Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

I'm fine with that. From a political point of view it would just come across as trying to re-fight lost battles. Obviously the no extension is daft, but by not challenging it, and saying hold the government to account it will force the govt to actually get it done, they can't play the victim and say the opposition are trying to undermine them (even with a 80 seat majority, playing the siege mentality always seems to be a popular approach with these dickheads). The onus and the responsibility will all be on the government. If they can't do it, they can't drop it at Labour's door.

The other reality is that that majority means there is very little any opposition could actually do, to influence the extension. What is the value in rallying all the remainers to shout into the wind about this? It won't get anywhere sadly, so would just be losing political good will for no reason. If there was a chance it could actually work, then that would be a different matter, but it won't. 

Edited by Rodders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, it's pathetic. The guy was Shadow Brexit Secretary for years. It is inconceivable that he doesn't have an opinion on whether or not there should be an extension. If his style of 'leadership' is going to be 'I'm going for a four-year snooze, wake me up if anything happens', this is going to be a both a hard four years and will leave such a despondent opposition at the end of it that they won't have the energy to fight the Tories.

EDIT: I also wonder whether if Jeremy Corbyn had been leader and saying *exactly the same thing*, the same posters would be insisting that it was a tactical masterstroke, or would they be telling me that it was evidence he was a Secret Leaver All Along? I mean, I say 'wonder', but.

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the contrary, it's pathetic. The guy was Shadow Brexit Secretary for years. It is inconceivable that he doesn't have an opinion on whether or not there should be an extension. If his style of 'leadership' is going to be 'I'm going for a four-year snooze, wake me up if anything happens', this is going to be a both a hard four years and will leave such a despondent opposition at the end of it that they won't have the energy to fight the Tories.

EDIT: I also wonder whether if Jeremy Corbyn had been leader and saying *exactly the same thing*, the same posters would be insisting that it was a tactical masterstroke, or would they be telling me that it was evidence he was a Secret Leaver All Along? I mean, I say 'wonder', but.

Labour did pretty terribly when their leader was doing thing the way you thought they should be done. Seems like their best chance of success is doing the opposite of what HanoiVillan suggests 😀

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends when he says it, before an election, sure, challenge it. In the current circumstances, it just seems the kind of position that would be hard to gain any traction now. I know I'm being pragmatic about it, but a tory majority of 80 is a killer, and I think he has to pick his battles. I am positive he would personally think not extending the talks is ridiculous. 

I liked many of Corbyn's ideas and many of Starmer's in the leadership election weren't dissimilar. For whatever reasons he's been given more cache that Corbyn ever was, now with his profile still fairly low amongst the wider population, but the non-labour voters who do probably know him mostly as a public remainer, and in the face of polls that inexplicably still give Johnson some popularity, making a noise about Brexit, just seems like a msis-step right now. It isn't ideal, as the consequences of no agreements will be a disaster. There's plenty of room to put the pressure on the government to get the talks right, and if they struggle, he can pull them up on it.

I liked Corbyn for a long time, and I still think he speaks eloquently in interviews when I've heard him during the leadership election. But he made mistakes, and also faced a perfect storm of oppositional forces that doomed him, forces that Starmer won't have to face, at least not to the same degree, though any labour leader will struggle with the press etc. 

I suppose much of my viewpoint comes from the post-election results despair, and I am prepared to support whatever the most pragmatic path out of that hole is, though that is not meant as a backhanded compliment for Starmer either. It is a weird time to develop an oppositional profile amongst the electorate and to me it seems like his best way of achieving that is making hay in holding the govt to account on the issue facing all of us right now, not the one people were so fed up of arguing about for years, and thought was over. ( I know it isn't, but for many people, sadly, 31st January was almost like an emotional cut-off point ). He can be the leader perceived as calling out the bullshit right now, and contrasting well against the bumbling idiot in 10 Downing Street or he can be accused as the bitter remainer who's not got his finger on the pulse of what people are worried about. 

Yes that is stupid, and reductive, and he is capable of more than one thing, but I can understand why he is doing it. And at the beginning of a new reign, he is going to get more slack from people like me and others to make those calls. 

Edited by Rodders
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the contrary, it's pathetic. The guy was Shadow Brexit Secretary for years. It is inconceivable that he doesn't have an opinion on whether or not there should be an extension. If his style of 'leadership' is going to be 'I'm going for a four-year snooze, wake me up if anything happens', this is going to be a both a hard four years and will leave such a despondent opposition at the end of it that they won't have the energy to fight the Tories.

It's far from pathetic. It's wise. Here's why. 

1. He will have an opinion  - almost certainly it will be that the Government will need to ask for an extension because they won't get it sorted in time - "I’ve always thought that’s tight and pretty unlikely".

2. He also knows that the Gov't has said they will not ask for an extension under any circumstances. From that, there are really several levels in play. Firstly that the Government may have to back down and break their word about not extending. If/when that happens he can accuse them of failing (again) and breaking their pledge (again). Win.  Alternatively the Government, however unlikely it seems, may manage to get something sorted. He can then say "we said we'd hold them to their pledge, and we did. Now let's see what they've agreed". Neutral. The third factor would be what if he'd said something that you (I assume) think he should have said "The Government should ask for an extension" - The government (as per his opinion above and in the article) is likely to have to ask for one. When they then do, the Gov't could say "we did what Labour was calling for us to do" - Defensive win for the Government. Fourthly, there is absolutely no point now re-running an argument that remain just lost on Brexit. The only thing now that matters is how the Government handles Brexit. And that won't be apparent, or the news while the virus is going on as it is now. Why give a distraction to the current mess the Gov't is making of virus? Hold your fire on Brexit while virus, and go on Brexit once that mess is the news (again).

As for

Quote

I also wonder whether if Jeremy Corbyn had been leader and saying *exactly the same thing*, the same posters would be insisting that it was a tactical masterstroke, or would they be telling me that it was evidence he was a Secret Leaver All Along? I mean, I say 'wonder', but.

Nice. First, there's no chance Corbyn would be smart enough to say what Starmer did. Second, if by some miracle in some parallel world Corbyn (not so secret leaver, by the way) had been asked the same question and given the same answer, then I'd hope that I'd have typed the same as I have, here. But you can reverse your dig and say "I also wonder whether if Jeremy Corbyn had been leader and saying *exactly the same thing*, the same poster would be insisting that it was pathetic, or would they be telling me that it was a tactical masterstroke All Along? I mean, I say 'wonder', but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Rodders said:

He can be the leader perceived as calling out the bullshit right now, and contrasting well against the bumbling idiot in 10 Downing Street or he can be accused as the bitter remainer who's not got his finger on the pulse of what people are worried about. 

Yeah, that's a really good point. As a new leader the media are currently watching closely, this is the time the die gets cast as to "who he is". He's not giving them the negative "bitter remainer" ammo, as you say. He's giving them "forensic, focused bullsh*t caller outer". Well said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

you can reverse your dig and say "I also wonder whether if Jeremy Corbyn had been leader and saying *exactly the same thing*, the same poster would be insisting that it was pathetic, or would they be telling me that it was a tactical masterstroke All Along? I mean, I say 'wonder', but...

If I'm completely honest, I think I would be sat here struggling to justify it, under attack from the same group of posters who criticised any Labour Brexit position as inadequate over the last three years, and yes, I would probably be trying to defend it, as much out of reflexivity as anything, but it would probably be a pretty hard job since it is a pretty pathetic stance to take, and the absolute opposite of 'leadership'.

I do want to comment on one particular part of your argument:

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

Fourthly, there is absolutely no point now re-running an argument that remain just lost on Brexit. The only thing now that matters is how the Government handles Brexit. And that won't be apparent, or the news while the virus is going on as it is now. Why give a distraction to the current mess the Gov't is making of virus? Hold your fire on Brexit while virus, and go on Brexit once that mess is the news (again).

There is no *choice* here. Of course everybody is focused on coronavirus, and so will and should the opposition be. However, there is also something else happening in the country, and that process is happening despite the pandemic. Since that something is very important, the opposition need to have actual policy preferences that they want to see, and they need to make a public case for those. They're not going to be voiced more loudly than policies for the coronavirus, but they really should exist, and he should say what they are when he's asked a direct question about them.

I can already see that this is going to be my issue with Starmer. His broadcast last night was a case in point. There's an endless online discussion about 'tone' (and I'm sure you can probably guess my opinion on his tone in that) but ignoring that for a minute, he didn't actually say concretely what the government should be doing at any point. They're in no position to make demands, and they certainly shouldn't be meekly asking for things, but saying 'the government should X', where X is an actual concrete policy action, is something he should be able to do. This 'sitting around, hoping the Tories have another Black Wednesday' business is no good, he needs to put out to sea at some point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I can already see that this is going to be my issue with Starmer. His broadcast last night was a case in point. There's an endless online discussion about 'tone' (and I'm sure you can probably guess my opinion on his tone in that) but ignoring that for a minute, he didn't actually say concretely what the government should be doing at any point. They're in no position to make demands, and they certainly shouldn't be meekly asking for things, but saying 'the government should X', where X is an actual concrete policy action, is something he should be able to do. This 'sitting around, hoping the Tories have another Black Wednesday' business is no good, he needs to put out to sea at some point.

I didn't see his broadcast. On the bit in bold, I've got two thoughts, really - the first is that the Opposition needs to look like a government in waiting to have a chance of getting elected. They start from a monumentally bad position, given the numbers, but still, that's what they need to do. My opinion, which I don't expect you to share, is that right now the general public absolutely doesn't want to see party political arguing they/we want to see people working together to overcome the virus. People will want to see their individual anxieties and angers represented, questions answered and so on, re the virus. I think Starmer's been doing that (along with others) and it's working. Both in terms of for them, and for the benefit of people generally - an example being "I'll ask the same question next week and expect an answer" to Raab in PMQs, and lo and behold we got the figures that had been kept from us.

The next thing is about "the government should X" - he said "the government said they will do X, I think it's unlikely they will, but I'm going to hold them accountable for that" OK, it's a bit political weasely, but for reasons already given, I think it was right, tactically. And also I really don't think following the notion now of laying down all kinds of concrete policy actions is right or legitimate or actually anything but counter productive at this point. Firstly, Labour has just lost an election massively, on a manifesto, and has no internally agreed new manifesto policies - it would be wrong for Starmer to create them on the fly, given the way Labour works. They don't have a full NEC either, do they? You're right he will need to put to sea at some point, but for me that really isn't now. What he's doing is working, he's getting decent coverage, his criticism of the implementation of practical things (PPE, Nursing homes, etc.) is widely shared and appreciated and doesn't look like partisan political sniping at a time when (other than committed Labour/Corbyn supporter types) no one wants that. He will have to put to sea, but better to do so with a bag of individual wins in his pocket, than a bunch of "policies" that have not been agreed by his party,  maybe be hopelessly overtaken by events and may be hung round his neck in a few years or even 6 or 12 months. Principles - yes, definitely - fairness, equality, safety, public health...apple pie, motherhood....but for now not diverting from focusing on Gov't failings on Virus is (for me) exactly right. I really like the clear sighted approach and tone (as I see it) and the tories really don't like it (as Matt Hancock showed). Do what your opponent least wants you to do. They'd love it if he started Corbyning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

I didn't see his broadcast. On the bit in bold, I've got two thoughts, really - the first is that the Opposition needs to look like a government in waiting to have a chance of getting elected. They start from a monumentally bad position, given the numbers, but still, that's what they need to do. My opinion, which I don't expect you to share, is that right now the general public absolutely doesn't want to see party political arguing they/we want to see people working together to overcome the virus. People will want to see their individual anxieties and angers represented, questions answered and so on, re the virus. I think Starmer's been doing that (along with others) and it's working. Both in terms of for them, and for the benefit of people generally - an example being "I'll ask the same question next week and expect an answer" to Raab in PMQs, and lo and behold we got the figures that had been kept from us.

The next thing is about "the government should X" - he said "the government said they will do X, I think it's unlikely they will, but I'm going to hold them accountable for that" OK, it's a bit political weasely, but for reasons already given, I think it was right, tactically. And also I really don't think following the notion now of laying down all kinds of concrete policy actions is right or legitimate or actually anything but counter productive at this point. Firstly, Labour has just lost an election massively, on a manifesto, and has no internally agreed new manifesto policies - it would be wrong for Starmer to create them on the fly, given the way Labour works. They don't have a full NEC either, do they? You're right he will need to put to sea at some point, but for me that really isn't now. What he's doing is working, he's getting decent coverage, his criticism of the implementation of practical things (PPE, Nursing homes, etc.) is widely shared and appreciated and doesn't look like partisan political sniping at a time when (other than committed Labour/Corbyn supporter types) no one wants that. He will have to put to sea, but better to do so with a bag of individual wins in his pocket, than a bunch of "policies" that have not been agreed by his party,  maybe be hopelessly overtaken by events and may be hung round his neck in a few years or even 6 or 12 months. Principles - yes, definitely - fairness, equality, safety, public health...apple pie, motherhood....but for now not diverting from focusing on Gov't failings on Virus is (for me) exactly right. I really like the clear sighted approach and tone (as I see it) and the tories really don't like it (as Matt Hancock showed). Do what your opponent least wants you to do. They'd love it if he started Corbyning.

I mean, we're not likely to fully agree, but to be clear, I'm not suggesting he produce his own personal manifesto. The crisis is here now, though, so the opposition need to put pressure on the government to pursue particular actions now. And on the bolded, they did in fact come out with a policy for helping renters this week. It contained 5 concrete actions they want the government to take (of which 4 were very good ideas and one was absolutely dire, but that's beside the point). The crisis for renters is not going to wait much longer. Unemployment is rising, and looks likely to continue to rise regardless of the gradual 'reopening' of the economy, but Sunak is going to announce the start of unwinding the furlough scheme soon (possibly today?). More than half of renters have essentially no savings. This is a topic that the party has a policy on, that he could have pushed in his announcement, that would deal with the crisis that is happening now. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Anyway, since we're moving off Brexit here, I guess these thoughts are more suitable for the Chairman Mao thread.

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that raising things like renters problems due to the virus and suggesting actions to take was good. On Brexit, December is the end date and June sometime the "can we have an extension please" request date. I would suggest that June is therefore the time to address the extension request issue/ Gov't failings given the dominance of virus problems at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, we're not likely to fully agree, but to be clear, I'm not suggesting he produce his own personal manifesto. The crisis is here now, though, so the opposition need to put pressure on the government to pursue particular actions now. And on the bolded, they did in fact come out with a policy for helping renters this week. It contained 5 concrete actions they want the government to take (of which 4 were very good ideas and one was absolutely dire, but that's beside the point). The crisis for renters is not going to wait much longer. Unemployment is rising, and looks likely to continue to rise regardless of the gradual 'reopening' of the economy, but Sunak is going to announce the start of unwinding the furlough scheme soon (possibly today?). More than half of renters have essentially no savings. This is a topic that the party has a policy on, that he could have pushed in his announcement, that would deal with the crisis that is happening now. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Anyway, since we're moving off Brexit here, I guess these thoughts are more suitable for the Chairman Mao thread.

Not going to edit the post, but obviously I missed the good news on this at the same time. It doesn't really change the main point, which is that the situation with renters needs addressing rapidly. Even at 80% of regular wages, lots of people will start having problems paying soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

... the situation with renters needs addressing rapidly. Even at 80% of regular wages, lots of people will start having problems paying soon.

It does. There's so much with the virus and the problems it's causing and the problems the government is both facing, and also creating itself that (again) right now that this is absolutely the area that needs all of Labour's immediate attention - both for their own ends and for the good of people in trouble, and because they have a duty, as official opposition to oppose and scrutinise the Gov't, and where possible to (as you say) come up with constructive suggestions and actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Quite impressive that the DUP managed more to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK in a few years than the Republican movement managed in half a century. 

It's just a consolation, but more like a consolation hat-trick than a consolation goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just got more difficult for Europeans to become British citizens

Quote

The Home Office has decided to make it more difficult for European residents to become British citizens. EU citizens with settled status who apply for naturalisation now have to provide evidence that they have been living in the UK legally, according an update to government nationality policy released on 15 May.

One of the requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen is to have lived in the UK for five years (or three years if married to a Brit). Time living here in breach of UK immigration law doesn’t count. The Home Office has long taken the view that EU citizens physically present in the UK but who do not have a right of residence under EU law are in breach of UK immigration law. Unknowingly lacking a right to reside is surprisingly common — many people without comprehensive sickness insurance were caught out by this in the past.

Because of Brexit, European residents and their family members have been offered immigration status under UK law (instead of EU law). Getting the new “settled status” does not require proof of a previous right to reside — it is mostly based on simple presence in the UK.

But when people with settled status come to apply for citizenship, the Home Office is now saying that the right to reside issue must be dealt with in their application. Simply having settled status is not enough, in this context.

....more

 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xann said:

Taking back control.

They've already passed the legislation to get commoners eating shit.

 
 
 

 

I’m scratching my head as to why a horses name has anything to do with Brexit ... or has twitter trumped North Korea and sins of the father is now extended to sins of the father in law ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â