The schools are finally back. After nearly two months without forced cognitive labour to tire them out, the kids are back at their desks. They’ve been on holidays, they’ve had and then wildly embellished a million adventures, and they’ve totally forgotten what it was they were doing before the break. I am now woken by my alarm at 06:30 instead of my child at 06:00. Work is once again where I use my brain, rather than where I try and preserve it for a hundred million questions when I get home. Why is my leg itchy? What’s a larynx? Why do we have toes? Can you explain nuclear physics to me in terms my 8-year old mind will understand?

And it’s on a similar note that parliament has returned to business. The pre-summer, end of season finale of Brexit left half the country in shock and all of it wondering how things will play out. The various starring roles made lots of announcements, then vanished off on their holidays. Presumably to Europe, while the exchange rate is still just about manageable and before they need to pay for visas.

But now they’re back and the story can continue. Only apparently the director walked out and nobody knows what order all the words go in. Like the kids, it seems parliament have totally forgotten their lines and have decided to ad lib. Many, it seems, have even lost track of what role they’re supposed to be playing.

For example, take David Davis, the man entrusted with heading up our negotiations to leave Europe. He has been a vigorous Leave campaigner and, prior to that, a bit of a loose cannon. His approach in the past has taken him so far as to leave parliament to try and shake things up. Not always a bad thing and, as I constantly hear at the office, a disruptive approach can often be the most beneficial in the long term. I do think, though, this time he may have gone a bit too far.

As his first major public move in making sure we have the strongest negotiating hand possible, he has said British businesses are fat and lazy. That, as an economy, we’ve become too dependent on Europe for an easy ride and can’t operate properly on our own. I’m not sure what message this was supposed to send, but what it says to me is:

• We were better off in the EU because it gave us lots of financial benefits that otherwise we’d have to work really hard for.
• We’ll bend over and accept whatever deal is offered because without Europe we’ll run our businesses into the ground and not be able to afford our golf memberships anymore.

Which I can only interpret as “I was wrong and this looks really hard, so I’m switching sides”.

But Davis has always been a bit of a loon, so taken in isolation that wouldn’t be entirely surprising. However, he’s not the only person who has apparently forgotten which team he’s playing for. Ken Clarke has gone on record saying the referendum isn’t legally binding and that parliament can vote to ignore it. But Clarke has also always been willing to stray from the party line, so maybe he’s another outlier?

Seemingly not. None other than our new Prime Minister – an equally avid Remain supporter – is also a turncoat. While going no further than parroting tautologies when asked to define Brexit, she is apparently determined to force it through. Setting an entirely new (not to mention legally questionable) precedent, she intends to trigger Article 50 without consulting parliament or allowing a vote on the matter. Aside from my personal stake as someone who desperately wishes the referendum had never happened in the first place, I’ve a few concerns about this.

Firstly, it will set a precedent and that is the foundation upon which our legal system is based. It enables the government to (legally) misinform the public over any old matter, hold a quick referendum on it and then enact the outcome. All whilst shirking any responsibility, because the buck has been passed to the electorate. Who they spend lots of money lying to. Money that they took from the electorate. We are literally paying them to misinform us and then ask us to do their job for them.

Secondly, we live in a parliamentary democracy. Either MPs have a job to do and responsibilities associated with that or they do not. If we’re moving to a direct democracy, we need to do so properly and make the structural changes necessary to make it work. This would include not wasting a fortune on parliamentarians who are no longer relevant to our political process in the way they once were.

This isn’t the only thing May seems to have forgotten her previous position on. Initially, she surprised many – myself included – with lots of progressive-sounding promises about fairness and unity. Pan-socioeconomic restructuring to reinvest the disenfranchised and introduce accountability to the bloated 1%. It warmed my tiny collectivised heart. Maybe things weren’t going to be so bad after all. Feel free to laugh at my naivety. I certainly have done.

As a way of opening parliament to the new year, she has announced a plan to bring back grammar schools. It’s a potato so hot that even Captain Starchy himself, David Cameron, saw fit to distance the Conservative party from it. It is one of the most divisive topics of recent political history, seen by many (including pretty much all the experts and the entire academic community) as regressive and classist. To counter this notion, the Prime Minister pointed out that most of government got where they are today – I think she means the gravy train – thanks to grammar school educations.

But Herculean flip-flopping is best enjoyed with friends. To add insult to injury, May has made Justine Greening Education Secretary. This was another of those “oh, this could be worse” moments I had as the shock of Brexit wore off. Greening was someone I had hoped would get the role. She seemed fairly good and relatively forward-looking. Now she has the dubious honour of being the first Secretary of State for Education with an entirely comprehensive school education and the first Secretary of State for Education in the 21^st century to try and re-implement selection-based grammar schools.

It isn’t just the Tories who’ve lost the plot, though. Corbyn gave an unusually popular performance in response to grammar schools, gaining praise even from some of his critics. The Parliamentary Labour Party – who mostly went to grammar schools – still hate him, but at least his grammar school education prepared him to tear apart the idea of more grammar schools. Which they hate nearly as much as they hate him for supporting people who, historically, have been the most disadvantaged by the existence of grammar schools. A group which happens to overlap quite heavily with the Labour vote.

This is, I think, a symptom of the fundamental problem with Labour: they have no idea who they are or what they stand for. At the moment, they don’t even seem sure who was arguing with who, over what, why or which side of the argument each of them were on six weeks ago. Owen Smith’s challenge for the leadership seems to be based on a platform of “I stand for exactly the same things as Jeremy only I also don’t”. The leadership contest results are due within the next week or so.

I think as a party they’ve realised it’s a lose-lose situation. If the PLP element win, they lose the people they’re supposed to represent and need to vote for them. If the people who vote for them win, the PLP will have to actually represent them. An absurdity that hasn’t been seriously considered since early 1997 and an affront to their privileged Fabian sensibilities.

So basically we’ve got 600+ people who were for either leaving the EU or staying in it. The former got what they want and now have buyer’s remorse. The latter have reached the point in the cycle of bereavement where they’re trying to make the best of the new world in which they find themselves. And everyone – inside and outside of Westminster – is still entirely in the dark as to what Brexit actually means. Other than, of course, Brexit.

It’s no wonder political pundits have such a hard time making accurate predictions. The entire process is insane.