Okay, I'm posting this here rather than Facebook because here I'll get some intelligent response rather than a tedious bunfight which it's vaguely supposed I should moderate.
There are opposing views on Corbyn's response to Brexit. One is that he is a tacit Brexit sympathiser in the Bennite/EP Thompson tradition who is glad of the referendum vote and therefore not providing effective opposition to the government. All he is offering is that he and his party would somehow magic up a better deal than that negotiated by the government. The opposing view is that he is playing a long game, in which even now it is not appropriate for him to make his move, and that one all options are spent, he will make his move, in accordance with what was agreed at conference.
First off, I agree absolutely with the repositioning of Labour further left on the spectrum but am not a "Corbynite" insofar as that implies a faith in a leader I always regarded as a placeholder rather than a Harry Perkins-type genius politician the like of which would be required to effect the sort of profound leftward shift our country, let alone party requires. He's a Solksjaer at best. As soon as possible, we need someone youthful, talented, un-hindered by historical baggage to kick Labour on and scotch centrist objections. (A young Harry Perkins, I should say).
From a pragmatic viewpoint I can see why Labour didn't plunge into the 2017 position adopted by the Lib Dems who pledged to reverse Brexit. (As I want to). They tanked. Even the likes of Yvette Cooper, current hero, were stating firmly that "Brexit means Brexit" and, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, talking up resistance to freedom of movement. They shouldn't be allowed to forget that.
As the realty of the implications of No Deal have unfolded, I've been dismayed by Corbyn. His current position that Labour could magic up a better Brexit is manifestly bollocks to anyone who has been paying attention to this process - it feels like words to put out in the meantime before Labour are in an actual position to influence matters.
Thing is, what real difference could Labour have made to this whole process? Corbyn was accused of being lukewarm in his support of the EU in the referendum but Labour still voted circa 67% in favour of Remain.
Meanwhile, in the 2017 election, by adopting the ambivalent stance on Brexit that they took, Labour made huge and unexpected gains on the Tories, which have helped create our present impasse - the Tories don't have the numbers. The Lib Dems did not help out in this respect in 2017.
As I say, I don't credit Corbyn with strategic vision or nous. A politician with their heart in remain might have emboldened the current campaign and tilted things a better way. Unfortunately, those people, the Coopers, the Benns, were compromised New Labour types who were a spent force as far as the electorate were concerned. Controls On Immigration teamugs, etc.
So here we are now. I see a great many posts lamenting the present past who bracket May and the opposition in the same clause as if to imply 50-50 responsibility but the truth is it's 90-10 the Tories - they own this.
Now we're coming down to the final furlong. May's shitty deal is going to be voted down. Labour might call a GE but their placeholder better deal position will be extinguished almost instantly. So, it becomes a binary position - no deal or second referendum. Extending Article 50 buys only a short time, Article 50 being revoked, the absolute best option is inconceivable.
It therefore behoves Corbyn, however reluctantly, to opt for the shitty but least worst option of a People's Vote. (In which, strangely, he could provide an avuncular wink to those genuinely disaffected by EU policy).
Meanwhile, I think it is worthwhile to write to Corbyn and impress on him the case for Remain which is essentially; don't be a naive party to a far right project and don't imagine that you can effect a redistributive policy when there's bugger all to redistribute.
There are opposing views on Corbyn's response to Brexit. One is that he is a tacit Brexit sympathiser in the Bennite/EP Thompson tradition who is glad of the referendum vote and therefore not providing effective opposition to the government. All he is offering is that he and his party would somehow magic up a better deal than that negotiated by the government. The opposing view is that he is playing a long game, in which even now it is not appropriate for him to make his move, and that one all options are spent, he will make his move, in accordance with what was agreed at conference.
First off, I agree absolutely with the repositioning of Labour further left on the spectrum but am not a "Corbynite" insofar as that implies a faith in a leader I always regarded as a placeholder rather than a Harry Perkins-type genius politician the like of which would be required to effect the sort of profound leftward shift our country, let alone party requires. He's a Solksjaer at best. As soon as possible, we need someone youthful, talented, un-hindered by historical baggage to kick Labour on and scotch centrist objections. (A young Harry Perkins, I should say).
From a pragmatic viewpoint I can see why Labour didn't plunge into the 2017 position adopted by the Lib Dems who pledged to reverse Brexit. (As I want to). They tanked. Even the likes of Yvette Cooper, current hero, were stating firmly that "Brexit means Brexit" and, as has been pointed out elsewhere here, talking up resistance to freedom of movement. They shouldn't be allowed to forget that.
As the realty of the implications of No Deal have unfolded, I've been dismayed by Corbyn. His current position that Labour could magic up a better Brexit is manifestly bollocks to anyone who has been paying attention to this process - it feels like words to put out in the meantime before Labour are in an actual position to influence matters.
Thing is, what real difference could Labour have made to this whole process? Corbyn was accused of being lukewarm in his support of the EU in the referendum but Labour still voted circa 67% in favour of Remain.
Meanwhile, in the 2017 election, by adopting the ambivalent stance on Brexit that they took, Labour made huge and unexpected gains on the Tories, which have helped create our present impasse - the Tories don't have the numbers. The Lib Dems did not help out in this respect in 2017.
As I say, I don't credit Corbyn with strategic vision or nous. A politician with their heart in remain might have emboldened the current campaign and tilted things a better way. Unfortunately, those people, the Coopers, the Benns, were compromised New Labour types who were a spent force as far as the electorate were concerned. Controls On Immigration teamugs, etc.
So here we are now. I see a great many posts lamenting the present past who bracket May and the opposition in the same clause as if to imply 50-50 responsibility but the truth is it's 90-10 the Tories - they own this.
Now we're coming down to the final furlong. May's shitty deal is going to be voted down. Labour might call a GE but their placeholder better deal position will be extinguished almost instantly. So, it becomes a binary position - no deal or second referendum. Extending Article 50 buys only a short time, Article 50 being revoked, the absolute best option is inconceivable.
It therefore behoves Corbyn, however reluctantly, to opt for the shitty but least worst option of a People's Vote. (In which, strangely, he could provide an avuncular wink to those genuinely disaffected by EU policy).
Meanwhile, I think it is worthwhile to write to Corbyn and impress on him the case for Remain which is essentially; don't be a naive party to a far right project and don't imagine that you can effect a redistributive policy when there's bugger all to redistribute.
Comment