>>84569
All I want for Christmas is a New PM.
And some money.

I want to get off MR BONES WILD RIDE

I think May's getting of this ride very shortly.

She obviously sees the logistical and political impossibility of delivering Brexit. Any replacement would be cornered into accepting whatever shite deal is on the table at the time.

Pack your rice, literally

I really want her to quit and issue a statement saying that a Leaver needs to grow a pair of bollocks and take charge instead of sniping from the sidelines and saying the negotiations are going terribly without being able to propose a viable alternative or running away at the first sign of taking responsibility like David Davis did.

PLACE BETS NOW!

Tory party Christmas party tonight.

>So far, 147 Tory MPs have publicly said they will vote for her, with 32 against, according to BBC research. She needs to secure the votes of 158 MPs to survive.

She'll be fine unless Corbyn grows a bollocks in the next 24 hours.

>>84575
I'd like to see what happens with Mogg as PM. Not that I'd want to live in that timeline but I bet it would be entertaining.

>>84575

There are some worryingly short odds for some disastrously awful people on that chart. Gove and BoJo at 6/1? Those are rice-packing odds.

Could we have Penny Mordaunt, please? If we're going to have an awful bastard in charge, we could at least have a really fit bastard with a magnificent rack.

>>84578
It would be nice to have a MILF in charge. She'd probably make a complete hash of it but not more so than the others; apparently Raab is the front runner and he only realised the other week that quite a lot of goods come and go through Dover.

I'm sure Esther McVey was making noise recently about challenging Theresa May for the leadership, but she's such a vile little titwitch that I doubt she'd get the required two nominations.

>>84577
Would it be entertaining? I've seen politicians express patrician contempt for serious issues a great many times and I've never once found it amusing, not even when it happens to other other countries, let alone my own.

Actually, pic related did elicit a noise somwhere between a shocked gasp and a slight giggle.

>>84580
>Would it be entertaining?

Yes.

Now that we have that conundrum solved, you lads reckon a better Withdrawal Agreement can still be hammered out? I'm skeptical considering we have a political declaration to end free movement i.e. one of the fundamental pillars of the EU. Norway seems shit in comparison even if we will have to work out how a future trading relationship will solidify.

>>84581

I believe it can only be worse.

Has anyone figured out how to solve the problem of stopping freedom of movement between NI and ROI without ripping up the Good Friday Agreement yet?

>>84582
My reckoning is we can always twist RoI's arm into requesting some exemption to free movement. The whole border argument seems like a red herring for me, nobody in GB gives a monkeys these days about NI, Eire needs us more than we need them and the other EU states don't give a toss about Ireland.

>>84582
I'm sure I read of somewhere in Europe, I think someplace Slavic, where two countries don't even have the border on the map confirmed. They have certain roads for travel for locals between the two countries and certain roads for international travel. Something like that could be feasible.

>>84583
This, pretty much. People are exaggerating how much they care about Ireland because it's a useful pawn for them.

Where is the hero we deserve?

>>84583

Nobody ever gave a monkeys about NI until the bombs came over here.
Although I'm tired of brits talking about a 'return to the troubles' over fucking brexit as if the whole of NI are hungry for violence. There was a significantly different political and social environment that understandably lead to trouble kicking off when it did, whereas now most of the gangs are just thugs or severely delusional.

I get the feeling that she'll win tonight, and the only solution will be to remove the head or destroy the brain.

>>84587
Are Labour ahead in the polls yet? What a useless Tory enabling clown Jeremy Corbyn is.

>>84588

It's quite incredible really, he's absolutely useless, he still somehow hasn't got them on the backfoot to the extent that the opposition that's giving her difficulty is from within her own party.

He's just useless, I have no idea how anybody could genuinely think he's capable of swinging it.

Hate him all you want, if we had the likes of Blair here now things would be very different.

>>84588

It's quite incredible really, he's absolutely useless, he still somehow hasn't got them on the backfoot to the extent that the opposition that's giving her difficulty is from within her own party.

He's just useless, I have no idea how anybody could genuinely think he's capable of swinging it.

Hate him all you want, if we had the likes of Blair here now things would be very different.

>>84588
>>84589

I'm still holding out hope that Labour are playing the long game. Letting the Tories burn down their own house while ticking along under Corbyn, ready to unveil a shiny new leader and step on the ashes.

The only flaw in this hope is that as hopeless as JCorbs, is they still don't have anybody fucking better.

>>84589>>84590
You can say that again.

Labour are pretty much an irrelevance on Brexit. Every time I've heard them recently they sound like massively cynical opportunists more obsessed with party interests than national interests; the Tories doing the same isn't appealing to anyone so I don't know why they're copying them.

>>84592
>Every time I've heard them recently they sound like massively cynical opportunists more obsessed with party interests than national interests

I disagree. I think it entirely makes sense for them to simultaneously want to abide by the referendum decision while avoiding blithely going along with May's botch job. There are certain aspects of Labour's economic proposals that might be entirely forbidden under both May's deal and the current EU relationship, so I think Labour's current path is a wise one. However, what isn't wise is that this is probably the firsty you're hearing of this because Labour's messaging is bum-rubbish at the moment. I don't think this is entirely the leadership's fault, so calling Corbyn "useless" is silly, but they certainly aren't realising quite how quiet they appear right now.

>>84591
>Letting the Tories burn down their own house while ticking along

I don't really understand what you mean by this. They're angling for a general election and opposing May's deal, what else do you think they should do?

I'm going to call it. She's lost.

>>84593

>They're angling for a general election and opposing May's deal, what else do you think they should do?

To clearly state:
a) what, specifically, is wrong with May's deal
b) their concrete proposal for an alternative deal
and c) why the EU would agree to that deal.

I think I'm reasonably well informed, but I have no idea what Labour want from a deal or how they would go about negotiating it. I believe Juncker and Tusk when they say that the draft transition agreement is their final offer; Labour haven't given me any reason to doubt that. From what I can see, Corbyn is cynically advancing his own political aspirations over the national interest. His opposition to the deal is pushing us closer to a no deal scenario for no obvious benefit.

>>84594
I'd be surprised if there's many more than 100 voting against her.

The DUP will not back her deal so it won't get through parliament. There'll be a motion of no confidence in the government and there will be a general election. We'll enter the perpetual loop of Theresa May staying in power until Brexit is done but not standing as leader at the next general election.

>>84595

I think it is probably a factor 49% of people at last count don't want to leave at all. So if it doesn't seem like most people are suggesting a better idea on how to leave just poo pooing the drawbacks of leaving, there is a obvious reason for it.

>>84583

>Eire needs us more than we need them and the other EU states don't give a toss about Ireland.

This isn't true at all. They're already expanding their ports in the south of Ireland in preparation for suddenly becoming a replacement for Dover, and they're looking forward to the money rolling in by all accounts.

You might think nobody cares about NI too, but they're still aware of the legal and civil implications of not keeping an open border as they agreed to during peace treaties. I don't believe ROI has any intention of ever asking to close the borders, as it would be political, and potentially literal suicide to do so, as they'd lose leverage, tax loopholes, fuel price balancing, and also risk genuine violence at the border. Also, much like Trump and his wall, who exactly are we expecting to be patrolling the sudden EU-Ulster border?

>>84599
>I don't believe ROI has any intention of ever asking to close the borders, as it would be political, and potentially literal suicide to do so

Exactly. I don't even know why you felt the need to make this post when it obviously comes down to Eire being tied to us in the Common Travel Area. They will be subject to accommodating whatever the big boys eventually agree to and no amount of speeding up ports expansion will change that.

>>84600

Most people who voted leave did so expecting a hard border, so it'd also be political suicide for the UK government to accept a deal without one.

>>84588
They have been for about a month, and most of the Tory support is just Brexiteers concerned that anyone else will stop Brexit because they're part of the Westminster Political Elite Globalist Conspiracy. We don't have a confidence motion in the House for the same reason we haven't had status referendum in Scotland and Northern Ireland or a referendum to ratify the deal. She knows she won't win, so she won't let it happen.

>>84596
>There'll be a motion of no confidence in the government and there will be a general election.

I doubt that on the grounds that Corbyn is the alternative. The DUP and some Tories might block the agreement but in a vote of no confidence Theresa just needs to get out those photos of Corbyn with Gerry Adams. You'd be more likely to see votes for the agreement being pulled out of Labour MPs looking to get the job finished.

>>84603
The DUP could withdraw from the C&S and just abstain. Also remember that the Tories also have two extra votes from the sex pests they previously kicked out but restored today.

>>84590
If we had Blair there's a reasonable chance Labour would obliterate itself. I'm not going to deny he'd be better at opposing the government every step of the way, even better on procedure, but in terms of party interest there's a good argument for Labour hiding at the moment and only ever fighting a general election on the issue of Brexit* if they're trying to throw it so the Conservatives are stuck carrying the can.

*I'd argue - somewhat oversimplifying - that Labour's 2017 campaign followed the 1974 model. Conservatives say "this is a single issue election!" on an issue Labour's weak on, Labour cobbles together some bullshit on that and then go "No actually it's about everything but that issue..." and do better than expected. Except this time, Labour lucked out and didn't actually win.

>>84592
Honestly, I respect Labour putting party before country.
They've offered themselves up as a sacrificial lamb too many times trying to do "the right thing" and they never get any credit for it. 1931, 1976, 2008. I don't want to argue the specifics because each one is a massive debate in itself and I tend to personally qualify the actions taken with "this is what current or contemporary received opinion said was the right thing to do, in the national interest, for hardworking families. but it was incredibly stupid" but the point remains. Assume Labour did the right thing, each time their reward was to be wiped out at the subsequent election. Why, now that we're in a massive crisis again, should they throw themselves under the bus to save the public from themselves? Why have a one term Labour government stop the ship from sinking in the worst of times just so the Conservatives can get another 4 terms scaring people with the memory of the suffering under that one-term Labour government, even if the roots were much deeper? Bugger it, let's have 4 terms of Labour scaring people into the ballot box to enshrine PM McDonnell as the defining figure of the 2020s by reminding people of that brief time when all the shop shelves were empty and you couldn't buy Chinese tat off the internet because all the ports were clogged up. Sure, Labour could've helped prevent it - but Thatcher could've helped prevent the winter of discontent, so bugger it, let's get even.

Or at least that's the case I'd put at the moment. As you can probably tell, I spend much more time with my history books than I do keeping up with Brexit so what should probably be some quite frightening ideas seem quite harmless and hypothetical.

>>84605
What's it like being this much of an insufferable ideologue. Does life get any simpler?

>>84604
No, you don't understand. The DUP won't do that because they know what a general election entails and whatever goodies Labour have promised hasn't swayed them on this.

Dear Leader is literally propping up the government by being a bogeyman.

>>84606
I'm not being an ideologue, I'm being ludicrously partisan (while also holding my party in some contempt), ridiculously fatalistic, a touch misanthropic and I'm even being a bit silly, but I'm not being an ideologue. Tony Blair could come back tomorrow and promise the next Labour government is going to stick to current spending plans and I'd still get my arse to the polling station in 2022 to give blue team the red card. My ideologue days are over.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/908cad70-0228-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a motion of no-confidence in Theresa May’s leadership after she announced MPs would not vote on her Brexit deal until mid-January.

Critics suggested the move was a gimmick given that there is no binding mechanism for parliament to declare no-confidence solely in a prime minister, as opposed to the government itself, which could trigger a general election.

In his statement, Mr Corbyn told parliament that Mrs May’s “deal is unchanged and not going to change”.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/908cad70-0228-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3

The move came after Mrs May fended off opposition demands to hold the vote on her Brexit plan — originally scheduled last week, but pulled after the prime minister admitted she would lost by a “substantial margin” — before Christmas.

https://www.ft.com/content/908cad70-0228-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3

>>84616
Lad.

>>84616
I'm not sure what's going on here. Has he just failed to get the motion in the terms laid down in FTPA or is he deliberately just pulling a stunt?

>>84618

As per usual with Corbyn, he's doing something that looks brave and principled but is actually pointless bordering on counter-productive.

>>84616
>Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at [...]


Is that not a breach of GDPR or some shit, forcibly injecting stuff into your clipboard?

>>84620

No, it's just twatty.

>>84619
She's denied it time to be heard in Parliment.

Corbs knew that would happen, but it's the shot he played for.
By refusing it, it makes her look like she's running away.

Theresa May seems like a timid Thatcher from my pov as an American

>>84619
What I can't tell is whether Corbyn is genuinely doing the smart selfish thing (trying to avoid being in power while doing so would be a liability) or if he's really, genuinely, honestly an idiot who thinks 'we need to know a no-confidence would work'
Either way the no confidence motion in the PM seems counterproductive. It seems like the kind of thing important enough to unify the Conservatives a little (at least to vote it down) while being ineffective at anything else. The only possible logic I can see is if they hoped some Conservatives would vote against May.

>>84622
Didn't he say if she rejected giving it time in parliament he'd table a real confidence motion?

>>84624
117 MPs voted against her last week, although that was a secret ballot and whether they'd do the same in a recorded for is another thing. Even if they would, it's very unlikely that they'd do the same in a binding FTPA motion. You can expect all 316 of her colleagues to back her in one of those. Even if the DUP abstain then that vote goes in her favour 317-315. Maybe Boris could be talked into switching because it gives him a shot at No 10, and it's tied at 316 and the Speaker votes to keep the government in.

>>84624

If he thought he had any chance, he should have gone straight for a real confidence motion - it probably wouldn't have worked, but he might have capitalised on a low point in Tory unity and gained the advantage of surprise. This phoney confidence motion just forewarns the Tory whips and gives them time to get the back benchers into line.

I think he suffers from a self-delusion that's common to dissenters and radicals - he's spent so long "fighting the good fight" that he believes his own bullshit. Now that he has a modicum of power, he's faced with the constant dissonance between his own self-image of ideological purity and the difficult realities of politics. Actually achieving something would require compromise, it would require pissing off some of his loyal supporters in order to forge a wider consensus, it would involve him being called a sellout and a traitor and a closet Blairite. I think he's too old and cantankerous to do the difficult work of building a new self-image as a leader rather than a rebel.

The SNPand Lib Dems are sabotaging the no confidence motion.

Please explain what the fuck is going on here boo-lads.

>>84627
What? No they aren't, unless you mean they are pushing for a real, election-triggering one, which isn't exactly what I would call sabotage.

>>84627
Oh Jeremy. Come back when you've grown some balls and can do a proper no-confidence motion.

If we've learned anything in the past week, it's that we now have a government that cannot govern and an opposition that cannot oppose. Much as I hate it, we can finally say BROKEN BRITAIN without being hyperbolic.

>>84630
I only learnt the other week it isn't pronounced hyper-bowl.

>>84631

I still hear a lot of people pronounce it that way, I'm sure that's how I learned it from my English teachers in school. I know it's not right, but it seems like a word that people commonly mispronounce, but are not often corrected on it.

>>84634

>final victory
>gulag

Satire is dead, because the idiots are satirising themselves.

We've moved on from Jeremy and his army of vile trots hating Jews to... Jeremy and his army of vile trots hating women again.

Fabulous.

>>84643

Even my annoyingly feminist pet woman said "But she is a stupid woman through."

Moral high ground point scoring same as always.

>>84643
The one solace I can take in a no-deal scenario is that you'll be forced to live here too. Do you just thrive on the politics of tedium?
There are fun ways to tear Corbyn apart. Every single member of parliament is a contemptibly boring incompetent. They would be overpromoted if they were in a joke chamber like the Scottish parliament or - and here's a real punchline - the Welsh assembly! We have a government of complete idiots, I'd bet my house on our chancellor not knowing how money is created and - this is practically cheating - I'll bet our foreign secretary can't get more than 40% of the countries on a map. I couldn't even tell you who's in the shadow cabinet because they're all non-entities who don't get any news time because they've got no ideas, leading a party split between the sort of freaks who get nostalgic for Blair's "new deal on welfare" because it was a prudent policy that makes them feel all warm and responsible inside, and a disparate bunch of LARPers who think Britain has any business giving a toss about Israel-Palestine unless there's a chance to flog fighter jets, backed up by any other tom-dick-and-harry who recognises Blair is a PR disaster in 2018 and probably a vampire to boot. Nicola Sturgeon is taking the lead and trying to get some things done, but that's okay because she makes up for it by being completely fucking insufferable, leading a party locked in competition with the Blairites to see who can be more pointlessly tedious on bread and butter issues, opposed by regional branches of the parties available for viewers outside Scotland with less name recognition than the average Shetland taxi driver. Despite being deeply split, the Labour party doesn't even have the fight left in it to go back to the shite old days of 2016 when it was in open warfare. It's cowed, it's broken.

None of the factions in either of the major parties should exist today. They are all wrong. That we stand where we do today is a testament to their wrongness.
But that's okay.
Everything is actually fine.
All we need is to get rid of the bad allotment man and make David Milliband leader and all the bad-bad will go away, Brexit will be cancelled and we'll restore politics to the good timeline where competent management staff ensure nobody has any ideas not justified with policy based evidence, where plucky little Britain can modernise itself for a new age and continue to punch above it's weight in the special relationship, and where the liberal democrats are taken seriously again.
This is Britain and everything's alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI

>>84643
Because of one, potentially baiting, post on an imageboard? Do you have no bullshit alarm? Obviously not if that's the kind of guff you're willing to tell yourself.

>>84646

Not being paying attention to the news today then lad?

>>84645

Breathe, mate. Come sit here if you want. I'll put the kettle on. Would you like that? There we are. There we are. Shhh.

>>84646
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has denied calling Theresa May a "stupid woman" during Prime Minister's Questions.

He was asked to make a statement to MPs after facing Tory calls to apologise for the alleged insult. Mr Corbyn said he was "opposed to the use of sexist and misogynist language in any form" and insisted he had actually said "Manc cunt""stupid people".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46619689

It's the main headline for most media outlets.

>>84649
>>84648
No, obviously not.

He really dosn't help hiimself.

It baffles me that people could care about this in the internet age when we can have cunt offs about anything from 'let there be light!' to whether Labour could've won the 2010 election. Who cares that Corbyn called the stupid android witch a stupid woman? I'll even grant that it's sexist. If he said it, he should critically reflect on that, but now that one person has drawn his attention to it everyone else can shut up. It isn't entertaining and you aren't going to topple Corbyn because he called the stupid incompetent billy-no-mates robo-cow a stupid woman. You aren't even going to dent him. Nobody will remember this by next week.

I know, in these strange times, you aren't going to topple the leader of the opposition just because his strategy is to tactlessly avoid doing his job as the country teeters on the brink of the abyss because it's governed by a stupid woman, but you aren't going to topple him on something this boring either.

>>84649
I think this says more about the media than anyone else. There were at least three actually newsworthy stories in PMQs today, but the coverage is instead focusing on something Corbyn might have said under his breath.

Lads, the actual story is John Bercow getting called out for being biased against the government and having called Andrea Leadsom a stupid woman a number of months back. Conservative MPs don't really give a fuck about Corbyn right now much like the rest of the country.

I for one hope that weird fruitcake is finally chucked out on his arse.

>>84651
>I'll even grant that it's sexist. If he said it, he should critically reflect on that

What's it like being a man without a cock?

>>84652

The whole thing is embarrassing. We now have a terrifyingly short timeline to prepare for Brexit day, but most of a day in Parliament and an entire day of the news cycle has been squandered on what the opposition leader may or may not have muttered under his breath.

It's an embarrassment for the Tories, because it's so blatantly a distraction from their own crisis. It's an embarrassment for Corbyn, because he has done absolutely nothing to address the situation. It's an embarrassment for the media, who have been taken in by the whole charade.

According to the government's own documents, people are probably going to die in the event of a no-deal scenario. The health minister is bulk-buying fridges to store medicines. The DWP is preparing for a surge in homelessness, poverty and suicide. The army are being put on standby to suppress civil unrest. This isn't "project fear", it's the government's own contingency planning. No-deal isn't an outlandish possibility, it's the automatic default unless parliament agrees to a deal or agrees to withdraw Article 50 within the next 100 days.

There's a fire in the basement, the floorboards are starting to smoulder and we're all arguing about who farted.

I'm afraid to voice this opinion publicly but I don't really get how you can 100% construe such a statement as having misogynistic intent. It's different to someone using constructions like 'black' or 'gay' where it is a plainly irrelevant characteristic, but 'man' and 'woman' are just how we refer to each other, aren't they? If Corbyn called her a 'stupid person' that would sound quite awkward and distant to refer to someone he is actually very familiar with.

>>84654
>people are probably going to die in the event of a no-deal scenario

Project Fear strikes again. Nobody was immortal when we were a member of the EU so we're not suddenly going to gain the likelihood of dying at some point.

>>84655
He should have just called her a dopey cunt and had done with it.

>>84655
Women are subconsciously assumed to be stupid due to longwinded cultural reasons that aren't worth getting into here, men aren't. It's how we refer to each other, but it also serves to reinforce that sort of expectation, so erring on the side of not putting it like that when you're in a public facing position is prudent.
Mostly it's just twats acting in bad faith though.

>>84657
This. The type of person who doesn't see this is the type of person who claims they should be able to use the word Pakî because it's no different from people calling us Brits.

>>84658

I really don't think that's the same. Calling someone a stupid man or a stupid woman seem entirely equal in my eyes. There's really no intention there, and it's entirely not the same as calling someone the P word - as far as I'm aware there's no basis for calling woman a woman being an insult.

I can't tell if people are cynically jumping on this because it's an easy political point to score, or because they're genuinely that sensitive to perceived sexism that so much as referring to a woman as her gender is deemed an offence - that's absolutely mental, and I honestly don't know how you expect society to evolve beyond gender inequality if you can no longer address a female as woman without it being phlegmatic.

>>84659
People are cynically jumping on it, but there's a real point underlying it. It's just not really worth discussing that point.

>>84659
You can't pretend to be whiter than white and then deal in shades of grey. That's why Corbyn is getting so much shit over it. Next they'll claim he's always been a lifelong feminist, wasn't actually there and didn't say those things.

Corbyn is a disingenuous cunt.

>>84660

>but there's a real point underlying it. It's just not really worth discussing that point.

I'm sure you're right, I still wouldn't get it. I've never not wanted equality for everyone, but increasingly the internet finds ways to assure me that somehow I don't because of what I assumed were entirely innocuous things like saying 'woman' or posting on britfa.gs.

>>84661
>You can't pretend to be whiter than white and then deal in shades of grey
I don't see why not, that's been the purview of every other prick who's held high office in living memory.

>>84663
Don't be like that. That kind of curmudgeonly attitude is how Reddit Atheists end up burning with rage about girls existing and thinking "white genocide" is real. I'm not saying it'll happen to you, obviously, but don't get all surly because people disagree with you.

Former X Factor winner Steve Brookstein has spoken.

>>84667
What can't you say, Steve, hey? What can't you say that you're so bloody desperate to get off your chest?

I can't stand these disingenuous gits who try martyring themselves over nothing, and everything, all at once.

>>84668
YOU CAN'T CALL A WOMAN A WOMAN while Mars and Earth align.

>>84657

I mean, the thing is, right. What is is, is. How do we decide when exactly it's been feminism long enough that we CAN call women woman again, because they've been equal for long enough for it not to be an assumption of inferiority based on socialised gender prejudice. Eh? How will we be able to tell?

>>84654
>it's the automatic default unless parliament agrees to a deal or agrees to withdraw Article 50 within the next 100 days.
The difficulty here is that in Parliament everyone knows this, and everyone agrees, but the stupid woman in charge of deciding what they get to talk about will only give them a vote on the one they don't want.

>>84665

I'm not angry that people disagree with me, I'm angry that the people I agree with seem to be drifting away on a big crusader boat and have left me behind. I harbour precisely zero ill will towards any subset of humanity, and yet every time I blink something else I thought was normal, innocuous language apparently becomes a slur with decades of history I was unaware of (and the rich history is typically entirely anecdotal or nebulous)

I may still be coming across as curmudgeonly, but when people call you a 'performative ally' for going to Pride and having a beer, it starts to weigh on you.

>>84670

It would never be long enough, there are power systems in place and now people in those positions now that rely on the stance 'women are being treated as inferior'. Those people will never surrender their ground and will move the goal posts appropriately to justify their existence and consolidate their power. It is an entirely open ended position.


The real damage here is not to Jeremy Corbyn, the real long term damage is to the conservative party, by pretending to be offended they have accepted the paradigm that using a defining class with a pejorative means the defining class is a pejorative, they've moved the 'political correctness' goal posts to the labour side now they can’t go back, rather than simply calling him a hypocrite with unrealistic values.

>>84674

What a load of nonsense. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the Tories' entire MO for the last 18 months has been doing things they supposedly can't do.

>>84675
Calm down you're hysterical.

>>84676
I don't think I'm the poster you think I am.

>>84673
Okay, the jargon is a bit tedious, but remember that that level of jargon is still very much a niche factor in all of this, but it's one right wingers love to exploit to try to inflate any perceived divide on the left.

In other sexism news today, a minister on BBC Radio complimented a presenter on her lipstick, saying it matched her microphone perfectly. For some reason nobody seems to be making any fuss over how it's reinforcing gender stereotypes and not the sort of thing a minister should be saying to a broadcaster trying to hold them to account.

>>84679
>reinforcing gender stereotypes

It's not though. It's like if I told you your tie matched the sofa you were on. Stop going out of your way to get upset about things people don't care about, for your own sake if no one elses.

>>84674

Everyone will have forgotten about this entire episode by boxing day.

Irrefutable evidence.

It seems that a number of Tories made a fuss about it because it's given them an excuse to have a pop at bercow for calling people like leadsom a stupid woman in the past.

>>84682
I'm less convinced now I've seen The Mail's phonetic walk-through, I thought he was banged to rights earlier.

>>84680
>It's like if I told you your tie matched the sofa you were on
It really isn't.

>>84682

Why have seemingly intelligent people bought into the framing of this non-story?

Corbyn supposedly mouthed something or other, a day after Churchill's bloated grandson clearly told a SNP MP to "go back to the isle of Skye". He did so unprovoked (in order words, he hadn't just experienced a deranged banshee screeching at him in the moments before).

And all this nonsense follows the week Tory MPs posited the idea of using food shortages against those uppity Irish. This should be a scandal. It's suggestive that European media is still discussing this, while we hopeless Brits have fully devolved into vapid Americans.

And I'm forced to endure all this just when my friends in finance tell me to prepare: the global economy is on the verge of recession. What a pathetic, trivial people the Brits have become. They obsess over a couple of seconds of Corbyn, rather than consider the serious possibility that they will face food riots in 2019 - all of it overseen by R boys, back from Iraq?

Is it any wonder that Corbyn has stayed silent during the last few months, in the face of such pervasive stupidity? But now the papers have found away to rip him to shreds merely for mouthing *something*, you lot are eating it up.

>>84685
>Tory MPs posited the idea of using food shortages against those uppity Irish. This should be a scandal.

Nobody gives a shit about the Irish. People pretend to care about the Irish in the same way that people pretend to care about whether Corbyn muttered "stupid woman".

>>84686
The UK is circling the drain, and I think it'll come as a shock to you just how few outsiders give a shit about the British.

On the other hand, the bog-munchers have children the world over (thanks, in large part, to the famines worsened by London), and are actually well-liked. The coming months will be an education for you.

>>84687
Here's hoping people like the Scots too.
(I wouldn't if I was them, but I'm not.)

>>84687
>The UK is circling the drain

People have been doom-mongering ever since 2008, saying we'd be having another financial crisis any day now. The UK economy has been far more resilient since the Brexit vote than most people were anticipating. The OBR has had to recently up its forecast for UK growth in 2019 because the UK has performed significantly better than it was anticipating.

https://woodfordfunds.com/uk-economy/

Even if it all goes to shit then it might lead to the much needed political reform the country is crying out for.

>>84689
>The UK economy has been far more resilient since the Brexit vote than most people were anticipating
That's mainly a combination of natural recovery and business getting its arse into gear knowing that nobody can seriously deny that there's a shitstorm incoming. It's not an indication that anything said during and since the campaign is "project fear" or "doom-mongering", nor is it a vindication of anything the Brexiteers were saying. There are also a lot of worrying signals from unexpected places. For instance, property prices in London are falling substantially, and it has spread beyond the luxury sector. High prices and low rates are carrying a heavy risk of being stuck in negative equity and unable to do anything when rates inevitably rise. In before some ill-informed "HAHA DEM BTL WANKAS WONT NO WOT HIM EM" bollocks. Then what are people going to do? Can't save, because there's no return. Can't invest in equities, because if the economy cools down there'll be no return there either. Can't invest in crypto, because the only way to make money from it is to use other people's money. Property owners and tenants alike are going to be in serious trouble if prices fall and rates rise. A big indicator on consumer spending: the retail crisis is starting to affect online players, and many retailers are concerned that they're having to discount more heavily to get customers in and that there may not be enough demand to sustain them through the traditional sale period.

People who were predicting an impending downturn in 2014 were predicting rain based on tea leaves and bird patterns. People who are predicting an impending downturn in 2019 are predicting rain based on the massive fuck off rainclouds on the horizon.

>>84690
Sure thing, Chicken Little. The doom-mongers are definitely right this time. Right you are.

>>84691
You realise the whole point of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is that there was actually a wolf, right?

>>84691
The one good thing about suffering an economic meltdown, as the knowledge that smug twats with a reality-defying optimism bias also have to go through it. And it'll be even worse for them, considering a loss of ideological certainty goes with it.

(The system awareness will probably be short, unfortunately. I remember after '08, even the Fed's Greenspan admitted the utter failure of his neoclassical/liberal worldview, only before he was replaced by another bunch of delusionals who have ensured the next collapse will be even worse.)

>>84689
Even if the UK economy was in tip-top shape (it isn't, despite the long term economic plan for hard working familes up and down the country), we're due a recession due to the stupidity of the yanks. I will eat my own leg if the next recession isn't caused in part by a crash in the US that begins as a result of tech companies currently borrowing money to buy up their own shares to boost share prices because CEOs are getting performance-related-pay with share price as the metric of good performance. That's all well and good when they're giving you free money, but it's a lot harder if you suddenly wind up paying real interest rates.
Israeli banks tried that stunt in the 1980s and it went swimmingly (Sub. ed. please check.)

>>84692
Broken clocks are right twice a day. If you say everything is going to go to shit any day now for an entire decade then it doesn't make you a soothsayer if it inevitably happens.

Things are inevitably going to be worse, at least in the short-term, with the way Brexit is being handled. Whether that means an actual recession or just reduced growth I don't know. However, the people who talk about us being on a cliff edge just made my eyes glaze over because I've heard these ramblings too many times.

>>84695
>Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That depends on how you look at it and/or in what way it's broken.

>>84695
>However, the people who talk about us being on a cliff edge just made my eyes glaze over because I've heard these ramblings too many times.
There's a little, tiny, small margin of difference between speculating that there's going to be another cyclical recession on an imageboard, and official government planning documents spelling out that things are going to be rather bad, rather very bad indeed, if we continue down the avoidable road we're currently on.

>>84695
>However, the people who talk about us being on a cliff edge just made my eyes glaze over because I've heard these ramblings too many times.
As I said, for most of the past decade people have been claiming it with no basis, whereas now there are actual indicators and data to suggest that something isn't quite right.

>>84697
The doom-mongers have been claiming all the signs are there for the past decade if you ever peek behind the curtain. Plus, the government are notoriously bad at making projections.

I don't really have a point. I've just got so used to this being the way that the doom-mongers talk that I instinctively assume it's going to be bollocks, in the same way that if I see someone posting on /lab/ about peak fertility I instinctively assume it's a paedo-enabler.

>>84699
>Plus, the government are notoriously bad at making projections.
Generally they're too optimistic though...
Honestly I'm the same, the only reason I'm taking the possibility seriously now is that I'm taking a pop at buggering off to Canada on a working holiday next year and I don't want any exchange rate bollocks fucking it up.

>>84628
It seems a friend was overreacting when he deemed it 'sabotage', but yes that is what he was referring to.

>>84629
For the many, not the few.

>>84695

We had recessions in 1956, 1961, 1973, 1980, 1990 and 2008. It's not insane doom-mongering to suggest that we're due for another one, given the obviously cyclical nature of our economy; the problem for ordinary people is that our standard of living has barely recovered since the last recession.

>>84702
I've always been impressed by our psychology when it comes to decline. Through the 1970s, real terms wages grew quite a lot but because there were strikes and high inflation, we clearly recognised we were in a declining position and that we couldn't go on like that. Now, we can have wages stagnate for the longest period since the Napoleonic wars, unemployment figures that are no prettier than those in the late 70s when you de-bullshit them, but because the shops still open on time and the chocolates shrink rather than go up in price, the illusion of normality is maintained.

>>84703
We don't really complain these days. If the Iraq invasion had happened now instead then there'd be a fraction of the people out protesting in 2003 but millions of people signing an online petition.

Anger as ministers scrub claim from Brexit documents that no-deal departure is 'unlikely'

A prominent MP branded the move “bureaucratic deceitfulness” and said quitting the bloc without an agreement would mean “economic carnage” for the country.

PoliticsHome understands that the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) ordered the update to a series of documents laying out contingency plans for a no-deal departure.

The so-called technical notices - which were released over summer and autumn this year - said it was “unlikely” that the UK would leave the EU without a future deal.

But DExEU told fellow departments the word should be scrubbed from the text - with many already undergoing the change today.

The decision came after the Cabinet agreed that a no-deal Brexit should become an “operational priority,” amid concerns MPs will reject the agreement Theresa May hammered out with Brussels.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/100726/anger-ministers-scrub-claim-brexit-documents-no-deal

>>84705
Is this just brinksmanship from May or have the Tories gone utterly, butterly, nuts?

>>84704
This is why lobbying is so effective. It's also why the likes of the NRA go to the effort of not only publishing where and when key debates happen but also the telephone numbers of the relevant officials. Not Twitter handles, phone numbers. If you want your MP to listen to you, call their office. Don't bother with an online petition, a badge on your profile picture or retweeting a hashtag. Use your phone for the thing it was originally designed for.

>>84706
What do you mean, gone nuts? She's been nuts since her Home Office days.

>>84707

Pen and paper is still a remarkably effective tool for getting your voice heard.

>>84706
I think the only reason Theresa May is ramping up no deal, is so that people see her deal as a less shitty option and vote it through next year. It's not going to work and it'll waste millions but hey-ho.

>>84715
What's so bad about Theresa's deal?

>>84716

It's not a bad deal - it's the best that we'll get - but it falls far short of many of the grand promises made by Brexiteers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46237012

>>84690
>For instance, property prices in London are falling substantially, and it has spread beyond the luxury sector

It's terrible that there's been the first sustained trend of more young people buying homes for the first time in about 30 years.

>>84718


I can't wait for house prices to collapse back to normal.

>>84717
What's notable about the 'deal' is that the vast majority is about a transition period until a more permanent arrangement is negotiated. Which raises the question of what the fuck the point was of triggering Article 50 when the government did if it had fuck all worked out on paper. The white paper for the future relationship should have been published well before Article 50 was triggered, not one year after it.

Then again I suppose their line the entire time has been 'no deal is better than a bad deal' isn't it?

>>84718

I think what I'm terrified of most isn't Brexit per se, but the reaction the far-right who orchestrated it will take. Once it becomes evident the country has been destroyed and living standards fall even further, they would never admit fault, oh no - it was the government's fault for not doing Brexit correctly, of course. They didn't seize the opportunity, Theresa May is a Remainer you know, and of course we are still letting all those immigrants in. If we are in charge we will make a success of our newly independent Britain.

Fascism thrives in a crisis, and the biggest crisis since the war we shall have.

>>84722
If only there was some form of link between Brexit affecting property prices and more young people being about to afford to buy a property.

Five minutes until the Brexit deal voting begins, lads.

Two minutes until I have to feed the cat, lads.

The deal has been defeated with a majority of 230. Looks like the end of May might be coming early this year.

>PM Theresa May loses MPs’ vote on Brexit deal by 432 votes to 202 - the biggest government defeat in history

Now what?

>>84747

They come back with a similarly shite deal until one of them gets through, or someone gets angry enough to actually float another referendum, or the EU just gets bored and decides for us.

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn says that he has tabled a motion of no confidence in the government.

Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn says that the result of tonight's vote is the largest defeat for a government since the 1920s.

After two years of negotiations, this verdict is "absolutely decisive". He says the PM is only trying to reach out now "after it has been so roundly rejected by Parliament".

"No deal must be taken off the table, a permanent customs union must be secured, and people's rights and protections must be guaranteed," he says, adding that the PM has "closed the door on dialogue".

"In the last two years, she's had only one priority, the Conservative Party," he stated.

>>84749
What will he do when he loses?

>>84753
Now, now. We know Jeremy wouldn't have done this unless he'd calculated that he'd most likely lose.

>>84754
So then we have another referendum.

No deal Brexit, fuck yeah!

>>84753

It's masterful, really. Corbyn has just witnessed the worst government defeat in nearly a century, then decided to hand them a victory on a plate within 24 hours. CCHQ must be ecstatic.

>>84758

What else could he have done?

>>84758
It really is quite amazing, when you think about it. We've got a Prime Minister who is trying to run down the clock because she's incapable of negotiating with the EU being enabled by the Leader of the Opposition who wants nothing more than to look like he's doing something meaningful whilst he's actually achieving fuck all; a perpetual loop of kicking the can down the road, in the forlorn hope that things will resolve themselves for you, for as long as you can get away with it.

In the event of a GE:

YELLOW SURGE LIB DEM x SNP COALITION YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST LADS

>>84765
Maybe we should swarm the Lib Dems.

>>84762

They both want No Deal, its so obvious. Jeremy has to do what he does so his party can't fuck it up.

>>84761

He keeps saying that he could negotiate a better deal, but he hasn't put together a concrete alternative plan. He hasn't elaborated on what that better deal might entail, he hasn't provided any evidence that he could get it and he doesn't even have the confidence of his own party, let alone a cross-bench consensus.

He's had over two years to get his arse on a RyanAir flight and start informal negotiations with EU politicians, but he has done nothing of the sort. There are any number of socialist and social democratic parties who would have happily participated in a congress for an alternative Brexit. Corbyn could have been all over the news, surrounded by sympathetic European politicians who want to help him get a Brexit deal that works for everyone. He could have built a united front in opposition to May, Junker and Tusk. He could have made himself a credible alternative.

He ought to know that his no-confidence motion will fail, because he hasn't done the groundwork to build support for it. He hasn't established a coalition with the SNP, he hasn't started talks with the DUP and he hasn't courted any Tory rebels. He has squandered the element of surprise by calling a phoney no-confidence motion weeks ago, then tabling the real motion immediately after the Prime Minister invited him to do it.

He stands at the dispatch box shouting about how the Tories are betraying The Many, but it's just as empty as Cameron's Hard Working Families. Behind the platitudes, there's nothing of substance. He doesn't have a plan for Brexit, he doesn't have a plan for Britain, he doesn't have a plan to topple May and he doesn't have a plan to win an election. His entire approach to politics is just wishful thinking. It's exactly the mindset that got us into this bloody mess in the first place.

>>84769
>He's had over two years to get his arse on a RyanAir flight and start informal negotiations with EU politicians
The EU made it perfectly clear at the outset that there will be no informal negotiations under any circumstances. You may remember that the government wanted to talk trade early on, and they refused to engage in any out-of-process discussions about it.

>He hasn't established a coalition with the SNP
He doesn't need to. Their position is clear.

>he hasn't started talks with the DUP
The DUP have a formal agreement with the Tories. Apparently they're set to meet early in the morning, so there will be 6 hours during which they'll be considering their position. It's possible they'll abstain so they can say they didn't vote against the government, in the hope that this will force May to fall on her sword, but given their position on Brexit is self-contradictory they face the possibility of losing seats in an election.

At this point, given the defeat was so disastrous, there may well be some Tory rebels who might hold their noses purely because convention dictates that if she loses the vote of confidence then, election or no, she must resign. The Tories would have 14 days in which to appoint another leader and gain the confidence of the House before an election is required.

As for those Tory rebels, given that walls have ears, there will almost certainly be confidential back-channels that have been kept hushed up. If Boris still wants to be PM, he might have to force May out by abstaining in the confidence vote to get there, and realistically he's the only potential candidate that would have any traction with the wider electorate. Outside of shitty memes, most people don't see JRM as a viable PM.

>>84769
>Corbyn could have been all over the news, surrounded by sympathetic European politicians
I have my doubts this would endear him to Brexiteers.
But more interestingly: are there actually that many Corbyn-sympathetic Europeans? I always had the rest of the world pegged as being stuck in that Millibandish period when it came to Social Democratic leaders, with most European ones in particular being so pro-EU as to be unwilling to contemplate anything but killing Brexit. But then I can only name about 3 European centre-left leaders who're still around anyway.

>>84771

Foreign media portrays Corbyn in a Christ figure way (Or at least did when he first was made leader) when a friend came over from Australia she asked why people don't like him because all they ever got was the image of this charming principled idealist. She couldn't understand how that matched up with his own party disliking him and him losing an election.

>>84770

With EU politicians, not the EU. There are a huge number of left- and centre-left parties across the EU who would have been happy to arrange a chinwag and a photo op with Corbyn. As opposition leader, he had tremendous opportunities to build bridges with his European counterparts. While Theresa May and David Davis were making tits of themselves in Brussels, he could have been trotting around Europe building what amounts to a coalition of support for a socialist Brexit. It might not have made any material difference to the negotiations, but the contrast in optics would have been striking.

>84771

>I have my doubts this would endear him to Brexiteers.

Corbyn has fastidiously avoided expressing his true opinion (that he's a Brexiteer and always has been) to avoid alienating his own party. Post-referendum, he had the opportunity to argue that his own views were irrelevant, Brexit was the will of the people and his job was to guide Britain towards a Brexit that works for everyone, not just the bankers. He could have won over a lot of people in the middle without horrendously alienating his core support. Instead he dithered, pissing off pretty much everyone except the hardcore Momentumites.

>I always had the rest of the world pegged as being stuck in that Millibandish period when it came to Social Democratic leaders

Corbyn isn't massively left-wing by European standards. Most European countries have some form of proportional representation, so their political landscape is much more diverse. There's still a significant vein of left-wing Euroscepticism in Europe and a growing left-wing populist movement; a lot of left- and centre-left parties are still seriously hacked off about the Treaty of Lisbon.

By focusing on the neoliberal and elitist aspects of the EU, he could have pitched his Brexit to them as a challenge to that hegemony from which they would directly benefit. He could have sold the idea that Britain outside the EU with a socialist in charge would force the EU to reform, for fear of losing Greece and setting off a chain reaction across southern Europe.

>>84775
>As opposition leader, he had tremendous opportunities to build bridges with his European counterparts.
European opposition leaders have no power in EU negotiations.

>>84770
>The DUP have a formal agreement with the Tories. Apparently they're set to meet early in the morning, so there will be 6 hours during which they'll be considering their position. It's possible they'll abstain so they can say they didn't vote against the government, in the hope that this will force May to fall on her sword, but given their position on Brexit is self-contradictory they face the possibility of losing seats in an election.

The DUP pledged last night to stand by the government. They'll probably try it on for another £1billion sweetener.

>>84777
I'm kind of impressed by how porkbarreling the fuck out of Northern Ireland is such a staple of British minority government.
1979 did it better though.

Theresa May omits Jeremy Corbyn from cross-party Brexit talks

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/16/theresa-may-fails-to-reach-out-to-jeremy-corbyn-to-strike-brexit-compromise

This is going better than Jeremy could have ever imagined.

May's the political equivalent of Tub Girl right now.

>>84782
You mean she has mainstream appeal in Japan?

>>84776

>European opposition leaders have no power in EU negotiations.

In the same sense that Jimmy Saville had no power in the British parliament. He didn't have a vote in the house, but he wielded vast amounts of influence.

Some spicy takes from the floppy haired goblin man about women in power on the Beeb just now. What an odd little fellow.

Posted without comment:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYl8rE6QIU?start=36&end=54

>>84868

It'd be quite useful if you did offer some sort of comment to an hour long video.

I had forgotten that civilians on telly used to have their occupations broadcast, though. That can't have been for any reason other than classism.

>>84869
It's not an hour long video. It's an 18-second selection from an hour long video.

>>84868>>84870
An eighteen second clip of Theresa May being introduced on her first appearance on Question Time? Anon, truly you are spoiling us.

I'm guessing that the joke was that only her husband in the audience was clapping for her?

>>84868
Why does she look haggard nearly two decades ago?

This was a challenging wank indeed.

>>84873
She wasn't much better three decades ago.

>>84874

I'd have a go. Uptight Tories are usually filth. Same breed as horsey girls.

>>84875
Never change, resident I'd-shag-anything-me lad of .gs.

>>84876
Shag everything that moves. What doesn't, move it and shag after.

>>84877
a.k.a. the Jimmy saville method.

A 32% TARIFF ON BUTTER? THE DAY OF THE ROPE CANNOT COME SOON ENOUGH.

>>85216

Never mind butter.... This is gs, we need to know the tarrif on RICE

>>85218
And rich tea biscuits. Oh fuck, this is going to stir up the Jaffa cake debate again, isn't it? Truly the end of days.

The House of Commons Speaker has thwarted any attempt by Theresa May to bring back a third meaningful vote to parliament, unless there has been substantial change to the Brexit deal.

In a shock move likely to infuriate the prime minister, John Bercow suggested he believed such a fundamental change would involve a renegotiation at EU level, rather than clarification of the legal advice written by the attorney general, something that had been suggested this week.

Downing Street was blindsided by the announcement and unable to give a response at its regular afternoon briefing for journalists. “The speaker did not forewarn us of the content of his statement or the fact that he was making one,” May’s spokeswoman said.

Bercow made the surprise announcement in the chamber on Monday afternoon, saying the Commons was “being repeatedly asked to pronounce” on the same question.

Quoting from the guide to parliamentary procedure, Erskine May, Bercow said by convention, the question “may not be brought forward again during the same session” and that it was a “strong and longstanding convention” dating back to 1604. He said the convention had been confirmed again many times, including in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. “Indeed, Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/18/brexit-john-bercow-rules-out-third-meaningful-vote-on-same-deal

>>85270
What now then? Shit's weird.

>>85271
We're not getting Meaningful Vote 3: Vote Meaningfully With a Vengeance until there's some substantial change on the table, so after the EU summit at least. Literally any and all options are on the table, up to and including a tactical nuclear strike on Luxembourg.

>>85272
You've got my vote.

At this rate, we're basically fucked, so all we need to figure out is whether we stay or go. I say we relocate to the Costa del Sol since it already might as well be a British colony and we'd be bringing jobs to Iberia which already has crippling unemployment. Obviously we salt these islands before the Germans inevitably try planting a towel in them.

>>85270
He's going on some nutter's list, that's for sure. I like that we have this rule though.

>>85274
Like the Huns and the Vandals? Just roam around the nice bits of the EU ruining them for everyone else? I'll get my vacuum flask.