyn, for example, if he got into government, he would close down all private schools, abolish ofstead, disband the army and a string of other dubious claims and slurs.

However he failed to make the expected ultimatum to the EU and was quite subdued in his bravado on the Brexit issue.

The government's (Johnson's) eagerly anticipated proposals to the EU have been published. It's a great big slice of fudge. As I was beginning to suspect, his team and strategy is limp, limping along. It confirms that the plan all along was to secure a general election, unfortunately for him he is going to become cornered now into adopting no deal as his policy, which will divide his party further. There is some murmuring about bringing back the May deal again and holding a gun to their heads, but I can't see how they can achieve that with such a limp and it would destroy his party if it is passed.

It's beginning to look like a crash and burn.

Uniting the Conservative party means winning the election.What divides the Tories is always losing; they hate losers, and in the end everyone is a loser, so they hate everyone. They are divided over what makes a winning strategy, and brexit is an aspect of the division. They will even support the NHS in theory, if they think it is a winning strategy.

They will even support the NHS in theory, if they think it is a winning strategy

They don't have to support the NHS, just say they will and their base believes it. Everyone else is highly sceptical, there is a feeling going around that they can't be trusted on anything. Johnson's splash the cash announcements in his speech yesterday, had a hollow sound to them. He's trying to appeal to the Labour heartlands in the north who voted leave. I doubt if they will fall for it, although they may still support him, or more likely the Brexit party. They are in deprived areas often where there are a lot of immigrants, they will become more deprived after Brexit, they know it and will still vote to leave. Talk about stubborn. Labour will campaign hard in these areas, sincerely promising to help with socialist policies, which they will implement and will work. I wonder if it will have any impact.

The question of whether or not Brexit has been settled is going to be criticial in the election. Because it's effectively an issue of nationalism it has polarised opinion across the old party boundaries. If it hasn't we're heading for the same situation as Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the whole political landscape is divided up along nationalist or unionist lines. At the moment Brexit is drowning out all other political issues and I think the party conference promises are gaining little traction with voters. If Article 50 is extended pre-election then Brexit could cause the sort of seismic shake up in the political map which happened in Scotland 10 years ago. (What makes me laugh is that the 'Conservative and Unionist Party' is the biggest mainstream voice for nationalism, with Boris's Tories happily willing to sacrifice their core principles in the name of Brexit.) Maybe the Lib Dems and Labour will have to work together and not stand in eachother's best seats to keep the Tories/Brexit Party out..

Maybe the Lib Dems and Labour will have to work together and not stand in eachother's best seats to keep the Tories/Brexit Party out.. — Tim3003

That's not going to happen, even for a few weeks to prevent the no deal that is the Lib-Dem signature policy this week they will not support Labour. They're just tories without tax havens.

I've just heard an electoral analyst on LBC, stating that the leave vote is split between the Conservative party and the Brexit party, which is a "fight to the death". Whereas the remain vote is mainly divided between Labour and Lib Dems. Who may well cooperate, at some point.

The important observation he made was that on the leave side there are a lot of seats which are marginal between the Lib Dems and Conservative, which could swing in the Lib Dem's favour if Johnson starts to loose support. Whereas the majority of Labour marginal seats are between Labour and the Conservatives, with some Brexit party. Labour and Lib Dems are predominantly in different areas of the country and don't overlap much. So if Lib Dems do well, it will mainly be at the expense of the Conservative party.

That's not going to happen, even for a few weeks to prevent the no deal that is the Lib-Dem signature policy this week they will not support Labour. They're just tories without tax havens. — unenlightened

It is becoming very evident that trying to monopolise the 'Remain' position is the Liberals' great hope of a political comeback after they destroyed themselves with their 'personal pledges' and putting the tories in. I find it rather shocking that they should so obviously put their own interests before those of the Country, but I suppose I'm old fashioned. It's sad that my own nation should be the only one of those involved that seem to care about the UK. I put it down to drink! :)

I would say that those who don't care about our union are a minority. The Lib Dems hold a legitimate position. Is there much of a Welsh independence sentiment in your area?

Latest from Guardian:

'Boris Johnson will ask the EU for a Brexit extension if deal not reached by 19 October

Government documents submitted to Scotland’s highest civil court today state that the prime minister will seek a Brexit extension from the EU if no withdrawal deal is reached by 19 October.

Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay, and the revelation in court appears to be in direct contradiction of that statement and throws the question of whether the UK will leave the bloc on 31 October into fresh doubt.'

'In the Scottish court of session, Aidan O’Neill QC said the commitment within the submissions were inconsistent with what Johnson said in parliament yesterday.

The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'

So, when will he, the 'Father of Lies' come clean in Parliament ?

↪iolo I would say that those who don't care about our union are a minority. The Lib Dems hold a legitimate position. Is there much of a Welsh independence sentiment in your area? — Punshhh

Yes, and growing. But the centuries of serfdom take a hell of a time to get over.

The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'

It's what I was saying a couple of posts back, Johnson is facing both ways, one way for the hard brexiters in his party and the Brexit party, the other way to his moderate and remain conservative supporters. He can often be heard saying the opposite to what he said a moment earlier, or saying something which means exactly the opposite of what he's doing.

It has been coined "double speak" ( like doublethink in George Orwell's Animal Farm). The problem with it is, that his leave supporters, know it but don't care because they're in on the roose. The people on the remain side, see it, but when they call it out it is denied, or ignored. And the worst thing is the leave supporting newspapers print his rhetoric aimed at leavers and are read by a large swathe of less knowledgeable leave voters, who follow slogans, rather like the Trump base. But they don't realise what he's up to, or that he is continually contradicting himself and lying. This constituency is considered to be the Labour leave areas in the north of England, who Johnson wants to poach from Corbyn. I noticed that some EU politicians were commenting on it lastnight and this morning, it is why they think Johnson is disingenuous and playing to a UK audience in preparation for an election.

Interesting, as Wales as a whole voted to leave the EU. But lastnight Plied Cymru's Adam Price was speaking of an independent Wales in the EU.