How and when will an opposition party be formed?

It is almost beyond belief watching the Labour party devour itself.  There can be little doubt that very soon Corbyn and his juvenile Trot-lot gang will clinch, and then clench, their grip on the throat of the old Labour party.  They will then strangle themselves to death!  Determined not to be outrun in the 'stoopid stakes', the 'Kippers' appear to be determined to show us all in their leadership election, why they would have severe difficulties running a whelk-stall let alone a country.  The 'il-Lib-non-Dems' do not have enough MPs to make up a football team and so they sit quietly hoping and praying that some crumbs might fall from the Labour party to justify their increasingly useless existence.  Meanwhile, 'St. Theresa of May' marches onwards and upwards in her kitten shoes followed dutifully - so far! - by her 'faithful' followers.  Mind you, it's very early days and she has yet to face the full onslaught of those damned "events, dear boy, events!" 

As a true-born Englishman I do not like single-party regimes, so the quicker the vestiges of the old parties can get their acts together and form an alternative the better.  Or, it might be that either the Left or the Right of the Tory party will split off and they will form an opposition.  A great deal will depend on the general course to be laid down by 'St. Theresa'.  So far there have been some slight hints that she might shift to the Right and that, of course, would allow some breathing space for the Lefties to get their act together.  Or again, she might not have the leisure to pick and choose her future course because there are now distinct signs of an ultra militant tendency amongst all sort of people, not just the young and stupid but also the unions and even the professional classes as the doctors demonstrated just recently.  I also detect, lurking just beneath the surface, a willingness to use violence in the furtherance of their aims.

Interesting times - and we all know what that could mean!

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

David, I do appreciate orderly chaos! It seems many western governments are in the throes of deep mistrust of their citizens while the citizens have learned to distrust their governments. The Left has always resorted to violence because it must. Maybe it is time for the kulaks to revolt?

[Loz]

Brexit will destroy May and her followers.

Corbyn and May will thereby present a level playing field by the time of the next election.

And remember the instinctive Corbyn voterbase ...

Public sector
Manufacturing sector
Northerners
Sweaties
Taffs
Paddies
Unions
Students
Londoners
Greens
Media / Metro class
Corporate workforce (feeding off HMG contracts)

... and remember that Corbyn and the Labour party even in their meltdown are still polling 28%, compared to May's 42% in her honeymoon period.

Brexit meltdown will bring May down to Corbyn's level.

And the country bumpkins, Ukip, ex-BNPers, and great unwashed will always heed the idiotic collectivist projects, programs, and policies spouted by Corbyn et al, rather than the "too esoteric and difficult for their peanut brains" principles and practices of small state, free market, and open society polity.

So as with Brexit, that'll swing it.

Welcome to the UKSSR, comrades!

SoD

[David Duff]

Riiiiiight, so the EU is a practitioner of the "principles and practices of small state, free market, and open society polity", is it? Gosh, must have missed that!

[Loz]

You obviously did miss it, because it's true - as I've been saying for some time!

- Who was arguing for CETO and TTIP free trade deals?
- Who was arguing for freedom of movement - along with goods, services and capital?
- Whose rules and regs were there to stop nationalisation, government subsidy, and anti-competitive practices?

You're taking this off topic and back onto the "B" subject, btw. I'm happy to stay on topic ref Corbyn's future.

I was giving serious consideration to a large bet on Corbyn to win the next election.

But then I saw the odds! ...

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-prime-minister

No opposition?! You're having a laugh.

SoD

[backofanenvelope]

"country bumpkins, Ukip, ex-BNPers, and great unwashed"

Ah yes, all those people who weren't going to vote LEAVE!

[David Duff]

Sorry, SoD, you mean all those handouts to French farmers were really free trade, and the European effort to close down the City of London was just healthy competition, and all that free movement was *intended* to allow a zillion Muslims to come in.

[Loz]

All those efforts were driven by nation states - France and Germany, essentially - and were a small price to pay considering 2 out of 3 of them got nowhere.

Closing the City of London failed. Allowing a zillion Muslims in didn't effect us because we opted out of Schengen (obviously our own commonwealth immigrants aside). Both deals done at the EU level by us! The EU protected us from the interests of Germany and France. Now we will be at the mercy of all three together.

Only the CAP got through, driven by France.

As I said - a small price to pay.

Back on topic: It's not unreasonable to see that whoever holds the Brexit baby / abortion is going to get obliterated by it. And that's May and her team.

That will result in the two main parties presenting an appalling double omni-shambles as the choice at then next election. This is hardly unusual in Westeros right now, if y'know what I mean, but ehy invite it in?

Certainly for the rest of our lives, that's how it's going to be. A speedy return to 1975.

And you still prefer that to the status quo we just exited? (Ok, back off topic again.)

Let me put it this way, what hope do you see? How will it look? Where will it come from? What will it be like?

You've never described it, except once in a while to say "Britain has a habit of turning up a saviour at the right moment".

Well what if there is no saviour this time?!

And what an irresponsible, irrational, bonkers approach to the future: "Let's ditch doing rather well in the known known, albeit with some mild irritations, for a future of guaranteed serious problems, pain, and suffering, where the only hope is an unknown unknown coming along and saving us".

SoD

[Bob]

We seem to agree in general, David. Could it be a sign of the Apocalypse?

Labour's problems are somewhat similar to our Democrats' and largely originated with the "third way" politics of the 1990's. Tony Blair, like Bill Clinton, attempted to preempt "free market capitalism" and "free trade" from conservatives. The economic effects have been unfortunate for most citizens. Blair also defended George W. Bush's military adventurism, a mistake some on both the American left and right ascribe to Hillary Clinton.

The critical difference in play is that in America the "conservative" party has moved so far right that it's now unacceptable to the majority. Also, years of Nixonian "Southern strategy" and heavy reliance on propaganda methods have caught up with them in the form of Donald J. Trump - who might not know anything about policy, but certainly understands TV and TV audiences. Thanks to having an absurd villain to unite against, Democrats aren't as self-defeating as Labour. Besides, the Bernie Sanders wing was never as far left as Corbyn's shopworn stuff.

The Tory party has managed to maintain a fairly sensible standing, though they're walking a tightrope. If unable to resolve the Brexit on acceptable economic terms they could find themselves in a place similar to our Republicans'.

[JK]

Bob?

"The critical difference in play is that in America the "conservative" party has moved so far right ..."

You'll probably not Bob, find it so amazing that I disagree with your analysis again? (Although given Bob, you've posted a link down below on 'the Cuckoo post' where you'd have it, the neocons would be the natural selection as exemplars - but we can't have it both ways now can we?)

Longish analysis below Bob but, I'd recommend it:

http://www.fpri.org/article/2012/12/the-crisis-of-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-the-end-of-the-road/

[Bob]

JK,

Are you trying to imply neocons are unable to spot a national security threat? I tried skimming the analysis, which is genuinely long and not a little convoluted. Can you explain how it *doesn't* imply the Republicans have moved too far right?

[JK]

Sure the neocons are able, being uniquely situated to "spot threat" as the neocons are, far as the most pressing [ie the ME] responsible for creating the threat in the first place.

But skip the greater portion then begin reading at "American Conservatism In The Current Great Recession" (provided you've got a basic grip of how Mr. Kurth has set his definitions).

By the end Bob I'm sure you and JK will share some fundamentals on whether it really is a problem of "the Republicans moved right" or rather, 'the splits among the various interests of the Republicans have been more fully revealed.

Hillary herself Bob, I'd suggest is as much a neocon as Douglas Feith or even Paul Wolfowitz. Overthrowing Saddam's Iraqi Regime you might recall was Bill Clinton policy before it was GW's.

[Loz]

It's gradually dawning on the MSM - they could've just read my D&N comments for the last few years ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/the-tories-should-crush-the-rail-unions-once-and-for-all--voters/

"Tories behaving like a Heath government", "Labour like a throwback to" - wait for it, wait for it --- "THE SEVENTIES!"

Oh it's ok, I won't say I told you so.

SoD

[Bob]

JK,

In general we agree about neocons. Not all 50 in the letter are easily characterized as such, and other military and intelligence officials not included have also warned about Trump's lack of fitness for office.

As proof Hillary is a neocon, critics on both the left and right usually cite her Iraq War vote and Libyan interventionism. It's important to remember the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq only gave Bush the go-ahead for action and was not specific in any way. The roots of the Libyan Crisis can be dated back to 1969 and a large number of influences and groups since. Obama has admitted the lack of a post-Gaddafi plan was his administration's worst foreign policy failure, so putting the entire burden on Clinton is a bit selective, to put it mildly. Implying the Clintons are more hawkish than the Bushes is a tough sell.

We do share the view the Republican party and conservatism have failed largely because of internal splits. I'd maintain, however, the splits have resulted in the Tea Party types (including Paul Ryan Libertarians) being the most visible. They're far to the right of more traditional Eisenhower or Northeastern establishment conservatives and also right of Reagan. You can tell the party has gone too far by all the scurrying down mooring lines by those distancing themselves from Trump and even saying they'll vote for Clinton.

[JK]

Hmmm Bob.

It would appear we've more than just a few "disinclined to consider it that way my erstwhile Friend" than I initially counted on. Its gonna therefore, take me a little time to address & (within reasonableness & without betraying some stuff that's still TS ... or worse; TS/Compartmented) extrapolate each of the openings Bob, you've listed.

Libya and Iraq of course, as far as either goes of course but I'd suggest there's a third that should be applicable in that, "as everybody knows" there was that little matter of Hillary finding herself arriving on the tarmac "under sniper fire."

"What's that term to do with JK?" I hear you baffled Bob.

'No-Flys in a single term' I'd reply. Three jump immediately to mind with the one not already mentioned being the one imposed over the Balkans. "Poor ol' Slobodan Milošević" could probably explain it better than me but, I think he's still enjoying talking with The World Court if I'm not mistaken. But JK'd reckon Slobodan probably'd tell you, "I yain't never heard of any AUMF thingamajig!"

Now far as Bob, you bothering to type such ridiculousness as

Paul Ryan Libertarians, even if you did put such nonsense in parentheses, why you did (probably knowing JK'd come back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyJBZYz858M

is probably another best left to the History books.

[JK]

"Obama has admitted the lack of a post-Gaddafi plan was his administration's worst foreign policy failure, so putting the entire burden on Clinton is a bit selective, to put it mildly."

Generic search term (Google) 'Which Cabinet level official is in charge of an Administration's Foreign Policy'

https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch

[JK]

"Not all 50 in the letter are easily characterized as such (neocons), and other military and intelligence officials not included have also warned about [the extremely careless'] lack of fitness for office."

[Well ... except in a parallel universe maybe]

[JK]

"You can tell the [Republican Inc] party has gone too far by all the scurrying down mooring lines by those distancing themselves from Trump and even saying they'll vote for Clinton."

Avast me hearties! Consensus!

Screw that Kaine guy, George Will for Hillary's VP!

[JK]

Oh and Bob?

Not suggesting there's an unlikelihood You are just as Independent (voting-wise, as I describe myself having for instance, voted a few Arkansas Dems into Congress and JK [as I] even going so far as to vote for Ross Perot a couple of times)

as myself but - as it comes to [you?] other fellows and sorts being "cozy as it goes" I'd submit, there's a road "ain't been got to yet" and, lest you Bob take issue with my comment above asserting The Secretary Of State being in charge of Foreign Policy (especially during this, Obama Administration) there's the matter of Barack's being in charge of having sons such as Trayvon Martin and keeping it all on "the low-down" and away from Michelle.

"Nothing to that JK" I hear you insist.

Well, we'll see about that as the second anniversary of Ferguson is upon us ... and in the comments of the black blogs ...

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/08/marc-lamont-hill-green-party-breakfast-club/

[Bob]

JK, I love a challenge and will attempt to make sense of and answer some of the above apparent criticism. The first I can respond to is the "ridiculousness" of my typing "Paul Ryan Libertarians". I use Ryan as a descriptor because he's the leader of the gang, to the chagrin of Rand Paul. Evidently he's not pure enough for you because he thought it might be a good idea to avoid a full-blown depression by passing the TARP. I'd remind you we don't know how a primarily Libertarian county would be run since there's never been one and it's not likely there ever will be.

Evidently you believe that within the Pentagon, Intelligence agencies and State Dept. Hillary was the lone person responsible for the Libya adventure. That's very imaginative.

For your amusement and edification, a list including more GOP bigwigs against Trump: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290999-republican-exodus-from-trump-grows

[Loz]

"A proper industrial strategy", the foundation of Mayconomics: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/13/the-two-big-tests-awaiting-the-prime-ministers-mayconomics-agend/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/theresa-may-distances-herself-from-george-osbornes-economic-lega/

Now when was the last time I heard that phrase?

Oh yes, Abba was number 1 in the charts.

SoD