Oh god, don't make me read that Pilger column again. It's incoherent.
Glad it's not just me. I'm generally a fan but that was pure polemic.
Labour MP Diane Abbott -- This is not Labour MPs vs Corbyn. They’re at war with party members
I am terrified that Australia is about to re-elect a RWDB government presided over by a former merchant banker with a nice smile (you may find that discomfortingly familiar in NZ).
Let slip the Dingos of War!
I have wondered why the monarchy isn't doing anything, or preventing anything from being done.
Because that's not how constitutional monarchy works. If the Queen got involved, as opposed to the Crown (quite different things, legally), you would really see bloody revolution in the streets, especially in the current climate.
God, now blaming the North for resurrection of a zombie Thatcherism, as if it ever went away.
The Tory government ran a referendum to scupper the racist thug Ukip vote, assuming it would be a clear win for remain. The referendum shows there is a deeper antipathy in the UK, beyond racism. The real problem is that the next general election is not until 2020 when real change could occur. However the conservatives rearrange their constituent parts the monster is unlikely to address the fundamental inequalities of the current age.
Only thing I read made any sense was British folk have used their relatively proportional votes on Europe as a means of expressing discontent with their local government for the last lifetime, and not actually cared what happened with them afterward.
Because that's all the papers and other media ever talk about with 'em, and for most folk that's all there is.
So when there was a referendum on something the government didn't want, the people protested against their government (which is not at all proportionate in the regular elections, and really very unpopular) by voting for the other thing.
Which got them what they wanted, the PM will quit and the local politicians are all being appropriately po-faced for a bit. All this "things might be bad now" is just another day, things are always "might be bad now", like the wars and stuff.
Oh, but, don't mention the wars. Isn't it a warm summer, and such thunderstorms, every day!
Because that’s not how constitutional monarchy works.
In terms of wielding power, the monarchy have no great power. But in terms of a refusal to even express an opinion, that is simply the policy of an individual monarch. It's quite possible that Charles might do it very differently. It's possible (although, I agree, very unlikely), that the Queen, faced with the loss of almost every last piece of the Empire she was born to, might actually change her mind. It's actually a decision that might have consequences that affect her and her direct family. Her own husband might end up the Duke of Nothing, pretty soon.
80 years this December?
He chose to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee. IIRC, he did it so as to NOT force a governmental collapse. The power was mostly in his hands to do that or not do it, and he chose not to invoke a constitutional crisis over his right to marry his choice of partner. I doubt if he ever really wanted to be King at all.
I'm not that invested in this discussion. I just think it's an interesting angle, that a country that is collapsing in ruin might actually have it's official head of state pull their finger out and do at least one damned thing to stop it. But the self-styled practicality of the British system is under serious question here, so I'll certainly go with the realpolitik that moves by the Queen are unlikely. As much part of the problem, really, and I'm mostly suggesting all this to point that out. The British governmental system is moving from quaint joke to farce every day.
Leaving his mess for some hapless spooge wrangler to clean up.
To those who fail to see the rising groundswell of support in the UK for Corbyn’s style of Labour, I commend read this piece from the heart from Dan Isles. He’s one of the people who found Corbyn inspirational and signed up to the party, doubling its memnership under Corbyn.
Related Brexit reading:
Nick Clegg – LibDem leader 2007 to 2015
Britain must have a general election before activating article 50
Deborah Orr – Guardian columnist
In Brexit Britain the elites will run amok
German vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel
Germany should offer citizenship to young British expats
Alfie, you're giving cherry-picking a bad name. I hope you're reading all the other Guardian articles as well. I'd back Neil Kinnock's Labour credentials over somebody who joined five minutes ago.
To repeat (3rd time): I/we don't "fail to see the rising groundswell of support", at all. Please stop insulting my intelligence, it's tiresome. I just happen to see a clear distinction between the activist left and the UK voters. Thousands versus millions. Pro-Corbyn demo versus anti-Brexit march. 1983 versus 1997 (or even 1992). Politics is counting, not just believing.
You ignored the question before so I'll try again: what is Corbyn going to do in Scotland? No seats in Scotland = no Labour government in the UK, that is as basic as it gets.
A mantra doesn't beat maths.
Labour would have won without Scotland in 6 of the 8 elections they won since WW2:
(There are various different ways of looking at this, but the RUK is very clearly winnable by Labour. More so, if NI left as well).
I don’t know why people persist in repeating “maths” that is historically bogus.
So Tony Blair is the answer? Or Harold Wilson.
I don't think that's what Corbyn & co have in mind.
Let's update the maths, using the calculator:
(Bear in mind that Corbyn can't deliver to the SNP or Lib Dems, as long as he supports Brexit. So Labour will need 326 themselves).
Corbyn doesn’t support Brexit.
Also, the *only* Labour leaders to have won an election since WW2 are Attlee, Wilson and Blair. I see Corbyn as in the Attlee mould. Attlee won a huge majority against all predictions and went on to lead the most radical government in modern British history: nationalised coal, steel and the Bank of England, introduced free secondary education, expanded the welfare state, all in straitened financial circumstances.
Alfie, you’re giving cherry-picking a bad name. I hope you’re reading all the other Guardian articles as well.
I read the Guardian every day Simon, along with several other European news outlets. We have a son living in the UK and I correspond with several British friends, having lived there for a decade and worked in news for much of that time. I’m a news junkie with an interest in UK politics. We survived a few years under Thatcherism and the feeling I get from people on the ground over there informs my opinions.
Please stop insulting my intelligence, it’s tiresome.
It’s not all about you Simon, and you’ll find that the PAS audience is on the whole more intelligent than you expect.
While I’m not exactly sure what your problem is, it’s starting to feel like you're giving stalking a bad name. If you don’t agree with my opinions then fine, just ignore them and move on. Please!
The Chilcot report is finally out – worth reading at least the summary. Labour party politics have been interesting enough in the past couple of weeks, much of it in anticipation of this report – there is bound to be even more division and recriminations now. Typically Blair is already (again) justifying his position.