[Oldmanmatt]

Has anyone else actually watched Bozo’s UN address?
I managed 3 minutes of it,
Shit! That is some rambling bollocks, right there; even by my standards.

Don’t try Will. If I irritate you, that speech will put you in an asylum...

[Ru]

The Supreme Court judgement is a perfect example of why large interested bodies (government agencies, large companies, insurers, etc) often roll over rather than risk appealing cases to the Supreme Court. The outcome can have far reaching repercussions and there is no higher court of appeal. If you don't want to know the answer, don't force someone to ask the question.

Boris could have prorogued legitimately for a shorter period without risking legal action, but by gunning for a few days extra he has got an outcome that has decisively shifted power away from the executive (I suppose that technically it was always like that and the Supreme Court just made everyone aware of it). Not so much shooting himself in the foot as removing his legs at the waist.

[spidermonkey09]

The Supreme Court judgement is a perfect example of why large interested bodies (government agencies, large companies, insurers, etc) often roll over rather than risk appealing cases to the Supreme Court. The outcome can have far reaching repercussions and there is no higher court of appeal. If you don't want to know the answer, don't force someone to ask the question.

Boris could have prorogued legitimately for a shorter period without risking legal action, but by gunning for a few days extra he has got an outcome that has decisively shifted power away from the executive (I suppose that technically it was always like that and the Supreme Court just made everyone aware of it). Not so much shooting himself in the foot as removing his legs at the waist.

The response to this from the government has made me so angry today. Cox in the chamber was a disgrace earlier. No admission of wrongdoing, no mea culpa, nothing. It wasn't even close; 11-0 for fucks sake!

[mrjonathanr]

Love that Gove has said today that “some judges” disagree with the Supreme Court ruling.

It’s a standard ploy from the hard right playbook: sow seeds of doubt, project responsibility elsewhere.

Remember this one? Disgraceful comment from Kwasi Kwarteng:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49670901

[seankenny]

I used to work with Jo Cox.

The way Johnson has spoken tonight... disgust doesn’t even begin to describe it.

[Oldmanmatt]

I used to work with Jo Cox.

The way Johnson has spoken tonight... disgust doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Bit beyond the pale, wasn’t it.

Some sort of sociopath, that fella. If I disliked him before, dislike has become far too mild a term for my current contempt.

I would have put  Kuenssburg as an out and out Tory in her slant, normally:

[Wil]

I used to work with Jo Cox.

The way Johnson has spoken tonight... disgust doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Much as I've been disgusted with much that's gone on with Brexit debate, this is the one thing which really made me sick to the core. They don't care. There's no heart, no plan, no thought for the good of the country or how our democracy should actually operate. It's all a Willy waving contest for entitled pricks. What a nasty piece of work this man is, I really hope it comes crashing down on him. I don't have a lot of respect for May, but I did respect the fact that I felt she was acting in good faith in trying to secure a deal.

[Oldmanmatt]

“The Poke” is a satirical news site. On the off chance that anyone didn’t know.
Today, they took time off from their usual ridicule, to out and out condemn our PM.
Suddenly the world stopped and I think for the first time, nobody’s laughing.
Nobody who you would want to associate with, anyway.
Or, to put it another way, it’s really rather telling, to see who does think it’s funny.
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/09/26/boris-johnsons-divisive-language-new-low/

[TobyD]

I could barely stand any of the news yesterday,  the behaviour of many MPs is childish and contemptible. (I am referring  to  Boris Johnson,  Geoffrey Cox, Jacob Rees Mogg, Michael Gove principally but any use of words like dictatorship ) I'm increasingly drawn to hoping for any sort of least worst outcome, such as that suggested by Simon  Jenkins in the Guardian:

The one alternative is a deal along the lines already agreed by Theresa May, and rejected time and again by the foolish Commons. Events have moved on. If Johnson was shrewd, he would await the end of his conference next week and, in the name of unity, summon an elder statesman such as Ken Clarke. He would license such a figure to forge a cross-party agreement based on the May deal, sweetened by pleading with Brussels for a new form of words governing an Irish border. Here negotiators are still playacting. Such a deal is feasible.

The UK could then leave the EU on 31 October with a withdrawal agreement and enter a transition period, with all options (other than remain) on the table. It would honour the referendum. For Tory leavers it would be the least worst outcome. The political climate would instantly shift. Johnson, proclaiming himself “deliverer of the will of the people”, could romp home at a subsequent election.

I cannot imagine a worse prime minister to be leading the country just now. But that is not the issue, any more than whether Johnson broke the law. If he can keep his nerve, this could yet be his hour of pain before an electoral dawn. Forget the judges. Only the short term matters. The true maxim is: be you never so self-righteous, politics is above you.

[spidermonkey09]

I'd be interested to hear which MP's who are not Conservatives you think are behavingly disgracefully. A government that refuses to acknowledge it has acted unlawfully and continues to insist that it will not ask for an extension under any circumstances, despite being required to by law, is sailing extremely close to the winds of dictatorship as far as I'm concerned. The government does not get to say that the highest court in the land was wrong. That is tyrannical rhetoric and should be called out as such without any Trumpian 'both sides' asterisks attached.

[Will Hunt]

The invoking of Jo Cox was beyond the pale. I think that tops everything else in terms of plumbing new depths in rhetoric.

[petejh]

Easily lost in all the righteous anger is that bozo didn't bring up the subject of Jo cox.

He was replying to an emotional semi-rant - the sort of emotional tirade that debate is supposed to be worse off for. By a back-bencher who invoked Jo Cox along with a load of other angry tirade decrying how debate has become inflamed. Which ignored that bringing up the name of Jo Cox as part of an emotional and not entirely coherent tirade is pretty much the perfect definition of Do as I Say Not as I Am Currently Doing.

I thought he was quite right to think what he heard was a load of humbug. He was probably quite wrong, being a politician after all and not supposed to say what he thinks, to say it!

[teestub]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=78&v=yD-4vs7He6M

Footage of what he was replying to here which, whilst being heated (as the entire House was yesterday) was cogent and entirely understandable from a friend of Jo Cox who has herself been receiving death threats.

[Will Hunt]

Easily lost in all the righteous anger is that bozo didn't bring up the subject of Jo cox.

He was replying to an emotional semi-rant - the sort of emotional tirade that debate is supposed to be worse off for. By a back-bencher who invoked Jo Cox along with a load of other angry tirade decrying how debate has become inflamed. Which ignored that bringing up the name of Jo Cox as part of an emotional and not entirely coherent tirade is pretty much the perfect definition of Do as I Say Not as I Am Currently Doing.

I thought he was quite right to think what he heard was a load of humbug. He was probably quite wrong, being a politician after all and not supposed to say what he thinks, to say it!

"The best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox...is to get Brexit done".

 

[Oldmanmatt]

Jeeze Pete, that’s a harsh take.

She was certainly emotional, but he was an out and out bastard. How can you possibly justify his shit?
Total false equivalency.
Not to mention how much he and his aides have doubled down on this today.

But, a quote from a mate at the FT. Name withheld, coz it’s from a personal conversation. He has a point, even though we rarely agree on much and I have strong reservations, still:

“Just don't think social media is the right place for truths and non-truths to be argued over. All I see is people being pushed further to the left and further to the right. The only winner is extremism and we will only see increased attacks, verbal and physical, on our MPs. No matter what party they were yesterday the behaviour was indeed a disgrace. When you see politicians speaking with such emotional intensity and anger the outcome will be worse for everybody. There are a lot of people who think Parliament have ignored democracy and a lot of people who think that is ok as long as their needs are served. I haven't seen an MP for a long time that is fit to serve. Time for a reset. Which just happens to be our new agenda at the FT!”

Should mention, he’s strongly pro-brexit, so the “their needs are served” bit, he can shove where the sun don’t shine.*
.
.
*It’s in a small valley, just west of Tryfan.

[Oldmanmatt]

You are partially correct though Pete:

[abarro81]

Honestly Pete, I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint. What was humbug? The idea that "surrender" "betrayal" etc might be prime fodder for people smashing out death threats? You may think it's not key but it's clearly not "humbug".

I remember a few years back, I'd see/hear people giving MPs shit and think to myself that really they mostly they don't deserve it - I disagree with about half of them but no doubt we just honestly disagree with each other on how to make the country better. I can't say that about BJ anymore, he's either a moron or a bad person, and I don't think he's a moron.

[IanP]

Honestly Pete, I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint. What was humbug? The idea that "surrender" "betrayal" etc might be prime fodder for people smashing out death threats? You may think it's not key but it's clearly not "humbug".

Agree completely.  And also think we shouldn't forget (I wish we could!) that Johnson is prime minister - despite all the heightened retoric on all sides we should be able to expect some level of control and reasonableness from this position. 

I really struggle to think of any PM in history who has behaved anything like this.  I try not to despair but do feel like there are people in the current government who are willing to go full bore for the Trump style division and populist appeal to your base irrelevant of the wider impact.

[abarro81]

Given Johnson's random wandering speeches and total disregard for the truth I think we're already into our own Trump territory

[petejh]

Easily lost in all the righteous anger is that bozo didn't bring up the subject of Jo cox.

He was replying to an emotional semi-rant - the sort of emotional tirade that debate is supposed to be worse off for. By a back-bencher who invoked Jo Cox along with a load of other angry tirade decrying how debate has become inflamed. Which ignored that bringing up the name of Jo Cox as part of an emotional and not entirely coherent tirade is pretty much the perfect definition of Do as I Say Not as I Am Currently Doing.

I thought he was quite right to think what he heard was a load of humbug. He was probably quite wrong, being a politician after all and not supposed to say what he thinks, to say it!

"The best way to honour the memory of Jo Cox...is to get Brexit done".

 

Either you haven't read what I wrote or you've misunderstood it. I wasn't talking about the following day's comment by bozo on 'getting brexit done'. 
I was talking about the flack he got for his 'humbug' response the evening before. And I clearly said that it was inappropriate to verbalise what he (and no doubt many others) were thinking.


Alex. To some people the label 'Surrender act' is an entirely appropriate characterisation of the Ben act.

In our parliamentary system using labels 'surrender' and 'betrayal' in political debate is nothing out of the ordinary. That kind of thing is an entirely normal scene in any robust political debate. What's obvious is these aren't normal times.

What some people see and object to is politicians using moral outrage as a rhetorical tool to try to stifle debate - namely leavers' labelling of the Ben act as the 'surrender act'.
Why? Because it being labelled that way is a moderately effective rhetorical tool by tory leavers. The message of it being surrender resonates with many people. Opponents of brexit can see that and, naturally, they want to try to stop it. It's a sign of how awful our standard of discussion is over brexit that politicians are resorting to moral outrage surrounding their murdered colleague as a rhetorical device to serve their political view on brexit.

It's an ugly show on all sides of the argument. If you want to calm an emotional debate between two opposing viewpoints you simply do not go about it by invoking the senseless murder of your colleague, and then try to use that tragic fact to attempt to stop the other side using words such as 'surrender' and 'betrayal' which, as I've noted above, are in any rational logical and sensible debate perfectly appropriate characterisations to be used by one side of an argument. Neither do you reply insensitively by uttering humbug!!

[teestub]

Pete, if you had to balance the chances of inflammatory and martial language in Parliament leading to violence against remain supporting MPs by Brexiters vs Brexit supporting by remainers, how would you rate that, about even?

Did you catch the AG’s tirade from earlier in the day? I think the opposition were probably expecting some contrition from the government on the first day back after their illegal break, but they just got a load of populist chest thumping and drum beating.

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m sorry Pete, of course, this has all been so logical, perfectly appropriate and simply a robust debate, from the start.

Has it bollocks!

Pete, you are mischaracterising the opposition in Parliament, for one thing. It’s not Leavers vs Remain, it’s “No Dealers” vs everybody else. Many of those opposed to the Gov are pro leave.

Secondly, as I said above, total false equivalency. Asking for a toning down of rhetoric, using a very real and tragic example of the consequences of the language currently in use, is perfectly acceptable. It does not pertain to either Leave or Remain. I understand that you are uncomfortable with emotional arguments, but I’m afraid humans have emotions and they display them. Quite, bloody, right too. This isn’t just another election and the stakes are much greater, ergo, the emotions much higher.

I do not see how, by any stretch, you can equate the very likely consequences of Johnson’s rhetoric and comments, with those of (what did you call her?) “Some back bencher” (dismissively, as if unimportant, then in the next breath, giving her words equivalency with the those of the man holding the office of Prime Minister).

Exactly, in your opinion, how did those “Some back bencher’s” words, in any way, incite or encourage violence or unrest?

Then, apply the same filter to Johnson’s words.

Then, give me an example of a radical Remainer, engaging in violence or intimidation? Incited by....?

I know we’ll never agree here, but I find your take on this so heartless and lacking in empathy.
But then, I find that with almost the entire Leave campaign, and all it’s top advocates.

[SamT]

but I find your take on this so heartless and lacking in empathy.
But then, I find that with almost the entire Leave campaign, and all it’s top advocates.

This ^^^^

And that is exactly why I'm deeply troubled by where Brexit is taking us as a nation.  It's not looking at all pretty as far as I can see.

[Stu Littlefair]

Pretty shocked by your replies on this one Pete. People are getting death threats with the PMs words repeated verbatim.

It’s one thing to defend his right to use inflammatory language, but it’s genuinely shocking to hear you suggest that people receiving death threats are only raising this issue for political gain, or to “stifle debate” as you put it.

That’s a whole new level of cynicism

[sdm]

I hope I have misunderstood your posts Pete, because I find the alternative troubling.

Johnson, Cox, Mogg, Cleverly, Cummings and others are deliberately using inciteful language in order to pitch a narrative where both the judiciary and parliament are "enemies of the people".

MPs are receiving death threats. Paula Sheriff received death threats this week. Joe Swinson received threats against her children. Jess Phillips received a death threat quoting Boris Johnson's exact words. As a colleague and friend of Jo Cox, I think Sheriff may be forgiven for being emotional; she will be all too aware that not all death threats are received from harmless nutcases. Some of them are real.

I didn't see it as invoking the memory of Jo Cox for political point scoring, but as the justifiably emotional response of someone fearing for their safety.

If this narrative and rhetoric is allowed to continue unchecked, I'm afraid another attack on a politician or a judge seems inevitable.