by Martin Odoni

So, Theresa May, a war criminal, is stepping down as the Prime Minister of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Not because she is a war criminal, but because it is clearly the only way out of the Brexit gridlock she has done so much to create. She will depart 10 Downing Street on the 7th of June.

May was in tears when she made the announcement this morning. But as is so often the case with politicians – especially right wing politicians – the tears will not win any sympathy from my direction. She failed miserably as Prime Minister. She was unceasingly dishonest, evasive, cowardly, and mean-spirited, for reasons well-catalogued elsewhere in this blog. Her relentless boasting that only she could deliver Brexit, and her sneers that Jeremy Corbyn would lead a ‘coalition of chaos’ if he ever got into power, have both had a sorry outcome.

May fails and resigns

The Prime Minister resigns, having failed to see out three years in office, and having never truly established a firm mandate to govern.

But I have to comment on May’s speech announcing her departure, which was as littered with the same bare-faced deceit and hypocrisy that marked her entire stewardship. For her to resort to that even now, when she no longer has a job to cling to only serves to make clear that her dishonesty was no matter of desperation in difficult times. It was, and remains, simply a fundamental feature of her personality. She is leaving her post as Prime Minister anyway, there is no practical purpose left in her continuing to tell blatant untruths. But she did it anyway, because it comes as naturally to her as breathing.

May’s lecturing of others on the importance of ‘compromise’ was vomitous. She was the one who repeatedly refused to speak with Opposition parties throughout the Autumn, and when she finally opened talks with Labour this year, she persistently refused to give any ground at all, insisting that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer had to surrender to her every demand. Hence why, when May kept going back to Parliament to try and force through her Brexit deal that had already been rejected, it never contained any significant difference in its content. It had simply been reworded to mean the same thing each time. That stubborn refusal to give an inch is the very definition of failure to compromise, while her pretence that the Bill had really changed when it had not was the definition of dishonesty. For her now to lecture the rest of the House of Commons on the virtue of compromise means she deserves a milkshake over her head.

But even more deceitful still was May’s attempt to talk up her administration as a success. None of her claims, be they about job security, housing, environmental policies, mental health care, Grenfell Tower etc stands up to scrutiny. But a most particular reversal of the plain facts was her claim that her Government had delivered “a falling National Debt”.

Beyond absurd. The Office of National Statistics’ last two published totals for the National Debt were published in September last year, and April this year, for March 2018 and December 2018 respectively.  What do they reveal?

The National Debt in March last year was £1,763.8 billion. The figure announced for the end of 2018 was £1,837.5 billion. In other words, the later figure was higher than the earlier figure, therefore the amount has continued to go up. And May says that, “the National Debt is falling”?

Now, as I have pointed out many times in the past, the size of the National Debt – while not unimportant – does not matter nearly as much as the Tories like to make out. But irrespective of that, what May said is still yet another a total reversal of the truth delivered with a mechanical bare face. It is possible to argue that the Debt, as a share of Gross Domestic Product, has fallen. But the problem with that is that the Tories are once again switching measurements whenever it suits them, and without telling anyone.

May resignation speech lie

Theresa May lives in a world of blackwhite, where a rising National Debt means the National Debt is falling.

If, as they should have been, public discussions of the Debt had been conducted in terms of the share of GDP from the time David Cameron became Prime Minister nine years ago, everyone would have known how completely pointless and toxic the Austerity program since then has been.

I would like to think May’s tears as she spoke came from the burden on her conscience that she had scarcely passed a day at Number 10 without deceiving someone, but I reckon it was more just a general haplessness on her part, having to acknowledge her failure to deliver the Brexit, or the “strong-and-stable leadership”, she had guaranteed. She cuts the most crumpled figure of a Prime Minister I have ever seen, and although the only candidates to succeed her from within her party are likely to be even worse, that does not constitute a defence of her. Her resignation may be the only truly right thing she has done as Prime Minister.

So May resigns as she served; by being deceitful, hypocritical, dysfunctional, high-handed, and unable to accept that anything that went wrong was her fault. Amazing how a Prime Minister can be so powerless.

As for the aforementioned Corbyn, that’s two Prime Ministers he has seen off as Leader of the Opposition. Not bad for the guy who was theatrically told after less than a year in the job by David Cameron, “For heaven’s sake, man, go!”

It is the Tory leaders who keep going at the moment, David.

Advertisements

by Martin Odoni

A common refrain I see from libertarians and anarchists, including ones who believe themselves to be on the left, is that

‘Taxation is theft’.

Now, this is not really true, and is based on the false ‘tax-and-spend’ notion that people make money and the Government takes it away from them to cover the cost of spending. It actually works the other way around. The state issues money, usually via a Central Bank, and circulates it around society, before it returns to the state in the form of taxes. If we keep in mind that the ultimate source of a currency is always a Central Bank, and that the Central Bank is always part of a state – even the European Central Bank is part of one after a fashion – the nonsense of the platitude, ‘Taxation is theft’ becomes very obvious. (Taxes go up and down, not to regulate the size of the spending budget, but to discourage or encourage more private spending, depending on whether the economy is too active, which causes inflation, or too sluggish, which causes recessions.)

The implication of the platitude is that, basically, the Government taking money from its population is a crime and should therefore be stamped out. But what would happen if it was stopped? After all, if the state does not need to rake in tax to cover its spending commitments, why not just get rid of taxes altogether?

Well, the answer is that, especially in a consumer/services-dominated economy like the UK, its native currency will lose value rapidly.

The key consideration is that the value of a currency is driven by the demand for it. The main reason people in the UK do their business in sterling is precisely because they have to pay their taxes in pounds. Therefore, within Britain, there is a constant demand for pounds, at least up to the level required to meet the overall tax burden of the population. The less they have to pay in taxes, the less need they have to do their business in pounds. And as, thanks in particular to Margaret Thatcher, UK manufacturing produces far less than it used to, the pound is a less useful currency than it used to be in terms of what can actually be purchased with it.

In a no-tax environment therefore, more and more businesses will start accepting other currencies, like the Chinese renminbi, or the euro, as payment for goods, instead of pounds. This is simply because the bigger a stockpile of these currencies businesses can build, the more it bypasses the cost and inconvenience of having to exchange currencies before importing goods to sell.

The point will come when the UK will be flooded with other currencies. The population will increasingly buy and sell in them, while sterling’s value will have gone through the floorboards, because no one will want or need it anymore.

At that same point, the UK would lose much of its independence, because it will have become dependent on the country that issues the new ‘dominant’ currency in Britain for its money supply. (See the way Greece has been treated by the European Union since the Global Financial Crisis, to realise how powerless a Government can become when it does not have a currency of its own.)

So, when people demand “Abolish all tax”, because they imagine that their wealth is being used to support “scroungers”, or “moochers” if they are American (even though the actual amount of UK Government expenditure paid on unemployment support, fraudulent and legitimate combined, is only about 1%), they are making a big, big mistak.

Now the use of slurs like “scroungers” gives away the reality that they are trying to rationalise their own selfishness by denigrating those who receive state support.

'Scrounger' accusations translated

“I want more!” The Veruca-Saltz-esque translation of the people who espouse ‘scrounger’-narratives.

But whatever the motivation, what they are missing is that, should they get their way, instead of keeping about 75% of something worth a lot, they will instead be keeping 100% of something worth dust.

A fool’s saving if ever there was one.

by Martin Odoni

Imagine a desperate Palestinian committed a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. For all my support for the Palestinians, there is no sane denial of the fact that it sometimes happens, or of the horrific agonies that it genuinely inflicts. And say that one of the victims of such a bombing happens to be a supporter of the Palestinians. What would be the right thing to say to relatives of such a victim?

Would, “Don’t you think your family had better stop supporting the Palestinians now?” be appropriate? Surely not.

Well, one guy who has shown he would say it without a moment’s pause for thought – or even for dignity – is the rabid Zionist Rabbi Zvi Solomons. The terrible church bombings in Sri Lanka over the Easter weekend took over three hundred and fifty lives, and have left over five hundred injured. A relative of one of those who died is the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq. She revealed her family’s loss on her Twitter account a couple of days ago, and Solomons decided to extend his own, ‘unique’ brand of condolences.

Solomons Twitter attack via Siddiq

Rabbi Zvi Solomons demonstrates that no situation is too sensitive for him to use for cheap point-scoring.

“So sorry to hear this Tulip. Doesn’t your leader support Islamists like this? Are you still supporting him?”

Essentially, Solomons used the events, in traditional absurd-Zionist fashion, as an opportunity to scold Siddiq for being a ‘supporter’ of Jeremy Corbyn. Now, in fact, Siddiq is not really a supporter of Corbyn as such. She was originally one of the MPs who gave Corbyn a nomination to stand for Labour leader back in 2015, but when it came to the ballot itself, she voted for Andy Burnham. But that is not the real point. The real point is Solomons’ incredible mixture of cynical hawkishness and narrow-minded insensitivity.

Going up to someone when they reveal that they have entered a time of mourning, and trying to shame them for supposed associations, is not principle. It is cheap and cruel. It shows lack of human feeling, and betrays Solomons’ only real concern – his desire, shared with Zionists more widely, to see Corbyn isolated within the Labour Party.

Study Solomons’ Twitter feed, and you see a relentless chain of accusations and insinuations against Jeremy Corbyn, all implying in one way or another that he is anti-Semitic. There is little or nothing to support any such allegations, bar the usual deceitful quotemines and distorted half-truths, but they are unending, day-after-day, and give the impression of an almost disturbing obsession. Like most Zionists in Britain, Solomons clearly means Corbyn real harm, and sees isolating him from allies, even ones he does not really have, as a major first step. The corruption in political Zionism is demonstrated by the way it is only ever advanced by smears and bullying.

But the insubstantial nature of Solomons’ remarks is not confined to his misunderstanding of the relations between Siddiq and Corbyn. He fails to see the laughable hypocrisy in his own words, or the insane associative illogic he uses. Partly, it is because the Zionist cries of “racism!” are coming from a man who is himself using racist – or at least religiously sectarian – reasoning. Now all the indicators are that the bombers in Sri Lanka do have Islamist links (Islamic State have claimed responsibility, although with their history of trying to associate themselves with anything going wrong upwards of a national leader catching a cold, it is tempting to disregard their word), but Solomons is plainly using an “All-Muslims-are-the-same” argument.

Corbyn once addressed delegates from Hamas as “My friends”, and Hamas are a Muslim faction. Therefore, Hamas must be Islamists, and Corbyn is literally friends with Hamas, and Hamas are the same as the Sri Lanka bombers, ergo Corbyn is an ally of the Sri Lanka bombers and is personally implicated in the attacks over Easter.

This mixture of silogistic fallacy and telescopic definitions shows where the prejudice really lies. On present information (at the time of writing at least), it is transparent nonsense to try and associate the bombers in Sri Lanka in any way with Corbyn at all, or indeed with Hamas.

Any doubt about the selfish, irrational scaremongering is dissolved by a later remark in the thread; –

“I don’t want Jews to start being killed by Jeremy’s Islamist friends.”

So there you have it. At a time of national mourning among the Christian community of Sri Lanka, Solomons wants to make it all about Jews. Incredible.

Yet again, ‘anti-Semitism’ is shown not to mean a hatred of Jews for being Jews, but to mean the manifestion of anything a Zionist hates.

As a Jew, it is a very saddening and disturbing reality that we all have to treat hearing the term ‘anti-Semitism’ with enormous caution. But in the present climate, we have no alternative, thanks to irresponsible, hate-addled wolf-cryers like Solomons.

by Martin Odoni

Apparently, there will be a fresh round of anti-Semitism allegations against Labour left-wingers at some point over the Easter weekend, via the Sunday Times. The chances of these allegations holding any more water than previous ones seem pretty remote, especially given the Murdoch-ite nature of the source. All signs so far that I have seen are that it is yet another catalogue of examples of Israel being angrily criticised on social media, rather than of Jews being insulted for being Jews. In other words, anti-Zionism is being spun as ‘anti-Semitism’, and Israelis are being spun as ‘every Jew’ yet again. This is a relentless, aggravating, and Orwellian conflation to which the Labour left are largely, and correctly, refusing to give in.

But the right are showing no reluctance to keep pushing the conflation either. So alas it will be seconds out, round umpteen. Do you know what though? I am no longer terribly bothered about it.

The reason why is that the right wing media’s attempts to smear the Labour left are proving more and more ineffective, and that is because they are so painfully predictable. Particularly over the last year or so, the pattern has been so regular you could almost set your watch by it. It is quite mechanical. So mechanical in fact, that it appears to be a carefully-structured program.

So, here is roughly how the pattern would be asserted if written as a computer program in BASIC language; –

10 LET Tory polling => Labour polling

20 INPUT Tories have embarrassing Brexit/Austerity-related meltdown$.

30 LET Labour polling = Labour polling + 3.

40 IF Labour polling > Tory polling THEN GOTO 60

50 IF Labour polling < Tory polling THEN GOTO 10

60 INPUT right wing media foam-at-mouth-hysteria$.

70 LET barely-Jewish organisations = claim to be representative of all British Jews

80 PRINT Barely-Jewish organisation list of accusations against Labour leftists who are supposedly guilty of ‘anti-Semitism’

90 FOR Smear kept at top of headlines = 1 to 5 days

100 IF Smear kept at top of headlines = 5 days GOTO 130

110 NEXT Smear kept at top of headlines

120 IF Labour polling < Tory polling THEN GOTO 140

130 IF Labour polling > Tory polling THEN GOTO 60

140 LET Labour poll surge = faltering

150 LET Hysteria = dying down somewhat.

160 Goto 10

Now, a quick look at recent opinion polls; –

The fact that Labour are presently not just ahead, but now well ahead, in pretty much all the opinion polls for Westminster voting intentions, is evidence that this strategy – really about keeping an uncritically Zionist/pro-Israel policy platform alive in the British Government – is not really working very well anymore . (If it ever was.) It sometimes slows and scuppers Labour’s impetus, but it has never caused Labour to slump. But it also explains why the Sunday Times are timing their latest attack for now.

The predictability of this pattern of behaviour is not only making it all-too-obvious to many people what is really going on, but it is also, frankly, getting thoroughly boring to be made to sit through it over and over, and I truly have serious doubts that many people will pay any attention to more of it. Common sense alone should lead most of the electorate to reason that if anti-Semitic behaviour were really anywhere near so prevalent in Labour as is being made out, there would have been hundreds of arrests by now for hate crimes.

Anyone who does believe the latest chapter will be the sort of person who would never vote Labour in the first place and is just looking out for any excuse to get angry with the party. There is no point in the Labour Party trying to appease people like that, so they should be left to go their own prejudgemental way. Labour should instead just refuse to dignify the latest smears with a response, and focus on what everyone should really be doing – fighting Austerity, and preventing a Conservative version of Brexit.

by Martin Odoni

A vote of no confidence in the leadership of someone you do not recognisably follow is a pretty futile gesture. Imagine Joseph Stalin, in 1943, had run a ballot of the Soviet population asking them, say, whether they had confidence in the Presidency of Franklin D Roosevelt in the United States – the USSR’s ally-of-convenience during World War II. Now I daresay the result of such a vote might have been interesting, but it would not have made any practical difference.

With this in mind, it seems bizarre that the media are reporting yesterday’s news that the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ have voted that they have no confidence in the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, as though it is some major development. Does anyone in full honesty imagine that the vote matters one jot?

I often encounter people on social media who claim that the JLM is the true voice of Jewish members of the Labour Party. But if you cast your eyes down the constitution of the JLM, you quickly notice two gigantic flaws in that assumption. Have a look at the below section copied from the document, section 4.3, which deals with the qualifications required to become a member of JLM; –

JLM absurd rules

Membership of the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ requires neither a Jewish background nor membership of the Labour Party.

Quite simply, if you wish to join JLM, you do not have to be Jewish, or a member of the Labour Party. Furthermore, while it is affiliated to the Labour Party, it is not actually a Labour Party organisation. Therefore JLM does not really follow Corbyn, as such, while the only real requirement for joining boils down to a prospective member must not already be a member of another party. Therefore, JLM’s qualification as either representative of left wing British Jews, or even an organisation ‘following’ the leader of the Labour Party is shaky in the extreme.

Many of the same people who swear by the word of JLM frequently mock its rival, ‘Jewish Voice For Labour‘, as being the proverbial ‘two-men-and-a-dog’. But really, how do these people imagine JLM has any more credibility, when its very name is so hopelessly misleading?

As for the reasons for this vote, they are a joke for reasons well-recorded. Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is entirely fleeting, while holding Corbyn individually responsible for dealing with what instances of it there are shows a laughable ignorance on JLM’s part of the party’s disciplinary process. The party leader does not have the power or authority to intervene in that process, as it would risk politicising any judgements made. (Although it is all-too-clear that politicised judgements are being made anyway, only by the National Constitutional Committee.)

JLM’s expression of no confidence in Corbyn is both ignorant and insignificant.

by Martin Odoni

Jacqueline Walker, a black Jewish activist and long-time Labour Party anti-racism campaigner, was expelled from the party today. The story of her, somewhat-carelessly-worded-but-accurate, remarks about Jews being leading financiers of the slave trade in past centuries, is well-enough recorded that I doubt I need to go over it. If you need to refresh your memory, see here.

Jackie Walker stitched up

Jackie Walker has been expelled from the Labour Party for stating historical facts.

However, the reason why this is as much a stitch-up as the expulsion of Marc Wadsworth last year bears mentioning. As with the Wadsworth hearing, the disciplinary process was clearly corrupted.

The pretext for Walker being suspended was supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour. There is a reluctance on the part of many in the media to mention that the accused is herself Jewish. (As indeed there has been with the accusations against the likes of Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jo Bird, myself, and others. As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, those suspended or expelled from Labour for anti-Semitism are frequently Jewish.)

Walker was not allowed to speak in her own defence at her hearing, although as she had chosen to have a legal counsel present, that is not an irregularity in itself; the party rules are quite explicit that any defendant who accepts legal counsel must leave all the talking to him/her.

The critical matter, which media reports of the expulsion are not making much effort to mention is that Walker, just like Wadsworth last year, was not charged with anti-Semitism. The charge that the Labour National Constitutional Committee levelled against her was Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party. This is taken from part of the text of Clause 2.I.8 of the Party rulebook.

This charge is problematic in itself –  see below – but more concerning yet is that Walker was not made aware until a few days ago exactly to which of her actions/words the charge applied. She and her legal counsel had insufficient time to prepare a full defence against some of the accusations therefore, and Walker’s wish to make an opening statement was in response to this serious irregularity.

The main reason the charge is problematic is similar to the one with the charge levelled against Wadsworth last year. At his tribunal, Wadsworth was charged with Bringing the party into disrepute, a lazy, catch-all term that effectively amounts to, “The NCC can throw you out just because its members don’t like something you said or did”. While being slightly more specific, the charge Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party, in the cold light of day, does not appear to mean anything greatly different. It is useful as it matches words in the clause of the rulebook, so it sounds legitimate, but does so without having to give the ‘transgression’ any precise definition or clarity.

Both Wadsworth’s and Walker’s charges amount to extremely blunt legal instruments. They hand an excessive amount of power to the party right-wingers who dominate the NCC, and make it much too easy for them to get rid of any member for whom they just have a political, or even personal, antipathy, on the shakiest of pretexts.

Zionist organisations like The Jewish Labour Movement, The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and The Jewish Chronicle are trying to insinuate that Walker has been thrown out precisely for being an anti-Semite, and no other reason. What they fail to explain is why the NCC needed to press such a vague and subjective charge as prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour in order to ‘convict’ her? Surely if they really had sufficient grounds to convict her of ‘anti-Semitic behaviour’, they could have made it more explicitly clear?

The ruling given by the judgement panel on the NCC was worded,

“The National Constitutional Committee has found that the charges of breaches of party rules by Jackie Walker have been proven. The National Constitutional Committee consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of the rules is expulsion from Labour Party membership.”

They did not mention anti-Semitism, or racism, as being the reason for the expulsion. Given Walker’s long history of fighting racism – just like Wadsworth’s – that should go without saying really. And yet – just like Wadsworth – it did not

This imprecise announcement fits a pattern that occurs a lot when Labour members are expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. See the ruling when Tony Greenstein was given his marching orders last year; –

“The NCC of the Labour Party has today found that all three charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Tony Greenstein have been found proved. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for the breach of Labour Party rules will be expelled from membership.”

And the ruling at the end of the aforementioned Wadsworth expulsion; –

“The National Constitutional Committee of the Labour Party has found that two charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Marc Wadsworth have been proven. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of Labour Party rules will be expulsion from membership.”

All sounds very similar does it not? And all very obscure.

What do all the accused mentioned on this page have in common?

Well of course; they are all pro-Palestine supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.

Thus it is quite impossible not to suspect that Walker’s guilt and expulsion – just like all the others’ – were premeditated conclusions. My own, much lower-profile suspension will doubtless lead to the same place in whichever century the NCC finally get around to assessing my case of implied ‘self-hating-Jewry’. But in Walker’s case, all that was in doubt was not her expulsion, but how the NCC chose to word the verdict. In the event, they took the tried-and-tested route, making it as obscure and legal-ese-precise as possible.

What happened to Jackie Walker today was just history ‘rhyming’. As Wadsworth was stitched up a year ago, so Walker has been stitched up now, demonstrating just how much right-wing corruption remains in the innermost mechanisms of the Labour Party.

by Martin Odoni

Yesterday‘s events in the House of Commons were an unspoken acknowledgement of what has been fairly blatant for several years; Brexit just is not going to work out. Oh, I am fairly sure the UK will still be leaving the European Union by one arrangement or another, but it will go poorly, will cause more harm than good, and will not be arrived at by any course the Prime Minister has chosen.

More meaningfully, yesterday was also an unspoken acknowledgement of another reality that will upset few, but worry many by the implications of it; Theresa May is now a PriMINOPrime Minister In Name Only.

Theresa May - PriMINO

Now she has lost all control over Brexit, the last vestiges of Prime Ministerial power have deserted Theresa May.

May’s alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party has essentially been reduced to a bad joke, as the DUP ruled out once and for all supporting her Brexit deal. She lost three more Ministers from her rotting Cabinet – albeit junior Ministers – as they turned rebel to vote against the Government. She faces potentially as many as twenty more Cabinet resignations, and is under pressure from the 1922 Committee to schedule her departure from Downing Street for the near future. But most of all, the House of Commons voted to seize control of the Brexit process from her, a move carried by a decisive rebellion by thirty Tory MPs; the motion was carried by a margin of twenty-seven votes.

Ever since her calamitous performance in the unnecessary General Election she called in 2017, May has been badly hamstrung by the Hung Parliament she blundered into being. There are all sorts of policy areas over which she has had minimal control ever since, and she has experienced some astonishingly bad defeats for a sitting Government. In short, she has barely been a Prime Minister for the last twenty-two months. The one area where she did have a position of dominance, no matter how clumsily and cluelessly she handled that power, was withdrawal from the EU. Given the enormity of that issue, it was sufficient to maintain a convincing illusion that she really is the leader of the nation. Now, at least for a few days, she lacks even that.

Theresa May is therefore only a Prime Minister in name; a sort of ‘Shadow Constitutional Monarch’. She is something that malformed rules make it almost impossible for the ordinary people to get rid of, but that is also so neutered by those same rules that her mandatory presence loses much of its sting. I suggested in December that May had ridden her luck for too long, and it was sure to run out soon. Foolishly running down the Brexit clock as a ‘game-of-chicken’ with Parliament is what has drained that luck away.

Not for the first time, I can almost find it in my heart to feel a little sorry for her, given the hapless, slightly-shrivelled presence to which she has been reduced. But she has to go. For all our sakes, she has to go, and her unstable, log-jammed blancmange of a Government must be dissolved and replaced with one that has function. In times as critical as these, the country cannot afford not to have a Government. It has not really had one for several years. Of course, in many circumstances, that is not necessarily a problem. But with the country on the threshold of leaving the EU, with all the troubles even a ‘Soft Brexit’ (if we are lucky) would cause, these are no such circumstances.

Still, with the Tories clearly now in total despair at May’s loss of control, and at her idiotic, patronising, blame-shifting speech last week, which turned many of them against her, whispers are getting louder about a General Election being imminent.

Gardiner says Election in about five weeks

The Government has pretty much tied itself in knots. An Election is the only real answer.

Everything that has happened, including the near-enough collapse of the Government, was predictable nearly two years ago. Arriving at another Election, as the only way out of the quagmire, has been predictable for at least as long.