It’s hard to keep track of things because of the sheer churning volume of events, but didn’t Corbyn say he’d be willing to step aside to allow someone else to take up interim PMship for a GNU or suchlike?
It’s getting increasingly hard to recall what things actually happened and what was the product of an unusually boring dream.
In theory Corbyn could have a three line whip on all Brexit issues. It would destroy the party, but this parliament seems to be a bit lacking in common sense. At this point a mass defection to the Monster Raving Loony Party does not seem impossible.
The Lib Dems have been a pro-EU party for as long as I remember, so they are less of an issue.
No, the Lib Dems suggested this a couple of weeks ago and Labour said absolutely not. (Ironically, I was in an argument about this here at that time pointing out what @tuhu is saying, that by not agreeing to a Corbyn-led temp government Swinson was also part of the problem. However, the reality is that the LDP was asking for a compromise, but Labour was asking for capitulation. That might have made sense when Labour held all the cards, but they haven’t for a long time.)
I’m not a fan of Cameron’s folly. It was incompetently conducted and delivered a non justiciable outcome (you cant sue the government for failing to act on it as what “it” is is not defined). I do however think that politically there is a crisis and constitutionally a crisis if it is ignored.
The majority of the passing is a non-sequitur as it has no standing. Governments in the UK typically have overwhelming majorities with 40% of the vote and nobody acts as if that undermines their legitimacy. I don’t think there will be an overwhelming vote for anything, nor should we expect one which is why a more considered process for referendums is necessary.
Short of that, the UK parties will need to find common ground to enact it. This involves leaving the Brexit extremists out of it: they can have the deal or no Brexit.
I used to be of the same opinion, but then this speech came to light:
This was dutifully recorded by the, thankfully silent, Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion, and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said.
They clearly have two problems. One is that they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony either.
I’d like to put a charitable interpretation on that, but tbh I’m struggling.
It’s the same kind of “the real English vs other people” prejudiced bullshit as Johnson’s letterbox comments and the like.
I also think people should know better than to use the word “Zionist” without care in any discussion of Israel because anti-Semites have used it to blanket describe all Jews, and it only leads to unproductive debates about the founders of Israel and avoidable confusion about meaning and intent.
I think he fucked up and failed to clearly make sufficient distinction of any of that in the public arena, helped in that by the people painting him as somehow more anti-immigrant than the people who only want anti-immigrant policies. But his success as a politician depends on being better at that than he’s been, no question. It really shouldn’t be that hard to separate criticism of the government of Israel from deep anti-Semitic views against all Jews, even in a charged atmosphere.
This would be easier if people could point out any policy he’s proposed that’s anti-Semitic in a way that’s not just based in general support of Palestinian people.
For me it wasn’t about any of Corbyn’s policy stands, or even statements, but his willingness to stand behind unambiguous anti-semites in the Party and slow-walk the hundreds of complaints lodged against the party. That’s how we end up with Labour members of good character like Sadiq Khan and Lords Treisman and Darzi taking the extraordinary step of going public against their own party, with no possible benefit to themselves. Corbyn has not been a good leader on this issue, and he frankly doesn’t seem to care about it or recognize the damage it is doing to a party with a tradition of zero tolerance for racism.
I’ve watched way too much house of commons footage today than can possibly be healthy but when you think it couldn’t get angrier and more toxic it does indeed get angrier and more toxic. Today was the first day MPs returned after parliament was resumed and the contempt they had for bojo was evident but then he and the tories showed not a shred of humility over the court’s ruling.
Just have a look at MP barry sheerman barely holding himself back from jumping over the benches and going for his throat.
Then it got really ugly because de pfeffel refused to moderate his language and by persistently using words like “surrender” he’s just fueling the far right who use those words when they murder and threaten MPs.
This bit in particular shows the sort of contemptible little prick we’re dealing with, to use the name of a murdered MP (one who was strongly for remain) to score political points.
She later tweeted that the prime minister was an “utter disgrace” for responding to Labour MP Paula Sheriff’s plea for him to stop using “inflammatory” words such as “surrender”.
Mr Johnson replied to Ms Sheriff - who referred to the murder of MP Jo Cox during her intervention - by saying: “I’ve never heard such humbug in all my life.”
Tracy Brabin, who was elected as MP for Batley and Spen after Mrs Cox was murdered, also urged the prime minister to moderate his language “so that we will all feel secure when we’re going about our jobs”.
Mr Johnson replied that “the best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox and indeed the best way to bring this country together would be, I think, to get Brexit done”.