Why I’m voting Labour

What a difference a month can make.  When Theresa May broke her own pledge not to call an election I thought that yet another political calamity was about to unfold.  The justification for the election was that parliament was ‘blocking Brexit’ and that a new mandate was necessary to allow May to negotiate Britain’s exit from the UK more effectively.

Like so much that comes from May’s mouth and from the Tory party in general these days,  this was a bare-faced lie.  Labour had accepted the referendum result and allowed May to trigger Article 50 entirely on her own terms.   May’s real intentions were more sinister and devious: in seeking a bigger majority and appealing to the ‘will of the people’, she intended to remove the entire Brexit process from parliamentary scrutiny altogether and ensure that the electorate gave her a rubber stamp to enact a ‘plan’ that she was not and is not prepared to reveal to the public, most likely because she doesn’t actually have one.

Instead, showing a gall and an arrogance rarely seen in British politics, she asked the public to vote for her without explaining what they were actually voting for.  All this was supposedly for our own good, but like the referendum itself, it was entirely dictated by the interests of the Tory party.   May clearly calculated that the economic impact of Brexit would be kicking in by 2020, and decided that now would be a good time to destroy a divided Labour Party and ensure that her own party was able to ride out the storms that will certainly ensue over the next three years.

This is what the Tory papers clearly hoped for too when they applauded her Machiavellian brilliance. Like May, they believed that a massive Tory majority was a fait accompli.  All that was required was for May to intone ‘strong and stable’ and ‘coalition of chaos’ before hand-picked audiences and the glassy-eyed voters would stumble towards her with their hands outstretched in front of them.  A good plan – in theory – but now, astonishingly,  it has unravelled to the point when May may not get the massive majority she wants, and there is even a discussion taking place about whether she will actually lose the election.  

What explains this incredible turn of events? Firstly, there is the deeply unattractive and unappealing figure of May herself.   When she first put herself forward as a successor to Cameron last year she presented herself as a safe pair of hands, a competent non-ideological technocrat surrounded by buffoons and conniving chancers who ‘ wear her heart on the sleeve’ and ‘got the job done’.

That carefully-cultivated image has now dissolved.   Again and again throughout this campaign May has shown that the reason she doesn’t wear her heart on the sleeve is because she has no heart at all.   The best that can be said of a woman who says that ‘people use foodbanks for complex reasons’ when asked why nurses are using them, or who tells a nurse asking why she hasn’t had a pay rise in years that there is ‘no magic money tree’ is that she has something of an empathy deficit.

The worst is that she is as callous and uncaring as the Tory governments that she has been part of have shown themselves to be these last few years.  Either way it’s not a good look, especially for a politician who has placed herself at the centre of the campaign.   Like the Wizard of Oz, May would like the outside world to see what she wants them to see, but she has already shown the public more than even many Tory voters can bear, and the more she has revealed of herself, the more she has shown herself to be a callous, reactionary, dishonest, vacillating, opportunistic, cowardly, conniving control freak.

All this would be bad enough, but it has been compounded by the most arrogant, lazy, and incompetent campaign that I can remember,  which offered voters nothing but a back-of-a-fag-packet manifesto, ‘coalition of chaos’ messaging and shameful sarcasm about ‘magic money trees’ in response to every question about the manifold social failures that are unfolding before our eyes and the ongoing collapse of public services.

In contrast to this, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party have exceeded the expectations of many, including myself – and fought a superb campaign, based on a positive message and a return to genuine social-democratic principles. Corbyn, unlike May, is a natural campaigner, with a warmth, humanity and sincerity that neither May nor any of her crew can ever match.   He has shown tremendous courage and good humour, in enduring one of the most vicious onslaughts ever directed against a British politician.

Place someone like that against a woman who sends her bereaved Home Secretary into a tv debate because she hasn’t the guts to appear herself, and voters will take notice, even if May assumed they wouldn’t.   But character isn’t everything. For the first time, Labour have presented the electorate with a genuine alternative to the neoliberal austerity model which has wrought such havoc for the best part of a decade.

The result is that against all the odds, and despite the opposition of the majority of his own MPs, Corbyn has slashed the Tory lead in the polls.  Personally, I have had my reservations about the Corbyn project and the Labour party in general, and still do.  I don’t like the lack of clarity on Brexit.  I think there should be another vote on a final deal.  I also think that a Labour government will struggle to implement its program outside the single market.   I don’t agree with Labour’s position on free movement.

Despite these caveats, I will most definitely be voting Labour tomorrow.  I will do it because this zombie government cannot be allowed to have a majority that will enable it to inflict even more damage on British society than it already has.   I will be doing it because Corbyn has courageously raised the possibility of a different kind of foreign policy to the endless Groundhog Day horror of the ‘war on terror.’

I will do it because if May gets the majority she wants, it will leave the country in the hands of people like Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davies and – offstage – Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks.  The result will be the hardest of Brexits, and a national disaster that will most likely result in the UK crashing out into WTO rules.  A May majority will transform the UK into a corrupt banana republic – a deregulated tax haven flowing with Trump hotels and Saudi money and ruled by men and women without a trace of humanity or concern for anyone except a narrow wealthy clique and the Tory party itself.

If May wins then more schools will be asking parents to pay for their children’s education, as many are already doing.  It will mean the destruction of the NHS and the collapse of social services. It will mean reactionary clampdowns on civil liberties. More stigmatisation and persecution of migrants.   The rolling back of rights for EU nationals.

In short, a Tory majority will accelerate and continue the ongoing transformation of the UK into a dystopia, and I will vote for anyone and anything that can prevent this.  Can Labour prevent it?   Could a Corbyn government cope with the immense challenges of trying to implement a social democratic program and stave off the disaster of a hard Brexit?

I don’t know, but right now it seems a possibility worth voting for, and that’s something I haven’t felt about Labour for a very long time.

 

When the Brexit Bubble Bursts

Individual folly is very different from political folly.   When an individual acts in an openly self-destructive manner, or engages in behaviour contrary to his or her own interests or to those of the people around them, they are likely to get criticism or advice from their friends or family, or from other people who might hold up a mirror in front of them and o show them the error of their ways.   Such interventions might be able to bring our troubled individual to his or her senses, and  convince them of the harm they are doing to themselves and to others.

But when whole communities or societies are behaving in a foolish, destructive or self-destructive manner, it’s very difficult to change or reverse the trajectory they’ve embarked upon.   Consider Theresa May’s ‘Brexit dinner.’  If the leaked revelations in the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung were a correct rendition of what actually happened that evening – and few people seem to be denying that they were – it is clear that

a) The Prime Minister who is asking the British public for a mandate to reinforce her position in the Brexit negotiations does not actually understand what these negotiations actually entail, in which case she is dangerously ignorant or ill-informed

b) That both her timetable and her objectives are unrealistic and not accepted by the European Commission – in which case she is committed to a course that has very little possibility of a positive outcome

c) that May’s negotiating partners are genuinely shocked, worried and even horrified at the UK’s ‘delusional’ approach to Brexit.

Given the scope and the importance of the forthcoming negotiations, you would think that a country that was seriously interested in bringing them to the best possible conclusion from the point of view of its own material interests alone would take these criticisms very seriously indeed, and that it ought to take a long hard look at Theresa May and her team before voting for them.   But that is not the kind of country that we have become.

Instead these revelations have provoked the usual frothing outrage in the Tory press, in below-the-line comments and on social media at the perfidious Europeans and cognac-loving foreigners who have been ‘arrogant’ enough to criticize us and attempt to ‘interfere with our election’.

No one should be surprised by these puerile and infantile insults.  To pay any serious attention or give any credence to the criticisms of Juncker and Merkel would entail acknowledging the enormous risks and limitations in the Brexit project,  raising doubts and a capacity for self-analysis that are entirely absent from the collective mindset that produced the project in the first place.   As a result any doubts and criticisms can only be attributed to ill-intentioned foreigners engaged in a ‘New Project Fear’, as the Telegraph called it, supported by what one moronic commentator in the Independent called ‘EU Quislings.’

This is how collective folly works.  Where individuals have to deal with social criticism and censure, communities and societies engage in collective groupthink, sealed off from any thoughts or ideas that might contradict the basic assumptions that hold the group together,  so that its members combine to reinforce the worst instincts of the group.   Charles Mackay once recognized these tendencies in his classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.   In a chapter on the ‘South Sea Bubble’ of 1720, Mackay described the various joint stock companies that sprung up that year in addition to the South Sea Company, which induced thousands of people to invest their money in scams and fraudulent companies that had little or no possibility of success.

Some of the ‘Bubble Companies’ that were subsequently abolished by Parliament were superficially plausible:  One company proposed to pave the streets of London; another raised capital to invest in Cornish tin mines, and another ‘for sinking pits and lead ore in Derbyshire’.  But there were also companies that sold shares for enterprises such as ‘trading in hair’, ‘improving of gardens’, ‘furnishing funerals to any part of Great Britain’ and even – an enterprise that seems particularly appropriate to our own predicament –  ‘for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage; but nobody to know what it is.’

In his consideration of why so many people were attracted to these schemes, Mackay commented on the ‘unwholesome fermentation’ of the British public, and  asked rhetorically whether it was ‘ a dull or uninstructive picture to see a whole people shaking suddenly off the trammels of reason, and running wild after a golden vision, refusing obstinately to believe that it is not real, till, like a deluded hind running after an ignis fatuus, they are plunged into a quagmire? But in this false spirit has history too often been written.’

It has indeed, and now it is being written again, as the UK lurches blind into a negotiation process that its leaders do not understand, in pursuit of illusions that have very little possibility of realisation.   In her study of self-inflicted historical wounds The March of Folly, the historian Barbara Tuchman, attributed ‘the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests’ to a failure of leadership, and argued that’ Intelligent government would require that the persons entrusted with high office should formulate and execute policy according to their best judgment, the best knowledge available and a judicious estimate of the lesser evil.’

No one can plausibly argue that what Theresa May and her government are doing any of these things.   For that they can and should be blamed right now – just as they undoubtedly will be blamed when historians pore through the wreckage of the trainwreck that is British politics for clues as to how it happened.  But the political tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes is not merely due to the machinations of the Tory party or the raw ambition of little men and women who have put their own careers and interests above any notion of the common good.

If the British public refuses to acknowledge any truth in the EU’s criticisms, and accepts May’s presentation of herself as a ‘bloody difficult woman’ valiantly standing up to the same corrupt foreigners who we fought in so many wars, then it will reinforce the worst tendencies of her government, which will in turn reinforce the worst instincts of the public.  If it gives May a mandate, without even asking what the mandate is for, it will be no different to the investors who once bought stocks in ‘an undertaking of great advantage; but nobody to know what it is.’

History is not kind to societies that behave like this.   In its account of the collapse of the South Sea Bubble, the Parliamentary History at the time once observed:

‘And thus were seen, in the space of eight months, the rise, progress, and fall of that mighty fabric, which, being wound up by mysterious springs to a wonderful height, had fixed the eyes and expectations of all Europe, but whose foundation, being fraud, illusion, credulity, and infatuation, fell to the ground as soon as the artful management of its directors was discovered.’

A similarly precipitous fall awaits us over a much longer period, unless we can find a way to come to our senses and recognize that what the UK is currently seeking through leaving the EU is very unlikely ever to happen, and was never likely to happen, and that the country is about to commit an immense act of self-harm that will be very difficult to escape from. One very simple way to do this would be to deny May the mandate that she wants, and that she and her team are blatantly ill-equipped to receive.

Because otherwise we will put our collective fate in her hands, and in the hands of Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, and the very least that can be said about this is that it is not a sensible decision.   Otherwise we shall have to wait for the Brexit bubble to burst.  And when that happens, and its consequences become clear, it is very unlikely to lead to reflection and analysis of what went wrong,  or whether the expectations behind it were ever realistic in the first place.

On the contrary, it’s far more likely that the mood of the public will turn even more bitter and rancorous than it already is, whipped on by the same irresponsible politicians and newspapers that are currently vilifying Juncker, and that failure will be blamed on ‘EU Quislings’, foreigners, immigrants and ‘Remoaners’ who ‘stabbed us in the back.’

History ought to tell us where sentiments like that can lead, but for the time being it seems, too many politicians seem unable or unwilling to learn from history or halt the headlong rush towards a very painful collision between our collective illusions and reality.

But we can.  We can look at May and her party, and we can just say no, before it’s too late.

 

 

 

What Kind of Country?

Every society, no matter how sophisticated or ‘modern’ it thinks it has become,  contains within itself the ability to go forward and backwards.  All societies contain the potential for tolerance and intolerance; for generosity, openness, and empathy and also for mean-spirited callousness, arrogance,selfishness and cruelty.  Every society includes people and communities that are open to the outside world and those that are fearful, resentful and bitter about their proximity to people who look and sound different to themselves,  and who regard the presence of immigrants and foreigners as usurpers and intruders in ‘their’ country.

There is no doubt which forces are now dominant in British society – and English society in particular.  This has been obvious for some time, long before last year’s referendum. It was evident not only in the sour national ‘debate’ about immigration and the ‘concerns’ which so many politicians have fallen over themselves to acknowledge.  What were these concerns?  That the UK was ‘full’ and was being ‘flooded’.   That immigrants were taking ‘our’ jobs and also taking ‘our’ benefits, which meant that if they came here to work they were thieves and if they didn’t then they were parasites.

For years we have told ourselves that immigrants were stealing ‘our’ houses, even when most of them were paying rent to private landlords.  We imagined that devious foreigners all over the world were coolly scanning a list of the countries with the best health service before coming here to have their babies and and steal ‘our’ beds, because they wanted to take advantage of our generosity.   We knew this must be true because that is what foreigners are like.  We understood that the reason we couldn’t get an appointment with our GP was not because there weren’t enough GPs but because there were too many immigrants.

We knew – we just knew it – that the foreigners who came here contributed nothing, nothing at all to ‘our’ society.  Our newspapers told us day after day that they were only here to take from us.  We heard that ‘mass immigration’ was an ‘invasion’ secretly unleashed by the Labour Party and the European Union in order to ‘rub our noses in diversity’.    Even when we heard that ‘our’ national health service was crucially dependent on foreigners, we still wanted them to go home, because we wanted English nurses and doctors to treat us when we were sick or even when we were dying, even though there weren’t enough of ‘our’ nurses and doctors available.

All that was bad enough, but we also heard that immigrants were coming here who didn’t share ‘our’ values.  Like the aliens in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, they wanted to steal our identities and turn us into hollowed-out and watered-down husks of our ancient selves.  We wondered what had happened to Christmas lights and Easter eggs, to ring-around-the-roses, hopscotch and Hovis bread, to village fetes and classic cars, and what on earth had we been thinking of when we allowed Muslim grooming gangs to turn our cities into no go zones which no cops ever dared enter and every councillor was engaged in a cover-up.

We saw women in burkhas and niqabs and we felt contempt for them because we knew that they wanted to impose ‘Sharia law’ upon us.  At the same time we wanted to save these women, because, like Paul Nuttall, we feared that they weren’t ‘economically active’ and because we believed in tolerance and equality.

We heard Poles speaking their language in public in ‘our’ streets and on the underground, and like Nigel Farage we resented this, because it was obvious that foreigners who spoke to each other in their own language were deliberately refusing to integrate with us,  and because the sound of their foreign accents or the sight of a Polish delicatessen made us feel like strangers in our own land.

So we elected governments that told foreigners they must speak English, even as they were cutting ESOL provision that might have helped them to do this.   We liked that authoritarian and dictatorial tone because it was our voice, not the voice of the metropolitan, latte-drinking elites who had inflicted this disaster upon us and transformed our country in some PC-speaking multicultural nation-of-people-from-nowhere.

We heard that our classrooms were overcrowded, not because our education system was underfunded, or because teachers were dropping out of the profession in droves, but because there were too many immigrant children in our schools who were holding our children back and forcing our sons and daughters to learn their languages and sing their songs and bake silly foreign cakes.

Even when there were no immigrants living anywhere near us we didn’t want them any closer because we knew what they were like.   We knew that most refugees were not ‘genuine’ refugee, but ‘economic migrants’ who were so desperate to get ‘our’ benefits that were willing to get into leaky boats and die in the process, because we knew that foreigners who come from poor countries think like this.

Even when there was no doubt whatsoever that these refugees were ‘genuine’ – and that some of them were in fact children – we didn’t want to help them, because we suspected that they were too old to be ‘genuine’ children, and it didn’t seem right to us that we should have to help poor people from around the world when we needed to look after our ‘own people.’

Of course we weren’t really looking after ‘our own people’ either.  When the numbers of homeless people rose, we put spikes in doorways or fined them for begging.  When we heard that ‘our own people’ were being made to work even though they were sick and dying, we voted back in the government that made this happen.   We had no problem with the bedroom tax, with ‘socially cleansing’ poor people out of London because we knew that poor people were not really ‘our own people’ who shouldn’t live in a city that was meant for rich people.

We supported punitive benefit sanctions, because we always assumed that we would never find ourselves living on benefits, and because we suspected that poor people – even ‘our’ poor people were not that different from immigrants in that respect.

So let’s not pretend that we really cared anymore about the people from ‘somewhere’, as David Goodhart put it, than we do about the people who come from ‘anywhere’. But let no one say that we are ‘racist’.    When Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU we feared and resented them too, not because of their skin colour, but because we knew that both countries were largely filled with thieves, poor people and criminals who were about to flood  ‘our’ country.

We knew that, because ideas like this have coursing freely and largely uncontested through English society for so many years now that they have begun to seem like common sense.   This isn’t entirely new.   There is a brilliant passage from JB Priestley’s English Journey, in which he talks of the German Jewish merchants who settled in his native Bradford before World War I.  Returning to Bradford in 1933, Priestley noted that ‘there is hardly a trace now in the city of that German-Jewish invasion’ and that many of these merchants had left the city or gone out of business:

I like the city better as it was before, and most of my fellow-Bradfordians agree with me. It seems smaller and duller now.  I am not suggesting that these German-Jews are better men than we are.  The point is that they were different, and brought more to the city than bank drafts and lists of customers.  They acted as a leaven, just as a colony of typical West Riding folk would act as a leaven in Munich or Moscow.  These exchanges are good for everybody.

Priestley also noted a transformation that had taken place since the war that made these exchanges unlikely:

Just lately, when we offered hospitality to some distinguished German-Jews who had been exiled by the Nazis, the leader-writers in the cheap Press began yelping again about Keeping the Foreigner Out.  Apart from the miserable meanness of the attitude itself – for the great England, the England admired throughout the world, is the England that keeps open house, the refuge of Mazzini, Marx, Lenin – history shows us that the countries that have opened their doors have gained, just as the countries that have driven out large numbers of their citizens, for racial, religious, or political reasons, have always paid dearly for their intolerance.

Today, the same ‘cheap Press’ disseminates the same message and the same ‘miserable meanness.’  There were certainly caveats and contradictions in Priestley’s evocation of ‘the great England’, but the country that we are now creating could not be much further removed from Priestley’s vision.

Priestley also observed that:

It is one of the innumerable disadvantages of this present age of idiotic nationalism, political and economic, this age of passports and visas and quotas, when every country is as difficult to enter or leave as was the Czar’s Russia or the Sultan’s Turkey before the war, that it is no longer possible for this leavening process to continue.  Bradford is really more provincial now than it was twenty years ago.  But so, I suspect, is the whole world.  It must be when there is less and less tolerance in it, less free speech, less liberalism.  Behind all the new movements of this age, nationalistic, fascistic, communistic, has been more than a suspicion of the mental attitude of a gang of small town louts ready to throw a brick at the nearest stranger.

Ten months after the referendum, that ‘mental attitude’ is the dominant attitude in English politics in regard to the European Union and to immigrants and immigration, and a new and equally rancid expression of ‘idiotic nationalism’ is driving our steep moral descent into a country defined by the ‘cheap Press’ and the equally cheap politicians who have failed to oppose it.

This possibility should be at the centre of the debate about Brexit, and should not be marginalised by a conversation about the customs union or the single market.   As Priestley warned,  societies that behave like this will pay a high price for it, in ways that cannot always be measured in straightforward economic terms.

That is one reason, amongst many others, why the millions of people who don’t want to see the UK become a xenophobic backwater should make their voices heard as the Tory power-grab unfolds over the next six weeks, and elect politicians who can stand up for a different first person plural that includes migrants and foreigners instead of excluding them and blaming them for things they don’t do and for problems that they did not cause.

May’s Gambit

Three years is a long time in politics, but for Theresa May, it clearly isn’t long enough. Only two days after telling the nation of her ‘sense’ that the country is ‘coming together’, the Vicar’s daughter has made it clear that she doesn’t want to remain in power until 2020: she wants to annihilate the opposition right now and entrench Tory rule for a decade or more.

On one level this isn’t a gamble in which May has much to lose, beyond her reputation as a ‘get the job done’ politician who doesn’t play ‘political games’.  This was already a lie to anyone with eyes, and her personal popularity suggests that a large section of the public either doesn’t have them, or simply doesn’t want to look.

Because what May is now doing is political manipulation and gameplaying at its most brazenly cynical.  It has nothing to do with ‘bringing the country together’.  Like Erdogan’s referendum in Turkey, it is a vindictive and ruthless power grab dressed up as democratic consultation,  intended to remove any parliamentary opposition to the Tory Party in general and to May and her hard Brexit clique in particular.

In her speech yesterday, May spoke of her government’s desire to pursue ‘ a deep and special partnership between a strong and successful European Union and a United Kingdom that is free to chart its own way in the world.’   According to May objective was ‘ the right approach, and it is in the national interest. But the other political parties oppose it.’

To say that this falls short of the truth does not even begin to describe the lie that May has told here.  This decision was taken in the interests of the Tory Party and not the nation.   It is true that the other political parties have opposed aspects of Brexit, and have criticized May’s attempts to remove the negotiating process from parliamentary scrutiny, but such opposition has been muted and ineffectual – particularly from Labour, which virtually waved Article 50 through with a weary yawn.

Labour has fallen over itself in its eagerness to demonstrate that it does not oppose the referendum result.  But it has nevertheless insisted on membership of the single market and has given indications that it will vote against a deal that does not guarantee such membership. This is where May is potentially weak, since she knows that there are Tories who might also vote against the government on the same basis, and that a 17-member majority might not be enough in the future to sustain her hardline position.

This is the real meaning of her chilling observation that ‘At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division.’   Well of course there is division.  It’s called parliamentary democracy, and May’s juxtaposition of a divisive Westminster with a supposedly united nation is a blatant attempt to transform parliament into cheerleaders for Brexit.

I know there is a school of thought which suggests that May’s gambit is really a counterintuitive attempt to get a ‘soft Brexit’ in disguise, by shoring up her position within the Tory party, but this would credit the government with far more intelligence and common sense than it has shown so far.

It’s worth remembering that it was only on March 20 that May promised yet again that there would be no snap election, and just over two weeks since Article 50 was triggered.  In that time, the arrogance and stupidity of her aggressive negotiating position has already unraveled.   The EU has not accepted any of her main demands. There will be no cherry-picking and no trade negotiations until the terms of Brexit have been agreed.

In Europe, May looks like a clueless bluffer playing a poor hand.   But  she has interpreted her failure differently.  She seems to think that the EU has only adopted this position has another form of bluff, because it secretly believes that this position will induce the British public to change its mind.  So she wants to eliminate that possibility by winning a personal mandate and effectively making the British public complicit in her arrogant stupidity, and persuading them to sprint, rather than walk, with the government in its Lemming-like progress towards national oblivion.

She has a very good chance of succeeding.   The polls give her a lead of 18-21 one points over Labour, which remains in meltdown.  Many Labour MPs would clearly prefer to see Labour lose than see Corbyn win – not that there is the slightest possibility of the latter. Over the next six weeks Corbyn is likely to take the most vicious drubbing inflicted on any politician since Michael Foot, and many Labour MPs will be secretly enjoying every moment of it, apart from the ones who know their seats are at risk.

The ever more openly fascistic Daily Mail set the tone today with a screeching call to ‘Crush the saboteurs’.   The fact that no one has sabotaged anything will do nothing to mitigate such language over the next few weeks, in a campaign that is likely to drag the country even deeper into a pit of slime.   Despite the predictable ‘bring it on’ response from the usual suspects on the left, there is very real possibility that significant sections of the British public will accept this ‘stop the traitors’ line – or at the very least will accept May’s version of ‘stability’, the way they previously accepted Tory austerity.

In short, we are in truly dangerous political territory.   Only a few days ago the Daily Express was accusing the EU of vindictiveness because the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Agency look set to leave London.  The clue to these departures ought to be in the word ‘European’, but in the world of Brexit there are only ever two villains – the EU and the ‘fifth column’ of ‘Remoaners’ that conspires to thwart the ‘will of the people.’

May knows this perfectly well, and she knows that these newspapers will support her to the hilt.   The only way she can be stopped, to my mind, is through an anti-Tory alliance – regardless of whether you choose to call it a progressive alliance – which seeks to reduce the Tory majority and prevent May from getting the 400-odd seats that she clearly thinks she can win.

Such an alliance would be certainly difficult to achieve, and may prove impossible. Labour is unlikely to abandon its belief that it alone has the right to form a government, even when it patently has no chance of any such thing.   The Lib Dems are likely to be slippery partners and are too compromised by their years in coalition with the Tories to become a credible progressive force.

On one level it would suit them to see Labour destroyed, and to rebuild themselves by picking up Remain votes that see no hope in Corbyn, and they may well be content with that.    That said, there are things that Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru could agree on.   An anti-Tory alliance need not be presented as a for and against vote on Brexit itself, but on the terms of Brexit, and the right of parliament to scrutinise – and reject – any future deal that falls short of the government’s promises and leaves the country worse off than it already is.

There is also room for a common position on certain popular issues such as a defense of public services, social care and the NHS, opposition to Brexit ‘tax haven’ plans etc. Ultimately, such an alliance would have to put the broader cause of defending democracy over individual party interests, because regardless of the fact that May has just sought popular consultation, what she is really doing is attempting to remove one of the most critical political processes in British history from parliamentary scrutiny, and there is nothing democratic about that.

If she succeeds, the Vicar’s daughter will be able to do whatever she wants, even if it is clear that she and her fellow-fanatics are terrifyingly out of their depth and barely understand what they are able to do.   Unless something truly astonishing takes place over the next six weeks, May has effectively swapped the certainty of three more years for the very real possibility of a de facto one party state.