While the Tories are playing Anarchy in the UK, why can’t Labour stop going out of tune?

This is becoming joyfully unpredictable. Ministers, when asked if they’ll comply with laws, about bringing back parliament or applying for an extension to the EU, say, “We’ll have to see.”

What a fascinating turn, that a Conservative government has opted for an anarchist system where you only obey the laws you fancy.

It might take some getting used to, as burglars tell the police, “Hello officer, I’m not really into ‘ownership’ so I don’t agree with the concept of theft. Can you help me put this fridge in my van? I might not rob anyone tomorrow, we’ll have to see.”

This change in policy will surprise some poor sod at the Conservative conference, if they haven’t kept up. They’ll make the sort of speech that usually goes well, saying, “If you flout the law, you must be beaten with a rosebush; the thorny part, with each thorn sharpened by trained whittlers, WHACK, come on, say it with me, join in – WHACK WHACK.”

But instead of getting a standing ovation everyone will boo, and scream “the law sucks man”.

So the government hasn’t released all its documents about what will happen after a no-deal Brexit, explaining they don’t want to alarm us. This is why they announce, “We can’t publish the full results of our own report, because it would upset the British public, who might then decide they don’t want Brexit, which would be undemocratic because it’s what the British public wants”.

They released the milder parts, that tell us, “We expect shortages of basic foods that have been available since 1860, with likely outbreaks of typhoid, and crossing the Channel to Boulogne will involve more paperwork than when France was occupied by the Nazis, but we should think of this in the same way as if someone poured thousands of scorpions into our living room. Instead of moaning about the problems, let’s consider all the opportunities.”

This deep sense of the democratic will is what drives politicians like Iain Duncan Smith, who make speeches denouncing any delay to a no-deal Brexit, and that go, “In the referendum, the British people, 17.4 million – which is the greatest number ever, no mathematician has ever been able to think of a bigger number, a number so vast it is intensely sexually exciting, oooooooo 17.4 million, wurrrrr, look at it, come here you humungous minx of a number – voted quite explicitly to pay £35 for a tomato.”

Even so, opponents of a no-deal Brexit shouldn’t worry, as there will soon be an election that could stop it happening. This must be why many people opposed to a no-deal Brexit see the ideal tactic as creating as massive an argument as possible with their own side, to give themselves the best chance of losing.

For example, Labour deputy leader Tom Watson demanded for years that Labour support a second referendum. Now Labour does support a second referendum, so he’s demanding Labour supports it taking place before the election.

This is a fun game, and maybe Jeremy Corbyn should agree to that as well, then Tom Watson could demand the referendum wasn’t about Article 50, but to revoke Article 40, concerning the sale of spring onions.

The Liberal Democrats have done even better. They insisted on another referendum, so now Labour has agreed they don’t want one at all, but instead demand we cancel the result of the last one without another vote.

That should work, as it’s unlikely anyone who voted Leave might get cross about that in any way.

But even if Labour adopted the same policy, the Liberal Democrats would announce we should backdate our membership of the EU to the 12th century, signing a fishing agreement with King Louis VI, and voting for the Olympics to be held in Prussia.

Some people’s vote campaigners have attacked Labour for saying they would have an option to Leave on the ballot paper. This is an excellent point, as the choices should be Remain, Remain or to satisfy the extremists, Remain.

Clearly Labour have made a mess of this over the last couple of years, coming up with policies such as “we support a single market customs market operating on the outskirts of Mansfield market, subject to VAR if the defender is in line with the off stump.”

Or “we do support a referendum, but the question on the ballot paper must be written in ancient Inuit so no one knows which side they’re voting for”.

But now, with an election a few weeks away, maybe there should be some agreement between the parties opposed to all this.

So the Green Party have announced they will stand in marginal seats, such as Stroud, where Labour won last time by 44 per cent to 43 per cent. The Greens on the other hand managed 2 per cent.

This is a splendid idea, because if the vote is split, the Conservative wins, and the most crazed government for centuries gets in and hands the country to the most crazed US president in centuries (who doesn’t believe in global warming and thinks the oil companies are too soft when it comes to oil), then the Green cause will be boosted because with a bit of luck they’ll have jumped from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent in sodding Stroud.

Surely the sensible approach here is to divide the anti-no deal Brexit vote a bit more – maybe they should stand three Green parties, one that proposes local councils collect cardboard on Wednesdays, one that says Thursdays and one that says they enjoy the New Forest but prefer the Isle of Wight.

Even so, Labour could seek ways of maximising the anti no-deal vote, possibly offering a government post to Caroline Lucas, or promising a reform of the electoral system. But it will be much more fun if each side carries on squealing at each other – then we can all concentrate on enjoying the scorpions.