From Peterloo to Brexit

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
Saturday is the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre, when working people in Manchester were attacked and murdered by cavalry forces for daring to demand the right to vote. And what is our political class doing on this anniversary of such an important event in British political history? They are plotting, tirelessly, to overthrow something that millions of working-class people, and others, voted for: Brexit...

From Peterloo to Brexit

The political class still feels nothing but seething contempt for ordinary people’s opinions.

Brendan O'Neill
16th August 2019



Today is the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre, when working people in Manchester were attacked and murdered by cavalry forces for daring to demand the right to vote. And what is our political class doing on this anniversary of such an important event in British political history? They are plotting, tirelessly, to overthrow something that millions of working-class people, and others, voted for: Brexit. They are doing what the Peterloo butchers did, only by political means and court cases rather than with bayonets and sabres. Our current political rulers may not physically attack the masses for having the temerity to use their democratic voices – not yet, anyway – but they view us with the exact same seething, elitist contempt as those who did attack the masses in St Peter’s Field on 16 August 1819.

Around 60,000 men, women and children gathered in St Peter’s Field in Manchester 200 years ago to demand parliamentary representation. They wanted that most basic and essential democratic right: the right to vote. The teeming industrial city of Manchester had no elected MPs in parliament. The old ‘rotten boroughs’ system meant that often sparsely populated rural areas sent MPs to the Commons, involving much patronage and sometimes even the buying of votes by wealthy aspiring politicians, while newly industrialised cities full of the growing urban working classes had little to no political representation. Against a background of post-Napoleonic Wars economic depression and a fast-spreading radical desire for meaningful democratic change, the tens of thousands of marchers arrived in St Peter’s Field with a clear demand: let us vote, let us speak.

What happened next is well known. They were attacked by cavalry forces. Troops on horseback wielded sabres against the democratic crowd. They slashed and stabbed, killing 18 people. Around 500 were injured. The slaughter was given the name ‘Peterloo’ as an ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo that took place four years earlier, in 1815. The bourgeoisie’s assault on the working-class democrats of Manchester had a deep impact on the radical psyche. New movements emerged in subsequent years, including the Chartists, the working-class movement for democratic representation. But it would be decades before the right to vote had been established across society. In 1867 some working-class men got the right to vote. In 1918, all men and some women got the right to vote. In 1928, finally all women got the vote. The General Election of 1929, 110 years after the march to St Peter’s Field, was the first election in which all adults had the right to vote.

The 200th anniversary of this bloody assault on working-class democrats ought to be a major occasion. It should be a reminder of the incredible, heroic sacrifices earlier generations made to secure people’s right to express themselves, to vote, and to see their votes be enacted. And yet while some in the political and media class will today pay lip service to the heroes of St Peter’s Field and express regret about the massacre of 18 of them, most of the elites will be too busy to do anything of the kind. Busy doing what? Trying to override and crush the votes of 17.4million people, which includes millions of working-class people and eight million women. It is a genuinely alarming and revealing moment: the 200th anniversary of the Peterloo Massacre arrives and the political set is engaged in an effective coup against the people; in a war against ‘No Deal Brexit’ (which really just means a war against Brexit); in a concerted effort to force the ignorant public, as they see us, to vote for a second time and to give the ‘right’ answer on this occasion.

Most tellingly of all, it is the supposedly leftish, progressive sections of the political set – those who in their youths may well have read some EP Thompson and other accounts of Peterloo and the struggle for democratic liberty – who are most committed to the cause of destroying the 17.4million-strong vote for Brexit. The Greens, the Lib Dems, and of course the Corbyn movement. Jeremy Corbyn devoted a large part of his political life to Euroscepticism. He argued, influenced by Tony Benn and other Labour left figures, that the EU was an illiberal, undemocratic, anti-working-class institution. Yet now he offers himself up as a potential caretaker prime minister who can stop Boris, stop ‘Hard Brexit’, and enact a second referendum – that is, tell the people that they were ignorant first time round, that they had been corrupted by demagogues, and therefore they must graciously be granted a second chance by the more unenlightened elite.

Precisely these elitist and contemptuous arguments were used against the heroes of St Peter’s Field and subsequent movements for democratic change. The working-class democrats of the Chartists were told that working people, lacking education and basic knowledge of political affairs, did not have ‘ripened wisdom’ and thus were ‘more exposed than any other class to the vicious ends of faction’ – that is, to demagogic games and the wicked words of strongman politicians. This same ugly view still holds across the political class. They see the vote for Brexit as the handiwork of demagogues who invaded the putty-like minds of plebs and idiots. A ‘Billionaire’s Brexit’, as chief anti-democrat Caroline Lucas puts it. Corbynistas view themselves as the heirs to the martyrs of Peterloo; in truth they are the heirs to the butchers of Peterloo. The efforts of this upper middle-class movement of woke elitists and bourgeois identitarians to trash the votes of the teeming masses utterly explodes their view of themselves as radicals and confirms they have more in common with the cavalry than the marchers of August 1819.

That the 200th anniversary of Peterloo coincides with the largest assault on British democracy in living memory – the assault on Brexit – points to the unfinished business of the struggle for democracy. Still, 200 years after the massacre in Manchester, ordinary people are not taken seriously. Still their democratic voice is casually sidelined or overridden. Unlike the marchers of 1819, people today have the right to vote; but like the marchers of 1819, they’re ignored, blanked, disenfranchised. For the right to vote becomes meaningless if our votes are not properly acted on, if they do not result in the political change that the masses – the largest political mass in UK history in the case of Brexit – demanded.

They’ve put away the sabres and other weapons, and for that I suppose we should be somewhat grateful. But our rulers still look upon us as a grotesque multitude with no right to impact on serious political matters, in the same way that those sword-wielding horsemen did 200 years ago.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/16/from-peterloo-to-brexit-anniversary-200/
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
In 1819, Lancashire was represented by two members of parliament (MPs). Voting was restricted to the adult male owners of freehold land with an annual rental value of 40 shillings (£2) or more – the equivalent of about £142 in 2016 – and votes could only be cast at the county town of Lancaster, by a public spoken declaration at the hustings. Constituency boundaries were out of date, and the so-called rotten boroughs had a hugely disproportionate influence on the membership of the Parliament of the United Kingdom compared to the size of their populations: Old Sarum in Wiltshire, with one voter, elected two MPs,[1] as did Dunwich in Suffolk, which by the early 19th century had almost completely disappeared into the sea.[2] The major urban centres of Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Blackburn, Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, Oldham and Stockport, with a combined population of almost one million, were represented by either the two county MPs for Lancashire, or the two for Cheshire in the case of Stockport. By comparison, more than half of all MPs were returned by a total of just 154 owners of rotten or closed boroughs.[1] In 1816, Thomas Oldfield's The Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland; being a History of the House of Commons, and of the Counties, Cities, and Boroughs of the United Kingdom from the earliest Period claimed that of the 515 MPs for England and Wales 351 were returned by the patronage of 177 individuals and a further 16 by the direct patronage of the government: all 45 Scottish MPs owed their seats to patronage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
Not the Japanese? Or the Americans? Or the Irish? Or whomever?

Nope.

Certainly not the Americans. They weren't big players in the world in those days.

I find it quite funny, though, that you're getting all wound up just because I'm saying as it is. Such a thing must annoy you. You like historical inaccuracies and propaganda, like the British bring responsible for the Bengal famine.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,326
9,516
113
Washington DC
An increasingly likely “no-deal” Brexit could wreak far-reaching havoc on Britain’s economy, infrastructure and social fabric, according to classified government documents leaked to a British newspaper.

Food and social-care prices would rise, while medical supplies could face severe delays given the fact that most of Britain’s medicines come through English Channel crossings, the Sunday Times says the documents indicate. Border delays would interrupt fuel supplies. Ports would only partially recover after three months of severe disruptions, leaving traffic at 50 to 70 percent of the current flow.

Those are just a few of the impacts predicted by “Operation Yellowhammer,” which the London-based paper says was compiled this month by Britain’s Cabinet Office and available to those with security clearances on a “need to know” basis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...chaos-if-it-goes-through-with-no-deal-brexit/

Go, Go, BoreJo!
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
An increasingly likely “no-deal” Brexit could wreak far-reaching havoc on Britain’s economy, infrastructure and social fabric, according to classified government documents leaked to a British newspaper.

Food and social-care prices would rise, while medical supplies could face severe delays given the fact that most of Britain’s medicines come through English Channel crossings, the Sunday Times says the documents indicate. Border delays would interrupt fuel supplies. Ports would only partially recover after three months of severe disruptions, leaving traffic at 50 to 70 percent of the current flow.

Those are just a few of the impacts predicted by “Operation Yellowhammer,” which the London-based paper says was compiled this month by Britain’s Cabinet Office and available to those with security clearances on a “need to know” basis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...chaos-if-it-goes-through-with-no-deal-brexit/
Project Fear continues. Just scare the British population into submission so democracy can be overturned.

It won't work, of course.


Go, Go, BoreJo!


A No Deal Brexit would be the fault of the Remainers, not Boris.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
Beware of reports fuelling No Deal hysteria based on documents which actually provide reassurance

Written by Lee Rotherham
August 14, 2019
BrexitCentral

Dr Lee Rotherham is Director of think tank The Red Cell, Executive Director of Veterans for Britain and Chairman of the appeal to establish a Museum of Sovereignty. He was Director of Special Projects at Vote Leave.



According to the latest Hammer House of Horror narrative, Brexit will now apportion doom to schools. Earlier in the month The Observer front page ran with a leaked Whitehall document that warned that educational establishments might run out of food. The reader is left half-pondering a scene involving extras from Lord of the Flies wrestling over a bucket of proscribed turkey twizzlers.

What the article glosses over, however, is that on the slide it shows from the report, all of the issues are either categorised as running from “amber” to “green”, meaning that they are all resolvable within the timeframe or are already addressed.

Once again, serious journalists are caught playing misplaced sensationalism with a document that has been leaked to them in pursuit of a malicious political agenda. The warning signs are clear to anyone who has read the Brexit No Deal preparatory reports; many of those documents state that the primary concern about delivering a smooth Brexit is about avoiding panic – a case of nothing to fear but fear itself.

Indeed, The Observer’s article itself highlighted this: the reason why the document carries a (low) classification marking is implied as being because “communications in this area could spark undue alarm or panic food buying among the general public”. Yet here we are with the newspaper acting as the very agent of alarm. It is hard to think of a more irresponsible act: its only defence might be is that it is encouraging people to panic now rather than choosing to leak the document later.

Or perhaps, more gravely, that as a society in an age of asymmetric and cyber-borne threats, we ought to be seriously reviewing the potential vulnerability of our supply chains to disruption. Brexit planning paradoxically may well be doing us favours here. But that’s not what the journalists spent a moment considering.

It is frankly about time that, after years now of the poison of Project Fear being dripped into the public consciousness, journalists get a grip of what contingency planning documents are for, what they contain, and what they mean. They are designed to stress test the most likely course of events, and contemplate the most dangerous set of circumstances. Simply listing the prospects, however remote, of a set of events happening does not mean that they will happen, especially not all of them at the same time – any more than the (real) existence of a contingency plan in the MoD in the 1960s to respond to alien invasion should prompt us into our cellars today. Indeed, it is the absence of any such thinking or wargaming that would be a concern.

Brexit contingency work consists of a range of categories of preparation. I spent over three months (outside of Government, alas) running an EU Reverse-Accession audit that, in effect, captured over 200 pages of them. We might break them down into the following categories;

Personnel: areas such as staff training, numbers, security clearance, contracts and conditions

Deployment: making sure that people are in the right place (sorting out leave, surge postings, temporary accommodation); that assets are in the right place (like vehicles, or fisheries vessels); and that locations are prepped (extra toilets, catering facilities, parking space, perimeter fencing)

Cross-departmental support: for example clarifying the operational chain of command; agreed mission statements; the loan of experts (say, MoD veterinarians, or RMP for route management); or lent comms

Cross-departmental planning: so lead departments are clear about what issues are facing other affected departments (for example again looking at the MoD; Fallen Livestock legislation grievances arising from leaseholders on MoD estates, the extra costs arising from POL rules on oil spillage, or over horse transport regulations), avoiding incoherent policy responses that carry extra new burdens or are incompatible

IT: the physical assets, and running the hard systems (ensuring power supplies to portacabins say, or internet access); checking the broader compatibility of software between key users; ensuring staff familiarity with them; and formally requesting or signing off on access to EU- and UK-held data sets

Jurisdictional cooperation: for example over air traffic control; the Channel Tunnel; and the Dover Strait

Transitional deterrence: including fisheries waters; illegal migration; and smuggled goods

Assurance: including kitemarks; safety; and phytosanitary

Legal: ensuring the continuity of the legal system; the continuity of contracts; clarity over liability and insurance cover; practical enforcement (for example checking boarding and holding rules for Fisheries vessels, or guidance to judges)

Permits and licensing: certifying the current certifiers; and certifying the certificates, whether state-sanctioned or undertaken by chartered or simply recognised institutions – an example here being the Commission having accepted aviation safety certificates

Subsidy and support: financial assistance; state purchaser preference; or accelerated lifting of regulatory burdens the industry has previously complained about, especially where originally considered “out of scope” owing to EU membership
Strategic ambition: starting the wider process of auditing EU red tape and Whitehall gold plating and removing it – best done earlier rather than later to avoid retrenchment.


That’s a lot of things to be covered (especially if you start to think in micromanagement terms). That’s hardly surprising, considering how massively the EU intrudes into our lives, and continues to seep every week. But I’d be far more worried if we had to do it in a real hurry, say in the middle of a massive Eurozone crisis.

This list is a quick one and one might add more. The point, however, is that Whitehall has been involved in a considerable amount of work over the past years assessing how, across the vast circuitry of governance and the wider threads of society, advanced analysis and targeted preparation can avoid or at least mitigate risk and effect. The worst-case scenario, the ultimate Project Fear nightmare with all those Moher seascapes, has long passed with the EU already declaring it will avoid “cliff edge” issues like by allowing UK lorries to drive onto the continent, and it has not signalled it will enter into a trade war, blockade Britain, or ban the export of medicines and hospital radiological material. Meanwhile, when you dig into them, many of the issues on the UK side can be managed unilaterally by changing process and procedure.

That certainly does not mean that there will be no problems, costs or difficulties; but it does mean that commentators should be more professional about how they report them, and apply due perspective. Otherwise, by fuelling political hysteria and with it encouraging “undue alarm or panic buying”, they will be revelling in the chaos of a masochistic Nerobefehl for which they themselves will be largely responsible.

https://brexitcentral.com/beware-of...documents-which-actually-provide-reassurance/
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,540
8,146
113
B.C.
An increasingly likely “no-deal” Brexit could wreak far-reaching havoc on Britain’s economy, infrastructure and social fabric, according to classified government documents leaked to a British newspaper.

Food and social-care prices would rise, while medical supplies could face severe delays given the fact that most of Britain’s medicines come through English Channel crossings, the Sunday Times says the documents indicate. Border delays would interrupt fuel supplies. Ports would only partially recover after three months of severe disruptions, leaving traffic at 50 to 70 percent of the current flow.

Those are just a few of the impacts predicted by “Operation Yellowhammer,” which the London-based paper says was compiled this month by Britain’s Cabinet Office and available to those with security clearances on a “need to know” basis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...chaos-if-it-goes-through-with-no-deal-brexit/

Go, Go, BoreJo!
Lots of could and woulda in there . But where are the definite will happen ? Of course it was the Washington Post who spent the last three years pushing the Russian collusion narrative . Their opinion really doesn’t hold much water .
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,540
8,146
113
B.C.
Project Fear continues. Just scare the British population into submission so democracy can be overturned.

It won't work, of course.





A No Deal Brexit would be the fault of the Remainers, not Boris.
Don’t worry, he is still pissed that the British brought the white man to North America’s shores . His forefathers probably fought with the French .
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
Britain - unlike the EU, by the way, so it will suffer more than we do - has spent much of the last two preparing for a No Deal Brexit.

Whitehall creates lists of things which may happen as a result of No Deal - some of them extremely unlikely - and then comes up with a plan on how to resolve each issue, however remote.

Likewise, back in the 1960s, the British Government came up with a contingency plan for an alien invasion.

What is happening is that some of these contingency planning lists are leaked to the Remainstream media who then tell us, in sensationalist terms, that No Deal Brexit would cause supermarkets to run out of food, there'll be huge queues of lorries at Dover and (this is true, by the way) planes to fall out of the sky and an outbreak of chlamydia.

This would be the equivalent of the contingency plan for an alien invasion back in the 1960s being leaked to the media who then report: "Britain about to be invaded by aliens, according to leaked Government report."

No we aren't about to be invaded by aliens. It's just contingency planning to be prepared on that extremely unlikely scenario. And either you naively believe that or you're just deliberately scaremongering.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,932
1,910
113
Operation Yellowhammer is scaremongering rubbish

THE GOVERNMENT’S Brexit Minister has branded a leaked Whitehall document warning of the impact of a No Deal Brexit as “scaremongering”.

Published by The Sunday Times, the documents warn Britain will be hit with a three-month “meltdown” at its ports, a hard Irish border and shortages of food and medicine – but Kwasi Kwarteng, in charge of Brexit, dismissed it as playing into “Project Fear”.

According to the documents petrol import tariffs would “inadvertently” lead to the closure of two oil refineries, while protests across the UK could “require significant amounts of police resources” in a no-deal scenario.

They also warn Gibraltar could face delays of up to four hours at the border with Spain for “at least a few months”.

However, when asked about the dossier – codenamed Operation Yellowhammer – Brexit Minister Kwasi Kwarteng told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “I think there is a lot of scaremongering around and a lot of people are playing into Project Fear and all the rest of it.

“We’ve got to prepare for No Deal.

In fact the previous prime minister created DExEU and she said that the mandate of DExEU last year, last summer, was to prepare for no-deal…

“Now we’ve got a new Prime Minister who is very much focused on that and the scale and intensity of those preparations are increasing and we will be fully prepared to leave without a deal on October 31.”

According to reports, the leaked documents surfaced before Boris Johnson – who has made his enthusiasm for a No Deal Brexit clear – actually became Prime Minister.

Meanwhile Downing Street has reportedly blamed Philip Hammond’s camp for leaking the secret documents.

No.10 has now hit back and claimed the document was leaked by a former minister, with reports suggesting they are blaming Philip Hammond’s team, which includes dozens of advisers and associates.

The ex-Chancellor quit the cabinet before Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and has become a leading opponent of no-deal Brexit.

A Downing Street source said: ‘This document is from when ministers were blocking what needed to be done to get ready to leave and the funds were not available. It has been deliberately leaked by a former minister in an attempt to influence discussions with EU leaders.

‘Those obstructing preparation are no longer in Government, £2 billion of extra funding already made available and Whitehall has been stood up to actually do the work through the daily ministerial meetings. The entire posture of Government has changed.’

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...and-leaked-by-disgruntled-former-minister/amp