We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

What do you think will happen after May loses her vote tomorrow?

As lose it she will, the only question is by how much. The Guardian reports,

May faces crushing Brexit defeat despite last-minute plea to MPs

Theresa May appears to be on course for a crushing defeat in the House of Commons as Britain’s bitterly divided MPs prepare to give their verdict on her Brexit deal in the “meaningful vote” on Tuesday.

With Downing Street all but resigned to losing by a significant margin, Guardian analysis pointed to a majority of more than 200 MPs against the prime minister.

Labour sources said that unless May made major unexpected concessions, any substantial margin against her would lead Jeremy Corbyn to call for a vote of no confidence in the government – perhaps as soon as Tuesday night. But since Conservative MPs are unlikely to offer Corbyn the backing he would need to win a no-confidence vote, he would then come under intense pressure to swing Labour’s weight behind a second referendum.

As usual in these prediction threads, I am not asking what you think should happen, I am asking what you think will happen.

Edit 15/01/19: May lost by even more than expected, 202-432. Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a motion of no confidence in the government, to be voted on tomorrow. May will survive it. Vince Cable says the defeat is beyond what anyone imagined and it is the beginning of the end of Brexit. Boris Johnson says the result gives Theresa May a “massive mandate” to go back to Brussels. In other words everyone says that what happened today proves whatever they were saying yesterday.

69 comments to What do you think will happen after May loses her vote tomorrow?

  • Corbyn has shown no sign in two years that he has any interest in a second referendum, and as he’s never been much of an EU fan — in fact, he used to be very anti-EU, although I think he’s more neutral these days — I don’t think he’d see the attraction. How would it help him gain power? He’s more likely to sit quietly and watch the whole thing destroy the Tories.

    The threat for a second referendum comes from the Remainer MPs of all parties (in Labour’s caes that’s mostly the Blairites), working in conjunction with Bercow.

  • Mr Ed

    Should Mrs May lose the vote, be it by 1 or 300 (‘μολὼν λαβέ’ – as if), I suspsect that she will not even blink and will carry on, like the Godwinned one waiting for Angriff Steiner.

    If she resigns, there isn’t time for a Conservative leadership contest before a decision has to be taken on what to do.

    If she remains, the Conservatives cannot remove her.

    If there is a confidence vote in the government, she may lose it first time, then will rush out a plan the Commons can accept, and hope for some Labour centrists to support her on the second confidence vote, positioning it so that the Deal vote comes after the confidence motion. With two lost confidence motions, Parliament is dissolved and there would be a General Election, and no time to pass necessary legislation to carry on destroying the Conservative vote snd country.

  • bobby b

    Uninformed question: I thought that, when May won the no-confidence vote in December, she was free and clear for a year. Not so?

  • staghounds

    There isn’t going to be any Brexit.

  • CJ Nerd

    Bobby b: she is free for one year of a Conservative party vote of no confidence in her as Conservative leader. That has no bearing on a House of Commons vote of no confidence in the Government ( which pushes towards an early General Election) or a House of Commons vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister (which is merely symbolic).

  • Mr Ecks

    The Fish Faced Cow will lose the vote. Thus DUP conditional support will continue.

    So the cunt will still be wrecking. She will be desperate to avoid a GE that brings Jizz in. I don’t think Jizz will be stupid enough to vote with her. That keeps her in and loses him millions of votes. His betrayal over Brexit has already likely cost him dear.

    The “3 days” shite Greive and his clowns dreamed up means nothing. She can laugh in their face. EU law rules here thanks to their own treason and they CAN’T make a No Deal Brexit illegal. What a pack of morons.

    The only thing the bitch can do is go for an extension for more bullshit talks–despite the ESpew already having told her to fuck off.

    Will Tory shite try for Treason by re-vote or cancelling Brexit? It is an outright statement of “Fuck You–We are the Globalists creatures” to the British people. They are fucking mental if they do. The Tory Party is probably already dead–WTO Rules exit on 29/3/19 is their VERY last chance to survive.

    The ESpew will concede nothing. And there is nothing she can give to ZaNu that will not make them complicit in Brexit Betrayal in the eyes of Brexit voters. No such voter is going to except some bullshit about European Labour laws as a reason for accepting some BRINO crap.

    In the meantime it is obvious we are going to have to take our nation back from the Globo-controlled House of Cunts. Now is the time to think up and prepare to fight a war against these wannabe Princes of the Earth.

  • Alsadius

    No-deal Brexit seems the likely outcome, and tbh it’s kind of what I want to see at this point. I can’t imagine she’ll lose confidence over this, and I can’t imagine a deal that’ll appeal to enough people to win both a Parliamentary vote and to the EU.

  • bobby b

    CJ Nerd: Thanks! I barely get my own government’s rules . . .

  • Nicholas (Unlicenced Joker) Gray

    Which side will bring in live ammo into Parliament first? Is this the start of the next British Uncivil war? Are there any good guys?

  • Julie near Chicago

    Fill your squirt gun, Nicholas. I assure you I’ll be there, loaded for bear, and with 4 extra canteensful hangin’ from my belt. 😈

  • Ian

    She loses the vote and resigns under pressure from the Cabinet. There’s time for a leadership contest, but not for much else. So no deal.

    No-one can accuse me of equivocation.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Thanks to the CJ Nerd for informing me about the distinction between a vote of no confidence in the Government and a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister.

    As to what will happen, you would not expect somebody ignorant of the above distinction to offer informed comment, would you? My best guess (FWIW) is that, IF people still in the Cabinet have any sense (a Big IF), they will force May to resign, by threatening a mass resignation if she doesn’t.

  • That the vote is lost by a wide margin is a given, May’s piss poor “Leave, but not really” deal is as dead now as it was back in December. I’m guessing the margin of defeat will be 120 votes, which is pretty disastrous by any definition.

    Jezza will put a motion of no confidence before the house on Wednesday, but that dog won’t hunt, because the Tories know they would get screwed if they went to the country with their recent behaviour front and centre in the minds of the electorate, so Tories + DUP will see off Jezza’s no confidence motion. This is the only reason Theresa May paid the DUP £1 billion in bribes, to cover her sorry ass when the inevitable no confidence motion arrived.

    May will do her usual “Nanny is not going to be deterred by this” stuff and go back to the EU with yet another list of modifications, but the truth is that the EU is beyond its own red lines here and pushing further risks undermining their own position, so the EU will give her yet more worthless “reassurances” on Irish back stop, but nothing of substance.

    So we’ll be doing this “Pass my piss poor deal” jig once again come next week or the week after and that won’t fly either.

    The Remoaners may try their Parliamentary coup bullshit, but too many MP’s understand that such a move would be the end of parliamentary government in the UK, so will just “Mokusatsu” it (kill it with silent contempt).

    So, at some point there will be a final acceptance by Theresa May that there is no deal that she can put before Parliament which has both the backing of enough MP’s (from either side) and fulfills the terms of the EU’s agreed deal.

    MP’s who expect the EU to cave in on things like the backstop don’t seem to realise that the EU is fighting for its life here as well. If they give too much then they risk opening up the floodgates of countries holding the EU to ransom.

    So we’ll get to the end of January with no deal and no way forward to one, at which point there will be a scrabble to get temporary arrangements in place for us to exit the EU at the end of March.

    Those fighting against a “No Deal” are fighting against a black hole of their own creation.

    May will manage to survive for a while yet as no-one will want to be contaminated by holding office during the inevitable short term chaos of BRExit, so I think she will remain as PM for at least another year, but as soon as the smoke starts to clear she will be ousted.

    New PM will not call an election until 2022.

  • Stonyground

    It seems strange to want to speak in May’s defence but, terrible job that she is doing, she seems to be doing it because nobody else is willing to step up and do it. It would seem that it was obvious from the start that someone who actually wanted the UK to leave the EU should have been made PM, but none of them were willing to put their hat in the ring. It could be because the job was seen as a career ending poisoned chalice, I suppose it was expecting too much to expect any politician to but the country’s interests before his own.

  • It seems strange to want to speak in May’s defence but, terrible job that she is doing, she seems to be doing it because nobody else is willing to step up and do it.

    True enough. Cameron knew that with the loss of the referendum the role of PM had become a poisoned chalice, which was the main reason he quit.

    Boris, Gove or David Davis could have probably made it work by getting the EU to turn on itself and revealing their true colours against the genuine threat of a no deal exit, but May’s strategy of trying to be negotiate with the EU in good faith and expecting the same in return was never going to work.

    Strangely enough, we may end up getting the best terms (through a no deal), simply because of Theresa May’s incompetence and the EU’s intransigence combined.

    As it is, Theresa May probably couldn’t have got the top job any other way, so she might as well make the best of it, which she is doing.

    I have no respect for her, since she is a clueless nanny stater of the worst kind. The fact that she can stand in front of Parliament looking like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle doesn’t make up for that.

  • Paul Marks

    Let us tell the truth – which the Guardian is not in the habit of doing.

    I will not be using the absurd and trivialising word “Brexit” in what followers, nor will I be addressing the comments (as good or bad as they may be). Apart from the last comment by Stonyground – it is just not the case that the position of Prime Minister was a “career ending poisoned chalice” or that no one wanted the position. Like Suvla Bay in 1915 – one must not allow incompetent (or mentally ill) Generals to get away with pretending that a war-winning opportunity was impossibly difficult “it was not my fault – no one could have done it” is nonsense.

    The British people voted for independence, and Mrs May’s “deal” does NOT deliver that – the “deal” keeps the British people under the rule of European Union. The division between someone like Mrs May and someone like Dominic Grieve is that Mrs May wants to PRETEND to have delivered independence, whereas Mr Grieve does not want to pretend that the United Kingdom is a democracy – he wishes an OPEN dictatorship, backed by Big Business. For example Mr Grieve (a former Attorney General) wants a referendum where the “choices” would be (A) Rule by the European Union (Mrs May’s “deal”), “or” (B) Rule by the European Union (openly). The logical response to such a “choice” would be physical violence – and Mr Grieve knows that very well, but also knows that the British people are unarmed and helpless and that any resistance could be easily crushed. “I gave them a democratic choice [between the Rule of the E.U. “or” the Rule of the E.U.] and the horrible common people are rioting – they must be RACISTS we must crush the RACISTS”.

    The role of Big Business can not be ignored here – however unpopular it may to mention it on this blog. I do not care that some people have vastly more money than me – they can play in their gold like “Scrooge McDuck”, good luck to them and God bless them. But I DO object when they seek to RULE the population. And Big Business (or most of it) has had a clear POLITICAL agenda from the start of this struggle. They HATE British independence, and they HATE the idea that ordinary people should have any say (any say at all) over our own lives. For example, Big Business (or most of it) firmly supports the crushing of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, and all other basic freedoms, in the name of “Diversity” and “Social Justice”.

    Very well Big Business (or most of it) – you, Lloyds Bank, HSBC, the various Big Business groups that back such publications as the “Standard” and the “Economist”, and on and on. You HATE us – you want to crush down your boot on the faces of the British people, for ever, destroying all our basic freedoms. And you wish to do so NOT for commercial reasons (this is nothing to do with making yourselves even richer than you already are), you wish to crush all our basic freedoms (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, and so on) for IDEOLOGICAL reasons – because of your commitment to “Diversity” and “Social Justice”.

    Very well – you hate us, and wish to crush our basic liberties. Well we do not like you very much either – and we will make that very clear in the days to come. Yes you can crush us militarily – but armed resistance is NOT the only option to us. As you will discover.

    And, Americans please note, the situation is much the same in the United States – witness the support for liberticide of all the television news networks (bar one), and the passionate and fanatical hatred of liberty (of all basic liberties) shown by the internet companies, the banks, the “payment processors” and so on. This is NOT a few Hollywood communist airheads, and this is NOT some conspiracy by “the rich” to make themselves even richer than they already are. This is an IDEOLOGICAL hated of liberty by Corporate Big Business (or most of it) – a devotion to “Diversity” and “Social Justice”, NOT as a cover for some money making corruption, but out of basic devotion, IDEOLOGICAL devotion. One created by the EDUCATION of these people, the senior Corporate Managers and-so-on.

    This is why there is the, otherwise paradoxical, alliance between Big Business and the radical left – in spite of the support by the radical left for much higher TAXES on business and on rich individuals. The devotion to “Diversity” and “Social Justice” is much more important than tax rates to these people. Due to their EDUCATION.

  • Eric

    Can she really tough it out as PM? Would that she had demonstrated such tenacity when negotiating with the EU.

  • Can she really tough it out as PM? Would that she had demonstrated such tenacity when negotiating with the EU.

    The simply fact is that it wasn’t her negotiating, she left it up to her officials like Olly Robbins to do that and since the civil servants are pro-EU the only possible result of negotiations was a “Leave, but not really” type arrangement.

    Her tenacity in remaining as PM is more born out by the obvious fact that no one with any common sense would want the job while BRExit is in play.

  • George Atkisson

    Paul Marks and John Galt. Well spoken. Thank you.

  • pete

    Mrs May will ignore all calls for a second referendum and March 29th will come.

    Then we will exit the EU.

  • Lord T

    May will lose the vote. Rush off to Brussels. They will *cough* negotiate some minor concessions which May will triumphantly come back and present to parliament. The entire pack of useless scumbags will then agree Mays deal and at that point I will give up on democracy and accept we are now a banana republic, without the benefit of bananas and AK47s.

  • @Lord T:

    There is no concession that the EU is in a position to offer (i.e. that wouldn’t risk undermining the EU itself) that will make any substantial difference.

    If we were talking about a few MP’s here and there it would be different, but we’re talking about more than a hundred MP’s who are literally voting against a deal that would be a capitulation.

    A few bells and whistles is not going to cut it.

  • Stonyground

    “it is just not the case that the position of Prime Minister was a “career ending poisoned chalice” or that no one wanted the position.”

    So what was the reason for the almost total lack of applicants for the job? IIRC There was Theresa May and one other female candidate, whose name I forget, who quickly realised that she was out of her depth and withdrew.

  • Jon

    Paul Marks – I understand that it looks like what you’re saying is true. I just can’t understand the connection between the businesses you cite and a desire for the crushing of liberty. Facebook et al use social justice as a distraction technique to prevent further enquiry into the substantial harm that their businesses are doing to people who use them in the form of diminished attention span and depression.

    What is the incentive for most big business to directly dislike freedom of speech or freedom of association? What is Jaguar Land Rover’s incentive? What about Unilever? I understand why they want a single source of standards on engines, or the shape of baked beans or whatever, but why hate freedom of speech? Please can you connect the dots for me as I have suspicions that you may be right, but I can’t understand how the incentives align?

    My suggestion is that Occam’s razor applies here. There is no grand conspiracy – there is a simpler explanation. Big business likes big government because they can corrupt one another more easily. They particularly like the EU because the rule making isn’t transparent and so they can rig the rules more effectively against newcomers and new technology. They don’t hate freedom of speech or freedom of association – they aren’t relevant to the consideration. They just like rigging markets because given half a chance, wouldn’t most people rig the lottery in their own favour?

  • just another lurker

    Paul Marks

    This is why there is the, otherwise paradoxical, alliance between Big Business and the radical left – in spite of the support by the radical left for much higher TAXES on business and on rich individuals. The devotion to “Diversity” and “Social Justice” is much more important than tax rates to these people. Due to their EDUCATION.

    Well said. Mr. Marks handing out the black pills like a pro, but he is right.
    Many libertarians imagined themselves as “defenders” of business – now it looks that big business have no interest in any kind of liberty. If anyone there sees any way out, whitepill me, please.

  • Ferox

    What happens if the UK simply walks away from the EU without any negotiated deal at all? I don’t like Europe’s chances against the UK in a shooting war, and I doubt that they will pursue some sort of suicidal embargo, so what recourse would Europe have against an entirely intransigent UK?

  • Stonyground (January 15, 2019 at 10:13 am), on two occasions, Brexitters have made it plain they have applicants for the PM job.

    1) In late June 2016, Boris was backstabbed by Gove, who only then discovered (betraying a serious mental deficiency on his part) that he had also thus stabbed himself. That left only Leadsom; I believe she would have won had she had the nerve to hang in till a party-in-country vote – which is to say I believe Boris would have won likewise without Gove’s backstab. I guess you could indeed say of Leadsom that she did not want it enough, but the pressure from the parliamentary party establishment for one-of-us May was strong (and so also reveals their mental deficiencies). But clearly you could not say of Gove that he did not want it enough!!! 🙂

    2) May was challenged only a month ago by many Tory MPs, more than one of whom see their own leadership as less of a poisoned chalice than May’s.

    My impression is that a hard-to-dislodge segment of the Tory party establishment dreads a contest that goes to the party in the country, where the “swivel-eyed loons” could decide things.

  • Jim

    ” one other female candidate, whose name I forget, who quickly realised that she was out of her depth and withdrew.”

    I assume you mean Andrea Leadsom. And its a bit of an insult to her to suggest she would have been more out of her depth as PM than TM, who has conclusively proved she’s more incompetent than any other PM in British history, and that includes McDoom Broon.

  • What happens if the UK simply walks away from the EU without any negotiated deal at all? I don’t like Europe’s chances against the UK in a shooting war, and I doubt that they will pursue some sort of suicidal embargo, so what recourse would Europe have against an entirely intransigent UK?

    The EU ain’t a country, it’s just a bunch of bureaucrats in offices spread across Brussels and Strasbourg. Stalin’s old line about “How Many Divisions does the pope have” is appropriate.

    Basically the EU will piss and moan, but apart from some level of disruption from the usual French troublemakers, things will continue.

    At some point an actual deal will be signed with very little press coverage in the EU and little fanfare in the UK which allows trade to continue in a manner similar to pre-Maastricht (i.e. pre-1992)

    Life will go on.

  • Will Sheward

    May loses the vote (obvs) but not by as many as expected with some Tory MPs, who have said they “couldn’t support” her deal, interpreting that as a license to abstain rather than vote against, then:

    A: Corbyn’s motion of no confidence fails but only just with some Tories voting with him or abstaining.

    May goes to Brussels and is given another meaningless letter. Parliament, which by this stage is desperate for it (whatever “it” is) to end, uses the excuse of the letter to pass May’s revised deal.

    May resigns as Tory leader (and as PM when her replacement is elected) out of sheer exhaustion.

    The new Tory leader (existing Brexiteer or born-again Brexiteer) comes into office and says, with a shrug, “Hey, it’s a shit deal but I can’t do anything about it now can I? Let’s focus on banning sugar/confectionary/wood-burning stoves instead.”

    B: Corbyn’s motion of no confidence passes.

    May resigns as Tory leader, temporary leader put in place. Temp leader goes to Brussels to collect the meaningless letter, wins support of Parliament and new meaningful vote.

    Temp leader resigns after 12 months. The new Tory leader (existing Brexiteer or born-again Brexiteer) comes into office and says, with a shrug, “Hey, it’s a shit deal but I can’t do anything about it now can I? Let’s focus on banning sugar/confectionary/wood-burning stoves instead.”

    C: Corbyn’s motion of no confidence passes.

    Govt collapses and is unable to reform. General election called. Article 50 extended out past the date for the next European Parliament elections, meaning that the UK votes in them (& returns an almost complete slate of pro Brexit MEPs). Labour and Tory parties finally split, having found it impossible to agree manifestos with which all of their candidates can even pretend to agree. Real politics with competing ideas restarts in UK. Years long period of weird coalitions and we stay in the EU.

    D: Corbyn’s motion of no confidence passes.

    General election, Corbyn wins. Don’t care what happens at that point as I’ll be too busy preparing for doomsday.

    I’m betting on A or D.


  • I assume you mean Andrea Leadsom. And its a bit of an insult to her to suggest she would have been more out of her depth as PM than TM, who has conclusively proved she’s more incompetent than any other PM in British history, and that includes McDoom Broon.

    I can’t stand Theresa May, she’s a lickspittal. As soon as she started negotiating with the EU in good faith she was doomed. If Leadsom had done the same we’d have had the same result, just with less cuntiness.

    Gove would have known how to deal with the EU, which is to put down a set of reasonable proposals and refuse to negotiate. From day one start planning for a no deal.

    The EU would have been unable to accept them (because they would have undermined the EU) and you’d have ended up with a no deal BRExit which is the best result anyway.

  • Pat

    Most Tory rebels don’t want a general election, so they will vote down the deal and vote down the no confidence vote. If there is it will take up a lot of time, and prevent the repeal of the “great repeal bill”, thus taking us closer to leaving with no deal and precluding a second referendum prior to March 29th. Also I note that the Tories are still ahead in the polls so a majority Labour government is unlikely – May’s incompetence is priced in, it won’t come out in the campaign as it did in the last general election.
    All told I expect us to come out with no deal on March 29. There will not be a majority for any particular alternative, and that is the default position.
    Should some stitch up take place- well today was the first time in my life I’ve heard ordinary people discussing insurrection in a cafe.

  • Any woman can manage a clever man, but it takes a very clever woman to manage a fool. (Rudyard Kipling)

    May is a foolish and arrogant woman, just the kind for whom “no experience of the practical failure of her policy could shake her faith in its essential excellence”. Corbyn is a very foolish and arrogant man. (Paraphrasing Kipling) it can be harder to predict such people, since behaviours that wisdom and far-sightedness would rule out must be allowed for. This turns the “branching histories” of Dominic Cummings into a dense thicket.

    Some things I will predict.

    1) I agree with Hector Drummond, Vile Novelist (January 14, 2019 at 9:56 pm). The “intense pressure” on Corbyn comes from Blairites he’s been ignoring all his life, which is marked by a limited unchanging mental vision, like a stuck record (no offence to the samizdata commenter of that name 🙂 ). He may surprise us but he is more likely to be the same tomorrow as yesterday. I also endorse the point that there is nothing politically in it for Corbyn to vote with May, a point he may have comprehension enough to grasp even if voting with a tory PM was not so obviously against his instincts anyway.

    2) Bercow’s transparent cheating makes him very defiable. If May (or indeed Leadsom in her current role) tells him where to stick it and/or simply does not comply, I think he could only proceed if he had the sort of reliable combinable majority that would have wrapped it up for the remoaners already if it existed, plus the cheating makes almost anything done on its basis reversible or blockable.

    3) Unlike Mr Ed, I see no insurmountable problem in there being a leadership contest in parliamentary and country party if May resigned of herself. (Were the 1922 committee to order her to resign, to inform her they were treating her carefully-phrased promise to resign ‘before the next scheduled election’ in a broader fashion, I do not know what she would do, but feel sure they could run the leadership election on a very short timescale if she obeyed).

    4) So the first real wildcard is May herself – a consistent experiencer of failure as home secretary and PM, but as consistently showing no signs of learning from this – as per my first ever samizdata post. May tells brexitters to support her or risk losing Brexit, and in almost the same breath tells remoaners that Brexit must happen or trust in government will take a fatal wound. To decide what she will do next, it matters whether these are just impartial intimidation tactics or whether, in her fantasy world, she thinks she’s the tertium quid between two extremes – a role she might cling to over and above clinging to power – but how would one tell?

    The second is the Tory party, whose present unusual unpredictability is the subject of a more recent post.

    I, Niall Kilmartin, endless quoter of Churchill’s saw about the importance of being an optimist, very broadly endorse, as a likely branch, an outcome like John Galt’s (January 15, 2019 at 10:13 am): the vote is well lost, May tries the “strategy of the weak negotiating position (“you must help me with my parliament”) with the EU (again – and with similar result), there is continuing deadlock, and an eventual no-deal departure.

    However so many things – including even such distant things as the yellow vests in France and the apparent downturn in Germany – are undermining our enemies, even as other things undermine us, that many another branch is as possible as the alternatives Dominic describes:

    branches that almost happened and still seem almost real to me – [in which] we lost.

  • Should some stitch up take place- well today was the first time in my life I’ve heard ordinary people discussing insurrection in a cafe.

    Not just you or them.

    This past week I’ve been thinking about the practicalities of that myself. More along the lines of the fuel strikes of early 2000, but yes. If the government won’t behave democratically then they have to understand that it is the people (particularly those little people for whom they have so much contempt) who are in charge, since they can bring this country to a grinding halt quite easily.

    Takes a lot to get them riled up, but parliament overriding the referendum would do it. Even that clueless imbecile Theresa May understands that.

  • Paul Marks

    Jon – I think Ockham’s razor works the other way from the way you suggest, and it is you (rather than me) who is suggesting a hidden conspiracy.

    The Corporate Managers (including the people at the very top such as the founder of Facebook – the company you mention, as if Twitter and the others are any less leftist), openly and repeatedly say that they believe in “Diversity” “Social Justice” (i.e. the “Critical Theory” doctrines of the Frankfurt School and Post Modernism) it is openly on display in their Corporate “Mission Statements” and “Corporate Visions” – and see the advertising of all the major corporations (not just the banks such as HSBC and Lloyds – but even razor companies, such as Gillette).

    Ockham’s razor is the simplest solution consistent with the facts – you suggest some elaborate conspiracy theory about the corporations (the vast majority of Big Business) pushing P.C. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School stuff and Post Modernism) as some sort of distraction from their corrupt activities. Most Big Business corporations engaging in such gross corruption that they have to go to such extreme lengths to divert attention? sorry but that conspiracy theory just does not make sense.

    Ockham’s razor is that these people (the Corporate Managers and so on) just MEAN WHAT THEY SAY – they are supporters of “Diversity” “Social Justice” (just as they say they are in their Mission Statements and Corporate Visions) – i.e. they wish to destroy all basic liberties (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion – and so on), in line with the “Diversity” “Social Justice” – hence their support for Hate Speech laws, Gun Control, Anti “discrimination” laws that force Christians (but never Muslims – for some reason these laws are not applied to them) to stop being bakers, or photographers and so on (because getting involved in homosexual stuff is against the religion of Christians – as it is Muslims and Orthodox Jews), and on and on.

    Big business (or most of it) is also quite open in its support for the European Union – this is not some corrupt conspiracy on their part, it is just that they hate liberty and wish to exterminate it. After all this is what such people were taught at school and university – so why should they NOT believe this? When they talk about their devotion to Frankfurt School (and Post Modernist) “Diversity” “Social Justice” THEY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY – very simple.

    “But this will cost them money – and the goal of a business is always to maximise profits”.

    No Jon, with respect, it is NOT – at least not MONETARY profit. The goal of a business is to maximise mental (“psychic”) profit. And they are quite willing to accept a financial LOSS in order to achieve their “Diversity” “Social Justice” objective of crushing liberty. After all this is what they have been EDUCATED at school and university to believe – and they are reasonable open about their liberticide beliefs.

    The “practical” people who told us all (for decades) that it did not matter what was taught at schools and universities (and pushed in the entertainment media – and news media) did-not-matter because “people wise up when they go into the world of business” have now be proved-to-be-wrong. The Corporate Managers have not “wised up” – their beliefs are what they say they are, and they were educated to have these beliefs at school and university. Their “Mission Statements” and “Corporate Visions” make this clear. And they are willing to take same financial loss (after all they are very rich and can afford to do so) in order to destroy liberty.

    “A man is seldom so innocently engaged as when he is after money” (Dr Johnson – the English one). Because when a man decides that other things are more important than money he will do truly dreadful things – I know because I also believe that some things are more important money (although I have not going to type on a public forum about some of the things I have done in the past). I understand these Corporate Managers quite well – they will do anything (just as I would), it is just that they are on the other side.

    The are NOT like Scrooge McDuck from the cartoons – who just wants to play with his piles of gold. IF ONLY THEY WERE.

    Scrooge McDuck is it not interested in “Diversity” “Social Justice” – he just wants play with his gold. If only Big Business managers regarded Scrooge McDuck as a role model the world would be a happy place – with Freedom of Speech and so on, but they do NOT.

    “But the European Union will crush liberty!” – they regard that as a feature, not a bug. They have been educated to do so.

    “But it will eventually mean higher taxes for the rich and for Big Business”.

    Witness Senate Minority Leader Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi – and Governor Gavin Newsom of California.

    New York City (where Chuck Schumer) is the largest city I the United States – and most (not all – but most) Big Business there backs more government spending and higher taxes, even on top of the cripplingly high levels of taxation that already exist.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Governor Gavin Newsom come from San Francisco – the most collectivist (high tax, high regulation) place in California (one of the most collectivist States) what is their aim?

    The aim of Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom is even HIGHER levels of government spending and taxation and even MORE regulations.

    Now you can make complicated conspiracy theories or you can TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD – I do the latter.

    Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom are very rich – and they are backed by most (NOT all – but most) of Big Business. And their aim is ever more collectivism – because that is what they have been EDUCATED to believe is GOOD.

    In their own minds they are quite sincere and are doing what they always said they would do. Fir example Nancy Pelosi (rich Nancy with her rich husband and so on) has always been open in her strong love for the ideas of the late Harry Bridges – making speeches in his honour on what would have been the 100 anniversary of his birth (2001), knowing that he was a Soviet Agent and on the Central Committee of the Communist Party USA. There is no contradiction (none) between being very rich (and using sometimes corrupt tactics to get still richer) and supporting total collectivism. “Whilst this vile capitalist society exists I will operate in this way – but it is my moral duty to destroy this society and bring about Diversity Social Justice” is their position – and that is entirely consistent position, I have no problem with it (it is just that I happen to be on the other side).

    Do not mistake me – these people (and the British versions of them) are my ENEMIES, but I do respect them. I take them at their word.

    There is no conspiracy – they are quite open in being enemies of everything that I hold dear. This is total war. It turns out “practical” people that what the schools and universities teach DOES matter, and that when students “go out into the world of business and get rich” they do NOT change their beliefs – and they ACT UPON their beliefs, just as they always said they would.

    In the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to the rule of the European Union – the objective of most (NOT all – but most) of Big Business is a boot coming down on our face – for ever. “For our own good” – after all “Diversity” “Social Justice” depends upon the extermination of liberty, and they are quite correct, “Diversity” “Social Justice” does indeed depend upon the extermination of liberty. They are most certainly not going to let a little thing like a 2016 referendum result stand in the way of creating World (not “just” European – World) Collectivism.

    Lastly Jon – what do you think the attitude of most (NOT all, but most) of Big Business types is to the Chinese “Social Credit” system that President Xi is pushing (OPENLY pushing – no conspiracy) to be in place by 2021?

    Do you really think they are hostile to people being treated in the economy according to their OPINIONS and general BEHAVIOUR- rather than just “mere money”?

    President Xi is actually far more in tune with how most of Big Business Corporate Managers think than Donald Trump is. President Xi is an educated and cultured person – in the modern, totalitarian, sense. I am sure that Google and co think he is, basically, on the correct lines.

    Of course there are still manufacturing capitalists in the old sense (people like Charles and David Koch or Jon Huntsman senior, or Senator Ron Johnson or….) who do not accept the full message of the education system (private schools just as much as government schools), but the New York and California “Finance Capital” (read Credit Bubble) linked business enterprises are very much in line with modern totalitarian thinking – as are the British ones. It is very open and above board – I can not fault them on those grounds.

    I am not accusing them of any conspiracy – they are quite open about what they support. They support “Diversity” “Social Justice” and I support Liberty (freedom), and the natural relationship of these two sides is destroy or be destroyed.

  • Paul Marks

    To introduce Ockham’s razor is rather apt – considering the Gillette campaign.

  • rapscallion

    @John Galt January 15, 2019 at 2:53 pm

    One only has to look back to the fuel depot blockades in 2000 to realise that with a considerable number of the population up in arms, it would be very easy to bring the country to a halt. In general terms those blockades were relatively small fry, and Blair gave in. Do that again, only with the added touch of blocking motorway slip roads – especially the M6, and nothing moves. I’ve also heard open talk of insurrection, but surprisingly enough I wasn’t shocked by it. I can’t believe that Parliament is unaware of this.

  • Will Sheward

    Pat said:

    Also I note that the Tories are still ahead in the polls so a majority Labour government is unlikely – May’s incompetence is priced in, it won’t come out in the campaign as it did in the last general election.

    I disagree. Corbyn enjoys campaigning and he’s good at it provided he can avoid debates. May is terrible at campaigning. I was amused when people described her as an unenthusiastic remainer on the basis that she didn’t campaign much for remain during the referendum, when she is in fact an enthusiastic remainer who did campaign for it to the best of her astonishingly limited abilities.

    If the Tories went into an election with May at the helm I predict we will be witness to completely new levels of campaigning crapness.


  • If the Tories went into an election with May at the helm I predict we will be witness to completely new levels of campaigning crapness.

    Which is why they will avoid anything that triggers an election before 2022 to give them time to get rid of the stupid cow. Even if they have to stuff the DUP’s mouths with even more Danegeld.

    Self-inflicted wounds are the hardest to heal.

  • Ducky McDuckface

    I’ve also heard open talk of insurrection, but surprisingly enough I wasn’t shocked by it. I can’t believe that Parliament is unaware of this.

    Did you notice this last week?

    They wrote to the chairmen of the constituency associations,”please ensure your MP votes against the deal”.

    Interesting, much?

  • Chester Draws

    Don’t you think the Labour will realise that voting against the deal vastly increases the probability of a “no deal” Brexit, and increases the chances of reversing the whole thing not at all?

    If you wanted a clean “out” then voting against the deal is the way to go, and makes sense for Tory leavers. If you want to reverse the decision when you later gain power, like most of Labour, then you really have to vote “for”.

    So I predict enough Labour members will vote for the deal, and it will be what flies.

  • Mr Ecks

    Wrong Chester. If ZanU 1-help her get Brexit betrayal through 2–keep her in till 2022 then they will lose millions of votes and get the internal wrath of their own Marxist maggots boiling against Jizz and his Bliarite advisor Starmer.

    I pray John Galt calls it right.

  • A “No” majority of 230. Good god that is not just a defeat on a scale we’ve seldom seen, it is a humiliation.

    Despite wanting to see most of the bastards hang for their continuous and ongoing treason you got to admire that number.

    …and Theresa May still ignores reality and bumbles on…it’s surreal.

  • bobby b

    Does May derive any tactical benefit from calling for a No Confidence vote herself? Or is it just a show of nerve?

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    bobby b, as your second option suggested, I think it’s just a way of saying, “Bring it on” to Jeremy Corbyn. So long as “the deal” is defeated the DUP are happy enough with May. Her own party had their shot at disposing of her, and failed, leaving her safe in her position as Tory leader for a year.

    Now that the smoke has cleared I struggle to see what has changed. She might choose to jump, but she’s wedged firmly in place against being pushed.

  • Mr Ecks

    She is a mental case somewhere off the end of the autistic spectrum. She is a brass who is trying to brass it out . A pathological liar also.

  • Natalie and bobby, it is mainly nerve – in politics, looking confident has value (and politicians overestimate how much value it has) – but it is also in her interest to have the vote as soon as possible rather than let it hang over her. This is especially so if she fears (as I hope) that the scale of tonight’s defeat will prompt some further erosion of her support in her party. Showing the Tories that an election is not imminent is vital to her retaining the leadership – they rightly fear an election led by her. And even she can hardly think talking again to EUrocrats has any further point while they – who seem poor at judging parliament’s mood – wonder if she’s about to cease being PM.

    All that said, given Corbyn’s eagerness, she could probably only have delayed it by procedural tricks that would make her looked weak and scared of it – so it is almost all just nerve.

  • Zerren Yeoville

    Would I prefer the UK quits the EU as scheduled on 29th March on basic WTO terms without a deal? Definitely yes – it’s not ‘no deal’ or ‘WTO deal’ – it’s the ‘Immediate Freedom Deal.’

    Do I think it will be allowed to happen? No, I don’t. I am certain – well, as certain as anyone can be of anything in this febrile situation – that Parliament and the Establishment will find some way of nobbling a clean Brexit before the currently legally-defined date arrives. Somehow or other we will be made to Remain.

    And then…

    Do I expect riots in the streets, overturned cars, blazing buildings, looted shops? No – Leave supporters tend not to be of the rioting / looting / vandalizing classes.

    Do I expect the majority of people to file submissively into the ballot booths at the next General Election and cast their vote for one of the two main parties? Yes, I do. Probably eighty percent of votes are cast on a tribal basis – ‘People Like Us, Dear, vote for Party X’ or ‘My Grandad voted Party Y, my dad voted Party Y – what was good enough for them’s good enough for me’ and so on.

    Do I expect a resurgence of UKIP? No, it’s going nowhere without their only effective leader Nigel Farage.

    What I do foresee post-no-Brexit are two trends:

    1. The further weakening of the links between the countries of the United Kingdom – in particular, by a likely strengthening of English nationalism in response to no-Brexit. More people in England voted to Leave the EU than the entire populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined (and yes, I am perfectly well aware that Wales voted Leave too). Theresa May can blather on all she likes about ‘Our Precious Union’ but a no-Brexit will almost be certain to get a large number of people in England wondering just how precious it really is to them. We hear a lot (and I mean, a lot) from Scottish nationalists such as Nicola Sturgeon complaining vociferously about how unfair it is that Scotland should be taken out of the EU against its will – well, how much more unfair it is for Leave-voting, much larger England to be kept in the EU against its will? Given that the Irish border problem has been exploited as a kind of ‘silver bullet’ to slay Brexit, I expect an increasing number of people in England to start thinking ‘if we weren’t in the United Kingdom, this wouldn’t have been an issue’ and start looking for a party prepared to countenance English independence outside the UK. There is to my knowledge only one such party at present: the English Democrats. I would expect them, if they have any nous at all, to start expanding and moving to occupy the political space formerly occupied by UKIP.

    2: A more widepread disaffection with politics and government generally. The form this will take is probably best summed up by this quote from the American blogger and libertarian activist Claire Wolfe:

    “…when governments turn bad, the best people ultimately become criminals. The people don’t change; the laws do. Initiative, dissent, individual pleasures, and exercise of one’s basic rights become “crimes.” Obscure regulations and technical paper-work violations are used to destroy people who dare to speak their minds.

    The ideal citizen of a tyrannical state is the man or woman who bows in silent obedience in exchange for the status of a well-cared-for herd animal. Thinking people become the tyrant’s greatest enemies.

    Before their thunder roars, there is a period of anticipation, in which more occurs than the literal-minded tyrant can ever understand. A few overt acts of sedition shatter the heavy peace. But the greater force, unrecognized, rolls forward in near silence, as millions of individuals quietly withdraw their consent from the state. The pundits call it apathy. They could not be more wrong.” (Bold text: my emphasis)

    More people may boycott elections altogether, feeling ‘my vote doesn’t count; taking part at all gives them a fig-leaf of legitimacy I’m no longer prepared to give them.’ Others may seek deny income to the state and act to claw back money by under-reporting income (difficult as this is for most people who are stuck with PAYE) or using only those tradesmen who ‘can do you a better price for cash, mate.’ Disaffected citizens will get creative about the means by which they ‘withdraw their consent from the state’ while trying to avoid attracting the wrath it reserves for the openly non-compliant.

  • The first is to those who fear that the government’s strategy is to run down the clock to 29 March. That is not our strategy.

    Really Theresa? Because if you were going to do that wouldn’t you do and say everything that you have done and said?

    Not that I am concerned since “No Deal” = “Best Deal”

  • bobby b

    Thanks, Natalie and Niall. The systemic differences alone make this a bit confusing for us non-GB’ers.

    Heck, it took me a bit just to figure out that y’all define “table a motion” completely opposite the way we define it.

  • Jim

    ‘More people may boycott elections altogether, feeling ‘my vote doesn’t count; taking part at all gives them a fig-leaf of legitimacy I’m no longer prepared to give them.’

    I have this idea that what is needed to save democracy from the current political class is a way to evict them without having to give our votes to radical nutters. And my solution is simple – all the candidates get a box on the ballot paper, as does a box saying ‘none of the above’. And if NOTA wins in any constituency, no MP is elected. It gives voters a free way to evict the current lot without damaging anything and everyone from Communists to Neo-Nazis can vote NOTA without having to worry about ‘the other lot’ getting in. Add in any vote in Parliament needing the support of at least 326 MPs (half the number of constituencies) and we could have decades of nothing whatsoever happening in politics. Bliss.

  • Which is exactly why NOTA type solutions will never be implemented, because it gives a mechanism to delegitimize the political process.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “I have this idea that what is needed to save democracy from the current political class is a way to evict them without having to give our votes to radical nutters.”

    That sounds easy enough. Get some non-radical, non-nutters to stand for election. Why is it so hard to find any?

  • Stonyground

    Considering how fubared our political system is at present, maybe a load of radical nutters is what we need.

  • Tim the Coder

    On the principle that you should never assume your enemy is a moron…..
    Just suppose, no really, just humour me briefly, suppose TM had realised a while back that the EU had no intention of negotiating in good faith, and that the only possible Brexit of any kind was ‘no deal’. And she realised how difficult it would be to build a UK and/or parliamentary consensus on that….
    So what would a clever person have done?
    1. Passed a set of laws that establish a default ‘no deal’ exit on 29 March, before any serious negotiations, so before there’s any great pushback.
    2. Spent most of the Article 50 period endlessly negotiating a complete stinker of a “deal”. Something guaranteed to have both Remainers and Leavers in uproar.
    3. Dragged out the inevitable defeat of the stinker…
    4. …until there’s no time left to do anything else.
    5. Out on 29th March, £39bn saved,a National Hero!
    This may not have been the original plan, but it may have become it by now.
    A few weeks of trying to form a new Government followed by 6 weeks of GE should fill in the time nicely.

    Well, in 10 years time, that’ll be the story in the memoirs.

  • Jim

    @Tim the Coder: there’s one flaw in that plan, should someone have it – you’re reliant on enough of your own side voting against the stinker WA, despite you having (publicly at least) put all the thumbscrews on to try and convince to back it. Thats a big uncontrollable part of the plan. You could end up having the stinker pass the HoC…….

    I apply Occam – the WA stinks because the people negotiating it didn’t want to leave at all, and were quite happy to create a situation whereby the UK was actually worse off than being in the EU. They were happy to do the EU’s dirty work for them – punishing the UK for leaving. I consider the people who agreed the WA to be traitors – they were working with the best interests of a foreign power in mind, not that of the UK.

  • Tim the Coder

    @Jim: I agree with you, also the traitor definition. I favour the “Norway” approach, look what they did to their Quislings in 1945!
    In the forward direction, my flight of fancy wasn’t meant to be too… serious!
    But retrospective, when the self-justifying memoirs get written, just watch!

  • Get some non-radical, non-nutters to stand for election. Why is it so hard to find any? (Nullius in Verba, January 16, 2019 at 6:42 am

    Well there are these remarks from Dominic Cummings:

    Many hours of life I’m never getting back were spent dealing with abysmal infighting among dysfunctional egomaniacs

    and that’s talking about the people on our side. With admirable self-restraint, Dominic does not mention the former party (Labour) of MP Griffiths, whom even Labour eventually could no longer stomach, and who flitted into the Leave campaign for a while as part of his quest for any political group he could fool into taking him, only to win “the title of the most repellent person I’ve met in politics”. And Dominic’s restraint may be because he was as well aware as I that, while I bet Labour with myself before checking because that gave the best odds, I had no right to feel sure of winning my self-bet.)

    A large, established political group usually has a control(-freak) centre. Any small, new one attracts the tedious and the vile who flit for decades round the edges of politics – those the main parties have dumped Griffiths-like and others they were wise enough never to entertain in the first place – and too often it has no centre of authority to weed them and/or is too aware of its desperate need for members. (Also, the very manners of the better newbies weaken them, and they are less experienced in political skullduggery.) When Farage (who probably felt he could say much the same about his 25 years in UKIP as Cummings did about his shorter time in VoteLeave) left before supervising the succession, UKIP (albeit with some bad luck, I think) swiftly got into trouble.

    Hitler said,

    Only he who cannot separate the movement from his own advancement – only on him can I rely [quoted from memory]

    but if this has any specificity to the Nazis, it is only in degree: there is too much of this in any political party. People who survive in this environment without being of it usually have certain personality features of their own. Dominic says:

    Contrary to the media story, I dislike confrontation and rows like most people but I am very strongly motivated by doing things in a certain way and am not motivated by people in SW1 liking me. This is often confused with having a personality that likes fighting with people.

    When I was at university, I was routinely the one chosen to ‘tip the black spot’ to someone whom everyone wanted told something – like “you were not invited to this party” or “the rest of the flat are sick of your behaviour”. Like Dominic, I felt this – useful and used – ability to carry out “your mission, Niall, should you decide to accept it” was often confused with my not being the kind, sensitive, shy, considerate person I am. 🙂 So I can sympathise with Dominic here.

    If it had not been, from the start of human history, hard to get the right sort to go into politics, I doubt any of the problems we talk about on this blog would ever have happened.

    All that said, I’m most interested in an effective way of getting better people into politics. Can Tory MP selection methods be improved – do tell? But the only suggestion in this thread so far – NOTA – is a total non-starter because:

    In a conflict between power and mere law, it is vey seldom that law will emerge the victor. (Hannah Arendt, quoted from memory)

    An empty space is to exclude all the rival MP candidates, because the law says so – good luck with that. In the UK, a parliament prorogued by her majesty is not so absurd – because she, not an empty space, would be in the way of everyone who would otherwise seize power in parliament’s absence – but in any country with no such institution of authority, I say again good luck with that.

  • Considering how fubared our political system is at present, maybe a load of radical nutters is what we need. (Stonyground, January 16, 2019 at 8:02 am)

    It could be argued that voting for Trump has broadened the mind – and not just of Americans. On Trump’s election night, our own Natalie Solent suggested that our voting for Brexit had broadened the American mind – and instapundit thought enough of her idea to quote it as his first (IIRC – or almost first) comment when it became clear Trump would win.

  • Stonyground

    Is your MP a traitor? The Beeb has the answer.


  • Ian

    Sadly my MP is indeed a traitor, and I think I know why. I’m talking about Trudy Harrison, with whom I corresponded personally prior to the vote to seek her assurance she would vote against it, which she gave — repeated in written correspondence (with some added wiggle room) to all the constituents who wrote to her on the issue.

    Then, suddenly, she announced in a Facebook post that she would be voting for the Bill without any explanation. I suspected at the time that it was in return for something from Theresa May regarding the proposed Moorside Nuclear Power Station (near Sellafield), which is Trudy’s pet project. My suspicions were, in my cynically-minded view, confirmed today at PMQs when Trudy got up to ask for May to go to the constituency to meet her and some nuclear workers about the project. She didn’t quite get that, but she got a kind of assurance that the “relevant minister” would go in her stead.

    On one level I can admire the sheer “transactionality” in plain view, in support of what is probably a decent project. It wasn’t for personal gain. Sadly I suspect what Trudy has achieved is probably nothing.

  • Sorry @Tim the Coder, but it is far easier and more logical to assume that we’ve arrived where we are by incompetence than by conspiracy. Certainly Theresa May’s record is one of repeated incompetence rather than anything else.

    If we get our hoped for “Real BRExit” (hard or soft), then it will be despite Frau May rather than because of her.

    That woman is a bloody menace.

    Dr Volker Treier of the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce said: “Better a horrible ending than unending horror.” (in reference to attempts to extend the Article 50 deadline)

    Pretty much. Shame we can’t have a guillotine motion to bring this farce to an end before March 29th. Still, we’ve waited nearly 3 years since the referendum campaign, we can wait a bit longer.

  • Stonyground

    My MP, Graham Stewart voted for the bill. I will never vote for him again as long as I live.

  • djc

    My MP (Somerton & Frome) voted for. I can’t say never again as I didn’t last time — after a lifetime voting Conservative I spoiled my ballot. Next time? I rally don’t know, but I won’t be voting Consrvative until there is a conservative (and Brexit) party to vote for.
    Civil war —politicians v. the people— seems a little closer now.

  • Civil war —politicians v. the people— seems a little closer now.

    Civil disobedience gets the same result most of the time and without the bloodshed or criminal records. That seems a lot closer right now.

  • Paul Marks

    On Big Business – if they do NOT believe in “Diversity” “Social Justice” then they should not say that they do. So ditch all the P.C. (Frankfurt School influenced) “Mission Statements” and “Corporate Visions”.

    On the European Union – “regulatory alignment” means, in effect, that the laws inside the country are made by a hostile foreign power (in this case the European Union). That is national slavery – treason.

    Yes I did just use the “T Word” – and I meant it.

  • Mr Ecks

    Guido Fawkes is peeing his pants about a Jizz/FFC deal in which the CU is put in law.

    So they will have effectively booted one terrible deal to put in a worse one. Jizz will be helping the Tories stay in and losing millions of his own voters. Talk of madness. As I’ve said before –if Grandpa Death helps keep her in and helps shaft everybody with a BRINO then the DUP’s best plan will be to vote against May EVERYTIME except in confidence votes. That way she is a double lame duck who can’t be ousted. By 2022 both ZaNu and BluLab will be collapsed.

    I would value your thoughts on the matter Mr Galt.

  • I would value your thoughts on the matter Mr Galt

    When the master of Ecksian solutions asks my opinion the world is truly mad. Hanging is too good for this bunch of traitors, both Labour and Tory.

    One thing that is certain about both Grandpa Death and Terrible May is that they have gone a lot further and survived a lot longer out of sheer stubbornness and refusal to quit than some of the more palatable and smarter occupants of their offices. Just goes to show that there is a lot to be said for being a powerful, incompetent idiot in a crisis.

    As for a direct deal between the two (covert or otherwise), no I don’t think so, because none is necessary for either to survive – at least for the foreseeable future.

    Theresa May is safe from her own party because they are divided among themselves (primarily Leavers and Remainers), they’ve already played their “1922 Card” and lost, but mostly because nobody wants her job (as Tory Leader AND PM) while BRExit is in play, because they fear their potential legacy being forever tainted by it. Better to let the smoke clear over BRExit and then oust her from office.

    Grandpa Death is safe because his party is similarly divided (primarily Blairites and Corbynites), but also by a somewhat different breakdown between Pro-and-Anti EU, since the hard Left thinks that being out of the EU would allow them to do things they couldn’t otherwise do (like mass seizure of assets without compensation). While the job as Labour leader is more attractive, it is hard to see anyone rising to the fore to challenge Grandpa Death without being dragged back down into the crab bucket, especially with the Teen Trots of Momentum undermining them with deselection campaigns.

    So both of them are safe in their respective positions for the time being and a General Election at this time would only threaten what they already have. This is one of the reasons why Grandpa Death has put forward the no confidence motion, because it sends the right message to his own troops, but he knows it will change nothing in the sense that the Tory and DUP turkeys won’t vote for Christmas and even if they did the current poles show that Labour wouldn’t win power at the moment anyway. Things are going to have to get a hell of a lot worse before that changes.

    I actually think Grandpa Death is just biding his time and waiting for Terrible May to make a critical error which turns the electorate against her. The only question is “How stupid and incompetent is Theresa May”. I wouldn’t like to take any bets on that one.

    In my opinion “the fix is in” and has been since the meeting between May and Frau Merkel soon after she became PM.

    The sole purpose of the “Irish Backstop” is to act as a poison pill to prevent the deal being passed until it is too late to do anything else and the necessary MSM hysteria has been allowed to paint an exit back to WTO terms only as “too horrific for words”.

    The only question is when and in what form the “fix” will take? Will the EU in some sweeping Wagnerian manner suddenly remove its own “poison pill”, ensuring the passage of a “Leave, but not really” deal?

    Certainly it has the necessary characteristic of shafting the general public’s referendum decision of “Leave” without the blatant obviousness of a rigged 2nd referendum or the withdrawal / delay of Article 50.

    The only problem is that the Irish backstop is such a poisonous poison pill that even with it removed the deal might not pass. I doubt we will know for certain until we get to the 30th March.

  • Mr Ecks

    Well the first part of your prediction seems to be coming true Mr Galt:

    Twit from an idiot called Tom Newton Dunn:

    “At ease, folks. I am told the PM’s 10pm statement on No10’s steps is just a message of reassurance. She’s in charge, and still delivering Brexit. Just in case you were in any doubt.”

    So nanny is not being deterred by this stuff.