An unlikely match-up in this titanic mess
It’s a surprising romance between two people who have bickered like children for three years, but could it work out? Honestly, probably not...
Vicar's daughter marries rabble-rousing Lefty shock! Picture it now. The dawn of a new era.
Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, holding hands, standing on the prow of HMS Great Britain and doing a joint Paddy Ashdown-style gaze into the distance in a spirit of harmony and selfless determination to do the right thing in the interests of the nation.
No, I can't see it either.
Somebody needs to have a word in an ear that it's not going to work out. Something to countenance only in the most dire and desperate circumstances.
And, in the case of Mrs May, when you don't think you've got long in this political world so, hey-ho, why not, she'll try anything now.
By the time you read this, it might all be over already. The only thing Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have in common is their dysfunctional, warring, political families.
If we were looking for a preview of their love-in at Prime Minister's Questions, we didn't get it. They were keeping their Brexit powder dry.
Mr Corbyn merely said he was looking forward to meeting her later that day and he "welcomed her willingness to compromise to resolve the Brexit deadlock." He then moved on to his questions about poverty and austerity.
Note the c-word.
Accentuate
The Commons fell silent expectantly when Tory Nigel Adams got up to ask a question. He has just resigned as a junior minister in protest at Mrs May reaching out to Jezza. It turned out to be a question about step-free access to Selby railway station.
Labour's Owen Smith asked the Prime Minister to accept Labour's policy of membership of a customs union and single market, and a people's vote.
"If she accepts that compromise she can pass her deal and leave office," he soothed.
That c-word again, you'll notice.
Mrs May chose to accentuate her alleged areas of agreement with Mr Corbyn. Both, she contended, wanted to deliver on Brexit and leave with a deal, protecting jobs, ending free movement and recognising the importance of the withdrawal agreement.
Our, poor, misguided Theresa. This is a relationship setting off undermined by a fundamental misapprehension.
Mrs May's stated agenda is to deliver on the will of the people. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn says he wants a Brexit which works for business, for jobs, for workers' rights – and for whatever else Sir Keir Starmer tells him.
Impediment
But most of all, he wants a Brexit process which brings down the government and forces a general election.
Somebody should warn her that even in the unlikely event of him making lovey-dovey noises, his dream relationship involves pushing her under a bus.
In the chapel of democracy, there were cries from the Tory backbenches of a lawful impediment to the impending intended marriage.
Essentially the objections were based on a view that the Leader of the Opposition is an untrustworthy rotter who is so dangerous that he should not be allowed within a million miles of the levers of power.
Mrs May's let's-have-a-chat-and-sort-things-out wheeze has been tried before. Mr Corbyn refused to meet her for weeks unless she ruled out a no deal Brexit, and then when he did go along, he promptly walked out of the meeting because Chuka Umunna was there, and "he is not a real party leader" according to Labour.
Let's pretend that they do reach a Brexit agreement. Then the problem for MPs is that they will inevitably feel that if the answer is something on which Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn can agree, then it's time to ask a different question (or maybe even to get a new leader).
Back to the c-word and Ian Blackford, the Westminster leader of the Scottish Myopics, defied belief when he said the SNP had sought compromise since the start of the Brexit process.
"Scotland will not accept a Tory or Labour Brexit!" he thundered.
That's what compromise means, by the way – standing firm and giving others the chance to see sense.
In the House of Commons earlier this week a group of people bared their buttocks in an undignified display. It was reported as being a protest.
But I wonder whether it might have been a metaphor of some kind.
