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

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Indeed. These are some not good ideas:

The leader of the 'horribly divided' party would be in the media, knocking Tory incompetence off the top of the news, making bold claims on a divisive issue that would inevitably infuriate many people within his party whatever they were, in the week before party conference.

He should allow the media to accuse him of asking the devolved assemblies to stop Brexit. 

He should allow the creation of a government of national unity, which would inevitably sideline both him personally and Labour generally, and allow Theresa May to bestride British politics like **** Winston Churchill.

None of us are political strategists, but if these are the best alternatives to his current course of action, it's not worth changing course. 

 

I dunno what Chiles said - I've heard nothing. Anyway, because I'm not a party supporter the way I look at it is IDGAF about what any party looks like, I am more bothered about what happens to the country.

To me, Tories are horribly divided and the media has said so for years. Ditto Labour. Neither have a good look. Neither is doing anything remotely positive to stop things getting worse. It'll carry on being like that unless they change, the parties change. They won't they're getting more fractious, both of them.

If Labour was to take the initiative, instead of hiding, and if they were to say, "yes, the tories are divided, we're divided, the country is divided, the Union (UK nations) is divided - we all have to recognise this and work across party and Parliament lines to reconcile what's best for the UK as a whole, not what's best for the tory party, or Labour, or England, then I think the one thing that the majority want, which is some genuine leadership and unentrenched thinking and action could be instigated by Labour, and could benefit them and turn them from Jeremy's 1970s throwback pro Russian, anti-semitic, bumblers (in many people's eyes) into "actually, at least they're acting like grown ups, trying to sort things out, trying to lead in everyone's interests, not Boris/Theresa/Eileen's nutters.

 

[VILLAMARV]

They're all in it together

[peterms]

30 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't see how they are in or get in to a position where they can 'force' anything.

By what mechanism do they get to force an election?

An early election would be expected if the government lost a vote on an issue so significant that it couldn't realistically carry on.  In this context, that would be the form of Brexit they propose to parliament.

If instead of looking for a clear choice and vote on that, Labour chose to pursue a path which allowed the government to paper over the deep divisions in its own ranks, for example by a "government of national unity" approach, they would have given up the opportunity of removing the government.

There are good arguments in favour of a second referendum, but a big disadvantage for Labour is that the government would choose the form of question which is put, which would mean the scope for seeing it as a confidence vote in the government would be reduced.

Of course the tory divisions may be so deep that nothing could prevent the government collapsing in any event, but Labour's job is certainly not to prop them up and help them stumble along.

[magnkarl]

On 20/09/2018 at 22:24, OutByEaster? said:

I agree to an extent, there's a huge danger in confusing opposition to the Israeli regime with a dislike of Jewish people, communities, culture and history. It's good to see groups of the Jewish community coming out and condemning Israel as we've seen a bit more of lately, that helps - it helps people understand that there are two very different issues in play. 

For your own part Magnkarl, it's clear that you're personally affected by rising anti-semitic sentiment in all parts of British politics. I support you in that, no party should foster anti-semitic beliefs, just as no party should foster racist beliefs or any kind, whether that be on the basis of colour, religion or culture. I disagree with you on the extent to which that sentiment actually exists within the labour party and the degree to which it's manufactured for political gain, but like you, I believe the ideal extent of it is nothing at all and am supportive of the Labour parties clumsy attempts to tackle it - those still need work, hopefully other parties will follow suit.

What I'm interested in is your opinion on the other part of the issue, the bit that's important to separate from anti-semitic feeling; the current Israeli regime and it's appalling crimes - what are your thoughts on Netanyahu and his government?

 

To me Israel is not important when it comes to how some of our British politicians act. Basic human dignity is not down to Israel foreign policy. The whole concept is a hot mess amplified by certain people supporting each side, fueling the conflict and not helping at all (ie. Corbyn laying a wreath at someone's grave who organised killing of people at the Olympic Games, Trump moving his embassy etc). However I don't think anyone in Europe has the right to say that Israel shouldn't exist. It's not exactly the Jews that chose the place, and neither is it Israel's fault that they've been invaded and rocketed more times than any other country in the "Western" world since it's inception after the second world war.

Frankly if the UK was invaded like that by our neighbours we'd also be extremely defensive and aggressive. Netanyahu is a word removed, and he's got dwindling support in his own country. Just like we had UKIP, Germany has Alternative für Deutschland and Sweden has Sverigedemokratarna we're in a time where populist, right wing parties can do serious damage to human values. Does it make me hate Israel as a country? No. Does it make me question why they've got a far right idiot as a leader? Sure. My country is not Israel though, and it shouldn't be the first topic I get asked by Labour supporters just because I'm Jewish. I care about what happens in my country where I've lived my whole life, and not so much about what happens in Israel.

If we had a superpower in Europe calling for the UK to be utterly annihilated in their weekly prayer (like Iran does to Israel), as well as Iran funded groups (Hamas, Hezbollah) constantly attacking us from all angles I think our tone would be much different than what it is. Iran does not give a crap about Palestine, all it cares about  is keeping their status as one of the two dominating countries in the middle east. 

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

An early election would be expected if the government lost a vote on an issue so significant that it couldn't realistically carry on.

It doesn't matter whether it 'would be expected', does it?

The mechanism by which we get to an election is not just like it was, i.e. a 'significant' vote is seen as a vote of no confidence in the government and the government falls and an election is called.

The loss of a(n actual) confidence vote in the government does not lead directly to an election according to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. In order to go from losing a vote on an issue so significant to an early election would require either effectively bypassing the processes in the Act again or the Tories throwing the parcel over to the opposition benches and saying, "Here, let's see how stupid you look in the next 14 days."

All of this whilst the clock is ticking.

I don't see it happening but it may do. I'm yet to see someone actually spell out how they think it will happen (step by step), the timescale they imagine for it all and how this would actually fit in with the 'negotiations' taking place, March next year and the rest of it.

Edited September 22, 2018 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

27 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It doesn't matter whether it 'would be expected', does it?

The mechanism by which we get to an election is not just like it was, i.e. a 'significant' vote is seen as a vote of no confidence in the government and the government falls and an election is called.

The loss of a(n actual) confidence vote in the government does not lead directly to an election according to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. In order to go from losing a vote on an issue so significant to an early election would require either effectively bypassing the processes in the Act again or the Tories throwing the parcel over to the opposition benches and saying, "Here, let's see how stupid you look in the next 14 days."

All of this whilst the clock is ticking.

I don't see it happening but it may do. I;m yet to see someone actually spell out how they think it will happen (step by step), the timescale they imagine and how this would actually fit in with the 'negotiations' taking place, March next year and the rest of it.

You're right about the FTPA as I understand it, but we may be entering slightly uncharted territory. What happens, for example, if May cannot win votes in Parliament on Brexit, but wins one or more votes of confidence within the Conservative party? 

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're right about the FTPA as I understand it, but we may be entering slightly uncharted territory. What happens, for example, if May cannot win votes in Parliament on Brexit, but wins one or more votes of confidence within the Conservative party? 

I don't know. That's what I would like those who are talking about an early (by which I mean in time to make a difference - which does not mean reverse but at the very least make sure it's not no deal - to leaving the EU in March next year) election to flesh out.

I really don't think it's enough to view it the old circumstances of convention even allowing for them sidestepping the FTPA last time.

This time it would be on the back of the government losing so the government may not be as keen as they were when they (and most of us, to be fair) thought they were going to get a landslide.

I'll reiterate my proviso about trying to predict things but I genuinely think that we'd be more likely to have a new Conservative PM in place (understanding that this is not a short process) than an early (as above) election.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

This time it would be on the back of the government losing so the government may not be as keen as they were when they (and most of us, to be fair) thought they were going to get a landslide.

And this is key. With the two-third majority needed, it's easy for a Conservative MP to vote for a snap election when their party is twenty points ahead in the polls, but amidst the shambles of the current administration and the expectation that they might lose their seat, why would they vote for that when they can just sit tight until 2022? 

[HanoiVillan]

I agree with all of the skepticism re the possibility of another election, and I don't think it will happen. I just wouldn't feel confident ruling anything out right now, when we're in completely uncharted waters. 

[peterms]

5 hours ago, snowychap said:

I don't know. That's what I would like those who are talking about an early (by which I mean in time to make a difference - which does not mean reverse but at the very least make sure it's not no deal - to leaving the EU in March next year) election to flesh out. 

The timetable of March seems unrealistic.  I'm assuming that all parties will vary the timetable in order to reduce the chaos.  There have been hints to this effect.

5 hours ago, snowychap said:

I really don't think it's enough to view it the old circumstances of convention even allowing for them sidestepping the FTPA last time. 

Yes, conventions about ministers and governments resigning have changed, in the direction of "I'll just carry on, and brazen it out".  But it may become politically impossible for the governmenf to carry on, depemding on the breadth and depth of opposition to whatever May tries to push through.   In that situation, waht the FTPA says becomes a little academic.  Possibly.

[ml1dch]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

In that situation, waht the FTPA says becomes a little academic.  Possibly.

Not really. 

It still requires at least a hundred Conservative MPs (not a section of society known for acting outside their own self-interest) to say "I want to open myself up to the strong possibility of unnecessary unemployment"

Edit - actually I'm wrong. A vote of no-confidence just needs a simple majority to pass and isn't trumped by the FTPA. So that makes the maths a bit easier, although I'd argue still not likely.

Edited September 23, 2018 by ml1dch

[ml1dch]

36 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Not really. 

It still requires at least a hundred Conservative MPs (not a section of society known for acting outside their own self-interest) to say "I want to open myself up to the strong possibility of unnecessary unemployment"

Edit - actually I'm wrong. A vote of no-confidence just needs a simple majority to pass and isn't trumped by the FTPA. So that makes the maths a bit easier, although I'd argue still not likely.

So, war-gaming from there. 

Let's say Labour conference adopts the second referendum (as appears likely) as policy.

Somehow the above happens, and Corbyn forms a minority Government backed up by the Lib Dems, SNP and the handful of second referendum Tories on the proviso that they stick with their second referendum pledge (bollocks to the People's Vote nomenclature)

Quickly negotiate the obviously terrible deal, hold a referendum on that deal vs withdrawing Article 50 and "reforming the EU from the inside". That passes, withdrawal act is repealed.

Labour hold a new general election having "sorted Brexit when the Tories couldn't", Labour are united(ish) again and swoop to a hundred seat majority.

Fanciful perhaps, but eventually there will be a way found through this quagmire.

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by ml1dch

[bickster]

On 21/09/2018 at 19:11, peterms said:

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. 

Not particularly aimed at you Peter but this oft-quoted line that I believe started with the risible Barry the Gardener is a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte

A man that got routed by the power of a combined Europe

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Not particularly aimed at you Peter but this oft-quoted line that I believe started with the risible Barry the Gardener is a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte

A man that got routed by the power of a combined Europe

Also, if the mistake that your enemy is making is driving a bus containing you and your family off a cliff, interrupting him is probably still the best course of action.

[bickster]

Oh and I don't get why people have fallen for Corbyn's drivel again

Corbyn has said he'll abide by the conference decision if it decides that a 2nd referendum should be campaigned for but he also said something along the lines of... "The most preferable thing however would be a General Election where we would go straight to the negotiating table and get a better deal"

No - F*** Off!

If you changed the manifesto to an abandon Brexit one and won a general election with it, you wouldn't have to have a second referendum you disingenuous pillock.

If Labour do adopt a 2nd Ref position, please don't let this prat anywhere near the campaigning for it

[ml1dch]

This could be concerning:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/09/23/this-is-how-the-labour-leadership-could-kill-the-people-s-vo

Second half of the article:

Quote

 

So you'll have a bunch of people in the room. A minority might be against a People's Vote, and will therefore quite easily congregate around a motion saying that. A majority will be for it. The task will be to narrow their demands down into a few motions.

This is where the leadership can employ some pretty dirty tactics. One favoured approach is to encourage the most radical and extreme individuals in the camp you want to defeat. These guys then meld their proposals with the more reasonable ones, but it still gives you a much clearer target than if it was just the credible delegates putting it together.

The composite motion is put out and the leadership releases all these reasonable-sounding arguments to attack it. They have created the argument they thought would be easiest to kill. In the days which follow, you'll hear fair-minded delegates saying things like: "Well I wanted to vote for this, but it has this major weakness." They won't know that the process was rigged to create exactly this thought.

The leadership is probably aiming to come out of that meeting with three motions: one which is anti-People's Vote, one which is pro-People's Vote, but ideally as wild and weak as possible, and another which looks like a compromise agreement. This would probably say something like: We do not rule out a second referendum and are prepared to hold one, but only if and when we fail to secure another general election.

This is in line with the message put out by Corbyn and McDonnell in the days running up to conference. In reality, it makes no sense. Labour is supporting Brexit, so another general election does not provide anything like what a second referendum on EU membership would. And it would of course be in the eye of the beholder when that secondary policy would be triggered, given that we're not expecting a general election anytime before Brexit Day. It would look like a compromise, carefully framed between two extreme positions, but in reality it would just neutralise the People's Vote campaign.

We won't know much about what happens in that meeting. The whole process is shrouded in secrecy. But it's likely that this is Corbyn's tactic: say you'll support party democracy, then get to work behind the scenes, in the technical arena of the party management system, and kill off members' opportunity to have it.

It might work. Or it might not. Local Labour parties have been bloodied by the battle to get this far. They have faced down Momentum and their arguments over and over again. The organisations behind this campaign, like Best for Britain, have been working according to a deliberate, well-thought-out strategy. And the democratic push is extraordinary. Members have shown, in a way which the leadership simply cannot ignore, that the Labour grassroots is demanding opposition to Brexit.

Tonight we find out whether they can get past that final hurdle. It could go either way.

 

 

[sharkyvilla]

Out of interest, why is it being called a People's Vote rather than a referendum?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Also, if the mistake that your enemy is making is driving a bus containing you and your family off a cliff, interrupting him is probably still the best course of action.

I suspect he didn't think it necessary to spell out "a mistake to your advantage".  Sloppy on his part.

[peterms]

30 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

This could be concerning:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/09/23/this-is-how-the-labour-leadership-could-kill-the-people-s-vo

Second half of the article:

 

He's suggesting that the people who don't want a second referendum can stitch up the compositing by encouraging the most extreme elements of the group they want to defeat, so they end up with an extreme motion which will be more likely to be defeated.

This seems to suggest that those proposing another referendum are idiots, and very easily swayed.  That seems a little uncharitable.

Also, though I've never attended a compositing meeting, my understanding was that the composite motion was determined by those who had proposed similar motions getting together and agreeing a form of words, not by their opponents "encouraging" the most easily defeated line to be adopted by them.

What he means by this encouragement is not made clear.  Applause?  Smiles and winks across the room?  Hastily scrawled notes of appreciation passed under the table?  Some idea of the transmission mechanism between the dastardly intent of the naysayers and the eventual form of words would be helpful here.

His point about the chances of a compromise emerging is stronger.

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

Out of interest, why is it being called a People's Vote rather than a referendum?

Optics. Apparently people hate the idea of having the same thing repeated, but stick "people's" in front of it to make them feel like they have agency and apparently it's a great idea.

It's the sort of bollocks that the leave campaign used to con people. "Take back control", "our money, our borders, our laws" etc.

Depressing that that's the way the world is. But apparently it is.

Edited September 23, 2018 by ml1dch