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

[bickster]

Just now, sharkyvilla said:

I read rumours on here particularly that Labour had worked on an alternative withdrawal bill with the EU should they come to power.  I assume that wasnt the case or else it would have come up more in the campaign.  It would have been useful to have more clarity on what a Labour Brexit would have meant.

It would have been a jobs first Brexit, come on wake up every knows they were going to have a jobs first withdrawal agreement and future relationship and then they were going to campaign against the agreement they'd agreed iin the referendum they were going to have.

Couldn't be clearer

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I read rumours on here particularly that Labour had worked on an alternative withdrawal bill with the EU should they come to power.  I assume that wasnt the case or else it would have come up more in the campaign.  It would have been useful to have more clarity on what a Labour Brexit would have meant.

It's fairly likely that they had the outline of a deal agreed with the EU. Labour had met with Barnier a few times, and it was pretty evident that their proposed deal was going to be more of the Norway than anything else. I doubt they had anything set in stone to be able to announce though.

Their final Brexit position kept being ridiculed by all and sundry, which was never they took far too long to get there, but what they ultimately got to was pretty sensible.

But it was fronted by Corbyn, so, you know, it was worse than the Black Death.

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Their final Brexit position kept being ridiculed by all and sundry, which was never they took far too long to get there, but what they ultimately got to was pretty sensible

Each to their own etc. But to me it was risible. The effect it had was to make Leavers think they were remainers ("FFS another referendum, we already told you"), and remainers think they were leavers ("FFS, negotiate a different lead deal, yeah, right"). It prevented enough remainers down South from backing them and lost a load of Leavers up North.

Their "policy" was the inevitable result of a fudge between the ones who wanted to remain Abbott, McDonnell, Starmer etc) and those who wanted to leave (Corbyn, McLuskey, Milne). They'd have been better off just going for one thing or the other, at least they could have committedly argued for it. As it was they had a policy that none of them could credibly, or did credibly, defend or explain to either voters on the street, or media interviewers. The major fumbling point they always got to was (IMO) 

Q. To Labour "So you're going to renegotiate what's already taken 2 years of work with the EU to get to in a handful of months and then, you're going to hold a referendum on that unlikely deal, but not actually recommend it to the people, but remain "neutral", and you expect a population sick of Brexit and all the shenanigans to treat that as a clear way out of the mess".

A. Er, well, Emily...

Q. To Tories "So you're going to proceed with the deal you've negotiated, which will damage trade and NHS staffing...".

A. "We must honour the referendum result we promised to adhere to and get Brexit done - this nation is a proud one and can stand on its own 2 feet."

There's only one winner, there.

 

[Chindie]

Evidently.

[blandy]

 

[bickster]

There's no evidence at all that a other referendum would achieve a different result, absolutely none, apart from every bit of evidence there is. That table just says it very loudly

Milne, Corbyn and McLusky completely stuffed it up, even in conference when it was abundantly clear the membership was pro-remain, they managed to fudge it in composite. Starmer came out of the composite fuming, he was absolutely right to be fuming too

[Jareth]

Labour has a big problem, it needs the centre and the left to agree on a new leader, that leader can't be from a London constituency, and probably needs to be female. That said, I can see the attraction in Starmer,  but up against Boris? It's clear the electorate can stomach serious character flaws if they give the man a personality - but he'd walk over Starmer in an election of personalities, which is what we now do at elections.  Boris Vs a strong woman? Well I think that's a fight worth watching...

So to the above criteria, for the centre it's Cooper and Nandy, for the left its Long-Bailey and Rayner. One of each in leader and deputy leader positions seems a good idea to me. 

[peterms]

9 hours ago, blandy said:

Their "policy" was the inevitable result of a fudge between the ones who wanted to remain Abbott, McDonnell, Starmer etc) and those who wanted to leave (Corbyn, McLuskey, Milne). They'd have been better off just going for one thing or the other, at least they could have committedly argued for it.

It's hard to see how that could have been achieved, or why it would make sense.  More than any other party, Labour supporters were a mix of leave and remain.  Its members were more remainers, especially the ones making more use of public platforms and social media. Its MPs included many who thought that coming down as unreservedly leave would cost them their seats, and others thinking the same about remain (and both groups were right).

The idea that a party should be either leave or remain, and be unqualified in that position, may appeal to people who have that view themselves, but for Labour, it would have been self-destructive; even more so than what happened.  As it is, we see the impact on the northern leave-leaning constituencies from Labour having tried to accommodate the "second referendum" lobby, which seems to have left a lot of voters thinking that the position of "respect the result" had been ditched.

In that position, a policy of saying "if you want to leave we will leave, but not on the terms offered by Johnson; and if having seen the best that can be negotiated without the red lines you instead want to remain, we'll do that" makes sense.  It is also a coherent position, despite the fatuous shite in the media about it being incomprehensible.

[Davkaus]

I'd want Starmer or Benn. 

Clearly the best of the bunch for me, but the woke hive mind seems determined to ensure it's a woman that gets the role rather than just the best leadership candidate.

It's an interesting strategy, let's see how they're feeling after 19 years of Conservative government. Might be a vegan's turn for that one. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

In that position, a policy of saying "if you want to leave we will leave, but not on the terms offered by Johnson; and if having seen the best that can be negotiated without the red lines you instead want to remain, we'll do that" makes sense. 

To you it does. To many, including me It absolutely doesn't, and saying Corbyn will be neutral on his own deal, just looks pathetic - like "I can't even trust myself to come up with something I can recommend".

We're now talking after the event, of course, but losing 2 million remain voters and 400,000 leave voters suggests that the path they chose alienated both sets, but particularly the majority being remainers, they just had an unconvincing mess of a policy. They oscillated between definite leave (under a [never gonna happen] jobs-first Labour deal, to then, under vast pressure from their members who wanted them to back a second referendum  - no ifs, no buts, to then this fudge, which was confusing - negotiate a deal you won't support? what? Vote for that? eff off, you clowns.

There's no ideal, "please everyone" policy on Brexit. But theirs was a please no-one policy. They deserved to get thrashed. Badly organised, in-fighting, led by a pillock, run by a cult of insular, cushioned, London revolutionaries and Len the utter disgrace.

[hippo]

Just seen Lisa Mandy talking about empowering local constituency parties - which is great - but is just handing power to momentum.

[peterms]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

 

This is a table constructed with a specific conclusion in mind, and we should view it like that rather than as objective.

The election was largely about Brexit, but certainly not only about that, and presenting the votes as being about that issue is misleading.  On a personal level, despite being a Green member, I voted SNP as the best way to unseat the Libdem, because the SNP would enter some post-election arrangement with Labour and the LIbdems would not, and that seemed the best available outcome.  My vote is being claimed as support for remain, and support for Scottish independence; it was neither.  There will be many others who voted for reasons other than simply Brexit.

Beyond that, demographics suggest that those leaving the regsiter through death will have been more leavers, and those coming on to the register more remainers, so you would expect a shift on the leave-remain axis for that reason alone.

Then of course there's the question of how votes actually moved, which the net figures can't show.  The fall in Labour support, for example, will be a combination of switching to each of the other parties in differing degrees, staying at home, dying, offset by new recruits.  A proper analysis of this would be interesting, but the crude figures don't tell us much.

So where he says that discussion must be based on facts, I agree, but his simple conclusion isn't the simple fact that he presents it as.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

They deserved to get thrashed. Badly organised, in-fighting, led by a pillock, run by a cult of insular, cushioned, London revolutionaries and Len the utter disgrace

And a very good morning to you too, sir. 

 

[hippo]

If you wanted to stop Brexit - it had to be via a 2nd referendum . Indeed the lib Dems offer just to halt Brexit was not taken up by the electorate.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Starmer is the standout but the 'it must be a woman' meme is very worryingly gaining traction. 

[Chindie]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

To you it does. To many, including me It absolutely doesn't, and saying Corbyn will be neutral on his own deal, just looks pathetic - like "I can't even trust myself to come up with something I can recommend".

We're now talking after the event, of course, but losing 2 million remain voters and 400,000 leave voters suggests that the path they chose alienated both sets, but particularly the majority being remainers, they just had an unconvincing mess of a policy. They oscillated between definite leave (under a [never gonna happen] jobs-first Labour deal, to then, under vast pressure from their members who wanted them to back a second referendum  - no ifs, no buts, to then this fudge, which was confusing - negotiate a deal you won't support? what? Vote for that? eff off, you clowns.

There's no ideal, "please everyone" policy on Brexit. But theirs was a please no-one policy. They deserved to get thrashed. Badly organised, in-fighting, led by a pillock, run by a cult of insular, cushioned, London revolutionaries and Len the utter disgrace.

[hippo]

2 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Starmer is the standout but the 'it must be a woman' meme is very worryingly gaining traction. 

Yep RLB now favourite with bookies

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Starmer is the standout but the 'it must be a woman' meme is very worryingly gaining traction. 

He could simply self-identify.  Problem solved.

[Davkaus]

Think Diane fancies a go? 

[Dr_Pangloss]

7 minutes ago, hippo said:

Yep RLB now favourite with bookies

I find this simultaneously hilarious and tragic. She's a world class idiot but will continue Corbyn's pathetic legacy and is a woman so boxes ticked for the Momentum morons.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss