The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I just don't agree with Darren on this. It is happening, barring a parliamentary vote in which Conservative backbenchers would have to effectively bring down the government. So far they have shown absolutely no appetite for doing any such thing - no matter what Michael Heseltine is saying - so there's currently no reason to assume that Brexit (maybe In Name Only) won't happen. 

I also disagree with Darren on the proximity of the next election (because of the reason given in the previous paragraph). So I don't think Labour are going to be placed in an immediate rush to clarify the ambiguities in their position. 

Sure.

Largely where I am, too, then. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

I believe, that with the current media climate, that if you don't play the game of appearances, you get wiped out

That's rather at odds with the Jeremy Corbyn being a down to earth, no-spin, "authentic", "different" type of politician. The sort "not afraid" to speak and act differently. The sort who is not bothered or troubled by the traditional "media".

Also, this "jobs based Brexit" has to mean remaining in the single market - anything else will cost a lot of people their jobs. Yet Labour's position is to leave the single market.

While more of Labour's MPs are in agreement on the EU (they think we should have remained), the party's actions and words have been confused, shifting, unclear, unprincipled and they do not present any kind of clear vision which would contrast with the Tories' clusterpork of an effort.

I think you're right that they are hoping to benefit from the Tory mess, which is what political parties tend to want to do, but they're a long way from looking like they actually know what they're doing on Brexit. I agree that Starmer has been performing well in his role - he contrasts very well with the dishonest chancers in the Tory party. But at some point, quite soon, Labour needs to get its act together on Brexit and have a clear position, rather than just hoping to not "lose voters" (there's no election, so no one loses voters at this stage, anyway).

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Sure.

Largely where I am, too, then. 

Yes, I think so. I think my disagreement may have been more with @chrisp65 as I think that Labour's current strategy is the only one possible under the circumstances, rather than a sell-out (although maybe that's oversimplifying his argument). 

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

But at some point, quite soon, Labour needs to get its act together on Brexit and have a clear position, rather than just hoping to not "lose voters" (there's no election, so no one loses voters at this stage, anyway).

The part in brackets is at odds with the part outside brackets. If there's no election, and none soon (and I agree with that), then why does Labour need a clear position 'at some point, quite soon'?

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The part in brackets is at odds with the part outside brackets. If there's no election, and none soon (and I agree with that), then why does Labour need a clear position 'at some point, quite soon'?

I think that Labour needs a clear position "sometime soon" in order to do it's job properly, which is to oppose the government effectively. The clock on Brexit timing, negotiations with the EU is ticking. So while it's likely years to the next GE, it's months to the Brexit 2 year timetable (with the necessary period to whatever's reached being put to the EU nations to review and agree or disagree on.

The tories haven't got a coherent position on their red lines and reality  - e.g. Northern Ireland border v Border round single market (of which Irish Rep. is a member but UK won't be). And many other aspects. Labour needs to be able to persuade non-Labour MPs to vote against the Gov't in parliament on various matters. It cannot do that where it has no coherent position itself. It needs to have a set of credible, almost non-party political, arguments and standpoints on immigration control, free movement of Labour, ECJ and all the rest of it.

It also need to be able to get itself to a position where as things get worse, they are able to point out to people generally "here's what we have said the Gov't should do/should have done" and to start looking at the longer term potential rewards with the electorate, rather than short term "leavers will be pissed off with us and we'll drop in the polls" -  By winning the argument and looking like a gov't in waiting, they can lead people to view them positively, and leaving out the partisans, to look for what people want in a Government which is competence and unity and assurance that they will be OK.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

you don't seem to have taken in to account parliamentary timing, parliamentary procedure, the general timings concerning the A50 timetable as it is without any negoations to the contrary, election timetables, negotiations over coalitions, &c.

I don't know. I'm pretty new to all this stuff. I just find information hoovering on Twitter interesting.

59 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think this misunderstands Labour's position. What seems more likely to me is that they would prefer to continue with Brexit, yet negotiating a transition deal that is as long as possible and kicks the can as far down the road as they can. 

I don't think Labour are planning to reverse the referendum result, so much as hoping that the future will help to usefully fudge it. 

Actually, that's not far from what I'm trying to say, just perhaps clearer than my (purposefully ambiguous) text. I don't think they can fully reverse it without something big changing but 'putting the brakes on' could mean quite a few different things, including just softening the landing.

49 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The thrust of @darrenm's position over the past few months, though, has been: it's not happening.

With the not happening thing - I've said a couple of times that I'm referring to full hard brexit. I still can't see how we can leave the single market and customs union with the Irish border issue still not solved and not able to be solved. I'm getting the popcorn out for the next 18 months on that one.

36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I just don't agree with Darren on this. It is happening, barring a parliamentary vote in which Conservative backbenchers would have to effectively bring down the government. So far they have shown absolutely no appetite for doing any such thing - no matter what Michael Heseltine is saying - so there's currently no reason to assume that Brexit (maybe In Name Only) won't happen. 

I also disagree with Darren on the proximity of the next election (because of the reason given in the previous paragraph). So I don't think Labour are going to be placed in an immediate rush to clarify the ambiguities in their position. 

All of the people in the know agree with you but I'm going a bit maverick with all the crazy shit that's happened in 2017.

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's rather at odds with the Jeremy Corbyn being a down to earth, no-spin, "authentic", "different" type of politician. The sort "not afraid" to speak and act differently. The sort who is not bothered or troubled by the traditional "media".

Agreed. But wasn't your main objection to Jezza in the first place that he's unelectable because he wasn't a politician as he was too principled and wouldn't hold the Tories to account?

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Actually, that's not far from what I'm trying to say, just perhaps clearer than my (purposefully ambiguous) text. I don't think they can fully reverse it without something big changing but 'putting the brakes on' could mean quite a few different things, including just softening the landing.

In order to be in control of this, though, they would need to be in government which would require either forming a government after a no confidence vote in the current parliament (the arithmetic doesn't make that a real possibility) or gaining power after a general election in which they'd actually have to campaign on 'putting the brakes on'.

In this GE in 2018 (June at the very, but unlikely, earliest, I'd have thought), they would have to identify their position regarding the ongoing negotiations and applying brakes and I don't see why that wouldn't come with the kinds of things they fear now. If they don't fear them then, they shouldn't fear them now and they should identify and take that position now.

Edited December 28, 2017 by snowychap

[darrenm]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

In this GE in 2018 (June at the very, but unlikely, earliest, I'd have thought), they would have to identify their position regarding the ongoing negotiations and applying brakes and I don't see why that wouldn't come with the kinds of things they fear now.

Would they have to go into any more detail than they currently do e.g. 'jobs first' brexit and 'no red lines' and 'as things stand we're leaving the EU'?

If I understand correctly, any change of policy before 29th March 2019 can multilaterally pause article 50 to allow more time for negotiation? Therefore there's nothing to stop them staying ambiguous, getting into gov then asking the EU27 for more time?

[OutByEaster?]

It's difficult for either party to have a clear and sensible united policy on Brexit as the only sensible, clear, united policy on Brexit would be to constantly tell the people of the UK what a bunch of idiotic morons they are for voting it through. Brexit is a mess, anyone trying to deal with it is going to end up covered in that mess.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's difficult for either party to have a clear and sensible united policy on Brexit as the only sensible, clear, united policy on Brexit would be to constantly tell the people of the UK what a bunch of idiotic morons they are for voting it through. Brexit is a mess, anyone trying to deal with it is going to end up covered in that mess.

 

 

While I agree with the sentiment, and it would certainly be 'clear', I doubt it would be either 'sensible' or 'united'. 

[snowychap]

57 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Would they have to go into any more detail than they currently do e.g. 'jobs first' brexit and 'no red lines' and 'as things stand we're leaving the EU'?

I absolutely think so, yes.

Given that any election would be taking place whilst negotiations were well under way (the EU bod wants them concluded by October so that they can be put to the EU parliament and so on) then keeping schtum and being coy wouldn't be a good look at all.

It would leave much space to be filled by those who would want to paint Labour as falsely campaigning (by claiming that they actually intended to reverse the whole lot and weren't bothering to come up with any detail because they didn't see it as necessary to their vision of a future).

The very idea that a general election could take place in the middle of negotiations, with a timetable already set and in place (which may be moveable but is not so unless agreed by all parties) on the topic of the future direction of the country and one party could go in to a campaign and get away with not saying much other than the kind of things you've said above has me well and truly flabberghasted.

57 minutes ago, darrenm said:

If I understand correctly, any change of policy before 29th March 2019 can multilaterally pause article 50 to allow more time for negotiation? Therefore there's nothing to stop them staying ambiguous, getting into gov then asking the EU27 for more time

I'm sorry but I don't quite get what your first question is asking. The A50 negotiations can be extended - if you are asking whether this can happen then yes, it can: by unanimous decision of the EC (with agreement of the departing member). That's in the text.

Again, you're not honestly suggesting that the Labour party's tactic ought to be (or is to be) to go in to any general election that may happen in 2018 before the conclusion of any withdrawal agreement negotiation and be ambiguous as to their position on those negotiations?

Edit: Otherwise, it wold be a case of asking the Labour party (via whatever representative) to tell the electorate what their position is on the ongoing and unconcluded (but nearing time) negotiations about the thing that has just brought down the last government (as that's going to be the only way an election would happen as per your two scenarios) and for their reply to be 'Vote us in and wait and see'. If people voted for that then they'd be arses.

Edited December 28, 2017 by snowychap
fat fingers

[HanoiVillan]

43 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think that Labour needs a clear position "sometime soon" in order to do it's job properly, which is to oppose the government effectively. The clock on Brexit timing, negotiations with the EU is ticking. So while it's likely years to the next GE, it's months to the Brexit 2 year timetable (with the necessary period to whatever's reached being put to the EU nations to review and agree or disagree on.

Labour aren't sat in the room for negotiations, so they can have pretty much whatever policy they want (within reason). Labour does need to oppose the government, but it needs to oppose the government on every issue, including issues that their voters may care about far more than Brexit (austerity, for example), and it may not be able to do that effectively if the party is falling apart in a Brexit argument. For as long as Tory + DUP is a majority in Parliament, all Labour can do is what it is doing now, ie. encouraging defections via amendments, and hoping that Tory backbenchers will rebel in a way that effectively brings the government down (incidentally, looking too much like a 'government-in-waiting' probably isn't/wouldn't help with that). 

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

Labour needs to be able to persuade non-Labour MPs to vote against the Gov't in parliament on various matters. It cannot do that where it has no coherent position itself. It needs to have a set of credible, almost non-party political, arguments and standpoints on immigration control, free movement of Labour, ECJ and all the rest of it.

They already have won on an amendment due to Tory defections, and have prevented a couple of other bills from being put to the House. So they can, and have, done what you are asking, while having what you characterise as an incoherent position. 

52 minutes ago, blandy said:

It also need to be able to get itself to a position where as things get worse, they are able to point out to people generally "here's what we have said the Gov't should do/should have done" and to start looking at the longer term potential rewards with the electorate, rather than short term "leavers will be pissed off with us and we'll drop in the polls" -  By winning the argument and looking like a gov't in waiting, they can lead people to view them positively, and leaving out the partisans, to look for what people want in a Government which is competence and unity and assurance that they will be OK.

If things become as bad as I think you are suggesting, then Labour will benefit electorally pretty much regardless of what their policy is. 

More generally, I'm unclear what sort of position you would find 'coherent'. Asking if we could take back article 50 would be simple and clear, but politically disastrous. What else fits the bill?

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, I think so. I think my disagreement may have been more with @chrisp65 as I think that Labour's current strategy is the only one possible under the circumstances, rather than a sell-out (although maybe that's oversimplifying his argument). 

My original point was that darren has been saying it won't happen. Then stated Labour's view was the same as the tories and rightly so. If they aren't campaigning to remain I just cannot see where 'won't happen' comes in to play.

To have a policy of pretending to be for something so as not to upset the voters but then not doing it if you're somehow elected is not the sort of party that I'd want to vote for. It's the LibDems on super steroids. I know that's 'politics' but this isn't a point of detail to one section of society, this is absolutely fundamental to everything for a generation or more. It's as big as it gets and I'm being told the policy isn't what they are saying it is, there's a secret plan. 

In reality it doesn't matter greatly because large chunks of the voting public won't consider voting records or words versus actions or principles or vision. They'll just vote on some basic hunch of whether they're red or blue. Which is thoroughly depressing. Which leads to the sort of low grade politicians we currently have.

Which was my other point. These guys ain't the same guys that got us the NHS. They are career politicians looking at strategies for power, for the sake of power, not on principle or right and wrong. 

I don't know if it's a sell out as I don't know what their actual intentions are. But there's every chance it's a sell out. 

Corbyn has amassed a popular movement on being slightly vague about what he stands for. That's a very risky strategy, because some time soon, a few hundred thousand hipsters might think there was indeed a sell out.

 

[darrenm]

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Which was my other point. These guys ain't the same guys that got us the NHS. They are career politicians looking at strategies for power, for the sake of power, not on principle or right and wrong. 

Why does it have to be self-serving? Why can't it be an altruistic act to save the country from itself by treading carefully enough to not upset either side to the point where they turn on you?

This sums up my thoughts pretty well : http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/28/brexit-corbyn-is-playing-a-clever-long-game-that-could-benef

If Corbyn is following Napoleon's advice not to interrupt his enemy while she is making mistakes, he is not showing great courage, or even perhaps acting in the immediate national interest - but he is playing a clever long game that in the end could benefit us all. If Labour has finally abandoned the delusions of Brexit, they also uncover a political space that carries with it electoral spoils. If they want it, they only need a few short steps to take it.

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Why does it have to be self-serving? Why can't it be an altruistic act to save the country from itself by treading carefully enough to not upset either side to the point where they turn on you?

It's a good article, but there is no long game. We leave the EU in 15 months.

Labour's current policy is that we are leaving. But apparently it's really that we aren't leaving and if there's an election in 2018 the plan will be to not tell anyone we aren't leaving until it just sort of doesn't happen.

I'm struggling to find altruism in there? It just looks like fence sitting and hoping the other team is more crap.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

Agreed. But wasn't your main objection to Jezza in the first place that he's unelectable because he wasn't a politician as he was too principled and wouldn't hold the Tories to account?

Some of that is right, but not really. On the plus side, I’m fine with about half his/labours policies. I’m impressed by his ability to “connect” with people and acknowledge he’s got much less bad as a parliamentary performer. However, I don’t rate his judgement, I detest (and that’s putting it mildly) his double standards, his blind eye to various serious wrongs from corrupt fellow “old hard left” travellers, whether they be union leaders, Hamas, IRA, Anti-semites, South American leaders, and so on. He’s a man of principle, apart from when it’s expedient to put them aside. I consider that a Corbynite Labour government would be a bad thing. I think plenty of others do too. I’m on the phone, otherwise I’d go on at more length. Ultimately I view him as a wrong un. Oh and on Brexit, I do not trust him or rate him as at all competent or capable. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

My original point was that darren has been saying it won't happen. Then stated Labour's view was the same as the tories and rightly so. If they aren't campaigning to remain I just cannot see where 'won't happen' comes in to play.

To have a policy of pretending to be for something so as not to upset the voters but then not doing it if you're somehow elected is not the sort of party that I'd want to vote for. It's the LibDems on super steroids. I know that's 'politics' but this isn't a point of detail to one section of society, this is absolutely fundamental to everything for a generation or more. It's as big as it gets and I'm being told the policy isn't what they are saying it is, there's a secret plan. 

Darren might be saying 'it won't happen', but as I've stated before, he isn't correct about that (IMO). It isn't Labour's position either. Their position, as laid out in the manifesto and by voting for article 50, is that Brexit was the democratic will of the people (which it basically was). There is going to be some kind of Brexit, 'not doing it if you're somehow elected' doesn't come into it, except that the 'it' they won't be doing is a hard Brexit with no deal. Since that is a terrible idea that will cause huge damage to the country, I think the position they have taken is a sensible one. 

I take the point that this is 'fundamental to everything for a generation or more' - in many ways, it will be - but austerity has also been fundamental for nearly a decade now, and low growth and productivity has been fundamental for nearly a decade. More voters care about ending austerity than they do about ending Brexit. If a SM-CU Brexit could be achieved with minimal disruption, ending austerity would probably have a bigger impact on the economy and the life of the nation, frankly. 

I think people need to reconcile themselves to the reality that Brexit is happening. Remainers now need to focus their (our) energies on a Brexit that involves as little disruption as possible, and avoids radical departures in terms of standards and customs rules and so on. That way leaves open the possibility of rejoining later with somewhat less difficulty than if we crash out with no deal. 

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

In reality it doesn't matter greatly because large chunks of the voting public won't consider voting records or words versus actions or principles or vision. They'll just vote on some basic hunch of whether they're red or blue. Which is thoroughly depressing. Which leads to the sort of low grade politicians we currently have.

Which was my other point. These guys ain't the same guys that got us the NHS. They are career politicians looking at strategies for power, for the sake of power, not on principle or right and wrong. 

I don't know if it's a sell out as I don't know what their actual intentions are. But there's every chance it's a sell out. 

Politics is a compromise between competing interests, and between what you desire and what you think is possible. Ending austerity is a greater goal for Labour than ending Brexit, which isn't possible anyway.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

They already have won on an amendment due to Tory defections, and have prevented a couple of other bills from being put to the House. So they can, and have, done what you are asking, while having what you characterise as an incoherent position.....

More generally, I'm unclear what sort of position you would find 'coherent'. Asking if we could take back article 50 would be simple and clear, but politically disastrous. What else fits the bill?

You make some good points, HV (hope that’s not patronising). On the bit quoted, the amendment which the govt lost was a Tory one that Labour supported. Same with the stuff “they” stopped. Obviously it’s maths, but they need to be able to get sane tories to support their stuff, rather than them supporting sane tories, if you see what I mean. Also, labour has whipped its MPs to support the government on multiple votes. That is IMO not coherent. Jobs based Brexit has to involve single market, but Labours position is to agree with the tories on leaving it. Incoherent. Essentially what I mean is for them to say something like “our version of Brexit is for example Norway model , or remain or Swiss model or hard Brexit, or whatever line they see and analyse is the best way forward. And then to explain and present why.  So if they believe jobs, say, is the overriding factor, then say this means single market, and a recognition that immigration needs to be dealt with as the EU rules permit, but which we’ve never bothered to do up to this point. Single market also solves NI border problem. Say that the positives are this, the negatives are that.   Be open and honest and lead on the issue. Etc.

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

(hope that’s not patronising)

Not at all! It's nice to discuss important topics with people who don't necessarily agree with all of your opinions. And apologies if I've come off as brusque to anyone, I know I can be a bit blunt at times. 

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

On the bit quoted, the amendment which the govt lost was a Tory one that Labour supported. Same with the stuff “they” stopped. Obviously it’s maths, but they need to be able to get sane tories to support their stuff, rather than them supporting sane tories, if you see what I mean. 

I do see what you mean, and I certainly agree it would be nice, but for me the blame for that has to lie at the door of 'moderate' 'Remainer' Tories who pop up with soundbites about how much they can't bear the thought of a Corbyn government. The issue so far is that when the rubber hits the road, the Soubry's and Allen's and so on show little sign of being prepared to vote with Labour on anything of substance. It's not like Labour haven't been proposing amendments. 

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

Jobs based Brexit has to involve single market, but Labours position is to agree with the tories on leaving it. Incoherent. Essentially what I mean is for them to say something like “our version of Brexit is for example Norway model , or remain or Swiss model or hard Brexit, or whatever line they see and analyse is the best way forward. And then to explain and present why.  So if they believe jobs, say, is the overriding factor, then say this means single market, and a recognition that immigration needs to be dealt with as the EU rules permit, but which we’ve never bothered to do up to this point. Single market also solves NI border problem. Say that the positives are this, the negatives are that.   Be open and honest and lead on the issue. Etc.

Again, I see what you mean, and there's some truth to what you say here. But their belief is that choosing one model of relationship and then arguing for that would be extremely limiting, since no currently existing 'off-the-peg' relationship would be particularly politically popular in the UK. And then round we go, back to my point that Labour care more about austerity than Brexit . . .

[blandy]

17 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Again, I see what you mean, and there's some truth to what you say here. But their belief is that choosing one model of relationship and then arguing for that would be extremely limiting, since no currently existing 'off-the-peg' relationship would be particularly politically popular in the UK. And then round we go, back to my point that Labour care more about austerity than Brexit . . .

More good points   on the bit quoted, though, I accept, maybe, that no off the peg version might be popular, but would argue that none of them have been really “presented” by any party as a potential solution, with the benefits and flaws being detailed. Plus, I think that a “version” of (say) Norway could be used. So for example present the border issue ( immigration/trade/loss of rights for UK travellers going to Europe on holiday or for work/Ireland/ massive queues for truck drivers and delays for car parts...&c. Make a case. And repeat for payments to the EU, for tax revenues and for things people can see as real to them and tell them a story .  Instead of which we have a remain v leave angry argument and no party with a remotely clear view on what to do. The politicians job is to sort out Brexit, and make it work. To provide the expertise and knowledge and judgement and present solutions. It’s not to spout slogans and lies.