by John Ward
Now that the Mickey Mice have taken over Theresa the Firecat’s Brexit laboratory, perhaps fear of The People’s wrath is the last weapon available to the 52%. Today’s Welsh by-election just might inspire the collective effort we need to get rid of this Parliament of Whores.
Jeremy Corbyn told the media yesterday that his discussions with May were “useful but inconclusive”. This morning, their respective staffs met again to “explore technical isues”.
The result of these meetings as expressed above reads like something conjured up by Alastair Campbell after attending a Pravda seminar on the credible projection of surreal oxymoronics.
Imagine if you will attending a meeting to discuss the technical issues relating to the inconclusively useful, with the goal of converting them into something uselessly conclusive. It could well be that, on the way to that session, you might finally realise that real world power was moving on to another place entirely.
As expected, the sessions achieved precisely nothing: they were, in fact, an exercise in careful arse-covering designed to show future historians that – even at the last ditch – these “conviction politicians” were still working hard at the task of saving the voters from themselves. Which is, of course, how almost all “leaders” see themselves.
The reality is that our current crop of legislators beyond Party heads and the Cabinet are busily engaged in saving themselves from the biggest single expression of direct democracy in British history. Their latest jolly jape was to pass – by one solitary vote – a bill forcing the Prime Minister to prefer further Article 50 extensions to leaving the EU without a deal on WTO terms.
In the manner of a plot twist fit to be turned down flat as ludicrous by every publishing editor working in fiction, the vote would have been a dead heat had one MP already found guilty of perjuring herself to escape a speeding fine – and tagged by the Justice System to boot – not deferred the verdict by launching an appeal. The lady in question, Fiona Onasanya, was thus available to cast her vote, and destroy any meaningful short-term hope of real Brexit.
She also robbed us of a bitter-sweet scenario in which John Bercow would have had the casting vote. Imagine the joy, as he declared for the Cooper Bill, of watching him shoot straight into the Number One slot as Most Hated Brit in History. As it is, the ghastly Onasanya is poised to replace Theresa May as Top of the Flops.
Note the absence, by the way, of Baron Adonis & his gullible fellow-travellers demanding a Second Vote on the Cooper Bill. There is just a hint of inconsistency here, in that a victory by one jailbird’s vote in an electorate of 650 easily falls short of a 3% victory by 17.4 million people in a referendum. To really turn the ice-pick on this one, I would add that in the case of such a clearly unconstitutional Bill (the existing Default WTO Act has not been repealed, merely amended) it was pretty obvious that very few of the MPs voting on it had the faintest idea of the consequences of what they were voting for…..least of all its author.
How odd it is that it took 1008 days not to deliver the Referendum result, but is due to take some 5 (count them) days to get Royal Assent to a Bill destroying any chance of the Sovereignty it so honestly – and sensibly – sought. Such are the relative speeds at which fascist élites can move, as and when it suits them.
And to top it all, the extension approach now officially favoured by the house enjoys the support of just 11% of the electorate – with 40% favouring the one thing Cooper’s Bill seeks to ban: a No Deal Brexit on WTO terms. (See YouGov research here)
Tonight, that British electorate – or rather, one constituency within it, Newport West – has the chance to deliver a result giving clues as to their opinion of what is self-evidently a Brexit Betrayal. But although both major Parties are there in force to be given the necessary boot in the molars, the pro-Brexit franchise is hopelessly divided as follows:
Neil Hamilton (UKIP)
Ian McLean (SDP)
Hugh Nicklin (For Britain Movement)
Phillip Taylor (Democrats and Veterans)
UKIP in its wisdom chose the appalling Neil Hamilton as prospective candidate, but there is a reasonable chance that many voters today will not remember what he was, and probably still is – a sleazy, lying cheat. The SDP these days is a sensible, pro-Brexit ‘social fairness’ Party, but with an as yet lowish profile. The For Britain Movement is billed by the Left (and UKIP) as Far Right, although you wouldn’t know that from its manifesto. And the Dems and Vets have a small but growing support, especially on social media.
Although the deceased MP was popular locally – and once memorably described as “the thinking man’s Denis Skinner” – recent local election suggest that, in normal times, Newport West would be a classic Labour/Tory marginal now.
These being about as far from normal times as I can remember in my life, we ought to expect an abormally high protest vote and a relatively high turnout…although it must be remembered that Newport W voted solidly to Remain in the EU. However, if the aggregate votes cast for the pro-Brexit foursome come anywhere near to the totals achieved by Labour and Tory, it will demonstrate two things:
- What I’ve been boffing on about for weeks now – a technological Wikivotes approach to tactical voting behind ONE pro-Brexit candidate in winnable constituencies – will have been vindicated – at least in conceptual terms.
- We can all kiss goodbye to any thoughts of an imminent General Election, as even the Westminster pondlife duopoly we suffer at the moment will realise a need to put off facing The People for as long as possible.
This is my parting shot for tonight: it would be an insanity of vanities if the anger of 17.4 million ignored voters were to be split five ways at future local and general elections. It is up in particular to the engorged egos of UKippers and Brexit Party Faragists to have an electoral pact for one runner to stand down (and endorse the other) where Wikivotes software shows either both have equally high support, or one candidate clearly has the greater chance.
Any pontificating and pompous refusals so to do would attract the obvious conclusions of an already disillusioned electorate: that all national politicians under our current Parliamentary system represent a self-obsessed waste of space….including those who claim to want radical change.