I'm sad to say I agree. I did say that political memories are short and I suppose there's also the rosy tint of passing time, but much as I loathed Thatcher and most of her ilk, and her successors, at least I could see that some of them (though obviously not many) were doing what they did because they believed it was for the public good. With the Tory party since the turn of the century, I see a resurgence of entitlement, a profound hatred of the idea of public provision and a horrible willingness to flirt with extreme right-wing populism. The predominant economic model of government is not to sustain the nation in any way but to normalise the process of driving wealth up to the rich and risk down to the poor. Banks and "Captains" of finance are no longer risk-takers; they will be bailed out if things go wrong.

too true. My fear is that the current press are only too happy to misreport all this, and the public seem quite content to read it and accept lies at face value even when they contradict what the politician said earlier, later, was happening right next to them during the interview, pretty much anything really. Ugh.

Probably a bird - liquids go down quicker - or maybe a pet rodent since it's less likely to overpower the cheese and ketchup.

According to Wikipedia/YouGov, the most recent (July 2018) Conservative party member poll has top three as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Ruth Davidson, Sajid Javid. Ambed Rudd is one of three marked as N/A, but it doesn't explain why.

Given that TM won the no confidence vote relatively comfortably, she can't be officially pushed before December, right? So she'd need to want to pass the chalice to someone specific to not stubbornly hold on?

The news cycle is far too quick right now. Resulting in there being very little risk to lying. There's far more news and outrage about something else before there's time to expose a liar.

90% of the press are obviously hugely biased towards a right-wing and (because of their various proprietors) largely pro-leave viewpoint. The same applies to the news coverage on television, with the possible exception of Channel 4. The BBC doesn't even pretend to be unbiased any more, packing their news programmes with guests from the right, "interviewed" by extreme right-wingers like Andrew Neil, or Emily Maitlis* (and if anybody thinks that's unfair on Maitlis, remember that she works for the Spectator for free). When a guest from the left appears, they are invariably introduced with references to their being left-wing, or 'supporters of Jeremy Corbyn' before facing a barrage of sarcastic questions, expressions of disbelief, questions that are either actually accusations, or lengthy speeches supporting the establishment cause (I'm looking at you, wannabe renaissance-man Andrew Marr). 

*there seems to be some kind of competition going on amongst BBC presenters at the moment to see how much they can get away with in verbal assaults on anybody from the Labour party or the left generally. Neil has the blue ribbon at the moment for his treatment of Owen Jones on the Daily Politics, but Maitlis challenged this when she asked Barry Gardiner the absurd question 'what Brexit Vision will be on Labour's manifesto in the event of a General Election next week?' Now given that NO political party has formulated an election manifesto because no election has been announced 2) The last Labour manifesto and probably the next will have far more input from the membership of the party than in previous years, Maitlis clearly knew that this was not the simple question she wanted it to sound like and the suggestion that he could answer in the few seconds available disingenuous. As soon as he started to speak, she started to interrupt, saying that his attempt at an answer was just 'what was on the leaflet' and accompanied this with furious body language: tossing her head impatiently, dramatic eye-roll to camera, acting out 'not listening' by writing on her notes finally refusing to let him speak. I'm not saying that Gardiner handled it well, but it was a deliberate trap, much in the Laura Kuenssberg tradition.

 

The CBC here are performing a somewhat similar function, but perhaps with more subtlety ATM given the situation is less dire... my theory is they (publicly/gummint funded new organizations) are simply hedging their bets against the day a right-wing (or more extreme right-wing) government is in power, with the traditional howls (fueled by media-owning patrons) to defund socialist projects such as public television et al.

TLDR; They are running scared.

yeah, here the BBC is (or was?) under severe threat of being defunded to the point of shutdown by any Conservative government. It seems to have made them afraid to present much in the way of opposing views, and a suspicious amount of their political journos either have second jobs or move on to their next jobs in conservative/right wing political orgs. That plus a bizarre mishandling of 'balance' making them feel the need to put one climate change denier on air for every story about how fucked the planet is... well, grr. It's a shame.

Pretty much all of the rest of the press is just owned and operated by rich people with everything to lose if a vaguely socialist Labour ever gets into power, so naturally they fight it and smear all the way.

Not much to say to that apart from I agree, and that Andrew Neil is a cunt.

As Milko mentioned, along with the bias, I hate him even more because of his climate change denial. That really really fucks me off.

He is, isn't he. And yeah, the climate change denial thing disgusts me. I really don't believe he's stupid enough to actually believe that nearly every climate scientist in the world is wrong and Breitbart is right. My conclusion is that he's actually lying because he doesn't give a fuck about the future and instinctively supports big business and its short-term greed.

I'm kind of puzzled by people like Andrew Neil. He's obviously intelligent. I mean he's not just a product of the entitlement system like Johnson or Rees Mogg, or intellectually limited like Mark Francois, so he must have chosen to be a bad person. And I assume he's quite comfortable with life, knowing that he's an awful human being. Weird.

Bercow just tossed a spanner into it.

Saw that mentioned around a week ago, and it does technically make perfect sense.

Though apparently if a majority of MPs want to vote on it again they can. So May would need to find a majority to enable a vote, then get a majority to vote for her WA, who have previously massively voted against it.

Messy as per.

"Saw that mentioned around a week ago"

Yeah, I remember that, which is why I'm amazed no one saw this coming.

Alleged quote from cabinet meeting this am: “Where’s the strategy. It feels like the last days of Rome.”

Well, the strategy is very obvious. Theresa May decided what the UK side would ask for in the negotiations. It was a package that ruled out what she felt her party's right wing wouldn't like, but included support for the Good Friday agreement. She involved nobody in formulating this negotiating position outside of a small group of right wing leave supporters, although the fact that these all walked away from the process, suggests that it was mainly down to her. She then spent two years (I'll say that again) she then spent TWO YEARS getting representatives of 27 separate countries to come to an agreement closely tailored to her package of requirements. 

The strategy simply involves stubbornly insisting that the UK parliament has no role other than to vote for or against this particular package [because she has no intention of allowing any input to discussion of how the UK should leave other than her own] with the threat that if it is refused the UK will get no exit deal or else we will revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.

An alternative package that includes membership of a (or the) EU Customs Union and/or the EU Common Market without membership of the EU and it's political institutions and other financial institutions has never even been discussed by Parliament or raised with the EU negotiators. This would be hated by the Tory right wing that has a set of values honed on the playing fields of Eton and Harrow and in the drinking clubs of Oxford and Cambridge, or in the case of some such as Mark Francois, a fantasy England where World War 2 never ended. May's strategy here is to ignore the possibility that alternatives even exist.

Quite understandably, having spent 2 years discussing May's package deal, the EU doesn't want to discuss this any more. I have no idea how they might react to starting again from an entirely different place although some politicians who have raised the possibility with EU negotiators say that they might be sympathetic -  and certainly this would be closer to a model that the EU is used to with e.g. Norway. There is almost certainly a majority in the UK Parliament for this sort of arrangement, probably a substantial majority, but unfortunately the Tory rank and file seldom show the level of courage required to make this happen. And with May currently stuck on the view that her way is the only way and consequently seeking only a short delay to Article 50, probably no time.

By the way, Bercow's ruling wasn't just the resurrection of some ancient precedent. He was ruling in line with the way parliamentary business is done every day. If a bill is voted down then it doesn't get voted on again in the same parliamentary session without a substantial change. Those who don't like the ruling are trying to make it sound like one of those ancient laws like it's illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing armour.

Watching Prime Minister's questions just now, and May's answers are 100% genuine 1984 stuff. Apparently Parliament has fully discussed and rejected all alternative options to her proposals. 

I think that the EU may have just shot her fox.

If France holds to the position they've just adopted - that they won't accede to the short delay unless she can provide evidence beforehand that she'll deliver a result - then she has a handful of days (maybe just three) to bribe and cajole a majority for her 'deal', or she's obliged to go cap-in-hand to the EU for the long delay. Which, of course, makes Remain more likely. Interesting times.

"the strategy is very obvious"

Indeed!

Watched her "speech". I would have laughed if I wasn't so worried about my pension. It was like Endora Stephens from Bewitched trying out hypnosis for the first time: "You're feeling sleepy, you're tired of Brexit, your eyes are closing, I'm on your side, you want my deal, MPs are to blame, you will hear only my voice..."

Hah! Somebody else with a similar thought.

 :'-D