There might be perversions of logic in which this latest from Owen Jones makes sense but the formulation that Brexit’s not that important therefore the impasse on Brexit shows we must have an election to resolve Brexit doesn’t really work in anything more usefully logical.
Yet that’s what he is arguing. Here:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] But one thing is clear, and it is the first sensible thing May has uttered in her calamitous premiership. “I fear we are reaching the end of the process in this House,” she declared after her loss. In practice, this must mean a general election beckons. Those poor suckers on the Conservative benches are marching straight back into an electoral contest. Will there even be time for the captain to abandon ship? May must hope that it will be the election she craved in 2017, in which the battle lines are over Brexit, and nothing else. This must not be allowed. After David Cameron showed himself to be the worst prime minister since the 18th century, and May responded with “Hold my beer,” she spoke eloquently – passionately, even – of the “burning injustices” that had led to Brexit. But we cannot have an election contest simply about the customs union and access to the single market. It must also be about stagnating wages, the lack of secure jobs, surging child poverty, public services in turmoil and the housing crisis. This prime minister didn’t snuff out the burning injustices after all: she manically doused them with petrol. [/perfectpullquote]D’ye see that lovely spin there? The reason we must have an election is because Brexit show that they can’t govern. Reasonable enough perhaps, given that the nation itself is so split on the issue. But the election to solve this paralysis mustn’t be about what’s causing the paralysis. Oh no. Because, reasons.
Is any of
actually happening outside of the overactive imagination of the boy Jones?
In quite what way and by what metric David Cameron can be described as the worst PM in over two hundred years boggles the mind. Gay marriage, coalition government, referendums, a little war waging (but significantly less than recent predecessors) and reduced income tax on low earners, are these all indicators of bad governance?
Even if David Cameron’s premiership is unlikely to be awarded historical laurels, from the cynics’ point of view he was not necessarily a bad PM, in that he did less harm than than is the norm.
He is however well in the running for most mediocre.
It still puzzles me about any election soon, what will they put in their manifestos about Brexit? Promises to deliver? Promises to remain? Just don’t mention it? If we delay, whay will they put in their EU election manifestos? Remain, leave, what? Because that will be the only issue for that election. When leave-sympathetic MEPs win all the seats except Scotland and London, what will they all do, ignore it? Brexit is not going away as a divisive issue unless we do it and nothing bad happens, in which case all will be leavers.—“I voted for the deal, that was… Read more »
I think it’s very slowly starting to dawn on some of them what is going to happen.
Grieve has had a vote of no confidence go against him. He hasn’t (of course) taken this to mean he should stand down but instead criticised the outcome.
I just want to get the parish election out of the way before she screws everything up like she did two years ago.