Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corbyn and Labour - what next?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
    Are we now arguing that Labour should push for shitty policies on the grounds of those policies giving a hypothetical 4 point swing in a poll?
    In a non existent election too.

    Comment


      #52
      Anyway bedtime.

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
        Are we now arguing that Labour should push for shitty policies on the grounds of those policies giving a hypothetical 4 point swing in a poll?
        noone is saying that Labour should push for shitty policies. But nor have you put the case for them arguing for unpopular policies when they need a working majority to achieve anything. Naturally the Conservatives and the Lib dems want Labour to take the hit. Sadly the Right of the Labour Party want Corbyn's Labout to take the hit too.

        I think this piece by Joseph Harker is worth reading. He (like me) backed remain.
        Anti-Brexit campaigners really do act like a Ďmetropolitan eliteí, says Guardian Opinion deputy editor, Joseph Harker

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
          Are we now arguing that Labour should push for shitty policies on the grounds of those policies giving a hypothetical 4 point swing in a poll?
          I guess that Harriet Harman was right to abstain on welfare reform.

          My point being that Corbyn was elected on a prospectus of principle - the longer the Brexit triangulation goes on, the more he risks slowly alienating elements of his coalition. Votes retained in Leave seats could mean votes lost elsewhere.
          Last edited by Lucy Waterman; 12-01-2019, 09:58.

          Comment


            #55
            Can we agree that this is a very positive move?

            Comment


              #56
              Yes, I think so. Itís so hard to get traction on any other issue at the moment, but itís not as if other problems have gone away.

              Comment


                #57
                Labour, on domestic issues, has come up with lots of good policies. No complaints there...

                Comment


                  #58
                  There seems to be a fair bit of misunderstanding here, and on other threads, so I'll restate: Corbyn and Labour campaigned for Remain. Remain lost. They could/can have spent the last two years wishing it had never happened, and say 'we should Remain!', but I'm not sure that's tenable. As it was, the Labour campaign at the GE stopped May dead in her tracks from going along with her right-wing approach to Brexit, which is what she called a GE to implement. Now - still without a majority - Labour had to deal with the reality of where we are, what is achievable, what is 'democratic', and what is possible - all the while doing their very best to get the Tories out AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Mainly, because three are people dying on our streets, now.

                  I don't think that that is 'triangulating', but I guess we have different views on that.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    I'm not all that keen on lots of it. But good climate and housing policies would go a very long way. The emphasis is good and I don't mind too much if the policy isn't fully formed, and they run on being guided by experts.

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Iím not sure if that¬ís directed at me or at TAB. Unfortunately not all areas of the U.K. hasn¬ít benefited from EU membership in the way that the majority of Ireland has, and therefore making the case for remaining is more difficult here, particularly in the context of First past the post, a solid conservative vote, and an extremely partisan media.

                      I don’t see what insulting the intelligence of John McDonnell contributes to the discussion.


                      I don't understand what Ireland has to do with it. Every region of the UK has benefited strongly from EU membership, It's just that not many of them have benefited from being part of the Uk. The damage done in the class and regional warfare of the Thatcher years does rather gloss over that the UK joined the EEC because they were utterly fucked. The Difference between Ireland and the UK is that the over 65's who were the people who voted in 1973, remember very clearly what things were like before the EEC, and feel no nostalgia for that time. It's also worth remembering that it was far from plain sailing, with us going completely bankrupt twice in the intervening period, but we knew that had nothing to do with Europe.

                      To be honest, I don't see much wrong with Labour's promise to implement brexit if elected, However one thing was profoundly clear. Implementing the sovereignty side of Brexit would destroy the economy, and protecting the economy by joining Efta would limit economic damage, at the expense of turning the UK completely into a rule taker, and making an utter mockery of the sovereignty side of Brexit. This is EU 101 level knowledge. Labour should have promised to go and negotiate the best deal possible for Britain, and if it Wasn't obviously an improvement on the status quo, or if reality was unrecognizable when compared to the Campaign Brexit, you'd have a second referendum offering people the choice between No Deal, Reality Deal brexit, and just calling the whole thing off. This neatly avoids the whole problem of basing your position on Cake, and allows you to Set the promise of Cake against the reality of what can be achieved, to justify ulitmately remaining.

                      That's not functionally that different to their policy at the time, in that it allows you to pay lip service to respecting the will of the people, but with the proviso that the will of the people needs to be respected, and if it turns out that brexit you can negotiate is alarmingly cake free, then you will ask the people again. It allows you to park the issue until you see how it works out, but also leaves you with a path out of Brexit when it inevitably looked like being a shitshow. You could then spend the rest of the election talking about issues more relevant to most people. Labour should have built their position around reality, because then they could relentless oppose the tories based on the mess they were making of things. It might look very different to someone inside the UK, but the failure of Labour to land a steady stream of body blows on the Tories about the mess they were making of brexit looks to people in Ireland like tacit approval, or utter and rank incompetence, but it is ultimately rooted in Labour having a policy firmly rooted in clouds of delusion.

                      This current Tory Govt is probably the most pathetically incompetent govt since the turn of the 19th century, they're making an absolute and utter hames of Brexit, and yet Labour still trail them in the polls. but that is because Everything is about brexit, and Labour offer no clear alternative to the Tories on this issue, and have failed utterly to hold them to account. The Deck as you point out is stacked against them, but they could at least have tried, and set themselves up to say I told you so, and be set up to capitalize on the inevitable failure of May to deliver a unicorn Brexit.

                      There is no point in comparing this approach with what would happened if labour suddenly changed to supporting a second referendum. Labour has laid literally no ground work for this, nor has it spent enough time highlighting the negative effects of brexit by pointing to its messy realities. A change of position now just looks like a haphazard floundering reaction. Yes the various forces of the UK are lined up against the Labour party, but that is why it is even more important that they get their fucking act together and come up with coherent policies and a coherent approach and keep hammering away at that, in the hope that their message eventually gets through to people.

                      See ultimately the biggest problem I have with corbyn's Labour party is that while it spends its time being characterized as dangerous maoists, they're actually incoherent, timid, and bizarrely and utterly passive. This isn't unique to this current incarnation of the labour party, but this is supposed to be different.

                      Comment


                        #61
                        It ďspends its time being characterizedĒ? So weíre to blame for the propaganda against us? Not ignoring the rest of your post, I disagree that the PLP are passive. Theyíre holding it together in absolutely horrible circumstances, against the most vicious, dirty smear campaign weíve ever seen.

                        Comment


                          #62
                          Originally posted by Moonlight shadow View Post
                          Labour, on domestic issues, has come up with lots of good policies. No complaints there...
                          But the man who you said earlier is '10 times the politician that Corbyn is' - David Lammy (who I have a lot of respect for) - would not have led with a manifesto anything like Labour's on domestic policies. The manifesto, and current direction of travel, didn't emerge, or 'come up', from nowhere; they're policies that have been advocated by Corbyn, McDonnell, and 100s of thousands of new members, for a long time.

                          Lammy is not 10 times Corbyn, nor is it vice versa. They're both very good, and both have flaws. And they're both miles better than any politician from any other party.

                          Comment


                            #63
                            No I'm not holding it against them at all. It's simply something that the Labour party has to recognize is going to be coming their way regardless, and change the way that they operate in order to counter that. I'm talking about a much more formalized and consistent version of what worked during the general election, where people got to see Labour and Corbyn in action and a lot of them decided that they weren't anything like they were being painted. A good example is this Anti-Semitism fiasco, which should have been very easy to handle, and send out clear messages about what was and wasn't acceptable. Instead it turned into an incoherent shit show.

                            But on the other hand they get characterized as Maoists because they do a lot of posturing that they're left wing. I wouldn't mind this so much if they actually were a radical leftwards departure from the more recent incarnations of the Labour party...... but they simply aren't..

                            Comment


                              #64
                              Originally posted by johnr
                              Lammy is not 10 times Corbyn, nor is it vice versa. They're both very good, and both have flaws. And they're both miles better than any politician from any other party.
                              ​​​​​​
                              That reads like my friend Jenny. Otherwise left wing but hardcore Royalist. No matter how bonkers, plodding or infantile our next 3 heads of state, they are inherently better than anyone elected.

                              With Barbs on this. Just because the Tories and Media say JMac is a Marxist (as they would regardless) doesn't compel him to agree

                              Comment


                                #65
                                Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                                ​​​​​​
                                That reads like my friend Jenny. Otherwise left wing but hardcore Royalist. No matter how bonkers, plodding or infantile our next 3 heads of state, they are inherently better than anyone elected.

                                That would work if I'd said that either Lammy or Corbyn were 'bonkers, plodding or infantile'. As I didn't, but instead called them both 'very good', who have flaws - name somebody who hasn't - then it doesn't.

                                Comment


                                  #66
                                  Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
                                  A good example is this Anti-Semitism fiasco, which should have been very easy to handle, and send out clear messages about what was and wasn't acceptable. Instead it turned into an incoherent shit show.
                                  When you have a distinct number of Labour MPs, allied to just about every political commentator / journalist just brazenly making shit up without question then it will never be anything but a shitshow.

                                  This is a direct exchange on the radio last week between a proper journalist and Luciana Berger, one of the leading campaigners against Corbyn.

                                  Eddie Mair: I want to ask you, would a Jeremy Corbyn Government be brilliant news for this country?

                                  Luciana Berger: [hesitates] In the sense of?

                                  EM: Do you need it qualified? Would a Jeremy Corbyn Government be brilliant news for Britain?

                                  LB: Well, in terms of, itís not the question for the country Ö for what they want Ö

                                  EM: Well, youíre a Labour MP. Iím asking you whether a Jeremy Corbyn Government would be brilliant news for Britain.

                                  LB: Well, at the moment, [itís] very clear that we have a country thatís divided, and we need Ö

                                  EM: Isnít the answer ďYesĒ?

                                  LB: Well, whatís most important at this moment in time is that we resolve the Brexit question.

                                  EM: Why canít you say ďYesĒ?

                                  LB: Because Ö [laughs]

                                  EM: Because you donít believe it.

                                  LB: My answer is, is that the issue that weíre first and foremost contending with, the crisis we find ourselves in, is around Brexit, and that is the issue we need to deal with.

                                  EM: Forgive me for pressing you, but I would have thought a Labour MP would have said that a Jeremy Corbyn Government would be brilliant news for Britain.

                                  LB: Well, you know thereís many different views at the moment in the Labour Party, we have many different issues that we have to content with.

                                  EM: You donít think it would be brilliant news for Britain?

                                  LB: I think that we need to deal first and foremost with the Brexit issue.

                                  EM: Youíve made that point. But if youíre asking, if youíre going to the polls at some point in the next few weeks, and saying ďVote for meĒ, youíre also saying ďVote for Jeremy CorbynĒ. You canít bring yourself to say that a Jeremy Corbyn Government would be brilliant news for Britain.

                                  LB: I think we need to resolve the Brexit issue first. I donít think itís right that we should be going to the country, having a General Election, when we havenít resolved the Brexit issue.

                                  EM: When the election comes, would a Jeremy Corbyn Government be brilliant news for Britain?

                                  LB: Well, I think a Labour Government would be better than a Conservative Government, yes.

                                  EM: Not a Jeremy Corbyn-led Government?

                                  LB: Well, I think, you know, Iím a Labour MP so [mumbles] Iíd want a Labour Government over a Conservative Government.

                                  EM: Even a Jeremy Corbyn-led Government?

                                  LB: I want a Labour Government.

                                  EM: Thank you for taking the time, good to talk to you.
                                  Last edited by Snake Plissken; 13-01-2019, 17:26.

                                  Comment


                                    #67
                                    Both parties are claiming they can get concessions from the EU that are clearly not going to happen in reality. Until that changes I would vote Lib Dem if voting from conscience and would only vote Labour if voting tactically to keep the Tories out.

                                    Comment


                                      #68
                                      Only just seen this.
                                      Originally posted by wingco View Post
                                      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.
                                      I'm of the latter view myself. Give the Tories something to oppose, and they'll group together and oppose it, you have to sit back, and let them screw themselves over instead, which has slowly been the case despite the Labour Brexit policy not changing between the design of the six tests, and the 2018 Conference.

                                      The reason I think that is the tactic, is mainly because the six tests cannot be passed. You cannot have access to the customs union and the single market, while ending freedom of movement. Freedom of movement of trade and people are two of the four pillars of the EU. This is page one stuff, the designer of the six tests (it wasn't Corbyn) would have been well aware of that.

                                      Not to mention that certain MPs that are now towing the party line, voted against triggering article 50 in the first place.

                                      I think the basis of Corbyn saying he could renegotiate better are based on May ruling out a customs union and access to the single market before she started negotiating. Given that there are different red lines, Corbyn could get a better (from my POV) deal, although that's a lot less preferable to remaining.

                                      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).
                                      This is exactly where I sit. Corbyn has too much baggage for the right wing press (I mean, if they had nothing, they'd invent it, but not only does their shit stick, Corbyn is awful at defending himself, and even worse at denouncing things that should be easy to denounce), and too much other baggage for me - I'd much prefer someone without the links to the SWP that Corbyn - and McDonnell - have.

                                      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.
                                      Yes - for all Chuka Umunna's recent talks about The People's Vote, he voted to trigger article 50. For some, I think it's more a case of positioning themselves favourably to LibDem voters, so they can split off and start a new centrist party that will save the world, as long as they don't keep getting outwitted by the Tories over and over again, like they did over Syria and Trident.

                                      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.
                                      As leader, Corbyn has to follow the line decided by delegates at Conference, in the main, ordinary members chosen by their CLPs, which is push for a general election first, then if that fails, it's all option on the table. Which on one hand is as wishy-washy as it gets, but also means that Labour don't alienate the seemingly shitload of people needed to vote Labour in the next general election (these sort of motions at conference have to be decided unanimously, rather than by majority view).

                                      The downside of this, is that, at Conference time in September 2018, a further referendum looked like the best way of staying in the EU. Now, it looks like they only way we're likely to be leaving with no deal.

                                      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.
                                      Absolutely. Nish Kumar made the similar excellent point on Question Time last week. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing towards Labour on this, which all the time is taking attention away from the government that are actually the ones who will be implementing it. It's a favoured tactic of The People's Vote (the chair of whom is Roland Rudd, brother of Amber).

                                      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.
                                      I don't believe The People's Vote is least worst. Just to show how a week is a long time in politics, this morning, the Sunday Times reported that a "plot" is under way to force a vote preventing no deal. Given that May's WA will fail, and only about 50 MPs are in favour of no deal, so that vote would also pass - and if it's purely a story designed to get MPs to vote for May's deal, it won't work, but it's also inconceivable that no "ban no deal" vote would go through. That leaves the options as revoke, extend and renegotiate, or People's Vote.

                                      Also, Jeremy Corbyn has said that Labour will do "everything" to prevent no deal, so if the Tories don't table such a vote, it would happen on an opposition day.

                                      Comment


                                        #69
                                        Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
                                        Yes, I think so. Itís so hard to get traction on any other issue at the moment, but itís not as if other problems have gone away.
                                        I think it depends on your point of view, someone on Universal Credit (for example) would disagree.

                                        Comment


                                          #70
                                          I'd have thought they would agree with me?

                                          Comment


                                            #71
                                            Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
                                            I'd have thought they would agree with me?
                                            Apologies. I misread the "hard to get traction" bit wrong.

                                            Comment


                                              #72
                                              Originally posted by johnr View Post
                                              That would work if I'd said that either Lammy or Corbyn were 'bonkers, plodding or infantile'. As I didn't, but instead called them both 'very good', who have flaws - name somebody who hasn't - then it doesn't.
                                              Morning John and everyone. My apologies- should have said "That reminds me" rather than "reads like". I was struck that you think Corbyn (and Lammy) are so much better than anyone else from all other parties- hence the reference to Charles Windsor and his family. I mean, it's tending to blind faith in their ability to run the government, should that arise.

                                              As a comparison, I think Lucas and Berry from my own party are doing a good job, but both their failings (some admitted, some not) and the experience/ skill of opponents always need to be considered

                                              Comment


                                                #73
                                                Thanks DG. I like and dislike Caroline in equal measure - have met her a few times, voted for her in 2010, but as a local Labour member was also trying to remove her last year (worked a bit harder on it when she produced a deliberately false leaflet at the start of the campaign, before withdrawing it late on - but that's another story!). She's certainly a good politician (which, as with Corbyn, can be read as good and bad, depending on circumstances/opinion).

                                                I promise you that I don't have blind faith in either Corbyn, Lammy, or any other politician - I've pointed out quite a few of imo flaws with Corbyn, on that Corb Blimey thread.

                                                Comment


                                                  #74
                                                  Originally posted by johnr View Post
                                                  Thanks DG. I like and dislike Caroline in equal measure - have met her a few times, voted for her in 2010, but as a local Labour member was also trying to remove her last year (worked a bit harder on it when she produced a deliberately false leaflet at the start of the campaign, before withdrawing it late on - but that's another story!)
                                                  This is why Labour are fucking idiotic. Why? Because ultimately, the majoritan push for a majority labour government which underpins the deeply conservative constitutional politics Labour have hamstrung themselves with for nearly 100 years.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #75
                                                    Er...come on, Andy

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X