blandy Posted January 7, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 26 minutes ago, darrenm said: Like what I've asked? With practical suggestions? You're continuing to say the same thing which is just rhetoric. 'fight them', 'hold a position'. Doesn't mean anything. The example I posted above would be a practical suggestion, would you agree? What's not practical about actually co-operating with (as per the example I gave reported in the Independent) other parties who want to protect jobs and so on by remaining in the single market? - you know to work to get a majority of MPs in the parliament who all want the same direction? What's not practical about having and explaining and promoting and backing a coherent policy? The idea you stated is also a practical step the could take. You're right that basically any credible position will have supporters and detractors. The point of good politicians and leaders is to be able to lead, to explain, to put into clear terms, that are believable and explicitly clear to people, what they are standing for and why. So your idea/proposal, which to my mind is less than I'm personally thinking about is (to my mind) a single (possible) step on the way - "proposing an amendment" is a good thing, but it's a single item, a single act. I think and am trying to say that that sort of thing ought to be part of a narrative, of a genuinely credible set of actions. 1. First, abandoned this sitting on the sidelines soundbite stuff "jobs based Brexit and leave the single market" - that's not much different to tories talking about "red White and Blue Brexit" or "Brexit means Brexit". So stop with the flannel and agree amongst themselves a position that is actually credible and matches Labour's values. 2. Talk to other parties, listen to other parties. 3. Following that, with the support of other party MPs do stuff like you say - propose amendments, promote their own Labour position as a viable alternative to the Govt's messed up, clusterpork position. Win the argument, lead the argument, both in parliament and generally in the country. Of course, as you say, some voters will not agree, but I think that a party which sits on the fence and has a soundbite argument will not win or persuade voters who are potentially open to listening. Some people for whatever reasons will have a hard position on leave, or remain, or free movement, or free trade and nothing will change their mind. But outside those people, the vast majority of the Country, IMO, leave or remain wants a "minimum/no damage" Brexit and wants their jobs, rights, etc. protected. So FFS start leading. The tories are losing every negotiation with the EU, while adopting a hard, damaging Brexit set of red lines. They will come unstuck, but unless Labour has a better alternative, then not only will they not get what they want, they won't deserve to. They need to act in a way that can be seen not to be a self interested divided, way and not to rely on the hope of winning purely by default of cynically not being responsible for the mess the tories make. It's no good getting power on the back of an absolute armageddon caused by the tories, when they should have done everything to stop that armageddon occurring. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 42 minutes ago, darrenm said: Like what I've asked? With practical suggestions? You're continuing to say the same thing which is just rhetoric. 'fight them', 'hold a position'. Doesn't mean anything. The example I posted above would be a practical suggestion, would you agree? Flawed, but would help put the party on the right track. So presumably you'd agree that it's a bit dickish that every time the amendment you think you think would help (and there have already been a number of them along those lines) has been tabled the leadership has whipped the PLP to abstain or vote against the amendment? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: He's refused to meet with the other parties that oppose the tory agenda to even discuss what could be done. And what's unfathomable about that, is that Corbyn is a politician who's had no qualms in the past about meeting with terrorists and ne'erdowells from all sorts of areas and places, but now he won't talk to the SNP or Greens or LiberalDems in order to actually collectively fight the tory madness. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: He's refused to meet with the other parties that oppose the tory agenda to even discuss what could be done. He's going to be empty chaired. Don't know anything about that, haven't seen it reported anywhere so I'll have to research 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: Flawed, but would help put the party on the right track. So presumably you'd agree that it's a bit dickish that every time the amendment you think you think would help (and there have already been a number of them along those lines) has been tabled the leadership has whipped the PLP to abstain or vote against the amendment? Examples please. I know of once the whip was imposed for article 50 for obvious reasons. Other times amendments weren't whipped, or the amendment was crap. The single time there was a chance of winning with Tory rebels indicating they would rebel they all voted against the government for a vote on the final deal in parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 1 hour ago, blandy said: What's not practical about actually co-operating with (as per the example I gave reported in the Independent) other parties who want to protect jobs and so on by remaining in the single market? - you know to work to get a majority of MPs in the parliament who all want the same direction? What's not practical about having and explaining and promoting and backing a coherent policy? The idea you stated is also a practical step the could take. You're right that basically any credible position will have supporters and detractors. The point of good politicians and leaders is to be able to lead, to explain, to put into clear terms, that are believable and explicitly clear to people, what they are standing for and why. So your idea/proposal, which to my mind is less than I'm personally thinking about is (to my mind) a single (possible) step on the way - "proposing an amendment" is a good thing, but it's a single item, a single act. I think and am trying to say that that sort of thing ought to be part of a narrative, of a genuinely credible set of actions. 1. First, abandoned this sitting on the sidelines soundbite stuff "jobs based Brexit and leave the single market" - that's not much different to tories talking about "red White and Blue Brexit" or "Brexit means Brexit". So stop with the flannel and agree amongst themselves a position that is actually credible and matches Labour's values. 2. Talk to other parties, listen to other parties. 3. Following that, with the support of other party MPs do stuff like you say - propose amendments, promote their own Labour position as a viable alternative to the Govt's messed up, clusterpork position. Win the argument, lead the argument, both in parliament and generally in the country. Of course, as you say, some voters will not agree, but I think that a party which sits on the fence and has a soundbite argument will not win or persuade voters who are potentially open to listening. Some people for whatever reasons will have a hard position on leave, or remain, or free movement, or free trade and nothing will change their mind. But outside those people, the vast majority of the Country, IMO, leave or remain wants a "minimum/no damage" Brexit and wants their jobs, rights, etc. protected. So FFS start leading. The tories are losing every negotiation with the EU, while adopting a hard, damaging Brexit set of red lines. They will come unstuck, but unless Labour has a better alternative, then not only will they not get what they want, they won't deserve to. They need to act in a way that can be seen not to be a self interested divided, way and not to rely on the hope of winning purely by default of cynically not being responsible for the mess the tories make. It's no good getting power on the back of an absolute armageddon caused by the tories, when they should have done everything to stop that armageddon occurring. Can't argue with anything there. I'm struggling to see anything that would actually make any difference though. Narratives, positions and promotions do nothing apart from look weak from the sidelines. "He's getting a protest together, I'm getting on with the job of getting the best brexit for Britain!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 35 minutes ago, darrenm said: Don't know anything about that, haven't seen it reported anywhere so I'll have to research Guarniad Quote A Labour party spokesman dismissed the cross-party meeting as “little more than a political gimmick”....“We will work with all parties to hold this government to account every step of the way and achieve a jobs-first Brexit that puts living standards and the economy first,” I don't think there's any dispute over the invite and the decline. He's told them, no thanks, not even worth discussing as it's based on a fundamentally flawed premise. Not even worth meeting and talking about it. Amazing. Well, for someone with such a crystal clear view of what brexit can and will be, he's done a very poor job of explaining it to me. Incidentally, I know it's a 'spokesbod' and I know it's from a newspaper, but how do the first and second sentences in that quote add up to a coherent response? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 53 minutes ago, darrenm said: Can't argue with anything there. I'm struggling to see anything that would actually make any difference though. Narratives, positions and promotions do nothing apart from look weak from the sidelines. "He's getting a protest together, I'm getting on with the job of getting the best brexit for Britain!" - it's nice that I've managed to get across what I was trying to say. I don't agree that Labour having a clearly coherent and credible (i.e. non-contradictory) position and then explaining the pros and acknowledging the bits some people might not like and selling that policy and working with so many other MPs who basically agree with it (or if necessary working with those other MPs to refine it, to make it a viable policy that has majority support) and then pushing it forward as a sane alternative to the bonkers tory car-crash is or will "look weak". The repost to your hypothetical Tory line would be ""we are collectively, across the house, suggesting a version of Brexit which gives people [X, Y and Z] instead of a narrow, hard right, extreme isolationist and destructive brexit which will leave us poorer, less safe, with fewer friends and much reduced influence in the world, all on the back of some UKIP driven delusions..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 Basically Labour are trying not to offend the racist bigots that vote for them. They’re only happy calling out racism when it suits them. Instead of trying to show the bigots they are wrong and appealing for them to get with the plan because they'd be better off, they are pussyfooting around them and trying to keep their votes without offending them. If this carries on, they'll be the only votes they have left because I find this appealing to bigots most unpleasant and so do plenty of others. I've also seen plenty of others express a similar view recently. Reminds me of something General Krulak once said on here about wrestling with pigs 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 42 minutes ago, bickster said: Basically Labour are trying not to offend the racist bigots that vote for them. They’re only happy calling out racism when it suits them. Instead of trying to show the bigots they are wrong and appealing for them to get with the plan because they'd be better off, they are pussyfooting around them and trying to keep their votes without offending them. If this carries on, they'll be the only votes they have left because I find this appealing to bigots most unpleasant and so do plenty of others. I've also seen plenty of others express a similar view recently. Reminds me of something General Krulak once said on here about wrestling with pigs Unfortunately to get into power I think they are going to need some of these bigots with racist tendances to vote for them. The reason for that is that I think there are more people than there have been for a long time who are happy to blame foreigners/immigrants for the woes of the country. Corbyn is never going to appeal to your natural Tory voter the way that Blair did but what has happened is that traditional Labour voters have started to vote for the right wing parties as they have been duped into believing the main reason for the problems this country is encountering is immigration and that the right wing mobs will be tougher on that than Labour. It is a catch 22 isn't it for Labour. I think they risk losing a lot of votes if they say they want to stay in the single market, meaning the continuation of free movement of people, the very thing that a lot of people, and a lot Labour voters, rightly or wrongly oppose. On the other hand as you say they will continue to not get the vote of people like yourself if they continue with their current stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 Couldn't give a shit if they need them, with them the countries going down the pan anyway because they tie Labour to the Tory line Prefer politicians with at least some shred of humanity and conviction. Any party that appeals to racists and bigots to get elected because they are not brave enough to attempt to challenge them isn't getting my vote and that's exactly what Labour's current Brexit strategy is, an appeasement of bigots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 15 minutes ago, bickster said: Couldn't give a shit if they need them, with them the countries going down the pan anyway because they tie Labour to the Tory line Prefer politicians with at least some shred of humanity and conviction. Any party that appeals to racists and bigots to get elected because they are not brave enough to attempt to challenge them isn't getting my vote and that's exactly what Labour's current Brexit strategy is, an appeasement of bigots. Is it? I get that you don't agree with it, but that's a pretty strong charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: Is it? I get that you don't agree with it, but that's a pretty strong charge. It's exactly what it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 Just now, bickster said: It's exactly what it is. Can you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 7, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: Can you elaborate? They are attempting to keep the bigots who voted for Brexit voting for them. They aren't challenging them as they should, being you know... Left wing and all that, being for equality and all that. They are at best hiding behind a big wall saying Tories bad but Brexit is cool. Asshats the lot of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 7, 2018 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2018 52 minutes ago, bickster said: They are attempting to keep the bigots who voted for Brexit voting for them. They aren't challenging them as they should, being you know... Left wing and all that, being for equality and all that. They are at best hiding behind a big wall saying Tories bad but Brexit is cool. Asshats the lot of them There's a great deal of truth in that, though to be fair it's also a lot more complicated than just appeasing racists. Sure there are some, but there are also lots of other leave voters who aren't racists, who would still be unhappy about a pure remain tactic. I think the key thing is to separate out the racist side from the real world side of things - jobs and money is an obvious way to do that. So single market protects jobs, protects rights and makes travelling to Europe easy with no passport queues and customs checks and keeps peace in N. Ireland and etc. etc. Yes it would mean some freedom of movement of Labour, but proper enforcement of what is permitted to be enforced, rather than the current "do nothing" system would give some backing to people who have genuine worries about the volume of people coming to the UK, but would remove the genuine threat to NHS and fruit picking and all that stuff - again, it can be rightly sold as helping rural farms and Hospitals and so on. Combine all that with exposing at every turn, the lies about the benefits a hard brexit would allegedly give us - all those Liam Fox fantasies, and 350 million a week for the NHS and stuff. Even most tory MPs know that hard brexit is bollex and don't support it. Both labour and tory MPs are timidly sitting there kind of waiting for someone else to do the sane thing. Unfortunately, so, but they therefore need something to get behind, to steer the country away from the idiocy of Rees-Mogg, Gove, and Fox and the idiot UKIPs hard brexit clusterpork. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 7, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2018 Like I said, politicians are now afraid of the mob. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 4 hours ago, darrenm said: Examples please. I know of once the whip was imposed for article 50 for obvious reasons. Other times amendments weren't whipped, or the amendment was crap. The single time there was a chance of winning with Tory rebels indicating they would rebel they all voted against the government for a vote on the final deal in parliament. Chuka Umunna's amendment to the Queen's speech in June calling for continued Single Market membership at which Labour MPs were ordered to abstain and saw the sacking of three Shadow Cabinet members when they refused and voted for the amendment. Ian Murray's amendment in November calling for continued observation of Customs Union rules, at which Labour MPs were whipped to vote with the Government. Tom Brake's amendment in December calling for Single Market membership to be maintained, at which Labour MPs were whipped to abstain. Personally I think that a shabby "staying in by stealth" arrangement is underhand and pointless, and they should be pointing out to the country that they are being conned by a bunch of shysters and incompetents (although that would include the current Labour leadership, so it's understandable that they wouldn't want people looking too closely). So I personally think these amendments were all a bit pointless. But you're the one saying that Labour should be both proposing amendments like these to show their true position, but also that they shouldn't be supporting them when they are proposed. Which is a tricky circle to square. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 48 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Chuka Umunna's amendment to the Queen's speech in June calling for continued Single Market membership at which Labour MPs were ordered to abstain and saw the sacking of three Shadow Cabinet members when they refused and voted for the amendment. Ian Murray's amendment in November calling for continued observation of Customs Union rules, at which Labour MPs were whipped to vote with the Government. Tom Brake's amendment in December calling for Single Market membership to be maintained, at which Labour MPs were whipped to abstain. Personally I think that a shabby "staying in by stealth" arrangement is underhand and pointless, and they should be pointing out to the country that they are being conned by a bunch of shysters and incompetents (although that would include the current Labour leadership, so it's understandable that they wouldn't want people looking too closely). So I personally think these amendments were all a bit pointless. But you're the one saying that Labour should be both proposing amendments like these to show their true position, but also that they shouldn't be supporting them when they are proposed. Which is a tricky circle to square. No, I was suggesting a way in which they could. I didn't say they should. I even gave reasons why it would be a bad idea. The key to it, as you've shown in your examples above, is if a majority can be formed to defeat the government. Chuka Umunna's amendment was never going to pass. All the Tories were whipped too. It's when Ken Clarke did his famous speech and every other Tory including the big remainers like Dominic Grieve and Anna Soubry voted with the Tory whip. Not sure about the middle one but the final one was universally accepted to be illiterate i.e. it would have had the opposite effect of what it was trying to achieve. It would have caused us to be left in the wilderness with no deal if we couldn't sort out single market membership in time. And this is the current theme - lots of misunderstanding about tribalism where if you're a remainer and Labour don't vote against the government they're the enemy. The amendment you haven't said about was the only one with a chance of enough Tories rebelling so the government could actually be defeated. The final vote amendment. All of Labour apart from Kate Hoey (and Frank Field?) voted for it. What I'd like is for right wing papers that only exist to stoke racism and hatred to not have opened Pandora's box. But now in the situation we're in, a bit of pragmatism is needed. What's the best way out of this situation? Plenty of commentators have been saying about how politicians can't drive public opinion, they can only follow it. A politician who tells the people what to think doesn't last very long. For all of May's posturing, they're ultimately employed to do what we say. At the moment the leave/remain split hasn't changed, so Labour can only go with what the public mood is. If and when it changes, both Tory and Labour will follow it. At 50/50 if anyone says 'you were right' to half, they also say 'you were wrong' to the other half. For every person such as you, me, Pete, Gareth, etc, who say we're right and we want to remain, there's the same amount who say we're right and we want to leave. Who speaks for them? Should either party desert them? And if either deserts them and ignores democracy, no matter how right we know/think we are, we're only pushing the same situation that caused leave to win in the first place, people feeling like they weren't listened to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, darrenm said: Not sure about the middle one but the final one was universally accepted to be illiterate i.e. it would have had the opposite effect of what it was trying to achieve. It would have caused us to be left in the wilderness with no deal if we couldn't sort out single market membership in time. I know - I remember being the person that told you that at the time. 12 minutes ago, darrenm said: At the moment the leave/remain split hasn't changed, so Labour can only go with what the public mood is. If and when it changes, both Tory and Labour will follow it. At 50/50 if anyone says 'you were right' to half, they also say 'you were wrong' to the other half. For every person such as you, me, Pete, Gareth, etc, who say we're right and we want to remain, there's the same amount who say we're right and we want to leave. Who speaks for them? Should either party desert them? Nobody should "desert" anybody. Politicians should be able to do what they feel is right. And if what is right is trying to stop this pathetic charade, then they should do it. And if what they feel is right is to go along with it, then fine. But in that case, they shouldn't be defended as "oh, but they're not as bad as the other side, they're only doing it so that they don't lose the moron vote, but they'll do the right thing in the end..." In that case, they shouldn't be defended, they should be castigated. They're not only doing something reckless and stupid, they're doing it while fully aware that they are being reckless and stupid. At least Davies, Fox and Johnson can point to their own ignorance as an excuse for their abominable positions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, ml1dch said: know - I remember being the person that told you that at the time. I don't, sorry ;-) it was Bazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts