Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Kentonio]

SNP voters are also overwhelmingly pro-independence so what exactly will Labour changing their brexit policy do about that?

Support a federalization platform and use the same logic of why staying in the EU is so important to sell the idea of staying in the union, but on much better terms. The union is eventually going to have to federalize or break apart anyway, so it seems a pretty easy choice to support.

 

[Silva]

Support a federalization platform and use the same logic of why staying in the EU is so important to sell the idea of staying in the union, but on much better terms. The union is eventually going to have to federalize or break apart anyway, so it seems a pretty easy choice to support.

The SNP would respond as:

We've been made these promises time and time again, and been let down time and time again. Only independence can give us the Scotland we want.

And it's pretty compelling, if you were a caffeine addict you wouldn't settle for a herbal tea.

IMO the only way labour is winning over SNP voters if both parties enter a coalition and labour siphons support ala the condem coalition.

 

[Adisa]

Waiting for the penny to drop when he'll realise/admit his positiin on brexit cannot exclude FOM.

 

[Kentonio]

The SNP would respond as:

And it's pretty compelling, if you were a caffeine addict you wouldn't settle for a herbal tea.

IMO the only way labour is winning over SNP voters if both parties enter a coalition and labour siphons support ala the condem coalition.

Labour can’t rely on something so unreliable. They need a solid and coherent position and need to start marketing it early. I disagree that it’s not a compelling position, the big weakness with independence is that it’s potentially very risky. Voters don’t like risk usually, and will only go for it if they think they’ve had their needs ignored for too long. Give them a good safe solution that solves many of their problems and they’ll usually bite your hand off.

 

[Silva]

Voters don’t like risk usually, and will only go for it if they think they’ve had their needs ignored for too long.

This is why they went to the SNP in the first place.

Give them a good safe solution that solves many of their problems and they’ll usually bite your hand off.

This hasn't borne out in recent years.

For the record, Scottish Labour has consistently campaigned for greater devolution and it hasn't lead to much electorally.

 

[Oscie]

Easy to understand why the SNP are an attractive prospect for voters as it's clear where they stand on Brexit ("fecking stupid idea") and independence ("fecking great idea").

Compare that with the other two parties up there who are use disappearing up their own arses trying to pretend that on the major issue facing Scotland they're not absolutely identical.

 

[Silva]

The SNP lost seats at the last general election and the last Scottish parliamentary elections. I could understand if they were still at the post indiref high but the idea that changing brexit policy will single handedly hand labour Scotland is at best ignorant.

 

[Silva]

For the record, labour voted with the SNP against the most recent devolution power grab, Jeremy going to Glasgow to talk about it. But who cares, eh? Lets pretend he's just dossing around in his allotment and not doing anything.

That is what devolution is about - people making, their own decisions. As far as I’m concerned there should be the maximum devolution from the EU Withdrawal Bill to Scotland and Wales.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/polit...wer-grab-on-the-scottish-parliament-1-4738226

 

[Cheesy]

For the record, labour voted with the SNP against the most recent devolution power grab, Jeremy going to Glasgow to talk about it. But who cares, eh? Lets pretend he's just dossing around in his allotment and not doing anything.


https://www.scotsman.com/news/polit...wer-grab-on-the-scottish-parliament-1-4738226

At Holyrood. Didn't bother their arses at Westminster.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Jez needs to appease his racist base on Brexit.

 

[sullydnl]

As an outsider, the devoted support some people seem to have for Corbyn seems odd.

The congratulations that followed him losing an election to arguably the worst PM in living memory were weird. The lack of intense criticism for a Brexit policy that seems to ignore the beliefs of a large swathe of the populace who voted against Brexit whilst also engaging in the same Brexit-land fantasies that have been rejected by everyone outside the UK already? Even weirder.

I mean if you're of the opinion that Brexit is a disaster being driven by delusional politicians (as most on the caf seem to be) then how can you so strongly support someone who (to the outside world) seems little less delusional in that regard than the Tory government you presumably despise?

I realise that's just one issue but it's arguably the most important in, what, the last 100 years of British politics? How are people so committed to someone whose position on that issue is one they're hugely at odds with?

 

[Cheesy]

Labour is opposing a hard Brexit. The Stage 1 and 2 agreements are both the soft-Brexit option that make all but full regulatory alignment impossible and Labour is opposed to a no-deal exit*. There's a lot of huffing and puffing from Johnson, Mogg and co. that has entered the public consciousness and lead to the idea that they're backseat driving every facet of the country and every detail of the exit but that's not what the signed papers say.

But this isn't strictly true. To fully oppose a hard Brexit, Labour must fully commit to remaining within the single market and customs union, and must commit to the continuation of freedom of movement.They haven't done this, and continually say they want the benefits of the single market. That's essentially the Tory policy, where they want to be able to have their cake and eat it. This, for example, is how it's worded on the Labour website:

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.

Again - benefits is the key word there. Labour want the pros of the EU but like the Tories continue to refuse in committing to the terms required for that. Hence why every time a Labour MP's on QT they give some long-winded speech about how they want to have some sort of regulatory alignment or something while not stating outright they want to remain within the single market.

 

[Kentonio]

This hasn't borne out in recent years.

For the record, Scottish Labour has consistently campaigned for greater devolution and it hasn't lead to much electorally.

I just don’t think increased devolution is enough of a clear message, especially when Scots keep seeing the Tories just ignoring Scottish issues whenever they feel like it. Federalization would be a very clear separation which locks in rights permanently. It’s a big offer.

 

[Cheesy]

The relevant info on the devolution controversy. Labour were all for it at Holyrood but ignored it down south. Which makes Scottish Labour's faux outrage (if there is any) fairly laughable considering they're always going to fall in behind the main lot anyway.

 

[Silva]

At Holyrood. Didn't bother their arses at Westminster.

Yeah, that was a dumb move, especially considering they voted on the other Brexit bills. It wouldn't even have changed the result (as their other votes didn't) so they should have just turned up.

But this isn't strictly true. To fully oppose a hard Brexit, Labour must fully commit to remaining within the single market and customs union, and must commit to the continuation of freedom of movement.They haven't done this, and continually say they want the benefits of the single market. That's essentially the Tory policy, where they want to be able to have their cake and eat it. This, for example, is how it's worded on the Labour website:



Again - benefits is the key word there. Labour want the pros of the EU but like the Tories continue to refuse in committing to the terms required for that. Hence why every time a Labour MP's on QT they give some long-winded speech about how they want to have some sort of regulatory alignment or something while not stating outright they want to remain within the single market.

They're in opposition, I'm okay with them being vague about Brexit. Especially in light of the stage 1 and 2 making it impossible to end freedom of movement and goods.

 

[Cheesy]

I just don’t think increased devolution is enough of a clear message, especially when Scots keep seeing the Tories just ignoring Scottish issues whenever they feel like it. Federalization would be a very clear separation which locks in rights permanently. It’s a big offer.

Yeah, Labour have always offered us enough to (try) and stem off the SNP but have never exactly been keen proponents of the strongest forms of devolution. It was originally implemented with the aim of killing off the SNP, and the entire parliamentary system (while decent) was designed with the specific intention of ensuring the SNP never gained a majority.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Labour is opposing a hard Brexit. The Stage 1 and 2 agreements are both the soft-Brexit option that make all but full regulatory alignment impossible and Labour is opposed to a no-deal exit*. There's a lot of huffing and puffing from Johnson, Mogg and co. that has entered the public consciousness and lead to the idea that they're backseat driving every facet of the country and every detail of the exit but that's not what the signed papers say.

*

I think if you genuinely believe that Labour are opposing a hard Brexit it kind of makes the insipid non-opposition even worse.

It's one thing to argue that Labour are basically going along with the Tories because they agree, it's entirely another to argue that they don't agree and this is the extent of the 'opposition' they can muster up.

 

[Cheesy]

They're in opposition, I'm okay with them being vague about Brexit. Especially in light of the stage 1 and 2 making it impossible to end freedom of movement and goods.

For the moment. There's a possibility May's government could collapse and if Corbyn gains power he's going to have to make himself clear on this issue, and that will involve committing to the continuation of freedom of movement even if it alienates some Labour voters.

 

[Cheesy]

I think if you genuinely believe that Labour are opposing a hard Brexit it kind of makes the insipid non-opposition even worse.

It's one thing to argue that Labour are basically going along with the Tories because they agree, it's entirely another to argue that they don't agree and this is the extent of the 'opposition' they can muster up.

Yeah, should also be noted that whenever people argue against Brexit, I've seen plenty of Tories turn around and say the two main parties campaigned on a mandate of a hard Brexit last time out, and that their mandate was validated. Labour backing a soft Brexit fully certainly won't have rural Englanders parading EU flags on their doorstep but it might at least give some validation of views held by a significant portion of the country that are mostly being marginalised to a couple of smaller parties right now. Especially if (as is being argued enough) Labour is basically backing a soft Brexit anyway.

 

[Silva]

It's one thing to argue that Labour are basically going along with the Tories because they agree

This hasn't happened though, Labour has voted against most of the Withdrawal Bills. The criticism of "what even is your policy" is fine, but the criticism that they're just following Davies lead doesn't match the parliamentary votes.

 

[Cheesy]

This hasn't happened though, Labour has voted against most of the Withdrawal Bills

They disagree on the means of how we withdraw, and how that withdrawal should be conducted etc, but for the time-being their practical, official policy position remains largely the same - departure from the single market while trying to somehow retain its benefits. Even if this is now impossible.

 

[Sweet Square]

As an outsider, the devoted support some people seem to have for Corbyn seems odd.

It really hasn't got anything to do with Corbyn(He's a nice bloke and that) but more to do with having a actual left/socialist Labour Party.

 

[Silva]

They disagree on the means of how we withdraw, and how that withdrawal should be conducted etc

Well, yeah, isn't that the whole point here? That, if we are leaving, this isn't the way to do it.

 

[Cheesy]

Well, yeah, isn't that the whole point here? That, if we are leaving, this isn't the way to do it.

The point @NinjaFletch was making wasn't about the withdrawal bills, but about the hard/soft Brexit positions of each party. For the time-being Labour still (officially) hold the same policy position as the Tories in that regard. The rest seems fairly minor by comparison to that fundamental issue.

 

[sullydnl]

Well, yeah, isn't that the whole point here? That, if we are leaving, this isn't the way to do it.

Does it not concern you that Labour's position on Brexit involves the same make-believe ideas that the Tories get criticised for? I would have thought the least you would want from an opposition party is a lack of delusion in regards to what is possible from Brexit?

That would strike me as a rather more pressing point than disagreeing with the way the Tories try to implement said fantasy Brexit.

 

[Silva]

The point @NinjaFletch was making wasn't about the withdrawal bills, but about the hard/soft Brexit positions of each party. For the time-being Labour still (officially) hold the same policy position as the Tories in that regard. The rest seems fairly minor by comparison to that fundamental issue.

The only thing they really have in common is that the policies are all over the place an purposefully incomprehensible.

Does it not concern you that Labour's position on Brexit involves the same make-believe ideas that the Tories get criticised for? I would have thought the least you would want from an opposition party is a lack of delusion in regards to what is possible from Brexit?

Not really. There's no version of Brexit that's better than EU membership if you lean toward liking the project or a no-deal exit if you lean toward skepticism. Neither major party can outright oppose it for obvious reasons and neither party can go ahead with a no-deal exit so here we are. If you actually read the signed agreements that have come from the negotiation they point to the UK having the same relationship with the EU sans Veto.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The only thing they really have in common is that the policies are all over the place an purposefully incomprehensible.

But that's more or less my argument in the first place with the generous interpretation that Labour's incompetence is actually part of a genius play.

And, I'm sure I've written this on this subject before on here, Corbyn was also sold on, and defended with, the idea that he was somehow an alternative to politics as usual and didn't play those games. That what you saw was what you got with him.

It strikes me as incredibly convenient to defend Labour's record on Brexit as an example of political savvy, when people will use the exact opposite argument to defend him next time he scores a huge own goal.

 

[Silva]

But that's more or less my argument in the first place with the generous interpretation that Labour's incompetence is actually part of a genius play.

And, I'm sure I've written this on this subject before on here, Corbyn was also sold on, and defended with, the idea that he was somehow an alternative to politics as usual and didn't play those games. That what you saw was what you got with him.

It strikes me as incredibly convenient to defend Labour's record on Brexit as an example of political savvy, when people will use the exact opposite argument to defend him next time he scores a huge own goal.

So, what could labour do instead? Back EEA membership? A second in/out referendum? Freedom of movement/labour/goods? There isn't enough difference between those options and simply becoming a remain party. Surely option 1 would require a referendum. So in options 1 and 2, labour is backing a referendum where they could be the losing side for no good reason. And option 3 is the inevitable final deal.

 

[NinjaFletch]

So, what could labour do instead? Back EEA membership? A second in/out referendum? Freedom of movement/labour/goods? There isn't enough difference between those options and simply becoming a remain party. Surely in options 1 would require a referendum anyway. So in options 1 and 2, labour is backing a referendum where they could be the losing side for no good reason. Option 3 is the inevitable final deal anyway.

Well this depends on your point of view of what the point of Corbyn's Labour is, doesn't it?

Yes, it would have been difficult to come out and say 'Brexit is clearly absurd, doesn't work, and will make our country poorer, hindering our ability to help the most vulnerable', but feck, he'd have been proven right and I've seen a huge number of clearly unpopular policies defended by Corbyn supporters because it's the right thing to do – again, I rather thought that was the point of the enthusiasm for Corbyn.

If we're now going to argue that Corbyn should pick policies based on what's electable, not what's right, then I'm struggling to see what the point of wrestling the party away from the Blairites was.

 

[Silva]

Well this depends on your point of view of what the point of Corbyn's Labour is, doesn't it?

To establish economically and socially left wing policies in one of the two parties that often rule the country and implement those policies when in power.

Yes, it would have been difficult to come out and say 'Brexit is clearly absurd, doesn't work, and will make our country poorer, hindering our ability to help the most vulnerable', but feck, he'd have been proven right and I've seen a huge number of clearly unpopular policies defended by Corbyn supporters because it's the right thing to do – again, I rather thought that was the point of the enthusiasm for Corbyn.

If we're now going to argue that Corbyn should pick policies based on what's electable, not what's right, then I'm struggling to see what the point of wrestling the party away from the Blairites was.

This doesn't work post-referendum, everyone having agreed there would one referendum and that's it. And it's not about being politically savvy, there's just no good options. I've listed the alternatives a couple of times in this thread and all of them would get both internal party criticism and criticism from the wider public, much as is happening now because there's no real way to satisfy any majority of the country on Brexit.

 

[NinjaFletch]

To establish economically and socially left wing policies in one of the two parties that often rule the country and implement those policies when in power.

Well quite, but now you're defending Corbyn's support for a policy that is directly antithetical to that aim. Yes, I'm aware of so called 'Lexit' arguments about the EU, but let's just ignore them as the fantasy that they are.

This doesn't work post-referendum, everyone having agreed there would one referendum and that's it. And it's not about being politically savvy, there's just no good options. I've listed the alternatives a couple of times in this thread and all of them would get both internal party criticism and criticism from the wider public, much as is happening now.

We don't know if it would or wouldn't have worked, but 'everyone' in this case really means that Brexiteers retroactively claimed it to be the case, and there was a lack of voice from prominent Remainers to counteract it because Labour decided to go along with it.

Besides, I'm not arguing that it's easy for Labour, but it isn't for the Conservatives either, and that hasn't (and shouldn't) stopped them from being criticised for their clearly insane Brexit policy. I'm simply pointing out that the only possible defences of Corbyn's actions on Brexit are directly contradictory to the arguments traditionally used to defend Corbyn. It is, rather ironically, an attempt to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Silva]

Well quite, but now you're defending Corbyn's support for a policy that is directly antithetical to that aim.

The European Union is a trading block not a bastion of socialism. Euroskepticism does correlate with right wing nationalism more often than not but that's a coincidental result of nationalistic protectionism and ethnic isolationist policies. There are plenty of left wing criticisms of the European union. The economic liberalism that has disproportionately hurt southern countries comes to mind.

We don't know if it would or wouldn't have worked, but 'everyone' in this case really means that Brexiteers retroactively claimed it to be the case, and there was a lack of voice from prominent Remainers to counteract it because Labour decided to go along with it.

Almost everyone then. The only person entertaining the idea of a second referendum was Farage when he thought they'd lose.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The European Union is a trading block not a bastion of socialism. Euroskepticism does correlate with right wing nationalism more often than not but that's a coincidental result of nationalistic protectionism and ethnic isolationist policies. There are plenty of left wing criticisms of the European union. The economic liberalism that has disproportionately hurt southern countries comes to mind.

As I said, I'm aware of the left wing arguments against the EU. It's simply a fantasy, however, to argue you can square leaving the EU with left wing progressive policies in the UK for a whole host of reasons I'm pretty sure you actually agree with. It's the realm of fantasy, and if Corbyn believes in that fantasy (as he may well do), then we've just come back to the point about him being incompetent.

Almost everyone then. The only person entertaining the idea of a second referendum was Farage when he thought they'd lose.

Well exactly, that's a fairly important caveat to note. It was only retroactively that Brexiteers argued that the referendum should have been the end of the process, and I'm not sure we can consider the dereliction of duty by prominent Remainers (of which Corbyn masqueraded as one), or Labour's abandonment of Remainers, as the only possible way things could have gone after the referendum.

 

[Silva]

As I said, I'm aware of the left wing arguments against the EU. It's simply a fantasy, however, to argue you can square leaving the EU with left wing progressive policies in the UK for a whole host of reasons I'm pretty sure you actually agree with. It's the realm of fantasy, and if Corbyn believes in that fantasy (as he may well do), then we've just come back to the point about him being incompetent.




Well exactly, that's a fairly important caveat to note. It was only retroactively that Brexiteers argued that the referendum should have been the end of the process, and I'm not sure we can consider the dereliction of duty by prominent Remainers (of which Corbyn masqueraded as one), or Labour's abandonment of Remainers, as the only possible way things could have gone after the referendum.

Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?

Well at this point, if you genuinely believe Corbyn is a remainer, then I'm not sure Labour's policy could be any worse. At least that scenario would remain true to the ideals that Corbyn supposedly embodied.

More realistically, I feel that Labour should have strongly come out in favour of EEA. Yes, that would have been unpopular with hardcore Brexiteers, but they were never going to vote for Labour anyway, and didn't have to be convinced. It would also technically have respected the leave vote whilst recognising that 48% of people also did not vote to Leave. At the very least, it's a consistent coherent policy that would have given Labour the actual authority to oppose the batshit policy of the Tories so when things did go tits up for them, Labour would have come across as a safe pair of hands that actually understand the issue. You might claim that that would see Labour seen as effectively a Remain party, but it's the lack of voices in favour of a Soft Brexit that's allowed the gradual hardening of the medias Brexit stance. On the 24 June Hard Brexit was seen as a ludicrous interpretation of the referendum result.

Anything is better than the policy that has had the Daily Mail penning effusive op-eds congratulating Corbyn for his success in shutting down Remainers.

 

[Sweet Square]

Well at this point, if you genuinely believe Corbyn is a remainer, then I'm not sure Labour's policy could be any worse. At least that scenario would remain true to the ideals that Corbyn supposedly embodied.

More realistically, I feel that Labour should have strongly come out in favour of EEA. Yes, that would have been unpopular with hardcore Brexiteers, but they were never going to vote for Labour anyway, and didn't have to be convinced. It would also technically have respected the leave vote whilst recognising that 48% of people also did not vote to Leave. At the very least, it's a consistent coherent policy that would have given Labour the actual authority to oppose the batshit policy of the Tories so when things did go tits up for them, Labour would have come across as a safe pair of hands that actually understand the issue. You might claim that that would see Labour seen as effectively a Remain party, but it's the lack of voices in favour of a Soft Brexit that's allowed the gradual hardening of the medias Brexit stance. On the 24 June Hard Brexit was seen as a ludicrous interpretation of the referendum result.

Anything is better than the policy that has had the Daily Mail penning effusive op-eds congratulating Corbyn for his success in shutting down Remainers.

This is good debate on the EEA.

 

[Silva]

More realistically, I feel that Labour should have strongly come out in favour of EEA. Yes, that would have been unpopular with hardcore Brexiteers, but they were never going to vote for Labour anyway, and didn't have to be convinced. It would also technically have respected the leave vote whilst recognising that 48% of people also did not vote to Leave. At the very least, it's a consistent coherent policy that would have given Labour the actual authority to oppose the batshit policy of the Tories so when things did go tits up for them, Labour would have come across as a safe pair of hands that actually understand the issue.

EEA membership doesn't solve the Irish border question as you would still require customs checks. The proposed "Norway plus" type model that some people have proposed is what's most likely to happen anyway.

 

[711]

Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?

Just be honest about what he really wants and stand by the consequences, it's not that hard a principle to understand. He could start by explaining why he's moved on from being a brexiter to a remainer, that story might get him a lot of support and change a few minds on the subject as well. Assuming he has moved on, of course.

 

[NinjaFletch]

EEA membership doesn't solve the Irish border question as you would still require customs checks. The proposed "Norway plus" type model that some people have proposed is what's most likely to happen anyway.

I'm not saying EEA is a perfect solution, or a magic wand. All Brexit policies are inherently shit because Brexit is a shit idea, but it comes closest to a coherent policy which, if Labour had, would have given them greater ability to oppose the absolute nonsense that that Tories are pushing. Pushing their own nonsense policy has just seen Labour's arguments dismissed.

This is good debate on the EEA.

Is that available as a podcast anywhere? Seemed interesting from snippets.

 

[Oscie]

There's a contradiction with the idea that he's an unashamed, principled, conviction politician but somehow has to hide what he really thinks about leaving the EU because it'd be politically disadvantageous not to. And that's not what's happening. He'd be supporting the hardline Tories on this if he was sat on the back benches and that's why the party he leads has come up with this compromise that satisfies nobody.