Well, it’s death for Brexit once more, as Theresa May’s plan to satisfy everyone, satisfied no-one. The Liberal Party is being taken to court and a smart man said a very stupid thing. Go back to bed, please.
Independent candidate takes the Liberal Party to court; Mr Shorten goes to Woolies.
The following sentence may possess the notes of sour grapes, but I assure you they’re ripe. Yes, Scott Morrison won the election, it’s a democracy, we have to get over it, but it’s fair to say that there was a rather large amount of shenanigans afoot on Saturday’s election. Beyond the flaming effluent of a torched One Nation van (which I suspect may have been self-lit), we have the story of the signs in Mandarin that instructed voters to vote for the Liberal Party in Josh Frydenberg’s seat of Kooyong.
The signs, using the livery of the AEC, told voters “the correct voting method” was to put a “1” next to the Liberal candidate. The Independent who ran in that seat, Oliver Yates, has this morning promised to take the Liberal Party to court over the screech of the pied piper’s corflute.
“The colour of the corflute and absence of any party logos or branding make it appear to be an official AEC poster,” (Oliver Yates’ lawyer) Michael Bradley said. “There is a very real risk the reader would think they are being told by the AEC that, to record a valid vote, they must vote 1 for Liberal.”
Bradley put forth the assertion that anyone “not familiar with Australian electoral processes may not be aware that the AEC would never direct the order of the vote…the fact that it was in Chinese language, and therefore clearly directed to a specific minority group of voters with a higher than average likelihood of having poor English language skills, and a higher than average likelihood of having a poor understanding of the voting process, is highly relevant.”
Which is very important indeed, the sanctity of one’s vote is important. As is the contents of one’s shopping list, as the now-banished candidate Bill Shorten was outed by an ABC presenter who spread this candid image of a private citizen’s very private breakfast plans. Defeat, thy name is snap, crackle and pop.
— Michael Rowland (@mjrowland68) May 20, 2019
Theresa May’s final-never-to-be-repeated-must-go-out-the-door Brexit deal swept under the rug by the UK parliament
One orange day far in the future, our grandchildren will ask us to explain Brexit – what it meant, and why a country decided to leave the EU (and logic) after really not wanting to, very much like a teenager who has painted themselves into a corner, choosing to storm off in a huff in a desperate attempt to save face and/or further plunge themselves into the merde.
Sadly, we won’t really be able to explain. How could we? It’s been a confusing mess of missed deadlines, macro niggles and stubbornness. No one wants the decision of the vote, but they really don’t want to vote on it again, as it would subvert the worthwhile democratic process that got us to this point. I’ve covered it non-stop since it happened, and I’m not entirely sure. We know its bad, and we know Theresa May’s ‘art of the deal’ is on par with Donald’s for awfulness.
Nevertheless, she’s back, clutching yet another plan, one solely constructed of bullet points, one she hopes will pass, so she can quit already.
Oddly, while I was typing the above, MPs from both sides of government have rejected May’s final deal. Per The Guardian “…not a single MP who opposed the deal last time had come out to support it.”
(Opposition leader) Jeremy Corbyn said: “We won’t back a repackaged version of the same old deal – and it’s clear that this weak and disintegrating government is unable to deliver on its own commitments.”
One of the primary sticking points was May’s promise to introduce a second Brexit referendum (if the vote to organise another vote was voted in by the Commons), which shat off pretty much everyone. Corbyn (who has also suggested the same idea) was particularly miffed, saying that “If Theresa May is now supporting a second referendum, it makes it very hard for me to support the latest (deal) when it comes to the House of Commons,” he said. “This is a betrayal of the 2016 referendum and a betrayal of everything she has been saying since she became prime minister.”
So, where to now? I do not know. The value of finality, deadlines and agreements have been severely eroded by the post-Brexit malaise. The term ‘final deal’, means nothing. Perhaps May needs to treat Brexit as you would a parking fine. Just pretend it doesn’t exist, just go on about your life, and don’t pick up any calls from private numbers.
Brain doctor’s head work real good, confuses house for biscuit
And finally, does anyone remember Ben Carson? No? He was that spiffing chap who suggested that the Holocaust could have been avoided had everyone been armed. He’s also said this: “Do you have a brain? Then use it. It’s all you need to overcome any problem. That’s the secret. That’s my simple but powerful prescription for life, love, and success in a dangerous world.”
This morning, the good doctor (he’s also a neurologist) failed to take his own advice, as he mistook the conditions of foreclosure with a staple American cookie.
Rep. Katie Porter, a California Democrat, asked Carson during a House Financial Services Committee hearing if he was familiar with the term “REO.”
Carson replied, “An Oreo?”
No, said Porter. “Not an Oreo. An R-E-O.” After Carson incorrectly said that the “O” stood for “organisation,” Porter explained the acronym stands for “real estate owned”: “That’s what happens when a property goes to foreclosure. We call it an REO.”
It’s probably a good time to mention that Carson is also Donald Trump’s Housing and Urban Development Secretary, which, per Google, “is the head of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, concerned with urban housing matters.”
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) May 21, 2019
Why would it be a cookie, Ben?