Things were happening very fast when this was written, many of them carrying a sense of threat and chaos and ill-intent on the part of the perpetrators. It was hard work just to absorb what was going on, harder still to think creatively, or reflectively.
This stanza is partly concerned just with that thought. But partly too with a sort of catch-up thought, as it gradually sank in : John Major had combined with Gina Miller to take legal action that eventually resulted in the Supreme Court finding Johnson’s prorogation of parliament unlawful. Was that not utterly extraordinary ? For one thing, here was an ex-Prime Minister, a Tory, going to the law to challenge and thwart and call to order a/ another Tory and b/ another Prime Minister…
These two stanzas were suggested in the first place by an actual incident. Mr Johnson’s main advisor Dominic Cummings was making himself surprisingly available for stray encounters around Westminster. See here, for instance : https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=752395791889320
The reference to Cox in the second stanza is to Geoffrey Cox, the Tory Party’s Attorney General. He performed theatrically in the House of Commons, following the re-call of Parliament, helping to drown out the true implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision (and presumably its judgement on his earlier advice to the government that prorogation would pass muster), by raising his voice and shouting “chicken” at the Labour MP’s opposite.
This is one of a rapid succession of these rhyming commentaries, written during a sequence of events even more furious, momentous and disturbing than usual. I composed it quite early on Thursday 26th September. The previous night., in the House of Commons, only just back from America, following the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, Mr Toad was wholly unrepentant. He simply said that the judgement that he had acted illegally in proroguing parliament and essentially that he lied to the Queen, was wrong. Clearly he knew the law better than they did. And then he just carried on lying. But at least he was there in that assembly, required by law to present himself for all to see and hear.
And what we saw and heard was disgraceful but also clearly premeditated. Elements in the country would like this defiance, this “standing up to,” this rejection of the norms, this green light to bigotry.
Was it possible that Britain could become even more divided and worked up ? It would seem so. But to whose benefit ?
On September 24th, the UK Supreme Court ruled against our Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament, finding unanimously that the prorogation was unlawful and that Johnson had misled the Queens on his reasons for implementing it. Effectively, Johnson was being named a plain liar by the highest court in the country and Parliament’s position in the nation’s constitution was confirmed and actually strengthened, as befits.
Thanks were due to Gina Miller (again) and to John Major for bringing the case. Also to the Justices concerned, above all to Lady Hale, at their head. Something redemptive had taken place, something of largeness, something to respect.
Might this signify the turning of the tide ? Might the example set by the Justices – in defiance of lawlessness and mayhem – be followed in other places of this country ?
This stanza was written just one day after the event it describes – the Labour Conference vote on campaigning for Remain. That event seemed significant for at least a few hours.
But the following day’s judgement by the Supreme Court was so much more significant and – still finishing this stanza – I felt that it was already out of date and I’d been left behind. Tumultuous events were piling up on each other. How to keep up – emotionally, intellectually, in any way at all ?
The conference was in many ways disastrous for Labour and revealed (yet again) the Corbyn inner circle as mean-spirited, spiteful, inept, and largely taken up with in-Party feuds, whatever the effect that might have on the Party’s electoral chances. Despite all the talk and posturing, maybe Corbyn would always be more comfortable in Opposition, indignant without responsibility, being nasty to family members…
The last lines here offer a direct reproduction of some of the words used during the announcement of Labour’s chaotic “decision” to make itself electorally irrelevant (or so it seemed then – but had things now changed ?). See the short video at the head of the article : https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-remain-rejected-conference-brighton-a9117431.html
This stanza was written on September 22nd, near the beginning of this year’s Labour Party Conference. We had heard a bit more by now about the party leadership’s attempt at short notice to dispense with Tom Watson’s services as Deputy Leader of the Party. The judgement seemed to be that Corbyn must have been in on the plot, even though he had of course denied it. Jez prefers to be out of the room when the knives come out.
Another opinion being mooted was that people at the top of Her Majesty’s Opposition were taking time out from concerns such as Party policy, Brexit, and the nation’s good in this time of crisis, to consider Corbyn’s future successor – and to do whatever they could, by whatever means, to ensure that Tom Watson would not be involved in choosing that person. Extraordinary and unpleasant priorities and goings-on. Extraordinary and inept timing.
We had also heard from Corbyn himself, talking to Andrew Marr, of his determination to please his old mates Len and co., while continuing to defy many of his Shadow cabinet and huge numbers of his (fast vanishing) supporters, by continuing to stay on the fence with regard to Brexit, and to keep “Leave” as an option. “Having your cake and eating it,” in other words. And Labour would win the election after all and Prime Minister Corbyn would then head off to the EU and make a great new deal with them. Easy as pie.
Take joy in the cakes, delight in the pies, that come in profusion, singing sweet songs, from Corbyn’s cuckoo kitchen.
“The Stabbing” in the title above is of course a reference to Jon Lansman’s (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to render the Labour Party’s Deputy Leader Tom Watson null and void. Jon Lansman founded the “Momentum” organisation. He is on the Labour Party Executive Committee and a Corbyn supporter.
He made his move without warning and as a sort of ambush, no doubt carefully planned with others of the coterie, in full view of the nation’s cameras, just before that Party’s annual conference, a conference especially important with a General Election likely in the very near future, and the UK in turmoil. Extraordinary timing.
It shows dramatically that the needs and yearnings of a nation are beyond the ken and care of the likes of old Jon. Et Tu, old Jon ? Et tu, old Jez ? Old days, old ways, old dark and dim and narrow passage-ways.
I have much respect for Tom Watson, not necessarily or primarily for his position on the so-called political spectrum, but for his human qualities and priorities. If Labour still has something of value to give to this country, Tom Watson points the way to it far more convincingly that the present leadership does. That leadership is not at all remarkable for how “radical” it is ; but for how puerile, lumpen, ineffective and plain nasty it is.
Radical change is our only hope. But change originating from a place of high talent, high intelligence and wide appeal. We need a better way of living, and a better politics, with leadership that is fresh, vigorous, wise and capable of inspiring the best from a people. These characteristics are no less lacking in Corbyn and his slack and rancid clique than in Johnson and his hoodlums.
Further thoughts on the felon’s need to lie, to keep something hidden, or maybe just to replace boring old reality with the comfort and excitement of one’s own creation.
