Scrutable

Woodchopper wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 1:04 pm True, but the last thing Starmer wants is to have to share the blame for no deal chaos. Labour doesn’t yet have a consistent polling lead.

I'm assuming that if the Tories knew that Labour would abstain, enough not-quite-headbangers would stay onside so that the bill would pass anyway. Again, tough for Starmer, but I think he may regret this. (Of course, we can never know what would have happened if the sliding doors had closed a moment sooner.)

I don’t think anyone is thrilled about Labour voting for the deal, but I guess if Remainers have spent the last four and a half years urging Tories to put the national interest ahead of dogmatic principle, it’s sauce-for-the-gander time

sTeamTraen wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 4:01 pm I'm assuming that if the Tories knew that Labour would abstain, enough not-quite-headbangers would stay onside so that the bill would pass anyway.

I wouldn't be too sure. The Brexit crazies are very crazy.

A sane Brexiteer is someone who amputates one leg to make a pair of socks last twice as long: a crazy Brexiteer is one who also expects a pair of shoes to last twice as long.

Millennie Al wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:42 am A sane Brexiteer is someone who amputates one leg to make a pair of socks last twice as long: a crazy Brexiteer is one who also expects a pair of shoes to last twice as long.

Genuine LOL there!

Long Twitter thread, recommended by David Allen Green, on miscalculations leading to a poor deal for the UK: https://twitter.com/AntonSpisak/status/ ... 62498?s=19

Blackcountryboy wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:09 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:25 pm

Blackcountryboy wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:11 pm The Government want everyone to only compare this deal with no deal when the real comparison should be with remaining in the EU.

To be fair (and it pains me to say it), that ship sailed on 31 January. So in terms of what could be done this year, this is a very slightly less sh.t sandwich than no (trade) deal would have been.

I don't think I was being unfair, the people who now negotiated this deal played a big part in getting to the situation where this was the choice.

Yup. I'm tending to the view that the risk of the ERG getting no deal is too much for Labour to risk abstaining, but part of me wants the Tories to own it all.

Woodchopper wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 1:04 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 12:47 pm

shpalman wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 10:47 pm uk CavEd in oN fish tO WIN A wIDEr TrEaty because of course it f.cking did what's wrong with you

While the deal unveiled by the prime minister and European commission president Ursula von der Leyen looks certain to pass through the Westminster parliament, largely because Labour will back it, pro-Brexit MPs remain determined not to fall into the trap of endorsing the full agreement before having subjected every clause to full scrutiny.

I'd be interested to know Starmer's reasoning for (a) whipping for the bill and (b) saying well in advance that he will do so. I appreciate that he has to look like he is backing what's best for Britain, and no other deal is on the table, but if the ERG headbangers can get enough Tories to rebel, it will only pass because of Labour support. And because even the best possible deal that the UK could have got would have led to a major loss of GDP, and this is clearly not that deal, Labour risks being associated with the coming depression.

True, but the last thing Starmer wants is to have to share the blame for no deal chaos. Labour doesn’t yet have a consistent polling lead.

This.

And Labour would be blamed.

I think pointing out that it's a bad deal but Johnson's actions mean it's his deal or a disaster, is the right message.

Abstaining is for where both options are equally bad. Otherwise it's the luxury of opposition and indecision.

It's a tough call, but I've just tweeted our MP to say that I think it's a mistake for Labour to support the EU deal.
I don't think he should sign up for 'being in favour' of this last minute deal.

My local libdem group is debating whether our MPs should be voting for the deal, voting against it or abstaining. I don't really have an opinion. We have the luxury of having so few MPs that anything we do would be symbolic (unless the tories really f.cked up with their whipping) but the symbolism in this case seems to be so unclear that you could argue any position as being the correct one to take. We need the deal, however sh.t it is, because no deal - especially during a pandemic - would be idiotic beyond belief. But I too want the tories to own this and recognise that it's on them alone. And if their backbenchers revolt then it's up to Labour (and the other parties) to get this across the line for the good of the country, even though it means that they will be perceived to have a stake in the Deal's inevitable problems. I've seen a lot of people on twitter complaining about Starmer not abstaining and while I totally get where they're coming from it feels like he's doing the responsible thing, even if it harms him politically. It's the sort of leadership I think we're so unused to seeing that we can't recognise it any more.

The BBC have put up a "What are the key points of the deal?" page

But even on that, they couldn't give an unequivocal 'point' with respect to the ECJ

jimbob wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:39 pm

Blackcountryboy wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:09 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:25 pm

To be fair (and it pains me to say it), that ship sailed on 31 January. So in terms of what could be done this year, this is a very slightly less sh.t sandwich than no (trade) deal would have been.

I don't think I was being unfair, the people who now negotiated this deal played a big part in getting to the situation where this was the choice.

Yup. I'm tending to the view that the risk of the ERG getting no deal is too much for Labour to risk abstaining, but part of me wants the Tories to own it all.

Huh?

If Labour abstained, there's no possible way the ERG nutters will be a majority of voting MPs. Johnson has hundreds of lobby fodder MPs to obey the whip.

Fishnut wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:57 pm My local libdem group is debating whether our MPs should be voting for the deal, voting against it or abstaining. I don't really have an opinion.
....
We need the deal, however sh.t it is, because no deal - especially during a pandemic - would be idiotic beyond belief.

This means voting for the deal. Voting is an expression of a choice - not an opportunity to send a message. If you want to send a message, write it on the side of a bus, or use one of the very many communications methods modern life provides.

But I too want the tories to own this and recognise that it's on them alone. And if their backbenchers revolt then it's up to Labour (and the other parties) to get this across the line for the good of the country, even though it means that they will be perceived to have a stake in the Deal's inevitable problems. I've seen a lot of people on twitter complaining about Starmer not abstaining and while I totally get where they're coming from it feels like he's doing the responsible thing, even if it harms him politically. It's the sort of leadership I think we're so unused to seeing that we can't recognise it any more.

Abstaining or voting against it to send a message or score a political point is the sort of thing that might have lost the referndum - people voting leave for reasons other than genuinely wanting to leave.

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:48 am
Huh?

If Labour abstained, there's no possible way the ERG nutters will be a majority of voting MPs. Johnson has hundreds of lobby fodder MPs to obey the whip.

I’m pretty sure that all the new intake of Tory MPs (ie, their majority) signed a pledge backing a No Deal brexit. They’re all nutters.

There are 364 Conservative MPs. From other parties there are approx 60 MPs who will vote against (mostly SNP). Without Labour that gives 424 voting MPs and 212 to win.

The govt payroll vote is 141. There's 50 younger MPs hoping for a future govt job and 50 older MPs who are mere lobby fodder and have never disobeyed the whip in their lives. The target of 212 is passed without breaking a sweat. That only leaves the 120 nutters, of which perhaps 60 might rebel.

If Labour abstains then the deal wins by something in the region of 300-120. There is no possibility of it being close.

Nearly all of Labour voting for will make it something like 480-120.

This has been pretty much set since the referendum result. The Leave campaign's ploy with the pro-Brexit press to have the result appear to be set in stone as the "will of the people" coupled with a "remoaner doing the country down" narrative means that unless Labour support the deal, any failure of Brexit will get hung around their necks and not those of the Tories and anything whereby the good ship Brittania avoids sinking with be courtesy of the genius of the Tories, no matter how piss-poor.

That makes zero sense.

It doesn't matter all that in the real world but it's a terrible deal and the Conservatives will forever more be able to say "well you voted for it". It's baffling that Labour doesn't want to be able to say in coming years: "Told you so, this is why we didn't vote for it".

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:15 am That makes zero sense.

It doesn't matter all that in the real world but it's a terrible deal and the Conservatives will forever more be able to say "well you voted for it". It's baffling that Labour doesn't want to be able to say in coming years: "Told you so, this is why we didn't vote for it".

This. I wrote to my MP urging her to abstain to pressure Starmer to back abstaining.

bjn wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:36 am

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:15 am That makes zero sense.

It doesn't matter all that in the real world but it's a terrible deal and the Conservatives will forever more be able to say "well you voted for it". It's baffling that Labour doesn't want to be able to say in coming years: "Told you so, this is why we didn't vote for it".

This. I wrote to my MP urging her to abstain to pressure Starmer to back abstaining.

My MP (Clive Lewis) has been strongly against supporting the deal. Looks as if quite a few lab front benchers & others, from all wings of the party, may rebel against the whip.

It's moot. Whatever happens, the Conservatives and Brexiters and media and their enablers will just lie about it.

If I were Starmer I would leave it up to MP's as a free vote and not whip one way or the other.

TopBadger wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:44 pm If I were Starmer I would leave it up to MP's as a free vote and not whip one way or the other.

That would be spun as weakness.

Obviously the deal is better than no deal.

Obviously it's also sh.t.

Obviously Labour's votes are a numerical irrelevance.

Starmer needs to find the position that is least vulnerable to being weaponised by the dishonest.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:01 pm It's moot. Whatever happens, the Conservatives and Brexiters and media and their enablers will just lie about it.

It gives them one less stick to beat Labour with when people start losing jobs and businesses.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:57 pm

TopBadger wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:44 pm If I were Starmer I would leave it up to MP's as a free vote and not whip one way or the other.

That would be spun as weakness.

Obviously the deal is better than no deal.

Obviously it's also sh.t.

Obviously Labour's votes are a numerical irrelevance.

Starmer needs to find the position that is least vulnerable to being weaponised by the dishonest.

I tend to agree with TopBadger here. It can be presented as something that’s too important to leave to party politics, and also a free vote is an important step towards reconciliation of both sides of the debate. If Starmer is challenged he can say “well, it’s a dreadful deal but given the appalling situation the Tories have got us into, in my view I think it’s best to hold my nose and reluctantly support it. But I completely understand why some members of my party don’t want to be seen to enable such a dog’s dinner” etc

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 3:32 pm If Starmer is challenged he can say “well, it’s a dreadful deal but given the appalling situation the Tories have got us into, in my view I think it’s best to hold my nose and reluctantly support it. But I completely understand why some members of my party don’t want to be seen to enable such a dog’s dinner” etc

Well if there is one thing we’ve learnt since 911, the Global Financial Crash, through the Coalition, austerity and Brexit it’s that long-winded, nuanced, heavily-caveated rationalisations about a political party’s imperfect flip-flopping response to complex real world decisions ALWAYS beats simplistic three word slogans which bear no resemblance to reality or future performance.

As such I imagine in 2024 every voter in the country will be happy to patiently listen to Labour doorsteppers 5 minute explanation about how ackshully Labour bears no responsibility for the deal they voted for and the problem with the current situation is not because the Remoaners have somehow tricked us into a BINO but that the whole enterprise was doomed from the start. In much the same way the LDs continue to harvest the gratitude of a grateful nation for their enabling role in austerity.

Meanwhile I’m sure the Tories will, as always, be happy to accept the full blame for the last decade-and-a-half of mayhem.

I don't think there's a good option here. If Labour MPs vote for the bill, then that can be perceived as an endorsement. If they vote against because they genuinely don't want it to pass, then that can be perceived as accepting that the Tories were right all along when they said that no deal was better than a bad deal. If they vote against, or abstain, because they know the bill will pass anyway, then that looks like challenging someone to a fight in a pub on the expectation that your mates will hold you back and tell you "He ain't worth it Barry."

ETA: For the purposes of this analogy your name is, of course, Barry.