Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
Ironically, Corbyn, who is considering when to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence in his own leadership by 172 to 40 and yet rather than resign he chose to hide behind the skirts of the membership. What you're left with is 40 Corbyn apologists to make up the opposition front bench. The Labour party is exactly the jokeshop it deserves to be.
It is a vote of confidence in the ability of the government being able to pass legislation not leadership. While this has nothing to do with Brexit and I agree he has been ineffectual, I can't believe this myth persists that fringes of the Labour party elected him. The labour party is the largest political in europe, the numbers simply do not stack up that he was hiding behind the fringes. He increased his share of the vote when put to the membership. Not to mention that he has never faced a credible candidate from within the party.
He lost that vote before he led them in to the election, when the PLP didn't believe he could do that well. A lot of those 172 were made to eat their own words on election night. He tried to be inclusive in his first two shadow cabinets, but they all resigned. If the Labour front bench is devoid of those talents it is because they choose to act in a fashion that was counter to the direction the membership had chosen twice.
You kid yourself if you think May would have done anything different if the situation was reversed. She has more then plenty of occasions to do the honourable thing. The difference between her and Corbyn is if she loses a vote of no confidence by the MPs she is not allowed to stand in a members vote. After all the Tories don't like leaving things up to the membership, much like the last leadership election.
Ironically, I find myself in complete agreement with them. It is a truly terrifying thought that the result of May leaving is the fate of the country will be decided by a few thousand members of Tory party. The very same people who they were trying to placate when they got us in to this mess.
I look at it the other way. He doesn't have to work with the membership every day in parliament. By choosing to remain in post, he has left those MPs that have no confidence in him with no option but to sit on the back benches and effectively rendered the opposition front bench useless.
We hear every day how 17 million people got it wrong when they voted in the referendum. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour members are barking up the wrong tree too.
Spot on - the same policies with a different leader (e.g. Chuka) would be a far more effective opposition and likely to win a GE.
You are starting to sound like a brexiteer! You can't have it both ways. While I don't think many would disagree with you, where was this credible candidate offering the same platform? Because I only saw a series of identikit plastic former special advisors and fecking Owen Jones. If he was the great hope then the Labour party is doomed.
Personally I'd love to see Stramer or Miliband offering a social democratic platform but I don't even know if they want it or what either really stand for.
Saying all that the leader of the opposition can only cause pressure when it comes to Brexit. All the people who think a different leader will somehow find a solution to this shit show when they are not in government are mistaken in my opinion. We essentially face three choices, hard Brexit, vassel status or cancel article 50. How do you find a way out when the other two options are unpalatable to the majority of everyone else?
Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
Ironically, Corbyn, who is considering when to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence in his own leadership by 172 to 40 and yet rather than resign he chose to hide behind the skirts of the membership. What you're left with is 40 Corbyn apologists to make up the opposition front bench. The Labour party is exactly the jokeshop it deserves to be.
It is a vote of confidence in the ability of the government being able to pass legislation not leadership. While this has nothing to do with Brexit and I agree he has been ineffectual, I can't believe this myth persists that fringes of the Labour party elected him. The labour party is the largest political in europe, the numbers simply do not stack up that he was hiding behind the fringes. He increased his share of the vote when put to the membership. Not to mention that he has never faced a credible candidate from within the party.
He lost that vote before he led them in to the election, when the PLP didn't believe he could do that well. A lot of those 172 were made to eat their own words on election night. He tried to be inclusive in his first two shadow cabinets, but they all resigned. If the Labour front bench is devoid of those talents it is because they choose to act in a fashion that was counter to the direction the membership had chosen twice.
You kid yourself if you think May would have done anything different if the situation was reversed. She has more then plenty of occasions to do the honourable thing. The difference between her and Corbyn is if she loses a vote of no confidence by the MPs she is not allowed to stand in a members vote. After all the Tories don't like leaving things up to the membership, much like the last leadership election.
Ironically, I find myself in complete agreement with them. It is a truly terrifying thought that the result of May leaving is the fate of the country will be decided by a few thousand members of Tory party. The very same people who they were trying to placate when they got us in to this mess.
I look at it the other way. He doesn't have to work with the membership every day in parliament. By choosing to remain in post, he has left those MPs that have no confidence in him with no option but to sit on the back benches and effectively rendered the opposition front bench useless.
We hear every day how 17 million people got it wrong when they voted in the referendum. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour members are barking up the wrong tree too.
Spot on - the same policies with a different leader (e.g. Chuka) would be a far more effective opposition and likely to win a GE.
You are starting to sound like a brexiteer! You can't have it both ways. While I don't think many would disagree with you, where was this credible candidate offering the same platform? Because I only saw a series of identikit plastic former special advisors and fecking Owen Jones. If he was the great hope then the Labour party is doomed.
Personally I'd love to see Stramer or Miliband offering a social democratic platform but I don't even know if they want it or what either really stand for.
Saying all that the leader of the opposition can only cause pressure when it comes to Brexit. All the people who think a different leader will somehow find a solution to this shit show when they are not in government are mistaken in my opinion. We essentially face three choices, hard Brexit, vassel status or cancel article 50. How do you find a way out when the other two options are unpalatable to the majority of everyone else?
Chuka was the credible candidate until he pulled out of the leadership race.
Quite right Henry. I was choked. I think he knew only too well that Unite and the hard left had it sewn up.
Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
Ironically, Corbyn, who is considering when to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence in his own leadership by 172 to 40 and yet rather than resign he chose to hide behind the skirts of the membership. What you're left with is 40 Corbyn apologists to make up the opposition front bench. The Labour party is exactly the jokeshop it deserves to be.
It is a vote of confidence in the ability of the government being able to pass legislation not leadership. While this has nothing to do with Brexit and I agree he has been ineffectual, I can't believe this myth persists that fringes of the Labour party elected him. The labour party is the largest political in europe, the numbers simply do not stack up that he was hiding behind the fringes. He increased his share of the vote when put to the membership. Not to mention that he has never faced a credible candidate from within the party.
He lost that vote before he led them in to the election, when the PLP didn't believe he could do that well. A lot of those 172 were made to eat their own words on election night. He tried to be inclusive in his first two shadow cabinets, but they all resigned. If the Labour front bench is devoid of those talents it is because they choose to act in a fashion that was counter to the direction the membership had chosen twice.
You kid yourself if you think May would have done anything different if the situation was reversed. She has more then plenty of occasions to do the honourable thing. The difference between her and Corbyn is if she loses a vote of no confidence by the MPs she is not allowed to stand in a members vote. After all the Tories don't like leaving things up to the membership, much like the last leadership election.
Ironically, I find myself in complete agreement with them. It is a truly terrifying thought that the result of May leaving is the fate of the country will be decided by a few thousand members of Tory party. The very same people who they were trying to placate when they got us in to this mess.
I look at it the other way. He doesn't have to work with the membership every day in parliament. By choosing to remain in post, he has left those MPs that have no confidence in him with no option but to sit on the back benches and effectively rendered the opposition front bench useless.
We hear every day how 17 million people got it wrong when they voted in the referendum. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour members are barking up the wrong tree too.
Spot on - the same policies with a different leader (e.g. Chuka) would be a far more effective opposition and likely to win a GE.
We essentially face three choices, hard Brexit, vassel status or cancel article 50.
Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
Ironically, Corbyn, who is considering when to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence in his own leadership by 172 to 40 and yet rather than resign he chose to hide behind the skirts of the membership. What you're left with is 40 Corbyn apologists to make up the opposition front bench. The Labour party is exactly the jokeshop it deserves to be.
It is a vote of confidence in the ability of the government being able to pass legislation not leadership. While this has nothing to do with Brexit and I agree he has been ineffectual, I can't believe this myth persists that fringes of the Labour party elected him. The labour party is the largest political in europe, the numbers simply do not stack up that he was hiding behind the fringes. He increased his share of the vote when put to the membership. Not to mention that he has never faced a credible candidate from within the party.
He lost that vote before he led them in to the election, when the PLP didn't believe he could do that well. A lot of those 172 were made to eat their own words on election night. He tried to be inclusive in his first two shadow cabinets, but they all resigned. If the Labour front bench is devoid of those talents it is because they choose to act in a fashion that was counter to the direction the membership had chosen twice.
You kid yourself if you think May would have done anything different if the situation was reversed. She has more then plenty of occasions to do the honourable thing. The difference between her and Corbyn is if she loses a vote of no confidence by the MPs she is not allowed to stand in a members vote. After all the Tories don't like leaving things up to the membership, much like the last leadership election.
Ironically, I find myself in complete agreement with them. It is a truly terrifying thought that the result of May leaving is the fate of the country will be decided by a few thousand members of Tory party. The very same people who they were trying to placate when they got us in to this mess.
I look at it the other way. He doesn't have to work with the membership every day in parliament. By choosing to remain in post, he has left those MPs that have no confidence in him with no option but to sit on the back benches and effectively rendered the opposition front bench useless.
We hear every day how 17 million people got it wrong when they voted in the referendum. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour members are barking up the wrong tree too.
Spot on - the same policies with a different leader (e.g. Chuka) would be a far more effective opposition and likely to win a GE.
You are starting to sound like a brexiteer! You can't have it both ways. While I don't think many would disagree with you, where was this credible candidate offering the same platform? Because I only saw a series of identikit plastic former special advisors and fecking Owen Jones. If he was the great hope then the Labour party is doomed.
Personally I'd love to see Stramer or Miliband offering a social democratic platform but I don't even know if they want it or what either really stand for.
Saying all that the leader of the opposition can only cause pressure when it comes to Brexit. All the people who think a different leader will somehow find a solution to this shit show when they are not in government are mistaken in my opinion. We essentially face three choices, hard Brexit, vassel status or cancel article 50. How do you find a way out when the other two options are unpalatable to the majority of everyone else?
Chuka was the credible candidate until he pulled out of the leadership race.
Quite right Henry. I was choked. I think he knew only too well that Unite and the hard left had it sewn up.
Didn’t he pull out because the newspapers were nasty about his girlfriend?
Any predictions on how this might be looked back on in say 20 years? Or where the UK will find itself at that time? Hard to imagine it will be seen as anything other than a complete mess but it should fascinate the historians.
Like the Diana hysteria is will be conveniently forgotten (except on the pages of the Daily Express). It never happened, no, I didn't even vote, move on.
As the nation was transfixed on Monday by the omnishambles, the cluster-catastrophe, the burning, collapsing building of British political life — I put it no more strongly than that — one piece of light relief cut through.
The actor Andy Serkis posted on social media a short video in which he revived his performance as Gollum from The Lord of the Rings but did so in drag as Theresa May, cooing over her withdrawal agreement as if it were the One Ring. It went quickly and thoroughly viral and, if you haven’t seen it, I strongly commend it to your attention.
Parody of this sort, when it works, has an immense rhetorical force. In the first place, it’s funny and laughter, as I find myself saying ad nauseam, is a form of involuntary agreement. If you laugh with somebody, especially if you don’t want to, you are half won to their case. Second: it’s Serkis — and which cinemagoer doesn’t want to see Serkis reprising his mesmeric performance as Gollum? That’s a funny sort of ethos appeal, but it’s an effective one. It bids fair to command two-and-a-half minutes of anybody’s time.
But it does something more complicated than that. Serkis’s performance undermines Mrs May’s push for her Brexit deal, not by pointing out the contradictions in her position but by dramatising them.
“Preciousss . . . ” his mad-eyed Mrs May hisses as she contemplates her withdrawal agreement. “Our agreement . . . thiss iss it . . . our deal! Yesss yesss! We takesss back control! Money . . . Bordersss . . . lawsss . . . blue passportsesss! Hahahah . . . !”
And then her face twists from a snarl into an expression of pitiable distress: “No! It hurtss the people . . . makess them poorer!”
Back to rage and spite: “But I findsss it! I negotiatess it! We wantsssss it! We has to do it . . . ”
Second persona, meekly ingratiating: “Okay . . . okay . . . we askss the people if they wantss it, and then . . . ”
This kicks the stilts from under Mrs May’s attempt to project calm and focused determination — her own ethos appeal — by suggesting that behind closed doors she’s as inwardly torn and tormented as Tolkien’s insane cave dweller. Less kindly, it suggests that personal pride rather than disinterested duty enters into her determination to stick to her proposed deal. That will strike a lot of people as hitting on a likely truth.
Mrs May campaigned for Remain and is now trying to deliver Brexit. As she struggles on, she finds herself trying to circumvent the very parliament whose sovereign importance she’s hoping to restore. She’s trying to implement the Will of the People by avoiding asking the People what they think. Anybody would find that a mental strain. What is perhaps most damaging is that Serkis’s Mrs May is, like Gollum, pitiable. No leader wants to be pitied.
Instead of working patiently through an argument from first principles, parody supplies — fairly or unfairly — an instant jolt of recognition. It will flourish in the same way an effective analogy flourishes: if it seems to fit. Not the slow weak drink of ratiocination, easily put to one side, but something powerful delivered in a shot glass. And once the analogy is established, it’s very hard to shake off. Think of Tony Blair as the Vicar of St Albion, for instance.
And, of course, when a parody of this sort works it’s doing something cleverly triangular: it brings in all the connotations of the source material that’s being parodied. In Gollum, The Lord of the Rings offers an allegory of the corrupting and dementing effect of power, and of its addictive qualities. Gollum, like Mrs May, finds himself friendless, clinging to the very thing that is destroying him.
But what does mockery achieve, runs a common line of reasoning. It doesn’t create anything. It doesn’t propose a plan of action or show a way forward. It can only destroy. Well, up to a point. You can’t govern through mockery. You can’t negotiate through mockery. Mockery builds nothing.
But parody — as opposed to simple jeering — can create something: a sort of clarity. It can frame an issue — Brexit, say, not as a diplomatic snarl-up but as a terrifying personal psychodrama — in a way that makes us see it more clearly. And that can indeed be preciousssss.
Sam Leith is literary editor of The Spectator and author of ‘You Talkin’ To Me? Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama’ (Profile Books)
Would be very interesting to hear from some of the Brexiters that used to come on here and say how easy and great it would all be and to find out what they think about it now. Genuinely be interesting to hear their thoughts on what is going on - they must be fuming about being mis-sold the whole idea of an easy Brexit. It must be clear by now that what has held the UK back is not this bogeyman shadowy institution from Brussels, but our own homegrown dismal political class.
Would be very interesting to hear from some of the Brexiters that used to come on here and say how easy and great it would all be and to find out what they think about it now. Genuinely be interesting to hear their thoughts on what is going on - they must be fuming about being mis-sold the whole idea of an easy Brexit. It must be clear by now that what has held the UK back is not this bogeyman shadowy institution from Brussels, but our own homegrown dismal political class.
They probably think it’s the “remainders” that have held back their utopian vision of future Britain.
Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
Ironically, Corbyn, who is considering when to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence in his own leadership by 172 to 40 and yet rather than resign he chose to hide behind the skirts of the membership. What you're left with is 40 Corbyn apologists to make up the opposition front bench. The Labour party is exactly the jokeshop it deserves to be.
It is a vote of confidence in the ability of the government being able to pass legislation not leadership. While this has nothing to do with Brexit and I agree he has been ineffectual, I can't believe this myth persists that fringes of the Labour party elected him. The labour party is the largest political in europe, the numbers simply do not stack up that he was hiding behind the fringes. He increased his share of the vote when put to the membership. Not to mention that he has never faced a credible candidate from within the party.
He lost that vote before he led them in to the election, when the PLP didn't believe he could do that well. A lot of those 172 were made to eat their own words on election night. He tried to be inclusive in his first two shadow cabinets, but they all resigned. If the Labour front bench is devoid of those talents it is because they choose to act in a fashion that was counter to the direction the membership had chosen twice.
You kid yourself if you think May would have done anything different if the situation was reversed. She has more then plenty of occasions to do the honourable thing. The difference between her and Corbyn is if she loses a vote of no confidence by the MPs she is not allowed to stand in a members vote. After all the Tories don't like leaving things up to the membership, much like the last leadership election.
Ironically, I find myself in complete agreement with them. It is a truly terrifying thought that the result of May leaving is the fate of the country will be decided by a few thousand members of Tory party. The very same people who they were trying to placate when they got us in to this mess.
I look at it the other way. He doesn't have to work with the membership every day in parliament. By choosing to remain in post, he has left those MPs that have no confidence in him with no option but to sit on the back benches and effectively rendered the opposition front bench useless.
We hear every day how 17 million people got it wrong when they voted in the referendum. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour members are barking up the wrong tree too.
Spot on - the same policies with a different leader (e.g. Chuka) would be a far more effective opposition and likely to win a GE.
You are starting to sound like a brexiteer! You can't have it both ways. While I don't think many would disagree with you, where was this credible candidate offering the same platform? Because I only saw a series of identikit plastic former special advisors and fecking Owen Jones. If he was the great hope then the Labour party is doomed.
Personally I'd love to see Stramer or Miliband offering a social democratic platform but I don't even know if they want it or what either really stand for.
Saying all that the leader of the opposition can only cause pressure when it comes to Brexit. All the people who think a different leader will somehow find a solution to this shit show when they are not in government are mistaken in my opinion. We essentially face three choices, hard Brexit, vassel status or cancel article 50. How do you find a way out when the other two options are unpalatable to the majority of everyone else?
Wash your mouth out - how very dare you.
If it makes you feel any better you would have been mentioned as a potential leader but I was under the impression you were standing as an independent.
Just watching the Tories preparing to stab May in the back. I loathe that woman - she has done so much wrong and almost nothing good. Yet exactly what do the other members of her party think they can get done better, I asume this is all on the back of Brexit, so we can ignore stuff like foodbanks, the decrepit state of the NHS, etc etc. So the gang are attacking May for ….what? Bringing back a deal? The hard brexiteers would only be happy with the imposible, no one could have attained any sort of better deal really, the problem was her party are hopelessly Split and now blame her for it.So can we look forward to a cretin like Gove in charge? Boris Johnson who takes over the Wheel of the Titanic before throwing women and children over the side to make sure he and his mates have all the lifeboats they need. Honestly, I love it. These people are utter shite. And they are attacking each other. Total poetic justice.
I thought May was a fucking shocking Home Secretary and she has surpassed that negative tally as PM but there are not many people who want to take this on. She has tried at least, and if her secret long term goal is for us to stay in the EU she is certainly a lot closer than when she started.
Perhaps we might accept that it is what it is and look at these questions another way? Ask why do X today rather than await developments? As some have noted, this exercise is purely about timing and arithmetic. The two things that changed yesterday were that the ECJ have confirmed the ruling that the UK can revoke Art. 50 unilaterally and that May has bottled the vote.
Now that Remain has a get out of jail free card, how might they construct a mandate as they simply don't have one today - what we have is a WA which is about to be rejected. Or a no deal outcome that only a small minority wants and would be a disaster for the economy. Some think we have a Norway + CU option but this doesn't really stack up - most importantly the Noregians are luke warm on the idea and EFTA have their own trade deals so not in the CU.
A people's vote would engineer a Remain mandate so how does that happen and who leads? The answer is probably not May so how/when will she leave centre stage? What has not changed is that the DUP would vote against the WA but NOT against the government in a no confidence debate.
Therefore a successful no confidence attempt requires support from the Tory Remainer MPs who are against no deal and against the WA. They hold the balance of power and might work with the combined opposition to change the outcome? What might trigger that event?
If May wants to enjoy her Christmas at No. 10 Downing St then so be it. But she has obviously run out of road with her deal which has not rising above 25% approval in the polls. She can delay but ultimately the House will have to take a view. The markets will take a view too for they might have factored in a WA defeat but deferral was clearly a surprise.
What is becoming clear is that for the House to deliver either Remain, BINO or a second referendum requires a change of government. May might pivot but it would be an act of faith to expect her to do that. Many think she'd last about 30 seconds before 48 letters come in - perhaps those letters are going in already?
What we should be clear about is that a change of government was never in the gift of the Labour Party alone, for they have 255 MPs. That's the same as last week and the same as June 2017 give or take the odd Brexiteer who has left / been booted for voting with the Government. So blame shifting towards Corbyn isn't just wrong, it's completely wrong! For it's the NEC, Shadow Cabinet and Labour Conference which determines policy. And Labour plus the other opposition parties simply have to await the 20 Tory remainers making a move. For sure Labour have some lightweight MPs but let's not become distracted.
In short, what are Soubry, Clarke and Starmer saying for they are the heavyweights in this contest. Obviously replacing May with a new coalition comes with a price as these Tories will have to put Corbyn in power so as to deliver a change in outcome. That's a question for Clarke, Soubry and the others - Heseltine has made his views known.
It's fascinating and some vocalise stress and impatience- two things. It's going to become more pressurised... and MPs in the House will be fully aware. Can't guarantee May falls soon but if she cannot deliver then surely somebody will take her out?
Nina Lamparski ✔ @ninaism #BREAKING: 'No way to change' Brexit deal, says Merkel after May visit #Brexit @AFP
20 3:43 PM - Dec 11, 2018
I bet Merkel is laughing so much inside she is having trouble containing herself. The UK was despised at the best of times in European circles, now we have given them all the ammo they need.
Oh really? What are these "European circles" you speak of?
The European circles I work in love the British. Particularly as a) they always try to wing it (this is seem as endearing rather than successful, as in this particular case) and b) they are good at taking the piss out of the French. Believe it or not, our sense of humour is very popular.
Can't believe Boris and ERP are allowed to get away with their border solution. Trusted Traders technology. What about all the smugglers that won't sign up? CCTV X-ray cameras. Or perhaps they expect Eire to police the border. I think operating WTO rules needs members agreement to deals. Members like EU.
Can't believe Boris and ERP are allowed to get away with their border solution. Trusted Traders technology. What about all the smugglers that won't sign up? CCTV X-ray cameras. Or perhaps they expect Eire to police the border. I think operating WTO rules needs members agreement to deals. Members like EU.
Comments
Wouldn't trust the div to put his own pants on.
Donkeys led by donkeys
As the nation was transfixed on Monday by the omnishambles, the cluster-catastrophe, the burning, collapsing building of British political life — I put it no more strongly than that — one piece of light relief cut through.
The actor Andy Serkis posted on social media a short video in which he revived his performance as Gollum from The Lord of the Rings but did so in drag as Theresa May, cooing over her withdrawal agreement as if it were the One Ring. It went quickly and thoroughly viral and, if you haven’t seen it, I strongly commend it to your attention.
Parody of this sort, when it works, has an immense rhetorical force. In the first place, it’s funny and laughter, as I find myself saying ad nauseam, is a form of involuntary agreement. If you laugh with somebody, especially if you don’t want to, you are half won to their case. Second: it’s Serkis — and which cinemagoer doesn’t want to see Serkis reprising his mesmeric performance as Gollum? That’s a funny sort of ethos appeal, but it’s an effective one. It bids fair to command two-and-a-half minutes of anybody’s time.
But it does something more complicated than that. Serkis’s performance undermines Mrs May’s push for her Brexit deal, not by pointing out the contradictions in her position but by dramatising them.
“Preciousss . . . ” his mad-eyed Mrs May hisses as she contemplates her withdrawal agreement. “Our agreement . . . thiss iss it . . . our deal! Yesss yesss! We takesss back control! Money . . . Bordersss . . . lawsss . . . blue passportsesss! Hahahah . . . !”
And then her face twists from a snarl into an expression of pitiable distress: “No! It hurtss the people . . . makess them poorer!”
Back to rage and spite: “But I findsss it! I negotiatess it! We wantsssss it! We has to do it . . . ”
Second persona, meekly ingratiating: “Okay . . . okay . . . we askss the people if they wantss it, and then . . . ”
Rage: “NO! Stupid tricksy Remainerss . . . they ruinss it!”
This kicks the stilts from under Mrs May’s attempt to project calm and focused determination — her own ethos appeal — by suggesting that behind closed doors she’s as inwardly torn and tormented as Tolkien’s insane cave dweller. Less kindly, it suggests that personal pride rather than disinterested duty enters into her determination to stick to her proposed deal. That will strike a lot of people as hitting on a likely truth.
Mrs May campaigned for Remain and is now trying to deliver Brexit. As she struggles on, she finds herself trying to circumvent the very parliament whose sovereign importance she’s hoping to restore. She’s trying to implement the Will of the People by avoiding asking the People what they think. Anybody would find that a mental strain. What is perhaps most damaging is that Serkis’s Mrs May is, like Gollum, pitiable. No leader wants to be pitied.
Instead of working patiently through an argument from first principles, parody supplies — fairly or unfairly — an instant jolt of recognition. It will flourish in the same way an effective analogy flourishes: if it seems to fit. Not the slow weak drink of ratiocination, easily put to one side, but something powerful delivered in a shot glass. And once the analogy is established, it’s very hard to shake off. Think of Tony Blair as the Vicar of St Albion, for instance.
And, of course, when a parody of this sort works it’s doing something cleverly triangular: it brings in all the connotations of the source material that’s being parodied. In Gollum, The Lord of the Rings offers an allegory of the corrupting and dementing effect of power, and of its addictive qualities. Gollum, like Mrs May, finds himself friendless, clinging to the very thing that is destroying him.
But what does mockery achieve, runs a common line of reasoning. It doesn’t create anything. It doesn’t propose a plan of action or show a way forward. It can only destroy. Well, up to a point. You can’t govern through mockery. You can’t negotiate through mockery. Mockery builds nothing.
But parody — as opposed to simple jeering — can create something: a sort of clarity. It can frame an issue — Brexit, say, not as a diplomatic snarl-up but as a terrifying personal psychodrama — in a way that makes us see it more clearly. And that can indeed be preciousssss.
Sam Leith is literary editor of The Spectator and author of ‘You Talkin’ To Me? Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama’ (Profile Books)
So the gang are attacking May for ….what? Bringing back a deal? The hard brexiteers would only be happy with the imposible, no one could have attained any sort of better deal really, the problem was her party are hopelessly Split and now blame her for it.So can we look forward to a cretin like Gove in charge? Boris Johnson who takes over the Wheel of the Titanic before throwing women and children over the side to make sure he and his mates have all the lifeboats they need.
Honestly, I love it. These people are utter shite. And they are attacking each other. Total poetic justice.
Hard border for Leitim
Or their fiiiing influence!
Perhaps we might accept that it is what it is and look at these questions another way? Ask why do X today rather than await developments? As some have noted, this exercise is purely about timing and arithmetic. The two things that changed yesterday were that the ECJ have confirmed the ruling that the UK can revoke Art. 50 unilaterally and that May has bottled the vote.
Now that Remain has a get out of jail free card, how might they construct a mandate as they simply don't have one today - what we have is a WA which is about to be rejected. Or a no deal outcome that only a small minority wants and would be a disaster for the economy. Some think we have a Norway + CU option but this doesn't really stack up - most importantly the Noregians are luke warm on the idea and EFTA have their own trade deals so not in the CU.
A people's vote would engineer a Remain mandate so how does that happen and who leads? The answer is probably not May so how/when will she leave centre stage? What has not changed is that the DUP would vote against the WA but NOT against the government in a no confidence debate.
Therefore a successful no confidence attempt requires support from the Tory Remainer MPs who are against no deal and against the WA. They hold the balance of power and might work with the combined opposition to change the outcome? What might trigger that event?
If May wants to enjoy her Christmas at No. 10 Downing St then so be it. But she has obviously run out of road with her deal which has not rising above 25% approval in the polls. She can delay but ultimately the House will have to take a view. The markets will take a view too for they might have factored in a WA defeat but deferral was clearly a surprise.
What is becoming clear is that for the House to deliver either Remain, BINO or a second referendum requires a change of government. May might pivot but it would be an act of faith to expect her to do that. Many think she'd last about 30 seconds before 48 letters come in - perhaps those letters are going in already?
What we should be clear about is that a change of government was never in the gift of the Labour Party alone, for they have 255 MPs. That's the same as last week and the same as June 2017 give or take the odd Brexiteer who has left / been booted for voting with the Government. So blame shifting towards Corbyn isn't just wrong, it's completely wrong! For it's the NEC, Shadow Cabinet and Labour Conference which determines policy. And Labour plus the other opposition parties simply have to await the 20 Tory remainers making a move. For sure Labour have some lightweight MPs but let's not become distracted.
In short, what are Soubry, Clarke and Starmer saying for they are the heavyweights in this contest. Obviously replacing May with a new coalition comes with a price as these Tories will have to put Corbyn in power so as to deliver a change in outcome. That's a question for Clarke, Soubry and the others - Heseltine has made his views known.
It's fascinating and some vocalise stress and impatience- two things. It's going to become more pressurised... and MPs in the House will be fully aware. Can't guarantee May falls soon but if she cannot deliver then surely somebody will take her out?
;0)
Is that basically how it works?