[Politics] UK Suspends Parliament

[Hades]

When she first resigned I believed May would rank as the worst prime minister of all time for a while until it started sinking in that both Cameron and Johnson were far more responsibly than she is. While I doubt she'll ever be considered anything more than a mediocre leader I thought that eventually she will be viewed as tragic instead of malicious like Cameron and Johnson who torched the country for their own private gains.

But now I'm starting to think May might not even have to wait all that long to be rehabilitated. Johnson does a very good job of highlighting how much worse May's reign could have been. As chaotic and bumbling as May's reign was there was at the very least the semblance of a government in place. Throughout all the bumbling there were at least moments were it wasn't a complete chaos and there even emerged a deal out of her failing administration.

Johnson has all the bumbling and incompetence May had except he also tossed away his majority in his first few weeks, suffers serious defeats at an even more alarming rate than May, tried dismantling democracy because it annoyed him, humiliated his country at a press conference(by being too scared to attend) and now he got told off by the supreme court over his attempted dismantlement of democracy. Hardly a day goes by without either incompetence or corruption from Johnson. Its a complete chaos without a single break from it.

I wonder if the Brits are starting to miss May. I wonder if the people working so hard to remove her are happy with the freakshow that ended up replacing her.

 

[warmachine]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her? Yes, except that he's not outrageous enough to make Parliament crash yet. The plan to hard Leave on 31st of October and have an election on the same day has failed. It's likely that Brexit will be pushed back well into next year, so the bulk of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive kicking in will be frustrating. Nonetheless, Parliament is still deadlocked and Brexit defaults to no withdrawal agreement. If Parliament can be prevented from blocking no deal, or Johnson ends with a majority to push it through, the hard Thatcherites can rip out public services and regulations and rebuild the economy on their vision.

When you want to break things and rebuild them your way, you use an idiot, narcissistic, bullshitter as front man, not an establishment leader or quiet bureaucrat.


I imagine the centrists and One Nationers who didn't block Johnson from leadership have punched their bathroom mirror but that's where the bullshitter is useful. It's amazing how much bullshit a politician will believe and what values they'll sacrifice for their political career.

 

[Silvanus]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her?

Absolutely, considering that they were motivated by their careers, and they've been awarded high new positions. See Jacob Rees-Mogg: a backbencher with zero cabinet experience, now Leader of the House of Commons. A reward for agitation and being friends with the right people.

The shambolic state of the negotiations, tumbling strength of the pound, damage to business, medicinal shortages, risk of violence and unrest-- these things are considered prices to pay for that career vehicle to keep moving.

 

[Agema]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her? Yes, except that he's not outrageous enough to make Parliament crash yet.

Probably not, actually.

Johnson was selected because lots of Tories thought he was the best chance to beat Corbyn - but he won them over in large part with a great deal of talk about responsible governance, investment in society, policing, and classic "One nation" style Toryism. I suspect they did not imagine he would stomp into office, attempt to flagrantly deny Parliament, use dodgy procedures like prorogation (which he had explicitly said he disagreed with), break the law, and wreak havoc to that extent. It's very telling that in Parliament today, a great deal of Tory MPs sat stony faced as he launched attacks on Labour, where they'd normally be cheering.

However, the thing about the mass of the Parliamentary Tory Party is that they are such a bunch of feeble fucking weaklings. They're really just like the German moderate right in the early 30s, who'd make a deal with the devil if they thought they could somehow cling on. They supported Remain and ended up supporting Brexit; they wanted a deal and ended up furthering no deal; they're supposed to represent stability, respect for institutions, business and pragmatism etc. and they've ended up electing a colossal agent of chaos. They'll end up following Johnson because he's the leader, and they have too little imagination, initiative and bravery to do anything else.

 

[Trunkage]

Johnson was selected because lots of Tories thought he was the best chance to beat Corbyn - but he won them over in large part with a great deal of talk about responsible governance, investment in society, policing, and classic "One nation" style Toryism. I suspect they did not imagine he would stomp into office, attempt to flagrantly deny Parliament, use dodgy procedures like prorogation (which he had explicitly said he disagreed with), break the law, and wreak havoc to that extent. It's very telling that in Parliament today, a great deal of Tory MPs sat stony faced as he launched attacks on Labour, where they'd normally be cheering.

They didn't imagine it. Everyone else did though and told the Tories so. And they decidedly ignored such 'negativity'.

Can I also point out that Nationalism, to do what it wants, usually has to destroy the laws from that nation. It's almost like Nationalism isn't about the nation at all.

 

[warmachine]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her? Yes, except that he's not outrageous enough to make Parliament crash yet.

Probably not, actually.

Johnson was selected because lots of Tories thought he was the best chance to beat Corbyn - but he won them over in large part with a great deal of talk about responsible governance, investment in society, policing, and classic "One nation" style Toryism. I suspect they did not imagine he would stomp into office, attempt to flagrantly deny Parliament, use dodgy procedures like prorogation (which he had explicitly said he disagreed with), break the law, and wreak havoc to that extent. It's very telling that in Parliament today, a great deal of Tory MPs sat stony faced as he launched attacks on Labour, where they'd normally be cheering.

However, the thing about the mass of the Parliamentary Tory Party is that they are such a bunch of feeble fucking weaklings. They're really just like the German moderate right in the early 30s, who'd make a deal with the devil if they thought they could somehow cling on. They supported Remain and ended up supporting Brexit; they wanted a deal and ended up furthering no deal; they're supposed to represent stability, respect for institutions, business and pragmatism etc. and they've ended up electing a colossal agent of chaos. They'll end up following Johnson because he's the leader, and they have too little imagination, initiative and bravery to do anything else.

You don't seem to be describing the people who worked hard to remove May, merely Tory MPs who were persuaded to vote for Johnson in the leadership contest.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her? Yes, except that he's not outrageous enough to make Parliament crash yet.

Probably not, actually.

Johnson was selected because lots of Tories thought he was the best chance to beat Corbyn - but he won them over in large part with a great deal of talk about responsible governance, investment in society, policing, and classic "One nation" style Toryism. I suspect they did not imagine he would stomp into office, attempt to flagrantly deny Parliament, use dodgy procedures like prorogation (which he had explicitly said he disagreed with), break the law, and wreak havoc to that extent. It's very telling that in Parliament today, a great deal of Tory MPs sat stony faced as he launched attacks on Labour, where they'd normally be cheering.

However, the thing about the mass of the Parliamentary Tory Party is that they are such a bunch of feeble fucking weaklings. They're really just like the German moderate right in the early 30s, who'd make a deal with the devil if they thought they could somehow cling on. They supported Remain and ended up supporting Brexit; they wanted a deal and ended up furthering no deal; they're supposed to represent stability, respect for institutions, business and pragmatism etc. and they've ended up electing a colossal agent of chaos. They'll end up following Johnson because he's the leader, and they have too little imagination, initiative and bravery to do anything else.

You don't seem to be describing the people who worked hard to remove May, merely Tory MPs who were persuaded to vote for Johnson in the leadership contest.

If you're referring to people outside the Tory party, why would they be happy with another Tory?

 

[Kyrian007]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her? Yes, except that he's not outrageous enough to make Parliament crash yet.

Probably not, actually.

Johnson was selected because lots of Tories thought he was the best chance to beat Corbyn - but he won them over in large part with a great deal of talk about responsible governance, investment in society, policing, and classic "One nation" style Toryism. I suspect they did not imagine he would stomp into office, attempt to flagrantly deny Parliament, use dodgy procedures like prorogation (which he had explicitly said he disagreed with), break the law, and wreak havoc to that extent. It's very telling that in Parliament today, a great deal of Tory MPs sat stony faced as he launched attacks on Labour, where they'd normally be cheering.

However, the thing about the mass of the Parliamentary Tory Party is that they are such a bunch of feeble fucking weaklings. They're really just like the German moderate right in the early 30s, who'd make a deal with the devil if they thought they could somehow cling on. They supported Remain and ended up supporting Brexit; they wanted a deal and ended up furthering no deal; they're supposed to represent stability, respect for institutions, business and pragmatism etc. and they've ended up electing a colossal agent of chaos. They'll end up following Johnson because he's the leader, and they have too little imagination, initiative and bravery to do anything else.

Quite right, but you left out another quality the Tories found favorable in Johnson. He's someone they absolutely won't mind throwing under the bus when Brexit explodes. Johnson is going down with Brexit regardless of the outcome. If somehow it doesn't happen he's at fault, he didn't fight hard enough for it. If it goes down no deal its his fault the economy tanked. If even somehow a deal is reached the EU won't have given them better terms than deals that have already been voted down... once again Johnson goes under the bus. Johnson was also selected because someone has to take the fall for Brexit. The Tories apparently don't have any trouble sacrificing Johnson to go down with the ship. And frankly with his involvement with the Leave campaign... he deserves it. As do many others, but he does deserve it.

 

[warmachine]

Are the people who worked so hard to remove May happy with the freakshow who replaced her? Yes, except that he's not outrageous enough to make Parliament crash yet.

Probably not, actually.

Johnson was selected because lots of Tories thought he was the best chance to beat Corbyn - but he won them over in large part with a great deal of talk about responsible governance, investment in society, policing, and classic "One nation" style Toryism. I suspect they did not imagine he would stomp into office, attempt to flagrantly deny Parliament, use dodgy procedures like prorogation (which he had explicitly said he disagreed with), break the law, and wreak havoc to that extent. It's very telling that in Parliament today, a great deal of Tory MPs sat stony faced as he launched attacks on Labour, where they'd normally be cheering.

However, the thing about the mass of the Parliamentary Tory Party is that they are such a bunch of feeble fucking weaklings. They're really just like the German moderate right in the early 30s, who'd make a deal with the devil if they thought they could somehow cling on. They supported Remain and ended up supporting Brexit; they wanted a deal and ended up furthering no deal; they're supposed to represent stability, respect for institutions, business and pragmatism etc. and they've ended up electing a colossal agent of chaos. They'll end up following Johnson because he's the leader, and they have too little imagination, initiative and bravery to do anything else.

You don't seem to be describing the people who worked hard to remove May, merely Tory MPs who were persuaded to vote for Johnson in the leadership contest.

If you're referring to people outside the Tory party, why would they be happy with another Tory?

Agema was describing One Nation Tory MPs, not outsiders. I contend those who worked hard to remove May were the hardline Europhobes and Thatcherite Tory MPs. The One Nationers and other factions of the Tory MP were merely bullshitted responders, as Agema described.

 

[Agema]

You don't seem to be describing the people who worked hard to remove May, merely Tory MPs who were persuaded to vote for Johnson in the leadership contest.

You're totally right, I misread your comment - my apologies.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I mean when you put a clown in charge I don't know why you wouldn't expect a circus

 

[Baffle]

I mean when you put a clown in charge I don't know why you wouldn't expect a circus

Now, I've never been to the circus (small mercies), but I reckon there's not many acts where a fat clown points at a crying lady and says 'Your friend is dead! Ah ha wah wah! Ah hah wha! Ah hah wha!'. (I've tried to capture the laugh of the awful clown-in-a-box machine they had on all British (well, at least English) coastal resorts in the 1980s, but I'm not sure I've succeeded. I'll come back if I can find a clip.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I mean when you put a clown in charge I don't know why you wouldn't expect a circus

Now, I've never been to the circus (small mercies), but I reckon there's not many acts where a fat clown points at a crying lady and says 'Your friend is dead! Ah ha wah wah! Ah hah wha! Ah hah wha!'. (I've tried to capture the laugh of the awful clown-in-a-box machine they had on all British (well, at least English) coastal resorts in the 1980s, but I'm not sure I've succeeded. I'll come back if I can find a clip.

It sounds like you're describing the way Tim Curry's version of Pennywise laughs. Which...also not too far off

 

[Batou667]

Now, I've never been to the circus (small mercies), but I reckon there's not many acts where a fat clown points at a crying lady and says 'Your friend is dead! Ah ha wah wah! Ah hah wha! Ah hah wha!'.

This isn't directed personally at you, Baffle2, but I do have a couple of thoughts on that.

I really wish people would stop trying to make political capital of the murder of Jo Cox. That was a singular, isolated, freak occurrence that not a single person in government ordered, condoned or profited from. There is no Tory policy that calls for vigilantes to assassinate political opponents; the blame must fall squarely and solely on the shoulders of the little weirdo who was responsible (What was his name? Something Muir? He deserves to be forgotten, at any rate).

Related, is the snowflake sentiment that every bit of rhetoric that comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth must be pleasant and agreeable platitudes, expressed in a lukewarm and inoffensive fashion. Absolute rubbish. I'm sure it would suit Labour and their allies for Johnson et al to graciously self-censor and only ever make points in a half-hearted and easily defeated manner - but Boris Johnson was not elected to ingratiate himself to the opposition, remember. He positioned himself from the beginning as man of action, and that's the persona he's sticking to. Politics is a lot like warfare and it's inevitable politicians will employ metaphors that evoke that kind of vocabulary. Before R+P got the snip I recall a long thread on the topic of civility... perhaps let's agree that violent speech and violent action are linked but not the same thing. For a start, one is legal and the other is a crime. Perspective, please!

 

[Thaluikhain]

There is no Tory policy that calls for vigilantes to assassinate political opponents; the blame must fall squarely and solely on the shoulders of the little weirdo who was responsible (What was his name? Something Muir? He deserves to be forgotten, at any rate).

Not true. Now, the majority of the blame is of course his, but when you go around lying about how your opponents are traitors and hate democracy and are going to ruin the country, it's not really that much of a surprise if someone, somewhere believes you and acts accordingly. All very well to inflame anger and hatred, but you can't wash your hands of the consequences just because you aren't directly involved.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Now, I've never been to the circus (small mercies), but I reckon there's not many acts where a fat clown points at a crying lady and says 'Your friend is dead! Ah ha wah wah! Ah hah wha! Ah hah wha!'.

This isn't directed personally at you, Baffle2, but I do have a couple of thoughts on that.

I really wish people would stop trying to make political capital of the murder of Jo Cox. That was a singular, isolated, freak occurrence that not a single person in government ordered, condoned or profited from. There is no Tory policy that calls for vigilantes to assassinate political opponents; the blame must fall squarely and solely on the shoulders of the little weirdo who was responsible (What was his name? Something Muir? He deserves to be forgotten, at any rate).

Related, is the snowflake sentiment that every bit of rhetoric that comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth must be pleasant and agreeable platitudes, expressed in a lukewarm and inoffensive fashion. Absolute rubbish. I'm sure it would suit Labour and their allies for Johnson et al to graciously self-censor and only ever make points in a half-hearted and easily defeated manner - but Boris Johnson was not elected to ingratiate himself to the opposition, remember. He positioned himself from the beginning as man of action, and that's the persona he's sticking to. Politics is a lot like warfare and it's inevitable politicians will employ metaphors that evoke that kind of vocabulary. Before R+P got the snip I recall a long thread on the topic of civility... perhaps let's agree that violent speech and violent action are linked but not the same thing. For a start, one is legal and the other is a crime. Perspective, please!

I don't need what BoJo says to be platitudes to the other side. I do want what BoJo says to be professional and not a series of increasingly childish insults. I would like if the death threats politicians received were indeed just the acts of fringe weirdos and weren't using the terminology the goddamn Prime Minister uses.
Because I disagree that politics is like warfare. I would say that in fact it is the exact opposite of warfare, trying to settle things by discourse rather than violence and force. In warfare there are two sides serving different ends, but in politics the two sides should, by rights, be serving the same end: serve the British public. Only looking at the current crop of Tories I very much doubt its anything but their own wallets they're thinking of

 

[Hades]

There is no Tory policy that calls for vigilantes to assassinate political opponents; the blame must fall squarely and solely on the shoulders of the little weirdo who was responsible (What was his name? Something Muir? He deserves to be forgotten, at any rate).

Not true. Now, the majority of the blame is of course his, but when you go around lying about how your opponents are traitors and hate democracy and are going to ruin the country, it's not really that much of a surprise if someone, somewhere believes you and acts accordingly. All very well to inflame anger and hatred, but you can't wash your hands of the consequences just because you aren't directly involved.

I agree and in fact I believe that populist voters are more susceptible to radicalizing like this.

Firstly its because populists demonize their opponents to a much larger extent that regular politicians. Everyone who doesn't agree with them isn't just depicted as wrong but practically a traitor. We see this in the Brexiteers, in Trump, in the Dutch populists and in Erdogan. All paint many critics as having ill intentions with the entire country. The phrase ''enemy of the people'' they love using is carefully chosen to provide maximum outrage to their voter base towards a particular person.

And populist voters are vulnerable against this because a good chunk of them already believes that the establishment is maliciously out to get them and that the great populist leader is their final hope. So when their final hope starts demonizing their opponents its not surprising that a populist voter will radicalize and take matters into their own hands. After all according to the populists the ''enemies of the people'' have already infiltrated the judiciary and all of politics so how else could these ''traitors'' be stopped?

 

[Agema]

This isn't directed personally at you, Baffle2, but I do have a couple of thoughts on that.

I really wish people would stop trying to make political capital of the murder of Jo Cox. That was a singular, isolated, freak occurrence that not a single person in government ordered, condoned or profited from.

It's not a freak occurrence, though, is it? It's directly connected to the sort of angry and hostile language and attitudes building up over a matter of high political division. If this were an Islamist killing, you wouldn't for a moment be pretending that the way extremist Islamic preachers speak has no influence on whether angry and unstable Muslims might go killing people. As you say in your later paragraph: violent speech and violent action are linked. The former inspires the latter.

Related, is the snowflake sentiment that every bit of rhetoric that comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth must be pleasant and agreeable platitudes, expressed in a lukewarm and inoffensive fashion. Absolute rubbish. I'm sure it would suit Labour and their allies for Johnson et al to graciously self-censor and only ever make points in a half-hearted and easily defeated manner - but Boris Johnson was not elected to ingratiate himself to the opposition, remember. He positioned himself from the beginning as man of action, and that's the persona he's sticking to. Politics is a lot like warfare and it's inevitable politicians will employ metaphors that evoke that kind of vocabulary. Before R+P got the snip I recall a long thread on the topic of civility... perhaps let's agree that violent speech and violent action are linked but not the same thing. For a start, one is legal and the other is a crime. Perspective, please!

As a party leader, the PM has a duty to represent his party and its voters to some extent. However, as PM, he's also representing the whole country, and he therefore has moral duty to respect the 65% (75-80% including non-voters) of the country that isn't voting for him.

"Man of action" does not mean "despicable **** who pours contempt and abuse on his opponents for lols", and is no excuse for behaving that way. Lots of prime ministers and presidents have got things done with determination and vigour without egregious trolling. Johnson is playing to an attitude on the right / Brexit axis that delights in the deliberate, malicious aggravation of their opponents. It might win him an election, but at the cost of helping drag the whole country into a whole new level of bitterness and recrimination that will take a long, long time to heal.

But what it really boils down to is all that smug and pointless bullshit conservatives usually come out with about values like respect, good conduct, responsibility blah blah blah is just a pack of feelgood lies, to be dropped the minute it's convenient to win an election.

 

[Batou667]

It's not a freak occurrence, though, is it? It's directly connected to the sort of angry and hostile language and attitudes building up over a matter of high political division. ... As you say in your later paragraph: violent speech and violent action are linked. The former inspires the latter.

It would be rare that an act of violence wouldn't have its roots in violent thought or speech, true. But there's a gulf of difference and several crucial degrees of separation between fiery political rhetoric and aiming a gun at somebody. People talk in combative terms about opponents all the time - whether that be a rival football team or the opposing political party. If it were inevitable that harsh language leads to bloodshed, then we would be seeing tribally motivated murders constantly - so I stand by the Jo Cox murder being a freak occurrence. Even in the abhorrent grey area of harassment and death threats, seldom are the abusers seriously considering murder.

If this were an Islamist killing, you wouldn't for a moment be pretending that the way extremist Islamic preachers speak has no influence on whether angry and unstable Muslims might go killing people.

Well, I think context matters a lot. It's one thing for a person to use "fire and brimstone" rhetoric in expounding a personally held political opinion. It's quite another thing to make a direct, explicit call to violence - and it amazes me that the self same people who are first to clutch for their pearls when they see or hear "alt-right dog whistles" are evidently so unbothered by the fact that the West's fastest growing religion is centered on a text, believed to be the literal word of God, that is full of commandments to kill nonbelievers. But we're going off topic...

As a party leader, the PM has a duty to represent his party and its voters to some extent. However, as PM, he's also representing the whole country, and he therefore has moral duty to respect the 65% (75-80% including non-voters) of the country that isn't voting for him.

Yes, it's regrettable that Brexit has devolved into such a divisive, embittered squabble. In more normal circumstances Johnson would not be PM material and the rhetoric being bandied around would not be considered fair game.

 

[Agema]

It would be rare that an act of violence wouldn't have its roots in violent thought or speech, true. But there's a gulf of difference and several crucial degrees of separation between fiery political rhetoric and aiming a gun at somebody.

It's a numbers game. Spout hate, most people just get wound up... but you'll inspire some to violence, and a few to extreme violence.

Well, I think context matters a lot. It's one thing for a person to use "fire and brimstone" rhetoric in expounding a personally held political opinion. It's quite another thing to make a direct, explicit call to violence...

Yes, that's why the latter is illegal. That doesn't mean the former (as above) is risk-free.

People can if they want incite anger, hate and thus ultimately violence, but they should take responsibility for it. They can excuse and defend other people inciting anger, hate and violence, and they can take responsibility for that as well. So do you want a country where everyone is screaming at each other and full of hate, and moving towards division and violence? Yes or no?

If yes, just be honest with yourself and others about it. If no, be more respectful and encourage others to be, too.

are evidently so unbothered by the fact that the West's fastest growing religion is centered on a text, believed to be the literal word of God, that is full of commandments to kill nonbelievers. But we're going off topic...

In the context that the West's largest religion (by a long way) also has a text containing such commandments and its own rich history of mass slaughter, indeed they might not be that bothered.

Yes, it's regrettable that Brexit has devolved into such a divisive, embittered squabble. In more normal circumstances Johnson would not be PM material and the rhetoric being bandied around would not be considered fair game.

He's not PM material under any circumstances.

It's kind of funny, because if hadn't been for Johnson and his core supporters, the UK would already be out of the EU. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? He only supported leave to give himself a shot at the leadership over Osborne, and then he knifed May to get rid of her and ascend.