As media and centrists parrot Tory attack lines, May’s ‘talks’ exposed as sham

As the Theresa May tries desperately to shore up her credibility this morning after scraping through a no-confidence vote thanks only to a ‘bunged’ DUP, there’s a concerted push by politicians and media pundits to blame May’s chaos and paralysis on the Labour Party and its leader.

One particularly visible tactic has been the attack on Jeremy Corbyn for refusing to participate in Theresa May’s supposed ‘cross-party talks’ unless she commits to genuine flexibility and rules out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit.

There has been a remarkable level of harmony among tweets by Tories, media figures, hard Brexiteers and right-wing Labour – all parroting a particular line:

Such nonsense was easily dismantled, of course – and perhaps most amusingly and accurately by this tweet from Dick Winchester:

But one right-wing journalist seemed not to ‘get the memo’ – and gave away that May’s ‘talks’ are both a sham and a shambles:

In stark contrast to the gullible rush to Downing Street by the SNP, Plaid and some Labour centrists, Corbyn saw May’s scam for what it was, as his speech in Hastings this morning made clear:

SKWAWKBOX comment:

Seeing Tory lines repeated verbatim by the so-called ‘MSM’ is hardly new. But in this instance one off-message comment has revealed that Corbyn is exactly right to go nowhere near May’s fiasco.

The Labour centrists and politicians of other parties scrambling to get to Downing Street when May snapped her fingers have egg on their faces and should be embarrassed about their credulity.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

50 responses to “As media and centrists parrot Tory attack lines, May’s ‘talks’ exposed as sham

  1. Good lord! The currant bun’s tom neutron-bomb actually doing a bit of journalism for a change!

    The toerags shit the bed; it’s their mess to clean up. Nobody else’s.

  2. And this is precisely how the Leave campaign swung the vote, by parroting right wing propaganda mixed with racism against the EU!

    • Your comment is offensive. Many people, including myself voted to leave for other reasons such as Article 106 and the Four Business Pillars as well as the lack of democracy – yet here you are lazily tarring the electorate with your ridiculously wide brush.

      Try to imagine how it feels to be demonised by the mainstream media and people like yourself, for over two years.

      • “Your comment is offensive”

        Oh, c’mon – don’t pretend to snow-flakery. It doesn’t convince.

        Some people may have voted with a clear intention, but it hardly requires a higher degree in discourse analysis to know that a large number didn’t, and simply parroted right-wing media tropes – including covertly racist ones.

      • JackT, SteveH, and RH
        Are very condescending and offensive, talking to people as if their the only people who have had life experiences. They have that know best attitude as well.
        That’s Blarism if you ask me

      • Uh? Where does that bit of ad hominem fantasy come from? We just say what we think based on our assessment of the issues and the facts.

        I don’t think that you will find any of us pretending to exclusive experience or to be virtuous tribunes of a generalized ‘working class’ – which seems to be a common pose in this neck of the woods.

      • Masmit

        You have correctly identified the trolls on this site and their characteristics, to which you could add their high-handed, antagonistic attitude and how they’re always demanding that commenters justify their comments, as though we’re answerable to them, as though this was their site or something.
        and the amount of time they spend monitoring each and every thread.

        I bet they work for Mandelson!

      • loftkarlsson You and the other eccentric Lexiters here should grow up and stop feigning insult at every opportunity it blows any case you think you have out of the water every time.

    • Change the bleedin’ record will ya?

      How about how the toerags won in 2010 (partially), 2015 or 2017 with less than 37% of the vote and with their divisive and prejudicial rhetoric – in the last case almost without a manifesto ffs??

      Don’t hear you carping on about them but you’ll go on whinging about brexit ad nauseam.

      There ARE other matters just as pressing as brexit y’know?

      • That’s the point – there were votes in 2010 … and beyond.

        That’s what you get if you want simple authoritarianism to be the arbiter – repeated testing.

        If you don’t – then a properly constituted vote, with a clear majority is required.

        Time we had one – or just another vote.

      • Not sure how ‘authoritarianism’ crept in when ‘majoritarianism’ was the word. Spell checking is a bit like the Leaver philosophy of telling the whole nation what it’s ‘will’ is.

      • Yes there WERE votes in 2010 and beyond….And what happened?

        We got tory governments – that’s what happened.

        We haven’t even left the EU yet and already people are bleating about this ‘37%’ and all the lies (Or have they forgotten that’s what politicians of ANY persuasion do?)

        But the same ones have said f-all about the same thing applying to previous elections.

      • “We got Tory governments – that’s what happened.”

        Yes – it’s a shitty risk this voting thing (think it’s called ‘democracy’), ain’t it? But at least we had the opportunity *not* to have a Tory government.

        Your argument is incredibly confused.

      • rh preaching to me about ‘democracy’ without any trace of irony whatsoever – Most likely because he/she doesn’t understand what the meaning of the word. Bizarre.

        And while looking down your snout at those who rightly voted to leave or who advocate actually getting on with the job of leaving – thereby upholding a democratic choice – you also demonstrate staggering hypocrisy as well as zero comprehension.

        So I’ll attempt to make it simpler for you. I’m at a loss to realise what it is that’s so difficult that you fail to comprehend, but nevermind…

        We had the opportunity to vote to remain as well as leave – it wasn’t taken was it? So tough titty.

        If you vote for something you actually GET that something BEFORE you get the opportunity to change your mind and vote on whether to remain with it, or change it altogether.

        We haven’t even left the EU (yet – but it’s happening, so suck it up) so how can you have a re-run when the result of the first democratically-decided vote still hasn’t been implemented?

        And if <37% voted for a toerag govt, where were your cries for a re-run? After all – going by your logic – those governments were not 'democratically elected'.

        And you call my argument 'confused'? 'Strewth!

      • lundiel 17/01/2019 at 2:34 pm · ·

        Here you go again, you nasty, snide, troll.

        ,,,,,,, and yet your appear to be the one suffering from an inability to moderate your own language

      • You really don’t like a democratic challenge, do you? The whole point about attaining a more informed opinion is that the country can’t redress the mistake once we have given up EU membership. It’s not a ‘taste and see’ situation.

        That much should be fairly obvious.

        But yes, I’m afraid you are indeed terminally confused about periodic elections and voting on constitutional issues. The latter requires a much higher level of consensus. As I’ve said – even the local knitting circle would recognise thst fact. Which is why the country has descended to the level of an international joke.

      • “Nasty” and “Snide” are not immoderate words. In this instance they are utterly accurate and of course apply to you too.

        Objecting to them is bourgeois snowflakery.

      • timfrom 17/01/2019 at 6:15 pm · ·

        Objecting to them is bourgeois snowflakery.

        A clever and eclectic mix of language from 2 different centuries.

      • I’m interested that an argument is described by such epithets as ‘snide’ or ‘nasty’ or originated by a ‘troll’ when it conflicts with preconceptions, or points out confusion and contradiction.

        As I’ve sometimes said, this sort of reaction is a bit reminiscent of the adolescent Kevin leaving home and slamming the door when reality bites.

      • rh, you’d do well not to second guess me, let alone preach your version of democracy to anyone.

        I have no problem with a democratic challenge. The referendum was one….and one people of your persuasion lost. That’s that challenge over. No need for a re-run.

        What I (And millions of others like me) DO have a problem with is those same people repeatedly telling me a democratic vote isn’t democratic if it doesn’t go their way; and that I’m somehow ‘scared’ of going through a ridiculous, time & money consuming process of something I’ve already done – even though the bloody thing hasn’t even been implemented.

        Normal people accept the result – Some grudgingly or otherwise. Why you don’t, combined your incessant griping and bitching makes you look plainly idiotic, frankly. Do yourself a favour. Small wonder people are fearing physical confrontations when debating political issues; and it’s exactly the antagonistic, dismissive, and downright bloody juvenile attitudes like yours that will only exacerbate that fear and probably make it a reality.

        I very much doubt you’d act the way you do on here in a real-life, face-to-face situation. You certainly wouldn’t last long if you did….Be it in your local knitting club, or wherever.

        That’s not a threat by the way, that’s a bet the bookies wouldn’t take because you’d need to have the equivalent of the national debt placed on it to win a solitary penny.

    • “the trolls”

      aka – people who disagree with me.

      It’s a bit sad – this sort of attempt to create a psychological isolation ward out of a political blog as a default for arguing back.

  3. The 71 Corbyn-hating Labour MPs who back the arrogantly-titled People’s Vote don’t want a Labour government under Corbyn according to this member of Jeremy’s staff.

    Well a rather obvious point given the PV’s electorally suicidal nature and given the MPs who are backing it – but thanks nonetheless comrade.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/101140/excl-labour-official-working-jeremy

  4. ” the arrogantly-titled People’s Vote ”

    I take it you’ll also condemn the referendum result as being the arrogantly titles ‘People’s Will’??

    … and actually – although not my preferred title – the former is, in actuality, more accurate than the latter in so far as it is a vote for the entire people to participate in rather than a veto by a minority over the majority.

    • Call it a new referendum etc. People voted the first time, the arrogance is in dismissing that and calling the wished-for new one the ‘people’s vote’.

      • C’mon. Don’t resort to that non-argument. It’s about voting with better information in a situation with no clear resolution.

        To deny that opportunity after a three-year old flawed and indecisive vote is pure hypocritical chicanery. It’s straight out of the right wing play book.

        Do you want to be an alternative to the MSM or just a mirror reflection of the same old shit?

        I’d recommend a bit of radicalism.

  5. According to IPSO The Times is the 2nd most dishonest newspaper after the Daily Mail, beating The Sun into 3rd place!

  6. “CENTRISTS PARROT TORY ATTACK LINES”

    Oh, C’mon – that’s a headline worthy of the MSM. Most of those examples are from Tories – full stop.

    This lunchtime, the BBC was embarrassing in it’s adoption of this release from Tory Party Central office, and it’s refusal to mention May’s pre-emptive red lines whilst accusing Corbyn of the same.

    But there was, to be honest, another embarrassment – the inability of Labour to come back with a coherent and credible strategic plan that will convince punters. Make no mistake – it’s a handicap that comes through every time. You just have to listen with open ears to hear that there’s a problem. Stopping the ears and bawling ‘Centrists!!, isn’t going to make it go away.

  7. Unfortunately it is looking like the chances of a GE have just diminished

    Cable said: “Since he appears to be determined to play party political games rather than acting on the wishes of his own members and MPs, he will no longer be able to rely on our support for further no-confidence motions.

    “I believe other parties are taking the same view. It’s time Mr Corbyn got off the fence and made his position plain.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/lib-dems-refuse-to-support-future-labour-no-confidence-votes

    • No one gives a shit what Cable says, he’s as dishonest as politicians come and Labour never relied on his support in the first place, they expected him to act in the best interests of LibDems. Why are you posting LibDem nonsense here?

      • @Lundiel

        I was wondering why meself. Other than to show that the libdems are still tory at heart, I don’t see the article’s (or cable’s) relevance

      • Utterly agree with you regarding not giving a s*** what cable says we will not be held to ransom or threatened by those Lib Dem SCUM.We’ll have a general election when were good and ready and all for the better for the longer that the Tories are in , the worse it will be and the more people will absolutely hate them.The choice will become more and more stark.And we have more time to get shut of our own Tory lite Blairite dross MPs .

      • I posted this simply because I thought that it was relevant that we’d just lost a dozen votes in any future No Confidence Motion. Of course you are entitled to dismiss it as irrelevant but it is difficult to deny that it will make it a whole lot harder to secure a GE. You may find denial comforting but it won’t change the fact that those votes may need replacing at any future vote.

      • Sadly, Steve, some seem to regard a sort of religious- political piety as more important than addressing electoral reality.

    • cable doing his best to preserve the precarious grip on the dozen or so seats they have left. The fluffy-eared, senile arld bastard’s kiddin’ nobody with his blusterings; everyone knows he’s as impotent as…well, vince cable.

      And just about everyone knows that they won’t take any seats off the toerags – especially in their former strongholds in the west country – where the majority voted to leave. They’d fare little better elsewhere anyway. They’re a busted flush.

      He and his lib-dems are in NO position to dictate terms to any party.

    • So what, steve?

      We all know cable’s as tory as umunna & leslie et al. Sinn Fein aren’t gonna turn up to support any no confidence call and there’ll always be a bunce for the DUP from the toerags.

      How many toerags are gonna vote no confidence in themselves – especially as the plebs haven’t been bled white just yet?

      Cable simply can’t support a no confidence call because he knows the electorate have more confidence in the toerags than they do his bunch of duplicitous rodents.

      As I said, just about everybody knows he’ll get no joy whatsoever from the former west country libtard strongholds so it’ll be a battle just to keep the seats they have at the next election. He’s playing the same game as may i.e. cling on for as long as you can.

      He’d jump at the chance to join the DUP as toerag bolsterers if the situation was to present itself at the next GE.

      • The Toffee (597) 17/01/2019 at 3:54 pm · · Reply →

        So what, steve?

        It is surprising how something of so little consequence has managed to provoke so much reaction from yourself (over 270 words on this thread alone)

      • Now, now Steve, counting words is a bit extreme.
        For most left wingers, the LibDems are an illiberal bunch. With Clegg the idea of friendly old duffers with beards and sandals went out of the window, to be replaced with orange book Whigs for whom even Lansley’s NHS reforms didn’t go far enough and Cable showed himself to be the political antithesis to what he once claimed to be. It’s worth a few words to explain how deep our resentment lies.

      • I agree it would be a little extreme to physically count the words but a few clicks of the mouse and an app did the work for me so no real effort was involved. I also thought it made the point I wanted to make.

      • Oh, I’m sorry, please do forgive my verbosity, steve. 270 words? Sheesh!! I guess that’s been taxing for you, reading all of them, eh?

        Although in fairness it really does have to be explained thoroughly to those who just don’t get it because they’ve been consumed by a single political issue that didn’t go their way.

      • I wasn’t criticising your verbosity just highlighting it whilst expressing surprise that you had felt the need to address something that you regarded as inconsequential at such length.

  8. Corbyns history of meeting with extreme groups has to be seen firmly in the context of history. They have taken place a few times over a lifetime in politics. There has never been any suggestion that he has supported violence by any of these groups, and they are groups representing people who have suffeered decades of oppression and violence. His lifes work has been to support peace anywhere in the world. It is also the case that socialists here have a history of involvement with certain countries. It would be hard to engage in every conflict everyhwere in the world. If theres one area I would seek assuarance it would be that he is aware there are some tyranical leaders who are going to be farily impossible to reason with and that our country along with allies will act militarily as a last resort against invasions and genocide. I don’t doubt he knows this but I think he has to make it clear

    • It’s part of his job to meet those who hold power and those challenging for power. The difference with him is he can’t be bought by foreign governments offering free jollies for support.

    • The problem is Tim – as we’ve seen with Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya – the justification for doing so can be complete fabrication. What countries did you have in mind at present, if any?

      The reality is that it’s the UK and the US who have been doing by far the most invading and killing.

Leave a Reply to Allan Howard Cancel reply