Remember, remember ….
That was it? This nothing-burger was it? This was why they wanted Prorogation to be stopped? Where were our esteemed Remain harlots for the debates on important issues like Hong Kong and Iran, on arms exports to Saudi Arabia, on Climate Change and above all on ‘democracy and the rights of the electorate’? Nowhere to be seen!
The one debate these space-and-time wasters eagerly attended was on ‘language’, and of course on the question that Johnson must ‘obey the law’. ‘Language’ was also debated ad nauseam outside the HoC in our wonderful MSM where Remainers hold sway. Obviously, this was only about Johnson’s ‘language’. We’ll look at that as well.
Firstly, one vote took place yesterday: would the House agree to a three-day recess early next week for the Tory Conference? No, was the answer: Ayes: 289 – Noes: 306, the Noes have it. It shocked even me when I read later that nine of the 21 ‘Tory rebels’ who had the whip withdrawn voted No (here). You do the maths … !
Inevitably, prominent Remainers scurried to the MSM and ‘warned’ that this could, nay: would mean that Johnson might now prorogue Parliament again, the horror!
These Remainers, swanning around the TV studios, had of course not been in the HoC when the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, answered a Labour MP who asked him ‘to to rule out prorogation next week’.
JRM said that the prorogation, when it comes, will comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore meet the requirements of the Queen’s Speech process “and no more.” There was deadly silence in the Chamber following that answer. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
The session started with an extraordinary appeal by Speaker Bercow, about ‘toxic language’ and ‘toxic atmosphere’ in the House and how all should be kind to each other and set a good example. What he overlooked and what the MSM also gracefully overlooked is that it’s in Bercow’s power to curb and curtail ‘toxic language’ in the House, not just that used by the PM. He hasn’t done so in years.
I suggest that his presence encourages such ‘toxic’ behaviour. I’ve observed many times how the Chamber is calm and polite when one of his deputies is in the Chair. That calmness is independent of the number of MPs present or of the topic of debate. Quentin Letts has apparently noted that as well when he closes his sketch for The Times on yesterday’s proceedings with this remark:
“We have the pleasure of this Speaker’s company for little more than another month. Much of the malignancy may depart with him.” (link, paywalled)
Amen to that! After Bercow’s speech about toxicity, first one up was the Urgent Question about Brexit. Johnson had sent his junior minister Kevin Foster, responsible for the constitution, to field the questions and he did that very well.
The opposition MPs spent 70 minutes on this first nothing-burger, asking repeatedly if Johnson would comply with the Surrender-Humiliation-Capitulation Law and go to the EU to ask for an extension. If not, Mr Hilary Benn said, he would find himself in court! On and on this went, and on and on Mr Foster said the government would obey the Law. It was beyond tedious.
Two points emerged in this debate. One was that opposition MPs simply do not listen to ministers’ answers, vaingloriously peacocking about instead. The other was that the Remain Parliament, by insisting on an extension regardless, have accidentally revealed their strategy: to vote down whatever deal Johnson comes back with on the 19th of October.
This ‘Number Two’ bill, as they prefer to call it, non-toxically, is indeed their instrument of choice to wreck Brexit. Do not forget that Corbyn will gracefully grant a GE when Johnson comes back with that extension.
I shall draw the veil of piety over Jess Phillip’s Urgent Question on “language” and death treats. In an attempt for balance, the DM published a helpful list of Labour MPs use of ‘toxic language’ which is, I suggest, a little bit worse than ‘Surrender Act’, see here. Definitely worth a look is this article in the DM by Ms May’s former PR chief. Even The Times’ political editor grudgingly acknowledges that:
“The truth is that some Tories are uneasy but others believe that Mr Johnson, while clumsy, was within his rights to defend himself from Labour MPs whose own language has often been just as violent.” (paywalled link)
Indeed, but then, the wailing Labour MPs, wimminz and males alike, just like the whole extra-parliamentarian Left, works on the premise that ‘it’s all right when we do it’, and that opponents must not defend themselves.
Add to this the helpful, gentle, non-toxic ‘encounter’ of a Labour MP with Dominic Cummings whom he accosted in a gentle, non-threatening way, all filmed by one of his assistants who had his camera ready, as one does – see here, and paywalled here.
But it’s of course Johnson’s, and only Johnson’s fault – even all the CofE Bishops say so in the paywalled Times! In an extraordinary article in The Times, John Kampfner (who he? No, me neither …) first uses ‘smear-by association’, starting:
“Your friends say a lot about who you are. Boris Johnson can now count Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins among his admirers. […] The Alt Right is fully behind Britain’s law-breaking prime minister. They goad him on.” (link, paywalled)
Good grief! Because those two ‘admire’ Johnson he is now ‘goaded’ by them? Corbyn’s documented, long-standing personal friendship with actual terrorists of many stripes is a nothing-burger compared to that!
Without providing a shred of evidence, Kampfner, closing, helps the Remain conspiracists with this inflammatory paragraph:
“Security is being stepped up. Lawyers involved in the Supreme Court case are being advised to wear stab vests. MPs say they fear for their lives. If any further violence is meted out to anyone in public life — God forbid — then Johnson might well have to face another court case.” (link, paywalled)
That feeds nicely into the claim of Ms Phillips who sees a vast strategy behind this use of ‘toxic language’. Obviously, the MPs’ own behaviour has nothing at all to do with having created this climate.
Fraser Nelson’s analysis in the DT is worth quoting at length, so bear with me:
“Parliament, now, is the last place to make any sensible argument. Its members seem to be having a collective nervous breakdown, behaving with all the decorum of a school canteen food fight. […] Such behaviour seems odd, until you remember how much time MPs spend on Twitter. This social media network is a place where (as my son puts it) old people go to argue with each other. Extreme, sarcastic or unkind comments attract lots of “likes” and retweets. This anger algorithm lures a surprising number of sensible people down a road of madness, inviting them to become the worst versions of themselves. Some do this knowingly: David Lammy and Andrew Adonis, both thoughtful men, have crafted furious, semi-deranged personas in the hope of recruiting followers. It works. But this can be – and is designed to be – addictive. Some MPs now seem to regard Parliament as Twitter war by other means.” (paywalled link)
When you see MPs, especially on the opposition benches, fiddling with their smartphones during debates, you have to conclude that Mr Nelson is correct.
Back to Brexit and language, see this for example:
“The prime minister was accused of inciting hatred towards MPs yesterday as the backlash grew against his claim that they must deliver Brexit to be properly safe.”(link, paywalled)
Asking to deliver Brexit is inciting hatred? t doesn’t seem to occur to all those Remain MPs who now feel ‘unsafe’ that their Brexit-wrecking behaviour over the last three years might possibly, conceivably have had something to do with eliciting the behaviour by the people they so deplore.
Stirring the Brexit-wrecking cauldron is Sir John Major (also here, paywalled) who is muttering about another possible, potential, dastardly plot by Johnson:
“Sir John Major has warned that Boris Johnson might try to use “political chicanery” to get round a law requiring him to ask Brussels for a Brexit delay. The former prime minister said that Mr Johnson could pass an order of council — which are made by the privy council — to suspend the legislation that blocked a no-deal exit. The device, which would not need the Queen’s approval, would be a piece of “political chicanery that no one should ever forgive and forget”, Sir John said.” (link, paywalled)
God forbid that a PM, trying to honour the commitment to fulfil the mandate given by our vote three years ago, should use all the means he has!
It is however perfectly acceptable for the Brexit wreckers to play political games during the three days Tory MPs are going to try and attend their Conference:
“A senior Labour source said last night: “We reserve the right to use Parliamentary tactics as we see fit.” (paywalled link)
The Leader of the House will have his hands full, I expect. It remains to be seen if the Speaker will want to mar his last days in office by further blatant Remain partisanship by facilitating these wrecking games.
I leave you with another set of numbers. For the debate on ‘democracy and the rights of the electorate’ the Chamber was empty, really empty. I counted five Labour MPs and seven Libdem/DUP/SNP MPs while 17 Tory MPs attended.
For this they went to the huge trouble to stop Prorogation? Is this what their sacred ‘scrutiny of government’ looks like?
No – this is yet another proof if proof were needed how these harlots hold us, the voters, in deepest contempt. We however cannot be allowed to show them our contempt because that would be ‘toxic’, that would make them feel ‘unsafe’, that would scare them!
Well, tough. I’ll continue to write about their treachery and surrender bills until we get Brexit.