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

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Pictures of Farage in a pub today.

Bellend hasn’t been back from the US for 2 weeks.

First day of pubs open and he’s skipped quarantine.

Clearly an alcoholic as well as a huge bellend.

 

The fine is the cheapest publicity he can buy

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think it's a useful frame to talk about three shadow frontbenchers talking about this topic as if they are members of the public giving vox pops on the street. They have had all week to work out a line on 'should the pubs be open, yes or no' and they conspicuously haven't agreed on one. This is not 'looking for something, anything, to criticise': people are having to go to work today because of this rule change. Many of those people will be BAME, or immunocompromised, or will live with people who are, and might be at greater risk of the virus.

Allin-Khan's tweet implies, as you said yourself, that people who know about the virus, doctors, immulogists and the rest, think it is not safe for pubs to be open. If she and they are right, then this decision could have serious negative consequences and if Labour think she is right, it is their moral duty to oppose the government, not with a 'well on the one hand this but on the other hand that' but simply and clearly. On the contrary, if the party think she is wrong, and that the risk is low, then it would help 'local businesses' a lot more if members of the shadow frontbench weren't implying otherwise on twitter. So they need to have a consistent answer to the question. 

To swing this around slightly though, you were arguing the complete opposite the other day when we were talking about Brexit and Labour policy. Those people going to the pub are also the voters that Labour needs to vote for them, the working class leavers. You appeared the other day to say that Labour was correct in chasing those votes, wheras I was saying they should have done the right thing and tried to educate those voters that they were wrong. Same applies here I would have thought, I think your criticism is valid but you appear to have completely changed tack from your argument the other day

Brexit - Labour should chase the leave votes, not try to persuade those people its the wrong opinion

Pubs opening after lockdown - Labour should be persuading these people that opening the pubs is wrong and not chase the votes of those going to the pub on opening day

I imagine theres a strong correlation between the two sets of voters too but thats not really relevant

Sorry but it seems to me that you are fitting the argument to suit your current narrative

I agree Labour should be doing pretty much as you say but why is it a completely different approach on this issue for you, in fact its the approach you were arguing against only the other day. The other day, you said Labour needed those voters, now seemingly they don't?

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

I agree Labour should be doing pretty much as you say but why is it a completely different approach on this issue for you, in fact its the approach you were arguing against only the other day. The other day, you said Labour needed those voters, now seemingly they don't?

I don't think the issues or situations are similar really, for several reasons:

1 - There's no election coming in the near future;

2 - There's no equivalent of a lost referendum on the issue, giving a higher legitimacy to the opposite opinion;

3 - Public opinion probably could have been won on this issue, as people's opinions are not entrenched by years of debate;

4 - The virus is a life and death issue, in an immediate sense.

Disagreements within parties happen often. They happen a lot with issues where people's fundamental political opinions are incompatible. But nobody has 'pubs should open only at an R of 0.5 not an R of 0.8' as a foundational political belief, in the way that they might about 'the result of a national referendum should be honoured'. Labour don't need to navigate that, they just need to understand the science as best they can and then argue what seems best. And they shouldn't worry about the politics overly, because 'they were three weeks late in demanding pubs open' is not going to be a live political issue in 2024.

[bickster]

37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't think the issues or situations are similar really, for several reasons:

1 - There's no election coming in the near future;

2 - There's no equivalent of a lost referendum on the issue, giving a higher legitimacy to the opposite opinion;

3 - Public opinion probably could have been won on this issue, as people's opinions are not entrenched by years of debate;

4 - The virus is a life and death issue, in an immediate sense.

Disagreements within parties happen often. They happen a lot with issues where people's fundamental political opinions are incompatible. But nobody has 'pubs should open only at an R of 0.5 not an R of 0.8' as a foundational political belief, in the way that they might about 'the result of a national referendum should be honoured'. Labour don't need to navigate that, they just need to understand the science as best they can and then argue what seems best. And they shouldn't worry about the politics overly, because 'they were three weeks late in demanding pubs open' is not going to be a live political issue in 2024.

Thanks for the response, I don't buy it but can't see the point in going on and on about it

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is the crux of our disagreement.

Sure.

Quote

I don't think it's a useful frame to talk about three shadow frontbenchers talking about this topic as if they are members of the public giving vox pops on the street. They have had all week to work out a line on 'should the pubs be open, yes or no' and they conspicuously haven't agreed on one.

Um

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's no election coming in the near future.

 

Quote

This is not 'looking for something, anything, to criticise': people are having to go to work today because of this rule change. Many of those people will be BAME, or immunocompromised, or will live with people who are, and might be at greater risk of the virus.

Some people are more at risk than others. All people can choose whether or not to go to work, or the pub for that matter, based on their circumstances. Immuno-compromised people do not have to work right now. It's not relevant to the pubs. There are two sides that have to be weighed up - the people struggling to pay rents, buy food etc - low paid workers like pub workers, for example. And there is the health issue. Whether it's the Gov't or Labour or Pub owners and landlords, these thing have to be weighed up. It's far from the case that all the pubs are open, just those that want to. Where they either can't make the "Safe arrangements" due to space, or whatever, and where the staff or owners don't want to open, they haven't.

Quote

Allin-Khan's tweet implies, as you said yourself, that people who know about the virus, doctors, immulogists and the rest, think it is not safe for pubs to be open.

No. My reasoning there is that I've heard many health workers speak in the media on this, and they're worried that the workload as a consequence of people getting leathered, together with the presence of the virus, still, would have been better dealt with by opening the pubs on a weekday. Further Allin-Khan didn't say they shouldn't be open, she said she (and others) wouldn't be going. I suspect she thinks opening them today was wrong, but she's not said why. It's OK to have a view, it doesn't have to perfectly match the Labour calls, which as far as I recall have been for the Gov't to publish detailed plans in advance, so people and businesses have time to follow them, to make their shops and hairdressers and pubs safe, and so on. The exact timing of today - it's OK to think monday would have been better, but it's inconsequential, when as you say there's no election for 4 years.

The key question will be an after the event one, where "was it safe" gets analysed. Labour is smart not to have ridden a horse there. IF it was safe, then no damage. If it wasn't, then the Government cops the flack, and Labour staying out of it leaves them free to criticise on the implementation and timing, as they have with schools. It's the tories job, as Government to manage all this, not Labour's. Labour's job is to analyse, ask questions, point out areas for improvement, mistakes and so on, not to have a completely different plan for the sake of it.

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Disagreements within parties happen often. They happen a lot with issues where people's fundamental political opinions are incompatible. But nobody has 'pubs should open only at an R of 0.5 not an R of 0.8' as a foundational political belief, in the way that they might about 'the result of a national referendum should be honoured'. Labour don't need to navigate that, they just need to understand the science as best they can and then argue what seems best. And they shouldn't worry about the politics overly, because 'they were three weeks late in demanding pubs open' is not going to be a live political issue in 2024.

That's the point. Disgreements and differing views on relative minutiae happen. It's not that Labour, (to use your quote) "Don't know what they're doing...ostentatiously having every possible position on an issue" it's that there are possibly slightly different views on something about which there is no definitive principle (leave v Remain) and no exact indication to measure the facts against and decide what to do. Labour shouldn't worry about a day or two here or there, or whether their Medic background person is more cautious than their economy background person - you'd expect that, and want that - the same will apply in Gov't you'd hope. 

On the lack of data @choffer posted this tweet in the virus thread and it's dead right and references the pub issue.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Some people are more at risk than others. All people can choose whether or not to go to work, or the pub for that matter, based on their circumstances. Immuno-compromised people do not have to work right now. It's not relevant to the pubs.

That's the problem with viruses though. It doesn't matter whether I have chosen to go to the pub, or do any other particularly dangerous thing, if my wife or someone in my household or my carer or anyone I come into contact with for an extended period of time has done so, or knows someone who has done so, and on and on. This can't be put down to a matter of 'people can choose'.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's far from the case that all the pubs are open, just those that want to. Where they either can't make the "Safe arrangements" due to space, or whatever, and where the staff or owners don't want to open, they haven't.

I mean I hope you're right, I guess I'm less optimistic that landlords and pub co's will have all done their homework on this, and I doubt that *staff* get any meaningful say whatsoever.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No. My reasoning there is that I've heard many health workers speak in the media on this, and they're worried that the workload as a consequence of people getting leathered, together with the presence of the virus, still, would have been better dealt with by opening the pubs on a weekday. Further Allin-Khan didn't say they shouldn't be open, she said she (and others) wouldn't be going. I suspect she thinks opening them today was wrong, but she's not said why. It's OK to have a view, it doesn't have to perfectly match the Labour calls, which as far as I recall have been for the Gov't to publish detailed plans in advance, so people and businesses have time to follow them, to make their shops and hairdressers and pubs safe, and so on. The exact timing of today - it's OK to think monday would have been better, but it's inconsequential, when as you say there's no election for 4 years.

What you've said there is reasonable, but I think we're talking about different things. The question of timing is irrelevant to the politics, sure - we both agree that none of this is going to matter in 2024. But it isn't irrelevant to the public health. And that's what I want them to have an opinion on, and be basing their arguments on - is the balance of risks, as you delineate them, between viral transmission in enclosed indoor spaces and the economic consequences of not opening pubs such that it is worth opening pubs?

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The key question will be an after the event one, where "was it safe" gets analysed. Labour is smart not to have ridden a horse there. IF it was safe, then no damage. If it wasn't, then the Government cops the flack, and Labour staying out of it leaves them free to criticise on the implementation and timing, as they have with schools. It's the tories job, as Government to manage all this, not Labour's. Labour's job is to analyse, ask questions, point out areas for improvement, mistakes and so on, not to have a completely different plan for the sake of it.

I'm not asking them to have a different policy for the sake of it. Where the Tory policy is good, sure, support it. But the Conservatives are the party of capital; when push comes to shove, they will focus on the interests of capital (in this case, landlords, pub co's and brewers) not the interests of labour (staff). They will also want the state to spend less money where possible. Often those interests will diverge, and when they do, Labour should support the interests of labour. In this case, people have been and are being effectively forced back to work, some of them willingly and some, doubtless much less so. I want them to focus on the safety of bar staff in pubs and teachers in schools for the same reason I wanted them to focus on PPE for hospital staff in March. The people with most at stake for the question of 'are pubs safe to open', and more specifically 'is this pub safe to open' are not the customers so much as the people working there all day.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

On the lack of data @choffer posted this tweet in the virus thread and it's dead right and references the pub issue.

 

 

I have read that thread, and I think he makes some good and fair points. But we have a thread for the virus, which to be fair I have not been shy about contributing in for the last five months or so. The Conservatives are the government and they are in charge of the response; the response has been largely shit, and I have said so repeatedly in that thread. But I haven't been particularly impressed with Labour's response either. Since they're not the government, I'm not clogging up that thread  with my moans, but I think they could have handled their response to the Tories better in several ways, one of which being that they keep disagreeing with each other in public. I think we've established that we just don't see that the same way at this point.

[HanoiVillan]

Worth stressing this polling is terrible for the Tories as well, but the Tories can easily win elections without winning seats in Scotland; Labour, on the other hand . . .

 

[Wainy316]

I would imagine the next Labour prime minister would have to be the head of a Labour/SNP coalition.  

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

I would imagine the next Labour prime minister would have to be the head of a Labour/SNP coalition.  

Probably nothing as formal as that, but likely agreement from the SNP to back or abstain on any Labour policy affecting the other parts of the UK in exchange for a new independence referendum. 

You'd also think that if ever Labour + Lib Dems outnumber Conservatives again, they'll hammer through some sort proportional representation to insure themselves against the future lack of SNP Westminster presence, without which a Conservative majority is much easier. 

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

I would imagine the next Labour prime minister would have to be the head of a Labour/SNP coalition.  

I think that is what most people have assumed for a while, but there is no carrot for the SNP to join a coalition that doesn't promise an independence referendum, and no reason for English voters who don't want a government in hock to the SNP to forget that.

It is frankly hard to see a way out of this trap for Labour, barring a catastrophe causing such a large collapse in the Tory vote that the average English voter recognises that Labour will win an election even without Scotland.

[HanoiVillan]

34 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Probably nothing as formal as that, but likely agreement from the SNP to back or abstain on any Labour policy affecting the other parts of the UK in exchange for a new independence referendum. 

You'd also think that if ever Labour + Lib Dems outnumber Conservatives again, they'll hammer through some sort proportional representation to insure themselves against the future lack of SNP Westminster presence, without which a Conservative majority is much easier. 

I might be misunderstanding your point, but do you mean 'Scottish Westminster presence' here?

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I might be misunderstanding your point, but do you mean 'Scottish Westminster presence' here?

Sort of. Although in the current (and indeed foreseeable) climate, the SNP presence basically  = Scottish Westminster presence. 

Obviously if the next election sees massive Conservative gains in Scotland then the Scottish presence isn't an impediment (in fact, May couldn't have formed a Government without the Scottish Tory gains)

To clarify my point that you've quoted, if the price that Labour have to pay to govern is the potential loss of Scotland and its MPs, they need to find an alternative way while they are governming to prevent endless future Tory majorities. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

To clarify my point that you've quoted, if the price that Labour have to pay to govern is the potential loss of Scotland and its MPs, they need to find an alternative way while they are governming to prevent endless future Tory majorities. 

Yes, I agree with this, and in practical terms, that means proportional representation. The problem for that, I suppose, is that recent precedent is for referendums to be held for changes to the voting system (and other constitutional matters) and I don't think Labour would win a referendum about proportional representation, with the entire media portraying it (not without some justification) as self-dealing.

[darrenm]

Really interesting reading the last 20 or so pages to see how people on here have seen the past 6 months compared to lefty Twitter.

I'm no longer a Labour member. I supported Starmer for leader but his recent actions have turned me off and I can't support his lack of action when dealing with antisemitism.

2015 until now has been a mad old time in politics.

[HanoiVillan]

52 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Really interesting reading the last 20 or so pages to see how people on here have seen the past 6 months compared to lefty Twitter.

I'm no longer a Labour member. I supported Starmer for leader but his recent actions have turned me off and I can't support his lack of action when dealing with antisemitism.

2015 until now has been a mad old time in politics.

Welcome back Darren, nice to see you on here again

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I supported Starmer ... I can't support his lack of action when dealing with antisemitism.

I'm curious,  what would you like to have seen?

Edited July 20, 2020 by ml1dch

[darrenm]

10 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'm curious,  what would you like to have seen?

Rachel Reeves sacked (actually, not promoted to the shadow cabinet in the first place) for praising the Nazi sympathiser and antisemite Nancy Astor which she still hasn't apologised for.

Iain McNicol thrown out of the party for intentionally sitting on antisemitism cases to undermine the leadership.

Zero tolerance should be just that. Not tolerance when they're on your side and you happen to avoid a media circus.

[ml1dch]

41 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Rachel Reeves sacked (actually, not promoted to the shadow cabinet in the first place) for praising the Nazi sympathiser and antisemite Nancy Astor which she still hasn't apologised for.

Iain McNicol thrown out of the party for intentionally sitting on antisemitism cases to undermine the leadership.

Zero tolerance should be just that. Not tolerance when they're on your side and you happen to avoid a media circus.

Fair enough.

I'm not going to lie and claim to have read Reeves' book, but given it's a history of women in Parliament,  it would be odd if she didn't find something to praise. As I've said, I've not read it so I don't know if she left out all the bad stuff. But I'd expect a biography to cover the good and the bad.

Plus, I guess it comes down to how many degrees of separation counts as zero tolerance. Jeremy Corbyn said that he was "really pleased" when the Astor statue was erected. I wouldn't say that's enough smoke to warrant expulsion, but zero tolerance is zero tolerance. 

McNicol I expect can have few complaints if he leaves the party at the end of the investigation if what seems pretty clear to be true, is true.

[darrenm]

54 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Jeremy Corbyn said that he was "really pleased" when the Astor statue was erected.

I'll be honest, I never knew he said that. I think that was poor judgement.

It's weird because Corbyn got slated for writing a foreword in a reprint of a book from 1902 because it had some antisemitic text. I'm not sure why what Astor said is 'OK' and neither Corbyn nor Reeves got heat for expressing support. 

[ml1dch]

 

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by ml1dch