Things We Already Knew - Jonathan Freedland is a Pillock

 Jonathan Freedland uses the fall of Boris Johnson to continue to fight two wars that any sane, non-obsessed man would have put behind him.  In an article titled Everything Tainted By Johnson's Lies Needs To Be Undone, he first decides 2022 is CLEARLY the most opportune time to have another go at Jeremy Corbyn and the buffoons who made him leader:

In 2019, it put to the electorate an alternative to Johnson who, by every possible data point, was shown losing and losing badly. By sticking with Jeremy Corbyn in the face of all that evidence, Labour flung the door of Downing Street wide open for Johnson and all but ushered him in.

No, Jonno.  YOU and your Guardianista, relentless anti-Corbynista partisans in the media flung the doors of Downing Street open to Johnson and ushered him in, because you would rather see that happen than see Corbyn win.

Don't try to shift the blame to the Labour membership who elected Corbyn leader twice - remember it is THEIR PARTY, you arrogant prick.  If you don't like their choices, feel free to join the Tory Party, or perhaps the Lib Dems - where you might feel comfortable as you (like them) like to enable Conservative governments.

Given your bully pulpit in the Guardian you COULD have supported the Corbyn project and helped 'usher in' a social democratic government that might have made things a bit better for the people of Britain.  Instead, you and your trendy journo mates and buddies in the rightwing of the Labour Party opted to torpedo the leader of the Labour Party.

And when your first attempt to do it failed, you redoubled your efforts and the result was an 80 seat conservative majority.  Which you clearly preferred - since you've never said so much as "Aw, rats, that sucks!"

Now, years later, instead of hanging your head in shame when you look at the consequences of your decisions back in 2017 you indulge in a spot of victim blaming, telling the membership they were too stupid and short sighted to see what was obviously going to happen.

Yeah, maybe.  Perhaps they were foolish thinking the right wing of the Labour party might tolerate a left wing leader.

I don't think you are stupid, by the way.  You knew what you were doing and could clearly see what was going to happen, and did it anyway.

The other war Freedland is still fighting the apparently unending attempt to turn back time and undo Brexit.  He is pretty explicit about the, not pining in maudlin mode for the good old days of ever closer union: "Surely, a country will lose faith in the product it bought when the man who sold it to them has been exposed as a fraud."

Mate, this is your delusions speaking again.  Boris Johnson did not "sell" Brexit to the British people.  They voted for it in 2015, remember.  He wasn't Prime Minister then.  He wasn't even the NEXT Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister who oversaw the crucial preliminaries, or triggered Article 50.  He was a part of the Leave campaign but only one - to characterise him as the one who "sold" Brexit to the public signals a height of delusion on Freedland's part that is almost Johnsonesque.  the arrogant assumption of superior insight and dismissal of those silly little people - with their Jeremy Corbyn and their Brexits - makes you wonder if Mr Freedland and Mr Johnson are not, in fact the same person.

But Freeland's bonkers narrative requires a magical re-writing of the past just like he had to re-write history to blame 209 on Corbyn and the dim witted members of the Labour party, and not the intractable MPs and journalists who set out to destroy him.  Somehow, the collapse of the Johnson administration negates the referendum, the 2019 election somehow means all that history can be undone.  Jonno, mate, the reason there are people saying leaving the EU was a mistake is the same reason they were saying we should leave in the first place - because they are unhappy with the way things are and are looking for a panacea or at least something to blame.

But like the pillock you are you think people being unsatisfied with life in general means they actually support your pet cause.  they don't, you sheltered Guardian column writing pillock.  They are fucked off because life is shit and it is shit for a lot of people all around the world and it is likely going to stay shit for a long time leaving the EU was only a teeny-tiny contributing factor to that shitness.  It didn't cause Russian to invade Ukraine, it didn't cause Covid, it didn't cause climate change, it didn't cause the cost of living crisis or the breakdown in the NHS or social services or fear of crime or mental health issues.

But YOU, by helping sabotaging a decent prospect of getting a half decent leftish government into Downing Street - by helping sell Johnson to the British public by focusing your energies on destroying Corbyn - did contribute more than any decent person should to some of those festering cankers.

You, Sir, helped bring all this about.  You are tainted by Johnsonism.  So hang your head in shame, or fuck off.

The Aftermath, Part 3 - Who Is To Blame?

So, following the catastrophe that overtook the Labour Party last week, blame is inevitably being directed at Corbyn.  As pointed out in my last post, there is some dubiour research that supports that conclusion, if you are minded to accpet it at face value.

I think, however, that blaming Corbyn's leadership, or lack there of demonstrates a massive misunderstanding about the situation confronting the Labour Party.  Corbyn and his adherents are being demonised and portrayed as something to be crushed and driven out of the party, like fleas or ants. It works on the assumption that once Corbyn and the Corbynistas have been eradicated then everything will be okay again.

I think this is, fundamentally, missing the point.

Corbyn is not the disease, he is the symptom of the disease. His election in 2015 was not some whimsical decision by the membership, a jolly jape they decided on without thought to the consequences.

It was their way of signaling to the 'elite' in charge of the party how utter dissatisfied and disaffected they were, after almost two decades of Blair, and Brown, and Milliband; how neglected, ignored and taken for granted they felt. that's why Corbyn's message resonated and that's why he got elected.

Of course. the aforementioned 'elite' didn't get the hint. If there is one thing they are very bloody good at it is thinking they know best. They viewed the election of Corbyn as a foolish error on the part of the membership, who had to told off, sent to the naughty step and made to elect a proper leader this time; hence the Chicken Coup - only the 'elite' (significantly misnamed; there isn't much elite about them in terms of intelligence or wisdom) were so clueless and craven they put up Angela Eagle and the Owen 'Lacklustre' Smith might be viable alternatives, with fairly predicable results. Corbyn won, and the elite decided that, obviously, the membership were being recalcitrant and really, really needed to be taught a lesson.

At no point, it seems, did anyone bother to ask, "Why DID they vote for Jeremy?" Or if they did, the answers were probably just a load of patronising generalisations and sneers.

Remember what happened with Corbyn as leader (before Friday the 13th, I mean): membership soared to almost half a million and there were genuine signs of a mass movement developing.  People becoming re-engaged and excited about being Labour again.  2017 happened, just as much as 2019 did, and can not be ignored.  The message resonated and the messenger was not deemed too abhorrent then.

Only, of course, the 'elite' knew better.  Corbyn and his rag tag bunch had stepped out of line and had to be put back in their place - for the good of the party, you understand, and especially for th good of the membership, who had let the power Ed Milliband had unwisely gifted them go to their heads and used it unwisely.

They identified real but not Earthshaking issues - the presence of some foolish people in the party who don't think before they tweet, plus some genuine anti-Semites - and started to make Quite A Fuss about it. And they never missed a chance to confide just how awful things were to their friends in the media.

In the meantime, of course, Brexit was rumbling on. They noticed that Corbyn and the Unions weren't too hot on Remain and the 'elite' - who love skiing in the Alps and holidays in Umbria - felt once more they knew better. The 'elite' always knows best and if they have to keep intervening to correct the unruly plebs, well, noblisse oblige.  After all, THEY haven't gone to Oxford to do PPE so how could they be expected to know what's best for them?

The proles had voted foolishly - AGAIN, you'd almost think they were doing it on purpose - and once more had to be corrected. A botched compromise was devised and Labour was forced to go into an election offering a fudge that might have been morally principled but only seemed to tell people they were being ignored - again.

So, now that Corbyn is on his way out, the impetus will be to make sure that him and his horrid followers are excluded from the party and never even given a whiff of a shot of getting anywhere near power. It will be very hard for anyone running on anything that even resemblance of a Corbynite ticket to get the nominations to stand as leader. There won't be any more 'widening of the debate' because the elite know they will lose that debate. They will try to force a bland slate of safe, Blairy candidates on the membership. One of them will win, and it will be just like the 2010 leadership election all over again.

The lesson of 2019 is not that Corbynism needs to be crushed but that the 'elite' need to look at why Corbynsim ever happened in the first place, and be honest about why something that was actually working pretty well in 2017 was an abject failure two years later. And acknowledge their own failings and responsibility for the stagnation and failures of the last 20 years.

I'm not holding my breath.

Aftermath, Part 2 - Why Did All The Votes Go?

Predictable, there has been a lot of effort being put into saying the disaster of Friday the 13th is down to Corbyn, Corbynism and Corbynistas.

There was a poll published by Opinium the day after the election, asking why people did not vote labour, and why Labour voters who voted for other parties switched.

The survey found the main reasons people did not vote Labour were:

• The leadership (43%)
• Brexit (17%)
• Their economic policies (12%)

They also looked at the reasons given by party vote:

Further polling focused on those who voted Labour in 2017 but not in 2019:

• The leadership (37%)
• Brexit (21%)
• Their economic policies (6%)

On the surface it looks pretty convincing.  Clearly, the Blairites were right.  The issue is and was Corbyn and his leadership team.

But ... but ... but ... but ...  I have some issues with this data.

First of all, 'Leadership' is a very vague category compared to 'Brexit' and 'Economic policy'; a lot comes under than heading so it isn't surprising it is the biggest category.  Does it mean the leadership was too leftwing?  Was it to do with the alleged failure to address anti-Semitism?  The inability to silence the criticism and attacks from within the party?  The disunity?  Because some of these aren't really criticiss of the leadership per se, but of the behaviour of the MPs and others who have been trying to throw Corbyn since he got into the saddle in 2015.

I'm also disappointed with the lack of geographic detail. I'd be very interested in seeing the result broken down by region - what if 'Brexit' was more of an issue in the Northern constituencies?  This was an election where what happened in the north was critical.  Traditional Labour heartlands revolted just two years after they had enthusiastically embraced Corbynism.  In 2015 Labour polled just under 18,000 votes in Blythe Valley; in 2017, that swelled to just under 24,000; but by 2019, the total was down to just under 17,000, and the seat was in Tory hands.  Those are remarkable changes in a couple of years.

The absence of the Brexit Party from the data breakdown by party is unforgivable. The BXP were critical in draining Labour support in a lot of constituencies, allowing the Tories to win on quite modest vote gains.  If we looked at that crucial demographic would we see Brexit significantly more prominent?  That seems to be the trend from the limited data available - where former Labour voters were more concerned about Brexit, and less so about 'leadership.'

I'd like to see more information about the reasons given for defection. Given the skewing we can see in the data we have, where almost a third of Lab / Con defectors identified Brexit 31% of the time as their reason for switching, I think it nothing much can be deduced without a more detailed picture. At the end, someone switching from Labour to Conservative is likely to be on the right wing of the party, so is likely to be opposed to the leadership anyway; we really need to know what went wrong in those northern seats and where the Brexit Party was decisive.

If we zoomed in on the Northern seats, and then in again on the Labour voters who went to BXP, would we see Labour voters switching to BXP because their old party had not embraced the referendum result?  And if we did the same again in other areas, would we see the Labou voters switching to the Lib Dems because Labour was not sufficiently Remain?

Aftermath, Part 1 - Where Did All The Votes Go?

So, that didn't go so well.

Immediately after the election, the Guardian published data showing where Labour's vote had gone:

Labour to Conservative - 4.72%
Conservative to Lib Dems - 1.34%
Labour to Lib Dems - 6.06%

The impact of the Brexit Party (BXP) on Labour has already been noted - in seat after seat, the BXP absorbed Labour votes and allowed the Tories to take the seat on relatively small gains.  In Blyth valley, the Conservative vote went up by about 2,000 - small change.  But the Labour vote dropped by 6,000 - 3,000 stayed at home and 3,000 appears to have transferred to the Brexit Party.  And this allowed the Tories to take the seat.

(It is a shame the figures don't include the BXP.  I imagine the transfer would be small, but critical in a lot of seats.)

But the third figure is also interesting.  Labour lost a lot of votes to the Lib Dems, and as a result neither went anywhere.  In spite of Swinson being ousted in East Dunbartonshire and ending up a couple of seats down on 2017, they actually increased their vote share substantially by absorbing Labour votes.  In 2017 the Lib Dems won a national vote share of 2,371,861, or 7.4% of the vote. In 2017, their vote was 3,696,423, 11.6%. It seems unlikely that the extra illion were people inspired by Swinson's charismatic leadership. It looks like they absorbed a lot of Labour voters.

Perhaps the hidden story here is that Labour lost Leave votes to BXP AND Remain votes to the Lib Dems, with both sides of the argument rejecting Labour's measured, sensible Seocnd Referendum compromise. Be interesting to know - though there is probably no way of telling - how much of this was smart tactical voting, and how much Remainers dumbly rejecting the second referendum.

This time, Labour seems to have been caught between two vote sinks - the Lib Dems taking their votes on one flank, and the BXP giving disaffected Labour voters an option than stopped short of voting Tory. And the result of this mess is that it enabled a Tory government with a massive majority.

Some of it was intentional - Farage's ploy of standing own candidates in Conservative seats was an obvious but effective ploy. And some of it boils down to the continual madness of running two parties competing for the centre left vote. Thatcher's reign in the 80s was enabled by the SDP-Liberal Alliance absorbing 25% of the vote and returning fewer than 5% of the MPs.

It seems we've learned nothing since.

This is not about trying to transfer all the blame onto the Lib dem - another, oft overlooked, reason why Blair's government should be remembered as a failure. They had the opportunity to change things in 1997; but they decided the system was working for them, so they would keep it like it was.

Of course, subsequent incarnations of the Labour Party have failed to embrace electoral reform. Stupid short-termist idiots.

"I have a plan, Sir"

The Lib Dems are considering giving their support to an attempt to by-pass the Fixed Term Parliaments Act to give Boris Johnson an election:

Boris Johnson has been offered a route to securing the pre-Christmas election that he has been seeking, through a plan that would only require the support of a simple majority of MPs.

With most Labour MPs still against the idea of a snap election, the prime minister looks set to lose his bid to secure a December poll on Monday in a vote that requires the backing of two-thirds of MPs. Other parties are also opposing an election until the EU has granted a three-month Brexit delay, although the DUP hinted on Saturday it could back the move.

However, in a sign that the coalition opposed to an election is under strain, the Liberal Democrats have drawn up a plan allowing Johnson to secure a December poll with a simple majority of MPs, with the support of Jo Swinson’s party and the SNP.

Typical short-sighted tactics by the Lib Dems, undermining the one good thing to come out of the Coalition. Undermining parliament's control over its own destiny.

This ploy could be used by government to bypass the FTPA and have an election at their convenience. If the Lib Dems do it now, they have legitimised it and any future PM will be able to use the same mechanism. The moral injunction against anyone doing it evaporates as soon as it is done. So they shouldn't do it, in case a some point in the future they want to be able to tell other people not to do it.

I want an election but I want it done properly and in accordance with the law, not through some wily subterfuge that will later on become a tool for cynical PMs.

Labour, meanwhile are calling on Johnson ruling out No Deal. I'm interested in seeing what Labour mean when they are calling for No Deal to be ruled out. That's consistent with what they have always wanted so it makes sense. I'm not sure how they expect it to work - unless it is based on a promise from Johnson, which isn't worth much - but I accept they *MAY* be smarter than me and know what they are about.

I wouldn't give them too long to sort it out though.

Surely the Lib Dems would be interested in preventing No Deal?

There is an alternative.  It proceeds on the assumption we get a lengthy extension, which the EU seems to be about to announce. The main aims (as I see it) at this stage are: remove No Deal from the table as a 'default' option; secure a second referendum; secure a second election; humiliate Johnson to ensure maximum chance of doing well in that election.

The proposed route where the FTPA is by-passed is not satisfactory. It sets an unpleasant precedent that could be abused later on. Also, it gives Jonson control. He's not going to rule out No Deal, it won't get a second referendum, he's going to set the terms of an election and he's going to come out of it enhanced, not humiliated. So a big old fail there.

If I was Seamus Milne, this is what I might be planning:

1. Demand the PM puts forward a bill (or something) pledging that No Deal is not an option. Argue it has to come from Johnson so he is honour bound to stick with it if he wins the up-coming election. Johnson, of course, refuses.


2. Spring a VONC in the government when Johnson refuses to rule out No Deal. If Johnson survives, so be it. At least they tried. If the motion succeeds, Johnson's government falls. He is humiliated and loses control of the schedule.


3. Try to set up a GNU, led by Corbyn. Dare the Lib Dems and pro-remain indies to vote against it. If they do, then Labour can campaign arguing their true colours were exposed and their commitment to the EU was found wanting; if setting up the GNU succeeds, then they have a short window to pass legislation ruling out No Deal, setting up a second referendum and having the election at the time of their choosing. They might even have time to grab an 'off the shelf' Norway style deal from the EU.


4. If a Corbyn GNU can not work, throw the party's weight behind another candidate. The important thing is to be seen to be genuinely trying. If that doesn't work, an election follows.


5. In the election, campaign like fiends, pointing out that Corbyn was PM for a month and the sky did not fall, or that he gallantly set aside his own ambitions to enable a GNU, or that he tried his utmost but the Tories, Lib Dems and supposedly pro-Remain indies frustrated his efforts.

Steps 3 and 4 are the crucial ones - if the push came to shove, would the Lib Dems and pro-Remain Indies actually support a Corbyn led GNU? Would Corbyn be able to rally his own party to support another figure?

You have to wonder about a party where the leader muttered something about supporting Johnson's deal (with the proviso of a second referendum) and which now is contemplating supporting his efforts to undermine a law the Lib Dems insisted on being passed in the coalition years.

What the actual Hell?

Keir Starmer has hinted that Labour might vote in favour of the Johnson government's shoddy deal, with the proviso that a second referendum is attached:

Speaking to BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show, he said: “We will see what that looks like but it makes sense to say that by whatever means we get that referendum. 

The spirit of this is clear. We offered this to Theresa May. We said: we don’t think your deal is very good but if it’s up against the safeguard of being able to remain then we will allow it to proceed in that way.” 

He added: “The position we have adopted is whatever the outcome, whether it’s Boris Johnson’s bad deal or a better one which could be secured, it has got to go to a referendum up against remain.”

Backing a referendum amendment is common sense.  Backing the whole bill is stupid.

It was stupid when Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson was talking about it and it is stupid now when Starmer is talking about it. Even if it is just a ploy, a bait-and-switch, it will encourage rebels - "You were considering backing it, so you can't blame us for just taking it a step further."

And after all the rhetoric about the deal in the last few days either Labour look like liars if they are now willing to back a deal they'd described as so awful, or they look untrustworthy and cynical for saying it was so bad and then voting for it.

Of course, a referendum might result in Remain winning, and the whole sorry episode being brought to a close starting over again. But that's not a risk I am comfortable taking. I'd rather have Remain run off against Soft Brexit because - guess what - everyone was confident the British public would more likely than not reject Brexit back in 2016. They didn't.

Also, Labour voting for the deal makes it harder for them to then campaign against it. "You're tellig us to stay in the EU, Jeremy? But you voted for the deal."

Vote for the amendment and vote against the deal.

The only acceptable explanation to me is they are waiting for the EU to grant an extension, before coming out against the bill.

Remainers starting to sound like fascists

As Brexit comes to a grisly conclusion (perhaps) people on all sides are saying intemperate and uwise things.  Some, like the Daly Mail, have been doing it for years.

People as normally level headed as Jon Lansman are calling for automatic deselection of MPs who vote against a (likely) Labour three line whip for Saturday's vote on Johnson's crappy deal.

Johnson's deal will be a wrecking ball through the lives & well-being of ordinary people across Britain. Labour MPs cannot and must not vote for it. If they do, the NEC will have no choice but to replace them with a new, socialist Labour candidate at the next election

— Jon Lansman (@jonlansman) October 18, 2019

Others have called for automatic withdrawal of the whip for rebel MPs.

I can understand that people feel very passionately about this.  It's easy to preach moderation from the comparative safety of New Zealand.  But this extremism is worrying.

Crying out for automatic expulsion is Draconian. It's the sort of behaviour people have condemned 'Corbynisas' for in the past - all that talk of deselection, trigger ballots and crushing of internal dissent. Now - because this is an issue that tickles their fancy - these people are adopting the same language and tactics allegedly used by 'Corbynistas'.

Defying a three line whip has never lead to automatic expulsion, as far as I'm aware. It should lead to some sort of sanction, but that is at the behest of the Chief Whip - a set up that is deliberate, intended to prevent party leaders using direct threats against MPs to intimidate them.

Back in 2003, 121 Labour MPs (including a certain Jeremy Corbyn) defied a three line whip over Iraq and were not expelled. I think we'd agree Iraq was at least as serious as Brexit. Can no-one see how a reaction like automatic expulsion for defying a 3 liner sets a very dangerous precedent for the future?

Also, by adopting tactics similar to what self-described 'moderates' claim 'Corbynistas' are using in CLPs they're legitimising the 'Corbynista' tactics as well. The ends justify the means. Whatever these alleged 'Corbynistas' believe in, they doubtless believe in it just as strongly as the alleged 'moderates' believe in Remain.

Or, as another chap once wrote:

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

The moderates are starting to sound like what they claim to hate, advocating crushing opposition to their vision by any means. It is disappointing how everyone seems willing to embrace dangerous precedents and endorse behaviour they would condemn in other circumstances; and how quickly they start to sound like a fascist if they are provoked just a bit.

We all like to think of ourselves as wise, rational, level headed, moderate lovely people but turn into swivel-eyed monsters demanding purges and punishments when we're scratched. Mike Tyson said, everyone's gotta plan until they get punched on the nose." You could say the same about calm rational moderation. We've all got it, until we realise it isn't going to get us what we want.

It is dangerous to start using the language and tactics of your enemy - it has a way of sticking, and after your enemy is defeated, you discover they've actually won, because you've become like them.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster.

Labour MPs supporting Johnson's turd-sandwich deal?

I find this unbelievable:

I've got one source saying more Labour MPs than expected are mulling whether to vote for the deal - including names who were not on the letter to Juncker and Tusk

— Emilio Casalicchio (@e_casalicchio) 17 October 2019

I've compiled a list of possible reasons why Labour MPs might consider voting for a dire, incoherent Conservative vision of Hard Brexit:

1. Because they actually believe in this Brexit thing, which is terrifying.


2. Because some of them accept the referendum result and want to see Brexit achieved, in some for or another.


3. Because some of them represent Remain constituencies.


4. Because they want this poisonous, divisive issue finished so they can get on with politics as normal.


5. Because they are idiots.


6. Because they are idiots.


7. Because they are actually alien replicants in the style of invasion of the Body Snatchers.


8. Because they would do anything - even endorse a Conservative uber-crappy Hard Brexit deal - if it meant sidelining Jeremy Corbyn.


9. Because they are idiots.

I think that covers it.

Swinson's swithering

Jo Swinson is doing even worse at this Being Sensible lark that I'd thought.  I've just become aware of the following utterance

.@KayBurley presses Lib Dem leader @joswinson on whether she would agree to a #Brexit deal 'no matter how bad a deal it is' as long as it had a second referendum attached to it.

📱 Watch #KayBurley live https://t.co/cMHO7fsDYJ
📺 Channel 501 pic.twitter.com/ol7qyySJcm

— Sky News (@SkyNews) 16 October 2019

Right at the end - after many attempts to avoid answering the question - she finally says, "I will vote in favour of a bill to put the deal to the public."

So she'll vote in favour of a crappy Conservative hard Brexit deal, with the inherent risk of No Deal following if the deal is rejected by parliament or the electorate; but not in favour of a Corbyn lead GNU to seek an extension and pass referendum legislation with the possible end result of a better deal or Britain staying in the EU.

And we're to believe her refusal to offer support to a Corbyn led GNU was about anything other than tactical, anti-Labour maneuvering?

Swinson backing calls for a second referendum (again)

After a brief dalliance with 'hard Revoke' it looks like the Lib Dems are changing ground on on Brexit, with leader Jo Swinson reverting to calling for a second referendum on Johnson's deal.

The party has tabled an amendment to the Queen’s speech requesting that any deal brought back from Brussels by the prime minister is put to another public vote. 

The Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson, said: “The Liberal Democrats are the strongest party of remain and have been the leading voice in the People’s Vote campaign. 

“Boris Johnson is determined to have a general election, but the best way to resolve the Brexit chaos is to have a people’s vote and give the British people the final say about their future. 

“The best deal we have is as members of the European Union and we want to give the people the chance to choose to stop Brexit.”

This seems foolish as it overlooks obvious dangers - the likelihood of a Brexit winning in a Deal v Remain referendum. That's why we need the best deal possible (i.e. the least Brexity Brexit) to run off against Remain. So if Remain loses, it isn't too awful.

And - even more ominous - there is the risk of getting No Deal on the ballot in any referendum set up by a Conservative government.

I can foresee the Lib Dems making such a hash of things we end up with Johnson's deal running off against No Deal; and the Lib Dems and everyone sane being forced into voting for Johnson's deal, giving him reason to call himself the great negotiator who not only sorted Brexit, but who crafted such a deal even Remainers voted for it ... Because you know he would try that.

Get rid of this toxically useless government, Jo, and then sort of out a referendum on your terms from a position of relative strength.

Unless you're more interested in making noise on the sidelines, of course.

Another day of bonkers GNUmours (again, sorry)

First, almost a score of Labour MPs seem to have sent a letter to the EU basically begging them to accept a deal - any deal - just so Britain can get the Heck on with Brexiting instead of being trapped in limbo:

To avoid no deal, deliver on the ref outcome and break the deadlock we have sent the letter below to Juncker and Tusk #Brexit pic.twitter.com/xnvEbLFlmI

— Emma Lewell-Buck MP (@EmmaLewellBuck) 8 October 2019

They are literally asking the EU to accept a Conservative Prime Minister's hopeless deal, rather than try to gain power and sort out a better deal for Britain. They are effectively enabling and extending an even-more-dangerous-than-usual Tory government, rather than trying to bring it down.

(The even scarier thing is they aren't even the maddest Brexiteers in Labour - you won't see Kate Hoey or John Mann's name on that list. It's far too diluted for them. They like their Brexit neat, if that isn't some sort of oxymoron.)

This is why I think a non-Corbyn GNU will struggle to get across the line. That's 19 votes that probably won't be available for an alternative candidate, whereas they probably would be available for Corbyn. Basically, they cancel out the Lib Dems. Assuming those 19 - and Hoey and Mann - refused to support a non-Corbyn GNU, and all the other Labour MPs did (a huge assumption) then then it would be at 283, still needing the pro-Remain Independents to support en masse. Possible, but difficult.

Where as Corbyn, the SNP, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens can probably get there, or very nearly there, as he can expect his MPs to support him.

But wait, there's more ... According to the Financial Times, in a sort of exchange student MP deal, fifty MPs, including three cabinet ministers have threatened to walk out in Johnson makes a No Deal Brexit an election commitment:

Several prominent ministers would find a no deal manifesto problematic to support, including Julian Smith, Nicky Morgan and Robert Buckland. Same for plenty in the junior ranks too. https://t.co/GUbXW77Kir

— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) 9 October 2019

Obvious the problem with this story is ... Tories. Until they actually walk out the door, assume they will do the opposite of what they say they will do. But it does suggest the antipathy towards Johnson's 'dead in a ditch' approach is growing.

(It also suggests the 50, particularly the cabinet ministers, are pretty dimwitted, as an fule could see from years ago (well, a few weeks back) that Johnson hadn't the slightest interest in a deal. If they actually thought they were assisting other than a Titanic style Brexit, they were clearly rather hopeless - which raises the worrying possibility that their resignations might leave the Johnson administration brighter and more dangerous, by some strange alchemy.)

So, yeah, just another day of lunacy in Brexitland.

Inside the Downing Street bunker

James Forsyth at The Spectator (I know, I know) has tapped one of his contacts inside Number Ten for an insight into the Johnson administration's thinking and strategy.

It is fascinating, unsettling and quite, quite mad.  Some key points:

• Negotiations have stalled and the Johnson administration are keen to blame the EU: "Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold ..."; of course, it has nothing to do with the Johnson administration wasting everyone's time, acting in bad faith and proposing a ludicrous alternative to the vexed Irish Backstop.

• It is all the fault of the Germans Boche and the French Frogs: "There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate." This is like reading the story of Brexit as re-told by Commando Comics; which, now I think about it, is a very apt description of how the Johnson administration is approaching the whole thing.

• The Euro-meanies and the Remoaners are conspiring to Do Britain Down, but they will be shown up in time by British pluck and cold hard steel, which has always seen of their Continental guile: "Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here."

• The Johnson administration really is intent on going full steam ahead into the iceberg, because they are more scared of Nigel Farage than they are of ruining the country: "To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’."; never mind the arguments about 17.2 million voters, this is about one man. Oddly, their plan for stopping him is to do exactly what he wants, which seems a bit silly, but they aren't interested in what is better for Britain here - it is simple psychopathic careerism. Cock up, blame everyone else and hope that people will fall for it so you don't lose your job.

• The Johnson administration intends to Subvert the 'Benn Bill' to prevent delaying Brexit: "Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about."; one wonders if this 'legal advice' springs from the same mind that told them proroguing parliament for five weeks was legal, and that they could win court cases without presenting sworn affidavits?

• They will use bribes and threats to try to get the EU to vote against offering a further extension: "We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue."; so,having failed to win any intellectual arguments, they will resort to bullying - "within and outside EU competences" is particularly ominous.

• The EU offering something that has been requested by the British PM acting on the instructions of the British parliament is "hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us"; presumably they will apply the same 'logic' to any attempt to form treaties or agreements in the future. And the cynical statement that the public will agree with them reveals they are intent on plunging even further down the Faragist populist bullshit rabbit hole. All, you know, to stop Farage.

• They actually still think this is all about them: "We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless. They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen." Hate to break it to you, guys and girls, but people are now hoping that it won't be "we" coming back with new proposals.

• They will take their toys and go home: "Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave." Yes, gentle reader, they actually think the courts and parliament are somehow irrelevant obstacles in all this, not the things that give them legitimacy. Heads up! If the courts say your are doing illegal stuff, it means lack legitimacy; if parliament refuses to back you, you lack legitimacy. You will not have the authority to put anything in the toilet. And for all their eager talk of elections, there is one simple way to get one - request an extension so an election can be held without the country falling out of the EU by default. But the Fear of Farage is overwhelming, and they can not bring themselves to do that Very Obvious Thing.

• They are deluded: "Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded." No, your bad faith negotiations, posturing and hopeless alternative' to the Irish Backstop killed a deal. Which you probably knew all along it would. The ferocity of the pro-No Deal language in this whole message reveals the lie in this weak attempt to pass the blame.

It is worth keeping in mind this might be what the 'strategic geniuses' WANT us to think they are planning.

But, nah.  I'm going with this actually being what they are planning - for want of a better word.

Are GNUs extinct?

Another round of tactical talks about forming a Government of National Unity have come to nothing with the Liberal Democrats still refusing countenance putting Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street:

Opposition talks on Monday made little headway over when to try and vote down Boris Johnson's government and who might succeed him as prime minister.

Labour said the Lib Dems were being "irresponsible" in refusing to back a temporary Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

But Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said he did not have wide enough support.

The SNP called on the other two parties to "grow up" and warned that time was running out to stop the UK leaving the EU on 31 October.

The Lib Dems and the pro-Remain Independents and TIG4C (henceforth, "the Lib Dems") are being idiots over this. It is senseless. There is no logical reason not to throw their weight behind a Corbyn candidacy.

If Corbyn GENUINELY does not have the number then it could be proven in Parliament by simply having a VOC. But they know that - with their backing - he would win that (Tories + DUP = 298) and they don't want that. So they are making fantastical claims about some mythical 'number' he needs and can not achieve and insist that he 'step aside' for some equally mythical unity candidate that they can not even identify, far less demonstrate that this unicorn of a candidate has the 'numbers.'

They say they don't want Brexit, but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. The Lib Dems are exaggerating their anti-Brexit credentials as a unique selling point but fundamentally don't seems to actually intend to live up to their rhetoric.

They've nicely put themselves into a position where they are either going to have enable No Deal Brexit, or renege on their loud talk about being unable to support Corbyn under any circumstances, or have to sit sullenly on the sidelines while Labour actually go about trying to do the thing the Lib Dems have been saying they really, really want to do.

Any of those scenarios leaves them looking like posturing clowns playing politics and not even doing that well; diminished, irrelevant, mealy-mouthed and ineffective.

Clever legal fellow on Scottish challenge to Brexit

I make no claims to having much legal knowledge,  so I defer to those trained in this area.

I am very much enjoying this twitter stream from m'learned friend in Edinburgh, deciphering the legal arguments around the Scottish court challenge to Boris Johnson, based on the charmingly obscure principle of Nobile Officium.

Court returns. O’Neill rises to continue the case for the petitioners, that action should be taken to ensure Boris Johnson abides by the law passed by Parliament on Brexit.

— Michael Gray (@GrayInGlasgow) 4 October 2019

My favourite bit this far:

I’m enjoying sceptical Lord Pentland.
Pentland to Webster: ‘You’re not suggesting that the law officers of the UK Government are not subject to the same standards as all citizens to make representations to this court?’
UKGov failing to fully engage not going down well, it seems.

— Michael Gray (@GrayInGlasgow) 4 October 2019

Ouch!

I also enjoy the occasional images of Edinburgh and references to drunken escapades on the Cowgate, which remind me of my own mispent youth in that most wonderful of cities.

Jermey Corbyn, I don't like GNU (sorry)

So, the latest ruminations on the gnews from Westminster (Again, sorry; I'll stop making that pun right now).  This follows on from, and likely repeats bits of, my last post, on the suggestion that a Government of National Unity (GNU) should be set up and then oversee a referendum before calling an election.

You will recall, gentle reader, that I am not in favour of this ideas as the GNU simply won't have the numbers to survive that long, nor to deal with any governance issues, and because if it lasts more than a few weeks it will taint those involved, strengthening the Tories for the subsequent election. Remember all those jibes and sneers at Johnson as an 'unelected' PM with no mandate? Can you imagine how much more vicious they would be, aimed at a GNU cobbled together from multiple parties 'with the sole aim of overturning the will of the people'? Cummings would love to be able to run that attack line for six months before a referendum, and then (having won the referendum) for the subsequent election.

I admit there is a risk in the election then referendum strategy - what if the Conservatives run on an anti-EU platform and win a majority? Then they could cancel the referendum outright. Hopefully, the GNU / EU will see that coming and in their agreement will stipulate that a second referendum must be held during the extension ... effectively giving an indefinite extension period if the referendum is cancelled.

Nobody on the Remain side can command a majority. Otherwise they would already be PM.

Corbyn is closer, by virtue of having the Labour Party behind him. Any other candidate will be starting from much further back and - after all this talk about how not voting for Corbyn because he "doesn't have the numbers" (conveniently forgetting that "the numbers" are nebulous) - would need to be able to demonstrate they "have the numbers" before they can anticipate support from Labour; which makes it impossible, since Labour has over a third of the MPs and most of them are going to support a Corbyn bid.

I think the Lib Dems have done an impressive job of shooting themselves in the foot over this - an, unfortunately, possibly shot all of us in the foot as well.

This is what I think will happen:

• VONC / failure of the Queen's Speech once parliament resumes. 14 day count down to an election commences ...
• Attempt by Corbyn to set up a GNU. Gets 280 votes and is voted down by the Tories and DUP. Independents and Lib Dems abstain / vote against. - Attempt to set up a Clarke led GNU. Gets about 150 votes.
• Possibly other attempts to set up a GNU under other candidates. All the time, the clock is ticking. None get more than 200 votes.  Maybe 250, depending on how flakey Labour MPs are.
• Second attempt to set up a Corbyn GNU. This time, some of the more nervous (or responsible) Lib Dems and / or Independents vote in favour, with an eye on the clock. It gets 300 votes. Crucially, a few less fanatical Conservatives abstain / are mysteriously absent and the vote against is only about 290. Corbyn is PM!

Interestingly, once he is installed, I think things may become slightly easier. the Lib Dems / Independents can say, "We think this is a really rotten idea and we wish it was someone else, but we will try to work constructively with the new administration and make sure it remains (pun intentional) on track to agree an extension and pass the referendum legislation.)

Reckon Jo's gonna decide to ride Jerry's GNU at the last minute?

Now, I need to get something off my chest here.

At heart I am a Remainer. I can see no purpose in leaving the EU. I've always accepted Labour's position that the country voted for Brexit (because it did) and that any Brexit should do the least damage to the country and people's jobs as possible (because people voted to leave the EU, not trash the economy, make themselves unemployed and tear the already frayed social fabric to pieces - that wasn't on the voting paper.) I've welcomeed their painstaking moves towards supporting a second referendum pitching Remain against a new soft Brexit deal.

Contrast that with the Conservative's Titanicesque intent on crashing the coutnry out of the EU in four weeks time, or the Lib Dem's intention to give the electorate the finger and ignore the referendum. Labour's policy has always been the only sane one in the room, which is why it has been hated on by both extremes.

Suppose some miracle lead to Article 50 being revoked tomorrow. Would that end Euroscepticism as we know it? Nope, it would just carry on as before, with Farage demanding a new referendum and so on and on until they got it. If it was a bad horror B movie, it would be the Revenge of the Night of Nigel Farage.

Suppose we got a Hard Brexit / No Deal. Would that be the end of it? Nope, because we know that is going to screw up the country for the next twenty five years, and we'll probably end up rejoining and having to take the Euro and all the other things we're currently opted out of. At which point the Son of the Night of Nigel Farage pops up and starts campaigning to leave.

Whereas a shoddy, half-assed Brexit was always the sensible option that left everyone disappointed but at least feeling the other side hadn't won. Human nature being what it is, we don't mind losing - its the sense that someone else has won that pisses us off. So a sort-of Brexit means everyone thinks they've lost and feels somewhat unhappy in a typically British sort of way, but not narked to the point they want to kick the can of worms over again might have been the least rotten outcome, unless we really want this dire soap opera to run into another season.

GNUs move VERY slowly

In the hours since my last interminable wittering about the possibility of a Government of National Unity (GNU) in Britain, there has been a slight maybe development:

A Corbyn-led caretaker government could then sit for several months while it enacted and delivered a referendum with the support of smaller parties and rebel Tories, several MPs suggested. 

An election would only then follow, probably next spring. Another option would be for a ‘government of national unity’ to sit while the referendum legislation is passed. 

Corbyn listened to the advice of the PLP but did not say he agreed with it. His position has been that he thinks an extension of Article 50 is a priority to stop a no-deal exit, followed quickly by a general election. 

“It was the most united PLP we’ve had in months,” said one present.

Which seems to reflect a strengthening of Corbyn's position, if he has the PLP more-or-less behind him (which must be a novel situation for him, and them).

Well, I'm glad that some progress is being made, albeit at a snail's pace. In about another thousand years, they might finally get ther heads around the idea that a Corbyn lead GNU is the most practical option ... though I must add my breath, while I wait, is resolutely unbated.

The tactical / short term problem with this idea is the numbers are so dreadful it would be almost impossible to do anything in the interim. We'd have six to nine months of endless Brexitry, with the government - for want of a better word - unable to actually do anything about the many ills afflicting the nation. That would REALLY taint Corbyn and Labour.

From a purely strategic perspective, it would also give the Tories a chance to regroup and rebuild. I quite like the idea of Johnson being bounced out of office and then forced to face the country. If they manage to get their act together, and a protracted build up to a new referendum has embittered people against the GNU, then it is possible to imagine the Tories profiting in a summer election.

Parliamentary number crunching [Very sexy]

So,   more on the possibility of a Government of National Unity (GNU) in Britain, which is once more exercising Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson.

Ms Swinson, who declined to be interviewed by Sky News alongside the other leaders, has said she would only support a compromise candidate for PM like Tory grandee Kenneth Clarke or Labour veteran Dame Margaret Beckett.

"He simply does not have the numbers," Ms Swinson said after the meeting.

"I have been crystal clear but I will do so again - Jeremy Corbyn is not going into Number 10 on the basis of Liberal Democrats' votes."

The numbers in parliament make things very difficult.  Anyone who is saying X will happen or Y is impossible is spinning.  I'm looking at you here, Jo.

We can not tell and will not know until votes are actually cast.  And possibly more than one round of increasingly fraught voting, as brinkmanship is exposed and people have to choose between what they do not like and what frankly terrifies them.

Here are the numbers in parliament:

Conservative Party - 288
Labour Party - 246
Scottish National Party - 35
Liberal Democrats - 18
Democratic Unionist Party - 10
The Independent Group for Change - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
Green Party - 1
Independent - 35

(Sinn Fein have 7 MPs but they do not take their seats.)

Insanely, as it stands, no party can command a majority. This is why Johnson can't win a vote (currently at 0-7, probably the worst losing streak in government history.)  Even coalitions are problematic, with 3-4 party combinations needed to get to the 'magic number' needed to command an outright majority.

(More on the 'Magic number' later.)

At the moment, parliament can't even vote to put itself out of its own misery, via a general election, because Johnson won't ask the EU for an election and the opposition parties won't trigger one without this guarantee.

The numbers don't make a GNU easy.  Looking at a Corbyn lead option, first ...

A coalition of Labour , SNP, Lib Dems, Greens, PC and half of the independents gets to 322, which is the actual number needed to command a majority with the Speaker and SF not voting (though the Speaker would be obligated to vote with the government in the event of a tie.)

(That's assuming TIG4C do not support the GNU, even though they are meant to be fervent Remainers.  Their hatred of Corbyn runs very, very deep.)

Excluding the Lib Dems and the independent MPs, Labour, the SNP, PC and Greens can get to 286, just behind the Conservative Party.

But the idea of a Corbyn lead GNU has proven problematic.  The SNP and Greens have said they will support it.  Assuming Plaid Cymru are also amenable, that gets the coalition to 286.  But the Lib Dems and the Conservative rebels have said they won't support a Corbyn led GNU and want him to step aside for another 'less divisive' candidate.

The problem with that is any candidate that is 'less divisive' for the Lib Dems and Conservative rebels will be a very hard sell to Labour MPs.  They are by no means 100% behind the party's declared policy of a second referendum, or even behind its previous position of a soft Brexit.  There aren't too many Hard Brexit headbangers in Labour, but there are a couple; and there are a lot more Eurosceptics of various degrees of virulence (including, of course, Jeremy Corbyn) and others who will be thinking long and hard about where to position themselves, having looked at how their constituency voted in the referendum, and the mood of their local party.

Whereas the numbers for non-Corbyn lead coalition are more nebulous. Sure, you'll get the Lib Dems, the SNP and so on, and let's say you get TIG and ALL the independents. That gets you to 102.

102.

How many Labour MPs are going to agree to put another Conservative MP into Downing Street?  Particularly if the Conservatives and Lib Dems have refused to vote for Corbyn?

Even if the bulk of the party does - sullenly - vote for a Clarke (or whoever) lead GNU, Labour MPs who support leave probably won't. Based on the 'indicative votes' held earlier in the year, that's between 10 and 30 MPs who are opposed to soft Brexit or a second referendum.  If it is 10, then the GNU works. If it is 30, it is tantalisingly close, but still short of a definite majority.

Again, it could work - Labour leavers might be persuaded to abstain, or more Tories might desert to support a non-Corbyn GNU. But it is all very sketchy, and anyone claiming one side or the other does or does not have the numbers is spinning. We won't know until votes are cast, possibly several rounds of them.

What is the 'magic number' needed to govern, anyway?

It is not 326, which is half the number of MPs in the house.  You need to knock off SF's 7 MPs.  That gets you 322.  But even that isn't the number needed, because votes are passed on a majority of the MPs who are present to vote, not the absolute majority of all MPs.

Not one of the indicative votes involved more than 600 MPs voting.  The far more critical Benn Act still saw 21 MPs mysteriously absent or abstain.  You can get along with far fewer than 322, though it does make things trickier.

All of which gets us no further forward that we were at the beginning of this long and - I admit it, very unsexy - post.

Which begs many questions - will they (Libs and Cons) stick to their "Not Corbyn" position even if it means crashing out on the 31st? Will Corbyn? What is the 'magic number' anyway? Do Labour really need the Libs and Cons to get to it?  Would enough Labour MPs support an alternative GNU for it to work?

The more I think about it, I am thinking that Corbyn should simply go for the VONC, defy the Lib Dems and Con Remainers to stop him, and see if he can run a short term government focused on getting a delay and a second referendum in spite of them.

It would be amusingly ironic if the Liberal Democrats - the party that have consistently opposed Brexit in all forms - managed to exclude themselves from stopping it. Which would destroy them with their voters in the subsequent election.

Unity government for the UK?

There has been a lot of speculation recently about the possibility of a government of national unity replacing the current administration in the UK, with the purpose of either revoking Article 50, or at least negotiating a delay and a second referendum.

I don't think it is going to happen, because the people who make the most noise about stopping to Brexit are not willing to do what needs to be done.

The positions are - Liberal Democrats are saying they want to revoke Article 50 and stop Brexit dead.  They have a total of 18 MPs, their ranks swelled by the arrivals of MPs from both Labour and the Conservatives.  Labour, on the other hand (247 MPs), favour negotiating a new exit package, and holding a referendum with their deal running off against Remain.

For the record, the Lib Dems have previously been in favour of a second referendum; they shifted to outright revoke about five minutes after Labour committed to a second referendum.  I can't help but discern a cynical motive in their shift.  Whereas Labour's gradual drift towards a second referendum has been so torturous as to be undoubtedly genuine.

So - with both of these UK wide parties favouring one form or another of avoiding No Deal, and the SNP (who have been the adults in the room all the way through), the Greens, various independents exiled from the two main parties, and the Welsh nationalists all opposed to No Deal, and the DUP's position becoming more compromised by the minute as Boris Johnson blunders towards the cliff enge - why do I think a government of national unity (henceforth, charmingly, a gnu) won't happen?

Because the numbers make it tricky, and the Lib Dems and Conservative rebels are being intransigent, saying they will not support a Corbyn lead GNU.  They are even insisting he stand aside and let someone else - Conservative veteran Ken Clarke or Labour's Harriet Harman - take over.

This is all down to politics, I think.  The Lib Dems and pro-Remain Conservatives just don't want to be seen to be enabling or to give him even the whiff of credibility as a PM.

The moment Corbyn gets to stand up in the Commons as PM, or speak to the nation from outside Downing Street, and the sky does not immediately fall, he gains stature and his enemies within and without the Labour Party lose their best argument - "It's impossible to imagine him as PM."

They seem willing to risk No Deal rather than let Corbyn be PM. They may fold - or he may fold, which is why they are saying they won't countenance backing him. The irony being they are basing their argument on the same logic the ERG are using when they say we can not take No Deal off the table - because it would take pressure off the other side.

Whereas - if Corbyn does say he will stand aside for another candidate - The issue them becomes pro-Brexit Labour MPs. They would support Corbyn as PM even if it meant nixing Brexit. But they won't swallow their principles for Ken Clarke and I suspect they wouldn't do it for Harriet Harman either.

(Both these figures are being touted as benevolent 'national treasures' who no-one sensible could refuse to support; Clarke spent decades enabling Conservative governments; Harman has been a hate figure on the right for decades as well, though she did do some good things - 'Harman's Law' - also described as 'socialism in sentence' was a splendid idea, and repealing it was one of the great wrongs of the Cameron administration.)

Which means that if the Lib Dems and Conservative Remains won't compromise to support a Corbyn lead GNU, forming such an animal under the leadership of someone else becomes much harder.

Corbyn and Labour have already compromised massively on Brexit.

Yet it never seems to be acknowledged; instead they are accused of "sitting on the fence" by extremists on the Remain side. Labour are told to be pragmatic and sensible, but the same expectation id not demanded of Lib Dems and Conservative rebels who say they will refuse to support a Corbyn lead GNU.

If we do crash out, it will be cause of their intransigence. The numbers are there, but they are refusing to support the best placed candidate. And it is for political reasons, as outlined about.

Bad Language, milk shaking, abuse of politicians and so on

So, there has been a lot of talk about 'inflammatory language' in the British parliament recently.

The whole culture of British politics has become very polarised and toxic.  Some recent examples:

• In January of this year, a group of men surrounded MP Anne Sourby as she walked to parliament, calling her a Nazi, invading her space and videoing her without consent, presumably in the hope of capturing a reaction or tears.  I won't include the images or footage as it was filmed without her consent.


• Journalist Owen Jones was crowded, heckled and abused on the same occasion.  As Owen filmed them himself, I will reproduce the footage.

Just met some lovely Tommy Robinson fans and I’d love for you to get to know them too pic.twitter.com/iRom8GavNy

— Owen Jones🌹 (@OwenJones84) 7 January 2019

Owen Jones would, of course, be physically assaulted by a group of thugs in August.

•  Dianne Abbott received almost a third of all abusive tweets sent to female MPs in the six months before the 2017 election.  And the total number of abusive tweets sent to female MPs was a staggering 25,000.  That's about 8000 hateful comments being aimed at a single person in 6 months, or about 50 a day, or about two every hour.

Take a moment to imagine someone yelling an insult at you every thirty minutes; or every fifteen minutes assuming they don't do it while you're asleep. Might tend to spoil your day a bit.

• Then, of course, there was UKIP candidate and internet 'opinion shaper' Carl Benjamin's "I wouldn't even rape you" comment to MP Jess Phillips.  Phillips then received further abuse for objecting to people making comments rank with sexual violence and misogyny about her.  Apparently, that's a free speech issue.


• Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Millar described the vitriol aimed her way in 2017.  Given she's been involved in attempts to foil the recent attempts by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to finesse break the law to get a No Deal Brexit by proroguing illegally suppressing parliament.


• Jolyon Maugham, acting for Millar in her recent case, also received abuse and death threats, has been advised to wear a stab proof vest and had a panic button installed in his home.  In his twitter feed, he describes how he had to threaten the Daily Mail with legal action to prevent them publicising his home address.  

This is, of course, tip of the iceberg stuff.  I could go on and on.  There is no scraping of the bottom of the barrel of hatred here; the barrel just goes on and on.

And lurking in the background is the murder of Jo Cox in 2016, which came into the headlines again this week when her name was brought up in parliament by and MP (legitimately) commenting on the toxic environment surrounding Brexit.

There has been a lot of talk about inflammatory language, with Johnson lobbing terms like Surrender Bill' about; but the left needs to be careful here.  We have not always been as pure and spotless as we would like to think.

Remember when Nigel Farage was getting milkshakes thrown at him?  Oh, how we laughed.  Never mind that it was legally assault, and that crowing over his humiliation was legitimising bullying.  Saying Farage 'deserved it' because we don't like his ideas is dangerously close to legitimising the hate-filled abuse being directed towards the likes of Millar, Maugham, Jones and so on because - guess what? - people on the other side of the left / right or leave / remain feel as passionately as we do.  If it is okay for us to call Nigel Farage unpleasant things and throw things at him and intimidate him by waiting to ambush him then it is okay for the other side to do it as well.  Jeremy Corbyn was egged earlier on this year; people quite rightly condemned it.  A lot of the same people probably had a good chuckle at Farage being milkshaked.

And I'll admit I couldn't resist a smirk when I saw the images of Farage covered in milkshake and blustering feebly about people being mean to him.  But that does not alter the fact that assault is wrong. Even petty assault that doesn't cause physical hurt.

If you're saying it's okay to assault someone in the real world, you can hardly complain about mean words in a text message.  If physical assault doesn't count, then how can we justify being opposed to nasty pixels?  Pixels are even more ephemeral than flavoured milk.

People don't think twice about using foul and demeaning language to deride and insult a politician whose ideas they disapprove of; but when the same language gets directed at someone they support, it 'abusive.'  It's Orwellian double think.  People just don't seem to realise they are entertaining two contradictory notions in their heads at the same time.

This seems to be part of a bigger and ongoing project to debase political discourse to the point where everyone acts and speaks like Donald Trump; where argument is replaced by insult and reason by abuse, logic by threats.  It is driven most obviously (in Britain) by the likes of the Daily Mail ("Crush the Saboteurs!"), the Express and the Sun; but it is also advanced in the more measured tones of the Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph, with the persistent 'othering' and dehumanisation of the other side.  You can insult them, then tell lies about them, and assault them, because it is okay to do all these things because they are bad people.  Though the 'people' part is becoming questionable.  We don't like to think of them as people, but as "Remoaners" or "Gammons" or "Republicans" or "Fascists"; we're millimetres away from describing other people as 'vermin' fit to be exterminated.

Orwell would have recognised this phenomenon.  “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

And another uncomfortable truth.  The left / remain have to put their own house in order, urgently.  Sad to say, we are worse at it than the right.  A study by the University of Sheffield indicated that - contrary to the stereotypes - the most and the worst abuse aimed at MPs via twitter was directed at male MPs and towards Conservative / right-leaning / pro-Brexit figures.

Now, the study is by no means perfect.  It focused on just four months over four years.  Two of those months were immediately prior to elections (2015 and 2017); in 2015 both the Conservatives and Labour were lead by males, and in 2017 Labour was lead by a male and the Conservatives by a female.  With the focus on the leaders during an election campaign, that is bound to skew the statistics.  Cameron and Milliband are the most significant receivers of abuse in 2015. Johnson and Corbyn get a lot of abuse in 2017 but Theresa May gets almost as much. It's reasonable to think that if the party leaders receive most of the abuse, having mostly male party leaders would skew those stats.

(I'm not saying abusing party leaders is okay or acceptable; but I'd be interested to see data without those 'big beasts' in it to see how that affects the figures.)

Also, Boris Johnson received a lot of abusive tweets in 2017, as the figurehead of Brexit.  So those factors might tend to cloud the day-to-day abuse and threatening language aimed at less high profile and female MPs.  And here's the thing - Johnson's segment of the 'sunburst' charts is the largest and the darkest (size indicating amount, and colour indicating intensity, of insults).


It looks like the left and / or Remainers are actually the more vituperative.  And that's very troubling.  We can not condemn the hateful, inflammatory speech of our opponents while engaging in - or at least ignoring - the virulent hatred emanating from our own side.

Thatcher claimed her greatest achievement was the neutering of socialism - Tony Balir and New Labour.  It looks like The Mail, Trump, Bannon, Farage et al have successfully managed to make the left into a nascent fascist movement.  They don't care that people oppose them; the important thing is that the people are adopting their language and tactics, which justifies and legitimises their own egregious behaviour and gives them scope to escalate it.  The more fascistic we sound, the more fascistic they can become; and they are much, much better at it than we are.  And even if we do win the odd scrap, ultimately they win the war, because we have become them.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Never do what your enemy wants you to do.  We're enabling them.  That's what they want.

Prorogation Illegal, rule Scottish judges

Scottish appeal court judges have declared that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful. 

The three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, overturned an earlier ruling that the courts did not have the powers to interfere in the prime minister’s political decision to prorogue parliament.

Here 

Tom Watson will be livid. His latest attempt at undermining Corbyn has been bumped off the front page of the Guardian.

Am I right in thinking that Boris Johnson has ...

• Lost six votes in the House of commons
• Broken the law twice
• Been dumped by his brother
• Lost a cabinet minister
• Lost a couple of dozen MPs as a result of a particularly ill-judged show of political machismo
• Lied to the Queen

... All within his first week in the job?

Did I miss anything?

The brazen uselessness of the Johnson administration beggars belief. I always anticipated that Johnson would be a disaster; but I was also anticipating he would have some sort of a plan and try to disguise his incompetence with shows of bon homie , 'infectious confidence' and general bluster.

I was expecting him to trounce Corbyn at PMQs and deliver lots of well received speeches, as these were the sort of things this 'acclaimed orator' would be good at, even if it was just sound and fury concealing the vacuum of his policy.

So I was expecting useless, but making a good show of being not-useless.

Instead we got useless and obviously useless.

What a difference a week makes, eh?