Westministenders: Up Shit Creek without Wifi.

[RedToothBrush]

Theresa May is being held hostage.

There is mounting evidence that all is not as it seems at CCHQ. It makes you don your tin foil hat and ask who is in charge.

Theresa May was a Remainer. She suddenly abandoned that when she became leader. Her proclamation of what would follow next seems directly at odds with her actions. This is not her fault. This is her plea for help and way of telling the outside world that she is a prisoner of Brexit.

At first it seemed like perhaps she had been locked up with Brexiteers for too long. She seemed to be developing a survival strategy which seemed totally irrational to outsiders. The signs of intimidation everywhere though. Instead of criticising those who did this, May joined in with them or was complicit in her silence.

Things are now taking a sinister turn. After repeatedly saying ‘No Election’, May crumbled and called one. She has now not been seen in public since. Instead she is being wheeled out at closed events to the party faithful. They are being dressed as mixing with the people but they are no such thing. The plebs in attendance are set to ‘mute’ or locked out completely.

Behold the coming of the May-Bot. She seeks to ‘prevent tourism’ in Wales. She now no longer knows which town she is currently in. (Much less have a plan for Brexit). She accuses an organisation set up to use its numbers to get better deals, of doing what it is supposed to, except she calls this ‘ganging up’.

May is not transported in a bus. Oh no. Instead she travels by the Bond Villian’s choice of transport; the helicopter.

More worrying still is the mantra ‘Strong and Stable’ repeated as many times as possible. It is almost as if, if she says it enough she might start believing it. She certainly has got her party members brainwashed and acting as if they were Zombies. Who needs ‘Spice’ when you are a Conservative? They ‘Believe’…

The ploy is to hoodwink people into voting for May instead of the Tories. CCHQ have removed Conservative branding from literature and campaigning in the North. The party are still too toxic, but May apparently scores well especially against Corbyn. Ironically however negatively I think of Corbyn he does display something May increasingly seems incapable of: humanity.

Many people might think of May as some sort of dictator figure. Its true. Every vote for her strengthens her hand. But not for Brexit negotiations. Mainly because Brexit is without merit or reward. Not unless you hold power. This is part 2 of the grab for it.

This is May’s power paradox. SHE is not powerful. She isn’t persuasive. She isn’t a healer of divides. She relies on authoritarian measures to get her way. This isn’t a sign of her personal power, but a sign of her personal weakness. She is sly and sneaky in her methods rather than compelling others to come along with her. They are doing so more because they dislike the alternative in Corbyn less.

She is not stable. She has lurched from one drama to the next, and has repeatedly been forced to back down from what she wanted. Nothing says ‘stability’ and ‘good leadership’ like appointing Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary. The lady is not so much for turning and leading, but is already staggering around dizzy whilst blindfolded playing pin the tail on the donkey. And Christ she’s got a lot of them in her Government. Including the numpty who decided to do a live event and broadcast it in an area with no wi-fi. Mind you, that is soon to be the entire country. Or what’s left of it.

She had said she had a mandate for Brexit and did not need this to be approved by the country as she was getting on with the job. This is why we are having a General Election to give her a mandate…

Not only that, but there is a lurking question here that should not be forgotten. Who is pulling May’s strings and making her dance as her actions are not natural? Every puppet show has puppet masters behind the scenes of the stage, hiding in the shadows.

They will dispense with their toy once she has outlived her usefulness like every good baddie.

Is she the one we should be most fearful of?

Hold on tight this is going to be a very bumpy ride over the next two years. Just how many casualties will be sacrificed on the altar of Brexit?

So - making Brexit the centrepoint - why get a Labour representative who will support Brexit ?

Sometimes you have a choice between a bad option and a fucking disaster of an option. If opting out makes it more likely you will get the disaster then I would go with the bad. I would rather vote for a leave candidate who supported a public NHS for example then a leave candidate who is part of a party who is casually dismantling the public sector. If you take into account math's view that for the Tories this is more about fundamentally reshaping the country into a tax haven for their chums than just brexit I think it would be shortsighted to say a labour leaver is equivalent to a Tory leaver in aim and intention. I also think that the wider labour aims mean that there is far more chance of them shifting their position as it becomes increasingly clear what the consequences of leave are. The Tories on the other hand will be fine with those consequences.

Having paid very close attention to the Trump horror show I really do not think this is the time for getting high and mighty around sacred principles. This is about damage limitation.

Enjoying that live blog, red.
Under what law are media locked in rooms, or not allowed to film replies?

Excellent article on the multiple Brexit delusions, especially this

Much of the British elite know little about how Britain’s economy compares. Few realise that three-quarters of the country is poorer than the EU-15 average; that Britain’s growth performance has been mediocre at best; or that there are relatively few British-owned and managed businesses with a strong record of growth. There are bright spots in the British economy, but its commanding heights owe much to foreign capital and expertise. Foreign-owned businesses generate more than half the country’s exports, and many of these exports are intermediate goods – links in international, predominantly European, supply chains. These companies are especially vulnerable to Britain leaving the single market. If the British economy were more locally owned and managed, it would be easier to understand the British complacency over the economic impact of Brexit. But for a developed country so dependent on foreign capital to do something so damaging to its ability to attract that capital has few precedents.

Most of the British elite lives in London, Europe’s only truly global city, and this seems to seduce them into believing that Britain is more important and powerful than it really is, and its economy more dynamic. London has had a good 30 years. But much of that is the result of its success in carving out a profitable link in Europe’s division of labour: financial and other business services.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/02/britain-complacency-brexit-humiliation--france-germany-eu-uk

whatwouldrondo - thank you for that link, I think the article is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately. And it sums up why Britain should be doing all in her power to Remain.

London has had a good 30 years. But much of that is the result of its success in carving out a profitable link in Europe’s division of labour: financial and other business services.

Remember that in the 70s the UK had to go to the IMF for a bailout.

What happened in the 70s? We joined the EEC and North Sea oil was discovered. It's those two aspects which helped pull the UK out of the mire, after the initial "overdraft" from the IMF.

The fact that our growth has been mediocre, that the UK's wealth continues to be ever more concentrated on the South East, and that there is rising inequality is an indictment on what we actually did with the resources at our disposal.

Thatcher in some senses had it easy: she had North Sea oil coming on line, she had access to the EEC trading block/single market, she was selling off the family silver for once-off injections to Government spending (and enriching cronies/buying voters at the same time). What did they do with the money?

www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-a-paper-committed-to-freedom-and-optimism-a3528416.html
Osborne's editorial debut

The British people don’t want clumsy immigration controls to contribute to the rising prices we are already seeing as a result of Brexit. British businesses want reassurance that they will continue to be able to hire the right people to do the right jobs. Given these competing pressures, it is not surprising our poll today shows the public remains to be convinced that the Government can meet its pledge to reduce immigration numbers significantly.

And

A general election victory for the Conservatives could provide more of a mandate, but only if the Prime Minister and her colleagues spell out in much more detail what their intentions are. It’s early days, but that is not happening, thanks in part to the failure of the desperately weak Labour leadership to offer a proper opposition. There’s nothing wrong with repeating election campaign slogans; the problem comes when the election campaign amounts to no more than a slogan. If you ask for a blank cheque, don’t be surprised if later it bounces.

Gareth Davies @Gareth_Davies09
The way @CornwallLive has responded to treatment by May and Tory press team should be repeated throughout the country
That or there should be an agreement that no coverage is given without the opportunity for proper scrutiny

This.
May is doing what Trump did. The British press were critical of the American press for not doing this. Now they need to show they weren't hot air and get tough with May, as covering only as the Tories see fit is affecting impartiality. BBC I'm looking at you.

www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/15259208.Prime_Minister_Theresa_May_visits_Helston___but_we_re_not_allowed_to_see_what_she_does/?ref=twtrec
Prime Minister Theresa May visits Helston - but we're not allowed to see

Falmouth Packet newspaper showing its up to the job.

I quite enjoyed George Osborne's first editorial but his first day at the Evening Standard has been rather marred by the publication of a report from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments condemning him taking on the role:

Spare a thought for the poor Evening Standard news editor. What is he or she going to do with this story, about the new boss being criticised by the advisory committee on business appointments.

In a letter released today on its website (pdf), the committee says it was wrong for Osborne to sign a contract accepting the job of Evening Standard editor before receiving advice from the committee, the body that advises ex-ministers on what jobs they should or should not accept. Lady Browning, the committee’s chair, told Osborne in the letter:

You submitted your application on 13 March. The committee considers it to be a matter of regret that your appointment as Editor was announced by the Evening Standard on 17 March, just days later and before the committee had an opportunity to make the necessary enquiries, consider your application, and provide its advice. You informed the committee that you had no involvement in the timing of the announcement, which you assured the committee was made by your prospective employer due to your appointment becoming known to other media organisations. The committee also notes that the press statement issued by the PR firm working for ESI Media (parent company of the Evening Standard) stated: “As required of former ministers, Mr Osborne is seeking the advice of the advisory committee on business appointments on his appointment.”

However the committee is very concerned that despite the press statement noting you were still seeking the committee’s advice, you subsequently signed a contract of employment with the Evening Standard on 20 March - without having received the committee’s advice. It was not appropriate for you to do so. You did not disclose any intention to do so to the committee when you originally submitted your application, nor have you provided an explanation for this during the course of the committee’s consideration. This is not in compliance with the business appointment rules, which state that former ministers ‘must abide by the advice of the committee’ – advice which you were yet to receive.

The committee says it is not opposed to Osborne taking the job. But it does say that Osborne should not use any “privileged information” he obtained when he was chancellor in his new job, that he should not contact the government in relation to press regulation, and that he should not lobby the government on behalf of the Evening Standards until two years have passed since his departure from ministerial office.

Osborne broke business appointments rules by taking Evening Standard job before receiving clearance from advisory committee, watchdog says.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/viscount-denies-threatening-gina-miller-in-menacing-facebook-post-35673394.html

Imagine, that fellow would, up until recently, have automatically inherited political power in the UK through a seat in the house of Lords.

Osborne broke business appointments rules by taking Evening Standard job before receiving clearance from advisory committee, watchdog says.

So ?

In Brave New Britain, who cares ? Or, rather what's the penalty ?

One way of looking at the past 20 years, is to see how businesses and privileged individuals have quietly emasculated the rule of law by having the most serious offences become slap-on-the-wrist peccadilloes. Data protection being a key example. Has anyone managed to get any recompense of note after their personal data has been spaffed ?

I thought the advisory committee stuff had come out last week. Interesting its being thrown out again today. Its technically old news.

“£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first generation immigrant.”
from Calleach's link

and
"Tony is too vocal trying to split this country asking for EU remainers to rise up against democracy, he needs to be stopped"

From the UK parliament and government petition against Tony Blair.(on 10,000 signatures)

Agree, the press is the opposition, and needs to track May, even if it means being locked in rooms. we need to learn from US press.

“£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first generation immigrant.”

Channelling his inner Henry II ?

It's hard to see how that comment isn't a clear incitement to violence, given that less credible threats about blowing up airports have resulted in hefty sentences.

From Cailleach's link (and also BBC's lunchtime news): "I’m not Mr St Davids, I’m afraid, it’s Lord St Davids.”" to the judge.

Twat.

which, for the avoidance of doubt, in my part of Scotland, just means really, really big idiot

www.damemagazine.com/2017/04/27/trump-and-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-first-100-days#sthash.LkrBWo7i.dpuf%22

From the lovely Trump thread.
Siskind has monitored all the 'frog boiling' in US.
Noting 'frog boiling' here can do no harm either.
Death threats and locking local journalists in a room noted today, thanks.

Listening to morrissey "Irish blood, English heart"
Very apt for me ATM.
😞😡

....In other news, I can proudly claim to have been described as bonkers on the "How can anyone defend TM" thread for having the presumption to point out that North Korea is one of the few other countries which is not part of a trading bloc (in response to an earlier post which asked which were the 6 countries that weren't) and for suggesting that the UK might not be "whole" for much longer (again, in response to an earlier point).

I'll wear the description with pride

prettybird...I hope you are proud!? 😀👍🏻

I am contemplating getting a t shirt made with either;

Saboteur
or
Elitist Liberal snowflake

On it. Thoughts?

I need it for the 8th you see.....

Saboteur

The word is French. 'nuff said. We need to be talking about English shoes. Probably St. Theresa's ...

"Saboteur" on the front (saboteuse? ) and "Elite Liberal Snowflake" on the back

I'm on vistaprint...
Saboteur.... on the front
And proud.... on the back...
😀

pretty I think you might have to give up your 'bonkers badge' to the person who posted this on my thread in AIBU.

My thoughts are, we wouldn't have been given the choice to leave (just like we didn't have the choice to join) if we couldn't manage on our own. Think about it, why would we be given the chance to vote for something that could be extremely detrimental to us?

I'm

Bearbehind - and

Difference is that they wouldn't be proud to be bonkers (as defined by Anon) - they're still in denial!