The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[snowychap]

From Canada, The Globe and Mail editorial:

Quote

We begin this editorial with an apology to you, our faithful readers. In March, we described the Brexit situation, then careening through its third year and nowhere close to resolution, as an “omnishambles.”

An omnishambles is a state of utter chaos, total disorder and perfect mismanagement – which brings us to our apology. If you’ve been paying any attention to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, you know that, in declaring United Kingdom politics to have reached peak shambolic six months ago, we spoke too soon. Oh, did we ever.

...

British politics today is what results from the collision of an unstoppable force, an immovable object and a clown car.

The unstoppable force is the dominant faction of Britain’s Conservative Party, which insists on not just an exit from the European Union, but the most catastrophic exit possible. It’s a plan for national self-defenestration. The immovable object is reality – the reality that a no-deal Brexit will play havoc with the economy and hurt real people; the reality that a majority of Parliament and the people will not back it; the reality that the Brexit-at-any-cost crowd can’t press the detonator without majority approval.

And the clown car is Mr. Johnson.

... rest on link

 

[mjmooney]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

You posted an image and a link to this thread. Neither of those have ever been on the BBC. I surmise therefore that it’s either fake news, a posting error, or both, or something else entirely. That’s cleared that up then.

Not so. The reason I posted an image was because of the way the BBC pages are set up - they only allow you to copy one paragraph at a time. I wanted the whole item, which was why I screenshotted it. The link when I posted it was valid - I tested it after I posted. I have a friend who works for the BBC who has looked into it for me. He confirms that it was removed, and moved to (some might say 'buried in') the Bercow piece. 

The Parliament Square trouble is, however, covered on the London Evening Standard website. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by mjmooney

[peterms]

35 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

it was removed, and moved to (some might say 'buried in') the Bercow piece

It's now part of this piece, which I don't think mentions Bercow and leads off with

Quote

Brexit: MPs willing to go to court to enforce delay

 

[mjmooney]

Yep, they've moved it again. It was definitely in the Bercow piece earlier. 

[chrisp65]

They quite often move and amend pieces, not least if they’ve had some negative feedback, i.e. people correcting them.

They’ll then do a grudging amendment but then move or bury the actual ‘fixed’ article.

[chrisp65]

Good to see the Scottish police are prepping for Brexit.

 

 

[blandy]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

Really?  I see the embrace of neoliberalism and globalisation as the heart of what Blair and his coterie were all about.

From symbolic things like Clause IV, deference to Thatcher and travelling across the globe to kowtow to Murdoch, to the childish infatuation with rich people and business people, to the policies on things like PFI, deregulation, and being the US's poodle, they actively engaged in furthering the neoliberal agenda in a way that the old Labour right wing, people like Smith and Healey for example, simply wouldn't have done.  If "Blairism" was about anything at all, it was about this.  The alignment of the Labour Party with international capital rather than ordinary people has been a very significant factor in its decline.

I think there's an element of accuracy in that interpretation, but only an element.

Clause 4 is an interesting one, because it used to be about common ownership of the means of production distribution and sale, or something along those lines - i.e. the state must own everything and run it, whereas Blair changed it to some sort of fluffy words about everyone having a share of wealth and opportunity.

 The old version was completely bonkers for the modern world, and the newer version was a sort of over-rideable "mission statement" of the sort that might be adopted by a photocopier company being "passionate" about scanning. One was a historic legacy and handicap, the other a load of easily ignored waffle.

Blair and Brown started off and were too timid I ditching Thatcherite type policies that they inherited. They did great on things like 3rd world debt relief, but ran scared of the tory accusation, always made of financial recklessness - they used PFI to keep "public debt" off the ledger, as the tories had done. They should have scrapped it. They were (IMO) right to turn away from the very old labour "nationalise everything" philosophy.

From a person in the street viewpoint, a heck of a lot got a heck of a lot better under Blair Brown, for a long period. His approach to Iraq was ruinous and appalling. The handling of the crash was OK, Darling was (IMO) on exactly the right lines with is response, too.

Blairism, was pretty much self-defined as "the third way" wasn't it  - neither Tory style, nor old Labour style, and while people can say it was too tory, or whatever, it wasn't that far off in getting results in a lot of areas, in many it worked. Key areas of society improved enormously.

Blairs flaws, like pretty much all leaders were personal, not ideological - his (as you say) slavish lap-dog approach to Bush, and cowardice re-Murdoch. His "God" thing and his actions re Iraq which were just mendacious and deceptive.

I agree most Corbynites want to kind of erase anything and everything that Blair ever did - like Trump with Obama, and it's a massive mistake. They define themselves far too much by what they are not and who they are not, and not nearly enough by what they ought to be and how they ought to behave. It poisons their approach to a whole range of problems. But they also hold a range of views and ideas and prejudices which are not only Corbynite v Blairism, but Corbynite v The world as it is. Bunker mentality thrashing out at all kinds.

Er, Brexit, not going well is it? to stay on topic.

[Mic09]

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Good to see the Scottish police are prepping for Brexit.

 

 

Brexit? Or zombie apocalypse?

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Brexit? Or zombie apocalypse?

There's a difference?

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Brexit? Or zombie apocalypse?

A few people spotted reference to ‘flashlight’ instead of torch. So I’m guessing they’ve ripped it off from the USA, in which case, zombie apocalypse.

Though it could be a simple typo and they were recommending you pack your second best fleshlight.

Whatever that is.

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

There's a difference?

One is a wave of brainless people roaming the streets, driven by most animal like instincts.

The other is zombie apocalypse.

[peterms]

[romavillan]

On 01/09/2019 at 14:35, Enda said:

Sorry if I'm having a bit of a go at you Chris, but the comment reflects a view in the UK that strikes a nerve with me. You often hear three soundbites from Brits:

1. Guy Verhofstadt MEP is synonymous with "the EU".
2. Germany and France call the shots. At the end of the day, what Merkel and Sarkozy want is what matters.
3. The EU is nothing but a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.

All three express an anti-EU sentiment, but they are simply contradictory. Internally inconsistent. You can claim the EU full is of out of touch bureaucrats, or that Germany calls the shots, or that tweets from an MEP carry weight, but all three cannot be true at once. Either democratically elected MEPs call the shots or the bureaucrats do. Either the EU is run by experts in suits or it's a German political plot for a Fourth Reich. And so on. You can't have all three. Even two are mostly impossible at the same time.

And I think this leads to a lot of the anti-EU sentiment in the UK. The Daily Mail can say "EU plans for tax cuts" when it's just a comment by some MEP, or a Commission proposal that will get shot down after a week or two. Brits, in general, don't acknowledge that the EU is three different institutions and none of them have total power. It's a lack of understanding that leads to people thinking "the EU" can simply give into the UK's Brexit demands if Boris negotiates hard enough. It's insane.

3 is demonstrably incorrect.

[peterms]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

I think there's an element of accuracy in that interpretation, but only an element.

My point isn't whether you like or approve of Blair and his familiars, simply that he represents a turn towards supportng neoliberalism and the interests of international capital.

Which he, in my view, unarguably does.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

My point isn't whether you like or approve of Blair and his familiars, simply that he represents a turn towards supportng neoliberalism and the interests of international capital.

Which he, in my view, unarguably does.

I genuinely hadn’t realised it was a point of dispute.

Are there people that have him mentally pigeon holed under ‘socialist’?

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I genuinely hadn’t realised it was a point of dispute.

Are there people that have him mentally pigeon holed under ‘socialist’?

Only if you think that the "turd way" bollocks could be filed under "socialism".

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I genuinely hadn’t realised it was a point of dispute.

Are there people that have him mentally pigeon holed under ‘socialist’?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Blair, earlier on, viewed himself as a committed socialist.

I wouldn't still be surprised if Blair, now, viewed himself as some form of socialist.

I'm not convinced that he isn't. He may also be a lot of other things.

Edited September 8, 2019 by snowychap

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I genuinely hadn’t realised it was a point of dispute.

Are there people that have him mentally pigeon holed under ‘socialist’?

I doubt it. I think he as a person changed a great deal, as have all political leaders. I doubt he’d recognise himself at the end from when he started. Same applies to May, Johnson,Corbyn etc.

i think attaching labels is a mistake.if you tag someone with a label it’s easy to then dismiss anything they do. Having said that, Johnson’s a word removed.

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

I doubt he’d recognise himself at the end from when he started. Same applies to May, Johnson,Corbyn etc.

I'm sure that's right in respect of Blair, because he never had any political values or direction to begin with.

Not sure it applies to the others.  Political development and gradual change on the   basis of experience and events is a long way removed from that preening idiot flopping every which way the polls and Mandy told him to go.  Arse.

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Blair, earlier on, viewed himself as a committed socialist.

I wouldn't still be surprised if Blair, now, viewed himself as some form of socialist.

I'm not convinced that he isn't. He may also be a lot of other things.

I read a biography of Blair which interviewed his old House-master at Fettes College (often described as the Scottish Eton*)

Quote

"What you have to remember about Tony is, that he's an actor. A very good one, but an actor none the less"

I'm paraphrasing as it's been a number of years since I read it, but it really stuck with me. Very telling that someone who knew him as a child/young adult would feel this was important to say.

*For reference here is a picture of Fettes. I bet many Socialist roots are formed in places that look like this........