Scrutable

Also, it's bollocks because there is no such thing as a "soft Brexit", especially when EEA membership is out of reach. May's red lines excluded the possibility of free movement, plus other things, which torpedoed any possibility of anything other than a basic FTA. I'm sure we all remember this:



So this "missed opportunity" stuff is crap. And maybe Nandy needs to explain why and how not having a comprehensive trade deal is such a good thing, if they are apparently pointless, bearing in mind that no country anywhere in the world trades without them.

Going for a 2nd referendum was the right thing to do, not least looking at what the LDs did to Labour in the Euro elections, at the time that had gone all Brexity. Moving to a (sort of) 2nd referendum stance was what squeezed the LDs. Labour was irrelevant for several reasons, mostly to do with the leadership clique.

Going for a 2nd referendum was a public declaration that they thought everybody who voted in favour of brexit hadn't thought it through properly and needed a 2nd chance to 'get it right'. That sealed their doom.

This article by Maurice Glasman has captured it perfectly https://www.bluelabour.org/home/a-chris ... ce-glasman

That's all well and good. How many Labour governments have the "heartlands" elected on their own?

plodder wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:02 pm

That's all well and good. How many Labour governments have the "heartlands" elected on their own?

None as far as I know, but there are more constituencies 'out there' than there was are in the university towns and inner London, ultimately.. Labour just needs those people.

This Blue Labour thing seems like exactly what I was rambling I thought Labour should be to win again earlier on, but much more eloquently described by Prof. Glasman than I could obvs.

It seems much more like the politics of kindness and mutual support that Labour ought to be, instead of shrill student protest or scornful professional class internationalism.

I think that’s exactly what most labour supporters think. The “blue” bit is trolling though.

plodder wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:56 pm

I think that’s exactly what most labour supporters think. The “blue” bit is trolling though.

I dunno. Do you mean most former Labour supporters or the current party members? Glasman is definitely a 'Lexit' guy, and I thought most of those people had been driven out?

Dont underestimate the potential of the 'Blue' thing btw. Loads of less wealthy tories arent particularly in love with Thatcherite ideas but they are social conservatives who are repelled by what they perceive as lack of patriotism and support of extreme identity politics. Glasman is definitely being sensitive to their concerns without actually suģgesting anything oppressive towards ethnic or sexual minorities. He understands their language and knows how to steer them away from fascist ideas in my view.

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:38 am

Also, it's bollocks because there is no such thing as a "soft Brexit", especially when EEA membership is out of reach. May's red lines excluded the possibility of free movement, plus other things, which torpedoed any possibility of anything other than a basic FTA. I'm sure we all remember this:

I don't follow. EEA membership is only out of reach because May's red lines have gone unchallenged. As soon as May set out her position and forced the UK down the road of the hardest possible Brexit, Labour's position should have been to advocate for a soft EEA Brexit. This would have honoured the referendum result (and cut out the criticism of 2nd referendum supporters as "bad losers"), been tolerable to most Remain voters, and been supported by around half of Leave voters -- overall a clear majority of the population. Failure to do so has left the middle ground position empty, and with no-one speaking up for it it has become unspeakable.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:45 am

Going for a 2nd referendum was a public declaration that they thought everybody who voted in favour of brexit hadn't thought it through properly and needed a 2nd chance to 'get it right'.

Asking for a People's Vote was an asknowledgement that Alexander Johnson's deal is not only opposite to a lot of what was promised in the 2016 referendum, but that it was worse than Theresa May's deal that Johnson said he wouldn't vote for because it was so bad. It was an acknowledgement that since 2016 pretty much every opinion poll has showed that more people wished to stay in the EU than quit. It was an acknowledgement that the High Court has ruled that the 2016 Referendum was so ridden with illegal practices and corruption that, had it been a binding referendum rather than an advisory one (and don't forget the High Court found it was advisory), the result would have been annulled in line with the UK's international obligations under the Vienna Convention.

In other words asking for a People's Vote wasn't telling people they were wrong, it was acknowledging that democracy is not a single event that happened on one day in 2016, but a continuous living, breathing process where people are allowed to change their minds, and are allowed to say that what is on the table is not what they were promised.

CF

Labour's proposed vote didn't include WTO exit as an option and reopened the question of whether we actually wanted to leave. It was recognized for what it was

A vote between WTO exit, EEA, EFTA or some deal would have been interesting. I'd have supported that. But re-opening the original decision before implementing it just smells too much like making people vote on the same question until the political class gets the result they wanted. That's how pretty much all leavers (and some remainers) saw it.

This has been done to death, and the damage was done the moment Corbyn chose not to campaign in the referendum itself, due to his having exactly the same conspiratorial opinions as the ERG.

Labour are in a deep, deep hole having alienated enough of the people who they need for a majority.

It's far from obvious that Corbyn could have improved his electoral prospects by committing himself to campaigning for Remain in a Labour organised second referendum. Even as things stood it's likely that the Labour referendum would have been regarded by leavers as a choice between Remain and a "Leave" option negotiated by remainers. If Corbyn had promised to negotiate a new deal with the EU and then campaign against it, he would have solidified that perception and lost even more Labour leavers.

He would of course have picked up votes from some remainers, but others would have regarded the Lib Dem policy of revoking A50 without a referendum as more honest. I don't think we will know whether Corbyn would have improved or worsened his situation by changing his stance unless and until the British Election Study asks a more detailed question. My own guess is that Labour would have needed a different referendum proposal, rather than a different stance on the one they had.

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:11 pm

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:38 am

Also, it's bollocks because there is no such thing as a "soft Brexit", especially when EEA membership is out of reach. May's red lines excluded the possibility of free movement, plus other things, which torpedoed any possibility of anything other than a basic FTA. I'm sure we all remember this:

I don't follow. EEA membership is only out of reach because May's red lines have gone unchallenged. As soon as May set out her position and forced the UK down the road of the hardest possible Brexit, Labour's position should have been to advocate for a soft EEA Brexit. This would have honoured the referendum result (and cut out the criticism of 2nd referendum supporters as "bad losers"), been tolerable to most Remain voters, and been supported by around half of Leave voters -- overall a clear majority of the population. Failure to do so has left the middle ground position empty, and with no-one speaking up for it it has become unspeakable.

An EEA option was never on offer, because free movement was never even nearly on offer. Whatever people think Labour's stance should have been, May never "opened the door" for anything other than a basic FTA, and Nandy has made this up, seemingly as part of her brand new born-again-brexiter-traduce-the-remainers persona. Yet now she's vociferously defending free movement, apparently. I don't remember any instances of her doing this back when it mattered. Does anyone? And voting for amendments for "a" customs union won't count.

But I agree that the middle ground generally has been empty for years. The membership voted for that to happen, twice.

And now the useless old c.nt of a peri-ex-leader is getting a cushy place in the Lords for Karie Murphy, one of the prime architects of his recent disappointment. It's nice to be able to look after your mates.

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:21 pm

And now the useless old c.nt of a peri-ex-leader is getting a cushy place in the Lords for Karie Murphy, one of the prime architects of his recent disappointment. It's nice to be able to look after your mates.

He just can't put it down, can he? What a useless c.nt he is. Same as it ever was.

Opti wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:54 pm

Same as it ever was.

Somebody should write a song about new leadership resembling the old.

Or, alternatively, you could ask yourself "how did I get here?".

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:02 pm

Opti wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:54 pm

Same as it ever was.

Somebody should write a song about new leadership resembling the old.

In the sense of being introduced to the recently appointed manager who strongly resembles the outgoing holder of the position?

so long as nobody gets tricked more than once.

plodder wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:30 am

This has been done to death, and the damage was done the moment Corbyn chose not to campaign in the referendum itself, due to his having exactly the same conspiratorial opinions as the ERG.

I'm definitely not going to try and persuade you that he or the ERG were 'right' (whatever that means), only discuss electoral tactics for Labour.

If he'd gone all out for Remain, I think Remain would still have lost because Corbyn is not a great persuader for the middle ground (he may even have made it worse), and when it came to a general election a significant number of remainers are from wealthier demographics who look like they would've been scared away from Labour by momentum economic policies and voted Lib Dem. I really think Labour needed the working class vote to win.

Blair had the working class and a good chunk of the middle class in 1997- because the EU wasn't the same kind of divisive big issue then, and he was making comforting noises to both sides about more spending on the struggling without any crazy tax rises.

I'm not sure even Blair could've won for Labour in 2019 with the same Remain stance, but it would've been a lot closer certainly because he's not tainted with the anti-semitic/unpatriotic/crazy on tax brush.

I think the way to approach this, from a practical politics perspective, is to retrace the steps and think 'what was it I wanted out of EU membership'?' then look at other ways of politically getting those things without head-on trying to persuade people to rejoin the EU.

Oddly, Freedom of movement is the one thing I expect Boris Jonson to be most flexible about btw. He gave a speech right after the referendum result where he said he hoped Brexit lead to more immigration (this drew surprised gasps from some of the crowd but he didn't back down on it). Socially he is pretty liberal in many regards. It won't be 'called' freedom of movement of course, but I expect there's less chance of people from the EU having a hard time getting jobs in the UK under him than there would've been under May or Corbyn.

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:14 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:45 am

Going for a 2nd referendum was a public declaration that they thought everybody who voted in favour of brexit hadn't thought it through properly and needed a 2nd chance to 'get it right'.

Asking for a People's Vote was an asknowledgement that Alexander Johnson's deal is not only opposite to a lot of what was promised in the 2016 referendum, but that it was worse than Theresa May's deal that Johnson said he wouldn't vote for because it was so bad. It was an acknowledgement that since 2016 pretty much every opinion poll has showed that more people wished to stay in the EU than quit. It was an acknowledgement that the High Court has ruled that the 2016 Referendum was so ridden with illegal practices and corruption that, had it been a binding referendum rather than an advisory one (and don't forget the High Court found it was advisory), the result would have been annulled in line with the UK's international obligations under the Vienna Convention.

In other words asking for a People's Vote wasn't telling people they were wrong, it was acknowledging that democracy is not a single event that happened on one day in 2016, but a continuous living, breathing process where people are allowed to change their minds, and are allowed to say that what is on the table is not what they were promised.

CF

Hear, hear!

And the design of the contest is rubbish. You have, presumably, the brightest and best contenders (Barry and Ian didn't run) competing for the #1 slot, which means that it is not possible for any of them to occupy the #2 slot.* And then, you put unnecessary barriers of party machinery between these and the members, so it looks like only the top 2 or 3 will probably make it to a ballot.

Any MP who wants to put themselves before the membership should be free to do so. If there's fear of 3 dozen of the f.ckers trying, just limit the number of votes a member could make to, say, five. Make it more about the members' choice, and less about activists choosing the slate.

*RBLT particpated in the failed putsch-ette intended to get rid of Watson. Perhaps she will see more value in that role once her flatmate's in it.

Brilliant by Glen - So what should Labour do now?

https://t.co/C1sdC3VHbt?amp=1

frozenwarning wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:45 am

Hello Scrutables, happy new year. Shiny in here innit? Apologies if you already know all this.

Sorry to butt in to your new forum but if you are thinking about whether to join the Labour Party to vote for a new leader/deputy but don't want to give the party your cash please consider joining an affiliate to get a vote. I rejoined Jewish Labour as an ally as I resigned from Labour a couple of years ago.

List of affiliates:

Trade Unions:
Aslef
BFAWU
Community
CWU
FBU
GMB
MU
TSSA
UNISON
Unite
USDAW

Socialist Societies:
BAME Labour
Chinese for Labour
Christians on the Left
Disability Labour
Jewish Labour Movement
Labour Animal Welfare Society
Labour Business
Labour Campaign for International Development
Labour Housing Group
Labour Movement for Europe
Labour Party Irish Society
Labour Women’s Network
LGBT Labour
National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs
Scientists for Labour
Socialist Educational Association
Socialist Environmental and Resources Association
Society of Labour Lawyers
The Fabian Society
The Socialist Health Association

Bear in mind that joining doesn't give you an automatic vote, you also have to register with the party before 5pm on the 20th January so they can check you really are in an affiliate. Register here: https://support.labour.org.uk/

*waves at Stephanie*

xxx

*waves back*

glad to see you here.

I have joined, btw...

frozenwarning wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:55 pm

Brilliant by Glen - So what should Labour do now?

https://t.co/C1sdC3VHbt?amp=1

That.

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:28 pm

frozenwarning wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:55 pm

Brilliant by Glen - So what should Labour do now?

https://t.co/C1sdC3VHbt?amp=1

That.

Yup