The Government’s worst kept secret - it was splashed all over the front page of last Sunday’s Observer - has now been made public: Bozo The Clown and his entourage have decided to request the proroguing of Parliament on September 10, the excuse being that this is normal procedure before a Queen’s Speech on October 14, which would herald lots of jolly wonderful new legislation. And a singularly lame excuse it is.
A total Muppet. And Elmo from Sesame Street
There is only one objective in the manoeuvre dreamt up by amateur human being and professional polecat Dominic Cummings, and that is to frustrate any attempt to head off the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. Thus emboldened, only Bozo can save the country and the Union. In his and Cummings’ minds, this will focus EU minds and they will scurry back to the negotiating table to do a deal without that hated Irish backstop.
One problem, however, exists with this hokum: the EU is a rules based organisation, and the idea it will abandon those rules just to please Bozo The Clown and Polecat Dom is for the birds. EU heads of Government will decline to be picked off by the Brits, Ireland will stand firm, and if Bozo wants to drive his bus off the cliff, they won’t run to stop him.
So far, so predictable, but what can be done to prevent another act of national self-harm, on the back of all the other acts of national self-harm? One thing we cannot count on is honesty, as the BBC’s Iain Watson has noted. “This is the precise wording Downing St gave me in response to the Observer story this weekend on suspending parliament re: [Brexit] ‘the claim that the govt is considering proroguing parliament in Sept in order to stop MPs debating Brexit is entirely false.’” It was entirely true.
Another thing that cannot be counted on is any form of cooperation from those in the Bozo bunker, as Sebastian Payne of the FT has discovered. “No.10 threatening an election … ‘If MPs pass a no confidence vote next week then we won’t resign. We won’t recommend another government, we’ll dissolve parliament, call an election between November 1-5 and there’ll be zero chance of Grieve legislation,’ says senior official”.
They’ll scream and scream, and dig in their heels. But someone who might be enlisted in the struggle to regain a little national credibility is Commons Speaker John Bercow, as the Beeb’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg noted. “Bercow weighs in - 'this move represents a constitutional outrage. However it is dressed up it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty’”.
Cummings will have war-gamed his plot, but its revelation has incensed some Tories who might have otherwise sat on the fence. They, and opposition parties, will have to move fast and if necessary bring down Bozo’s little Wild West Show. Which means doing whatever is necessary to enable a very early General Election.
Owen Jones is not joking when he names this day: “Prepare for a possible election being called next Thursday, 5th September, for 17th October. Those six weeks will be the fight of our lives to take wealth and power back from a greedy, entitled Establishment that looks only after its own - and has brought the country to disaster”.
He might sound dramatic, but he is right. Markets have been on the slide, Sterling is doing likewise. The Bozo Shitshow has to be brought to a close. That is all.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
31 comments:
Sadly Tim, this is more likely to lead to a GE where Johnson is returned with an increased majority. Corbyn's prevarication on this matter and the fact he has several prominent leavers in his party (Hoey, Mann, Flint to name but three) will ensure the vote is split with the LDs.
I'm afraid it's 'game over'.
@ 12:14.
It isn't "game over". Far from it.
Nor has Corbyn "prevaricated". He's avoided all the grubby little political traps set for him - which has pissed off all his enemies. Hence the "prevarication" bullshit.
If and when an election comes in the near future it will at the very least expose the Blairite rump for the quislings they are. Those who shrink from the fight to remove these far right tories will not pass unnoticed. Take note, Bomber Benn, Creep Cooper, Meff Mann, Waster Watson and Harridan Hodge.
Any of them who yet again fail our impoverished 14 million and 5 million absolutey impoverished will condemn themselves to a political lepers colony. And they will fully deserve it.
Yes, Labour could lose the election, but the political tide has turned. Enough really is enough however long it takes. This is just the beginning.
I see we live in a dictatorship now
@12:55
"Blairites", "Quislings" and vague threats that don't mean anything. Also it's good that the "political tide has turned" and yet you also think Labour could lose the election.
'Yes, Labour could lose the election'.
This has been the mantra of the Corbyn acolytes who prefer the purity of His vision than power.
I have voted Labour for 50 years but never again until he's* gone.
* Lower case this time, he's not the Messiah etc etc
@ 13:38 and 14:26.
Tsk tsk. Must try harder. 0/10.
Must be all the guilt carried over from the illegal mass murdering Iraq invasion. Or cancelling the Al Yamamah corruption inquiry. Or intensifying far right tory policies. Or not "abolishing boom and bust"*. Or reducing Labour Party membership by two thirds. All sure fire fire election winners in 2010 and 2015, them. Or maybe not. It's a long row back, but Corbyn very nearly managed it at the first attempt - which no doubt, I'm delighted to say, pissed you off.
Full marks, though, for Murdoch type bullshit. Blair-Brown would have approved, especially after bowing at the knee to the OzYank himself.
Have a nice day. Or something.
2015 election with New Labour: Total Labour vote - 9,347,273 - 232 seats - 30.4% of the vote.
2017 election with Corbyn: Total Labour vote - 12,877,918 - 262 seats - 40% of the vote.
By any measure that's a lot of, er, Momentum to a tidal change.
These 'I voted Labour for x years, but not any more' comments always amuse me. Kind of like Meatloaf's I Will Do Anything for Love, but I won't do that.
Support an illegal war? Yeah, I'll do that.
Support the fight to end austerity? No, you must be joking.
These comments always want to showcase, in unfavourable terms, what kind of person Jeremy Corbyn is, but they always showcase in those very terms what kind of person the commentator is.
Corbyn isn't the Labour party. He's the leader, but very much in thrall (willingly so) to the membership. Hence his reluctant dropping of his opposition to Trident renewal in the last manifesto. The party are pretty much united in backing nationalisation, increasing the minimum wage, making the tax system fairer and more robust, fortifying the NHS and social care and ending austerity. What kind of liberal minded person would abandon all that, and in fact vote against it, just because they don't like Steptoe? That's...unbelievable. And counter-productive.
I think we can safely say 12:14, 13:38 and 14:26 were handed their arses on a plate in that little exchange.
@ Mark
Wow! Lots of non sequiturs there. Always find it amusing to watch deza vu in operation. But then I’m just as easily amused. As with Anon’s “hard evidence” of the tide turning. Sure high tide hasn’t been reached and is now receding?
Dishonest Al Johnson:
Who has spent a week advocating prorogation to drive through "no deal" brexit.
Whose fanboys flashmobbed twitter to celebrate prorogation guaranteeing "no deal" brexit.
Expects us to believe that prorogation is in no way connected to brexit.
Next time UK, buy a proper codified constitution fit for the 21st century, not the Middle Ages.
I'm not sure why "I don't think Corbyn has handed Brexit well" leads to "you obviously want poor people to die you Sun-loving Blairite"?
"Corbyn very nearly managed it at the first attempt - which no doubt, I'm delighted to say, pissed you off."
What sort of imaginary enemy are you creating? Most people's dissolution with Corbyn has occurred over the past couple of years as the Tory party continues to run rampant. They'd have been delighted if he'd got May out of No 10. To take pleasure in the idea that those people are upset that he almost got in is just weird.
Anon @ 22:14 — and when the public inevitably hands Corbyn his arse in the next GE, who will you blame then? You can't deselect the electorate.
@Rob, if you're going to attack me on how I actually compose an argument, then the least you can do is spell déjà vu correctly.
Still haven't removed me of my belief that people like you were happy to support one of the biggest warmongers this country has created yet when it comes to a man of peace who represents the best possible chance to end the needless deaths of many of the most sick, disadvantaged and vulnerable in society (y'know, the kind of thing that Labour is about) you find you cannot give him your vote.
Says a lot about certain people, that's all.
@ Mark
You have obviously missed the joke. Whataboutism is a ploy used by those pesky Russki troll factories on social media to good/bad effect. Known as deza (russian short for disinformation) and deza vu (as having seen all this stuff before).
Attacking you? Why do you continue to use non sequitors and presume "people like me" etc etc to "attack" others? One of the reasons why I guess you and yours are a turn off for many previous supporters?
To Mark 11:33.
You're wasting your time with these people. Anybody who still supports the Blair-Brown gang after all the public evidence of illegal war, deliberate mass murder and destruction of foreign societies, institutional corruption and intensification of sociopathic tory policies - well, they're beyond saving and reasoning. They're incapable of admitting they were and are supporters of a thoroughly evil era.
Fortunately, as the last election stats show, there are enough decent people left to begin restoration of decency and honour in public life. It won't happen overnight, not after four decades of organised mayhem and thievery. But a very good start has been made against all the lying propaganda odds, and the dissolute morons who propagate it.
@ 11:15.
Plainly, the plate full had you running for the toilet.
Enjoy.
Doesn't take much to get the tory/New Labour gang spitting rabies.
They are, after all, different cheeks to the same arse hole.
@Rob, You attack my contribution by claiming my posts are full of non sequiturs. Which is hardly the case anyway; my post was directed at Neil who argued that, after 50 years, he can no longer vote Labour. Given that, in those 50 years, we had a warmonger leading the party, it is safe to presume that he was happy to vote for that man, but not a man of peace who opposes the inequality and austerity that is destroying this supposedly democratic country. This is the argument I put forward in my post yesterday, the post you leapt upon.
I did indeed miss the 'joke' in your reply post today. But prey enlighten me on this point; if you're insinuating that I am some kind of Russian troll, how can you justifiably claim that you're replies are not an attack? Sounds pretty insulting to me.
Again, given that my original comment wasn't even directed at you, I think it's you who appears the most troll-like, attaching itself upon a comment to divert the debate to your own ends.
I should probably point out that the people who keep mentioning Blair are the Corbyn supporters. They're the ones who seem to think that they are in competition with a PM who was originally elected two decades ago, rather than judging Corbyn in the current political climate.
(and to the one anon who described Blair/Brown as a "thoroughly evil era"... really? Compared to what came before and after? Compared to half the other countries in the world? You're sticking with that level of hysteria? Never mind you saying that there's no point trying to win over New Labour supporters... That's definitely the best way of winning a GE.)
@ Mark
Perhaps he voted for an MP who he thought would not back a “warmonger”.
We are not a republic where we vote for a President. Think about it before maligning your old colleagues unnecessarily and who you may need in a future election.
No I was not insinuating you are a Russian troll but rather indicating that is the method by which they seek to create division and which has been highly effective wouldn’t you say?
Anyway what ends would you say mine were? You mention debate but what is debate without contradictory comments? Careful we could get into a Monty Python sketch routine here.
@ 19:32 and 22:49.
"Judging Corbyn in the current political climate" is exactly why previous prime ministers are considered. After all, it is THEY who laid the foundation for the "current political climate", and in Labour's case it is precisely Blair-Brown's tory* policies which are also responsible for that "climate". They and their supporters cannot dodge that responsibility or perfectly justified revulsion at their abandonment of many of the founding principles of the Labour Party. Compared to them, I will choose Corbyn-led policies every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Which is one reason party membership has trebled way beyond the dog days of Blair-Brown, and all in the face of the most disgusting corporate media lies.
"Win over New Labour supporters"? Don't make me laugh. You people have never ceased trying to undermine the leadership, nor have you ever admitted to New Labour actual and moral corruption and warmongering. Given that, I don't believe you'll ever change or have the guts to say mea culpa. Which is why you won't be missed if, hopefully, you go elsewhere.
New Labour a "thoroughly evil era"? You bet it was. You could ask the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia the same question but you wouldn't like the answer. Nor would you like the answer from the millions of refugees created as a result of Blair-Brown allying with US imperialism. Nor would you like the answer from 14 million impoverished Britons. Nor would you admit to economic policies which helped cause the 2008 Depression and thus opened the door to the tory "austerity" scam. So, yes, "evil" is probably an understatement.
In fact it is people like you two who have helped bring Britain to its present condition. The Labour Party would be better off without your mealy-mouthed excuses and tenth rate "debating" points which really amount to nothing more than right wing propaganda. After four decades of rottenness enough really is enough.
*Thatcher, the most reviled prime minister in history, said New Labour was the best thing she did. Blair even praised her, but only after he made an appallingly craven appearance in front of a corrupt US Congress. Nice company you people keep.
@Rob, you provide your own contradictory comments.
OP wrote: "I have voted Labour for 50 years but never again until he's gone."
Now, perhaps you'd like to tell him that we are not a republic voting for a president hmm?
"Always find it amusing to watch deza vu in operation"
Implies that you took one look at my comment and decreed that is what I was. Everything else you're saying is just backpeddling and the ends are to remove this debate further away from the original point.
@LiamKav, given 'the current political climate', or society as I shall prefer to call it, is still suffering from the effects of New Labour and indeed from Thatcher then I'd say it is a perfectly valid argument. Or do you simply think that those who lost loved ones because of Blair's decisions should just 'get over it' because it's been almost twenty years since Iraq? Perhaps Boris is more favourable to you, as he thinks that Liverpool should get over Hillsborough too.
@ Mark
You also said "support an illegal war? Yeah, I'll do that.
Support the fight to end austerity? No, you must be joking."
What were you implying there? That everyone who voted Labour in 2005 should now desist and go elsewhere because they "must have" voted for your stated reasons?
Now in reply to LiamKav you try and suggest he's likely to favour Johnson because of "getting over it". Which is a ludicrous suggestion.
As for the "president" argument perhaps he doesn't see that voting for his MP will do much good with a Corbyn type leadership. Voters have less black and white motives for voting and there are other alternatives to Labour that aren't Tory. Perhaps he did want to vote for a "warmonger" and not for ending austerity but did you ask before presuming?
Anyways Mark you win. I'm a troll and I'll try to stick to my echo chamber in future. Good luck!
@ Mark
That's an amazing strawman you've constructed. I said that it would probably be more relevant for Corbyn supporters to focus on the current political landscape (ie, Brexit, Johnson et al) rather than fighting a battle with the man who was in charge 4 Prime Minister ago. Fight the enemy in front of you. Somehow you've turned that in to me telling Liverpool fans to just "get over Hillborough". I'd be offended if it wasn't such a ludicrous comparison.
I also love the cast iron assumptions that have been made about my past and present voting habits. Out of curiosity for the anons who've accused me of voting for a "thoroughly evil party", who did you vote for in 1997, 2001 and 2005 general elections? Just so that I can figure out who it's acceptable to vote for.
Comments on this post are now closed.
Post a Comment