Westminster Politics

[NinjaFletch]

What is dogmatic about citing the very document every single current Labour MP was elected on (and indeed the policy unanimously adopted at the 2016 Labour conference) is the exact opposite of Owen Smith's statement, hence him being removed from the shadow cabinet? If you're a shadow cabinet member and you want to stand against party policy, you're more than free to do so from the very place Corbyn did it for years, the back bench.

Labour aren't bound by their manifesto (which is damn right lucky because their manifesto promised a 'cake and eat it style' Brexit which had freedom of movement ending and the UK within the single market still) and the current party's position is capable of being moulded based upon current evidence. Treating the manifesto as a constitution, or worse some kind of sacred text, is patently nonsense – especially when it was awfully vague on this area.

And seeing as all evidence suggests that Brexit is a disaster that will hit the poorest in society hardest, and is opposed by Labour supporters and voters at large, it seems to me downright disingenuous that Corbyn's policy can be anything other than 'scrap the whole bleeding lot of it' if he is claiming to represent the groups he claims to represent.

Whilst Smith's intervention today saw him rightly sacked, as we acknowledged right at the start, I can't see how any discussion of it can happen without acknowledging that Smith is clearly much more on the pulse of what Labour members want than Corbyn at this point in time – for a man whose made it his priority to represent those views on the national stage, being in a position where he is forced into sacking someone for speaking for the membership is a pretty poor look.

 

[Ubik]

I'm just saying it's an interesting dynamic. We have a PM who is hell bent on delivering a hard Brexit and an opposition leader hell bent on preventing anyone from stopping a hard Brexit. The performance art is in the pretence there's anything ideologically between Corbyn, Boris etc al on the issue.

This was all obvious at the last election though. People basically chose to ignore it and vote based on domestic policies. It is what it is.

 

[Sweet Square]

Who could have guessed that trying to appease the people who wanted him gone would end up like this?

I image it comes down to simple numbers, if got Corbyn only filled position with people that he can trust then there would be plenty of empty slots. I still think Corbyn is being way to nice to what is essentially a incredibly stupid and small group of people.

 

[Oscie]

This was all obvious at the last election though. People basically chose to ignore it and vote based on domestic policies. It is what it is.

I'm not sure it was clear. Corbyn seems to have been quite successful in convincing people he's against a Tory Brext without actually doing anything much to oppose a Tory Brexit. I'd wager many people who voted Labour would be surprised how little difference there is between Corbyn and Rees-Mogg on the fundamentals of Brexit.

 

[Dobba]

I'm not sure it was clear. Corbyn seems to have been quite successful in convincing people he's against a Tory Brext without actually doing anything much to oppose a Tory Brexit.

He's been very sneaky in publishing a manifesto, having a policy unanimously adopted at a party conference and having Keir Starmer come out and state Labour's six tests for Brexit on a regular basis. It's all very hush hush.

 

[Sweet Square]

Labour aren't bound by their manifesto (which is damn right lucky because their manifesto promised a 'cake and eat it style' Brexit which had freedom of movement ending and the UK within the single market still) and the current party's position is capable of being moulded based upon current evidence. Treating the manifesto as a constitution, or worse some kind of sacred text, is patently nonsense – especially when it was awfully vague on this area.

And seeing as all evidence suggests that Brexit is a disaster that will hit the poorest in society hardest, and is opposed by Labour supporters and voters at large, it seems to me downright disingenuous that Corbyn's policy can be anything other than 'scrap the whole bleeding lot of it' if he is claiming to represent the groups he claims to represent.

Whilst Smith's intervention today saw him rightly sacked, as we acknowledged right at the start, I can't see how any discussion of it can happen without acknowledging that Smith is clearly much more on the pulse of what Labour members want than Corbyn at this point in time – for a man whose made it his priority to represent those views on the national stage, being in a position where he is forced into sacking someone for speaking for the membership is a pretty poor look.

But Owen wasn't, he just happened to have a view that is somewhat similar to the membership. I think most Labour member will be happy Owen has been fecked off.

 

[Ubik]

I'm not sure it was clear. Corbyn seems to have been quite successful in convincing people he's against a Tory Brext without actually doing anything much to oppose a Tory Brexit. I'd wager many people who voted Labour would be surprised how little difference there is between Corbyn and Rees-Mogg on the fundamentals of Brexit.

I dunno, was fairly obvious to me and anyone reasonably switched on that Labour at the last election wanted out of the single market and customs union, and wanted to end free movement. They've frequently ruled out a second referendum. It's shit, I agree, but people decided in the end it wasn't important enough as an issue.

 

[Ducklegs]

Whoah there, why was this bullshit allowed to slide when it was a complete fabrication by labour?

It was proven to be so, they quickly shut up about it when they got kicked for it, but its been allowed to drift off into the wilderness with no further comment here.

 

[Oscie]

Corbyn is a highly principled man who opposed the EU his entire life but suddenly changed his mind and this is evidenced by the tepid public support he gave remain in the lead up to the referendum and the countless times he's tried to ensure a smooth path for a Tory-led hard Brexit in the aftermath.

Frankly if anyone doesn't understand that they should be kicked out of the party.

 

[NinjaFletch]

But Owen wasn't, he just happened to have a view that is somewhat similar to the membership. I think most Labour member will be happy Owen has been fecked off.

Oh I don't think that he said it because he thought that he was representing the membership, but simply that Smith's views and the memberships happen to have matched up in this instance and, by coincidence maybe, Smith was airing a view to a large audience that Labour members are generally supportive of.

 

[Oscie]

I dunno, was fairly obvious to me and anyone reasonably switched on that Labour at the last election wanted out of the single market and customs union, and wanted to end free movement. They've frequently ruled out a second referendum. It's shit, I agree, but people decided in the end it wasn't important enough as an issue.

You could be right, I'm not sure that anyone switched on and voting would have been fully aware Labour's and UKIP's official position on Brexit was so similar.

But @Dobba is here to correct me and point out that Labour's position of wanting to leave the EU, customs union and single market is completely different to UKIP's position of wanting to leave the EU customs union and single market.

 

[Dobba]

Corbyn is a highly principled man who opposed the EU his entire life but suddenly changed his mind and this is evidenced by the tepid public support he gave remain in the lead up to the referendum and the countless times he's tried to ensure a smooth path for a Tory-led hard Brexit in the aftermath.

I fecking adore this talking point. Because the alternative would be having to reflect on what telling every two bob tosser with a blog, newspaper column or TV show how politically inept Corbyn was from the second he won the leadership, had on the press and wider public's interest in what he had to say on the EU during the campaign.

 

[Oscie]

 

[Dobba]

I'm looking forward to the 'moderates' insistence that Chris Williamson is immediately reinstated to the Labour frontbench in the coming days.

 

[Oscie]

Sacking a member of your shadow cabinet for supporting the same thing another member of the shadow cabinet is on record as supporting at a time when you're under fire for defending an artist for an antisemitic mural, would look highly suspect if we didn't know Corbyn above reproach.

 

[Cheesy]

Corbyn's Brexit policies are somewhere between shambolic and non-existent but Owen Smith's crap anyway. Won't exactly be missed.

 

[Dobba]

Sacking a member of your shadow cabinet for supporting the same thing another member of the shadow cabinet is on record as supporting at a time when you're under fire for defending an artist for an antisemitic mural, would look highly suspect if we didn't know Corbyn above reproach.

Wait so Owen Smith was in on this conspiracy to cover-up something and so made his comments to help Corbyn?

 

[NinjaFletch]

I dunno, was fairly obvious to me and anyone reasonably switched on that Labour at the last election wanted out of the single market and customs union, and wanted to end free movement. They've frequently ruled out a second referendum. It's shit, I agree, but people decided in the end it wasn't important enough as an issue.

They dangled the prospect of Single Market and Customs Union membership, whilst on the other hand offering to end Freedom of Movement. This was their position in said manifesto:

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.

Obviously that's antithetical with their policy on Freedom of Movement, but the paragraph before their promise to end Freedom of Movement stated that:

In trade negotiations our priorities favour growth, jobs and prosperity. We make no apologies for putting these aims above bogus immigration targets

So even a 'switched on' Labour vote could be forgiven for thinking that given the two divergent policy aims Labour might be more likely to abandon the pledge to end freedom of movement to secure the aim they stated was their priority.

You might argue that Labour's aim was to offer enough to each group to get votes from both, and that is probably true, but again it is at odds with the image of Corbyn that his most vocal supporters foster.

 

[Oscie]

Corbyn's Brexit policies are somewhere between shambolic and non-existent but Owen Smith's crap anyway. Won't exactly be missed.

Oh I don't then Smith will be missed at all. It's more the symbolism of the whole thing; sacking one of the most anti-Brexit MPs for spurious reasons despite his view being shared publicly by other members of the shadow cabinet and closer to the membership's views than the leaders. All happening on a day the leader is in hot water over comments defending an allegedly antisemitic artist.

The lengths some people will go to wilfully suspend their cynicism is impressive. I think an earlier poster had it right, we're now in an era where people genuinely do have a 'defend at all costs' attitude towards their favourite politicians. Farage, Trump and Corbyn are probably the three biggest benefactors.

 

[Sweet Square]

Whoah there, why was this bullshit allowed to slide when it was a complete fabrication by labour?

It was proven to be so, they quickly shut up about it when they got kicked for it, but its been allowed to drift off into the wilderness with no further comment here.

Sources ? The channel 4 ''fact check'' is hardly anything concrete.

Oh I don't think that he said it because he thought that he was representing the membership, but simply that Smith's views and the memberships happen to have matched up in this instance and, by coincidence maybe, Smith was airing a view to a large audience that Labour members are generally supportive of.

Oh fair enough then.

 

[Minimalist]

Labour's a fecking joke. They're literally rallying against anyone who is a moderate or 'centrist'.

Only the 48% of voters who voted remain after all and most polls show support for a 2nd ref. But aye, fecking sack everyone who doesn't follow the line.

Britain's fecked.

 

[Dobba]

Oh I don't then Smith will be missed at all. It's more the symbolism of the whole thing; sacking one of the most anti-Brexit MPs for spurious reasons despite his view being shared publicly by other members of the shadow cabinet and closer to the membership's views than the leaders. All happening on a day the leader is in hot water over comments defending an allegedly antisemitic artist.

The lengths some people will go to wilfully suspend their cynicism is impressive. I think an earlier poster had it right, we're now in an era where people genuinely do have a 'defend at all costs' attitude towards their favourite politicians. Farage, Trump and Corbyn are probably the three biggest benefactors.

Out of interest, what was your view on Chris Williamson being asked to leave the frontbench for going against party policy?

Labour's a fecking joke.

Only the 48% of voters who voted remain after all and most polls show support for a 2nd ref. But aye, fecking sack everyone who doesn't follow the line.

Britain's fecked.

Is that why the Lib Dems are surging up every poll that gets conducted? The last one I saw had them nearing double figures.

 

[Minimalist]

Is that why the Lib Dems are surging up every poll that gets conducted? The last one I saw had them nearing double figures.

Lib Dems are the best answer but under the election system they're fecked.

 

[Dobba]

Lib Dems are the best answer but under the election system they're fecked.

You mean one that requires people to want to vote for them?

 

[Oscie]

Lib Dems are the best answer but under the election system they're fecked.

Lib Dems fecked themselves the moment they took the votes of millions of young people only to betray them.

Labour would never do that. I mean could you imagine if millions of our pro-Remain youth voted for Labour and then found out its official policy was UKIP-lite. They'd never forgive them. Thank God we all have to pretend that didn't happen.

 

[Minimalist]

You mean one that requires people to want to vote for them?

Well, obviously but without PR, instead of the FPTP shite we have, it's always a two-way fight. Labour has to be the alternative to the Tories and right now, they offer feck all.

 

[Dobba]

Labour would never do that. I mean could you imagine if millions of our pro-Remain youth voted for Labour and then found out its official policy was UKIP-lite. They'd never forgive them. Thank God we all have to pretend that didn't happen.

Just because you couldn't be bothered to read the manifesto, the six tests, or the unanimously agreed conference policy doesn't mean everybody else did the same.

 

[Ubik]

They dangled the prospect of Single Market and Customs Union membership, whilst on the other hand offering to end Freedom of Movement. This was their position in said manifesto:



Obviously that's antithetical with their policy on Freedom of Movement, but the paragraph before their promise to end Freedom of Movement stated that:



So even a 'switched on' Labour vote could be forgiven for thinking that given the two divergent policy aims Labour might be more likely to abandon the pledge to end freedom of movement to secure the aim they stated was their priority.

You might argue that Labour's aim was to offer enough to each group to get votes from both, and that is probably true, but again it is at odds with the image of Corbyn that his most vocal supporters foster.

I agree and it's the kind of triangulation that was supposed to be of the past (the readiness with which people have swallowed the line on immigration still surprises me), but I still think given knowledge of his history and the statements of himself, McDonnell and Starmer pre-election, it was clear that this was the direction of travel. In spite of all my whining over the last few years, I'd still have voted for them last time if they hadn't been so crap on the subject.

Lib Dems are the best answer but under the election system they're fecked.

I think they'll fold before the next election, with another party popping up (and probably failing).

 

[Minimalist]

Lib Dems fecked themselves the moment they took the votes of millions of young people only to betray them.

Labour would never do that. I mean could you imagine if millions of our pro-Remain youth voted for Labour and then found out its official policy was UKIP-lite. They'd never forgive them. Thank God we all have to pretend that didn't happen.

Christ at this point I think Corbyn is blatantly more Pro-Brexit than May is.

 

[Untied]

Look I'm still really angry about Brexit, but this inability of what I shall call the HashtagRemainers to plot a course from where we are today is a complete embarrassment.

HashtagRemainers: Referendums are awful, they boil complicated questions down to simple yes/no questions, voters are dumb and racist, and can be easily misled.

Also HashtagRemainers: Let's have another referendum to correct the first one.

 

[Sweet Square]

Look I'm still really angry about Brexit, but this inability of what I shall call the HashtagRemainers to plot a course from where we are today is a complete embarrassment.

HashtagRemainers: Referendums are awful, they boil complicated questions down to simple yes/no questions, voters are dumb and racist, and can be easily misled.

Also HashtagRemainers: Let's have another referendum to correct the first one.

Well said.

 

[Oscie]

Christ at this point I think Corbyn is blatantly more Pro-Brexit than May is.

You could make that argument looking at the fact whatever May's personal views are she leads a party that backs Brexit, and a hard Brexit at that. Logical to conclude she's 'following orders', if you'll excuse the obvious connotations. Corbyn is pro-Brexit despite being absolutely under no pressure to be so, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Ubik]

Look I'm still really angry about Brexit, but this inability of what I shall call the HashtagRemainers to plot a course from where we are today is a complete embarrassment.

HashtagRemainers: Referendums are awful, they boil complicated questions down to simple yes/no questions, voter are dumb and racist, and can be easily mislead.

Also HashtagRemainers: Let's have another referendum to correct the first one.

A less cynical generalisation:

"Remain or leave didn't come close to giving people any sort of control over the actual fate of the country after this extremely risky move"

and

"Maybe people should be able to say whether they like the final terms as well."

 

[Cheesy]

Look I'm still really angry about Brexit, but this inability of what I shall call the HashtagRemainers to plot a course from where we are today is a complete embarrassment.

HashtagRemainers: Referendums are awful, they boil complicated questions down to simple yes/no questions, voters are dumb and racist, and can be easily misled.

Also HashtagRemainers: Let's have another referendum to correct the first one.

There's not really any course to plot though - either we remain within the single market, thereby rendering Brexit mostly a pointless waste of time, or we leave the single market, enact a hard border with Ireland and violate the GFA in the process. As it stands May and Corbyn both support the latter option. In spite of its obvious danger. Remainers have every right to call them out for that.

 

[Dobba]

Look I'm still really angry about Brexit, but this inability of what I shall call the HashtagRemainers to plot a course from where we are today is a complete embarrassment.

HashtagRemainers: Referendums are awful, they boil complicated questions down to simple yes/no questions, voters are dumb and racist, and can be easily misled.

Also HashtagRemainers: Let's have another referendum to correct the first one.

Don't forget how quickly Corbyn went from a political incompetent who should be removed at all costs to a vital cog in the Remain campaign machine who didn't do anywhere near enough.

 

[Ubik]

Good grief I just saw the mural thing.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I agree and it's the kind of triangulation that was supposed to be of the past (the readiness with which people have swallowed the line on immigration still surprises me), but I still think given knowledge of his history and the statements of himself, McDonnell and Starmer pre-election, it was clear that this was the direction of travel. In spite of all my whining over the last few years, I'd still have voted for them last time if they hadn't been so crap on the subject.

I think they'll fold before the next election, with another party popping up (and probably failing).

Yeah, that's the point. From a purely political standpoint I can't fault any of the arguments put forward in defence of Corbyn either for his treatment of Smith or his attitude towards Brexit in the manifesto (other than the fact I still think his Brexit position is rooted in the same fundamental delusions and misunderstandings as May's, it just hasn't been exposed because he hasn't had to do anything); it would have been stupid for Labour not to take a vague position on Brexit and hope to appeal to voters on both sides given how far behind they were at the start of the campaign.

But I do think it's a dangerous game to defend Corbyn's actions by citing political orthodoxy whilst in the same breath extolling him as a breath of fresh air who doesn't play those games – as, for example, people have to defend him for his politically naïve (if well meant) remarks over Russia. Obviously there's been a large element of bollocks spouted by his most rabid defenders since day one, who have no qualms with shifting the goalposts when it suits, but the goal surely shouldn't be to support Corbyn at all costs, but to support him as far as his views align with what Labour members want, and to then campaign to reel him in when they don't.

 

[Untied]

A less cynical generalisation:

"Remain or leave didn't come close to giving people any sort of control over the actual fate of the country after this extremely risky move"

and

"Maybe people should be able to say whether they like the final terms as well."

But what the Remain camp want is to stack a referendum such that the choice is "Do we leave on these terms?" vs "Remain". But a much more realistic second referendum is "Leave on these terms" vs "Reject them", or a three way battle between "Deal", "No Deal", and "Remain".

I think a referendum on the final terms is nuts, from a pro-Remain perspective, because it dramatically increases the likelihood of a "no deal", cliff-edge Brexit (unless you mange to construct the question, and get it through parliament, in such a way that it closes off that possibility. And if you are happy for parliament to make decisions about which options are presented to the public why bother with a referendum at all).

All of this is besides the point anyway, because there is no window for a second referendum before we leave. We are legally leaving. That ship has sailed.

The tactic now has to be: extremely long transition, reverse the decision in a GE manifesto (by either promising to reenter the EU from the transition state, or promising a referendum on re-entering).

There's not really any course to plot though - either we remain within the single market, thereby rendering Brexit mostly a pointless waste of time, or we leave the single market, enact a hard border with Ireland and violate the GFA in the process. As it stands May and Corbyn both support the latter option. In spite of its obvious danger. Remainers have every right to call them out for that.

But a referendum isn't a solution to that is it? You are just articulating that the public voted for a stupid, incoherent, undeliverable course of action. I don't see how the solution to that is to ask people to vote again on a similar but slightly different question. As I said to @Ubik the only politically viable question would have to permit a 'No Deal' answer, and if you want a referendum constructed in a way that denies them that choice, why even bother.

 

[Cheesy]

But a referendum isn't a solution to that is it? You are just articulating that the public voted for a stupid, incoherent, undeliverable course of action. I don't see how the solution to that is to ask people to vote again on a similar but slightly different question. As I said to @Ubik the only politically viable question would have to permit a 'No Deal' answer, and if you want a referendum constructed in a way that denies them that choice, why even bother.

It's probably not ideal, no, but criticisms of the people pointing out how this is a bit of a calamitous mess and that the option the government and main opposition party are proposing doesn't actually exist seems a bit off to me.

 

[Untied]

It's probably not ideal, no, but criticisms of the people pointing out how this is a bit of a calamitous mess and that the option the government and main opposition party are proposing doesn't actually exist seems a bit off to me.

I've just become a little frustrated with a certain slice of Remain that seems to imagine we can somehow undo the last 18 months with a single vote. As if there aren't larger societal and structural failings that lead to the Leave vote and that it all came down to a lie on bus. It's the same with the liberals in America. It's easy to say "we lost because of Russian meddling" it's much harder to say "we lost because of the structural failures of post-1980s capitalism, in which white americans no longer feel a continuing sense of security, progress and superiority and because US democracy is constructed in such a way that a candidate who receives 2 million fewer votes than their opponent can win the presidency"

And just to add a little detail to when I said "plot a course from where we are today", take Owen Smith's article. He quite reasonably points out the incompatibility of the GFA with Brexit, and is much better qualified to make that judgement than I am. But this is an argument to make before a referendum is held, before it is voted through parliament. It is an argument to have during an election in which a party is promising it. I do not think that you can say to the public "Do you want x or y?" and then when they answer "y" turn around and say "oh actually you can't have y, but do you want x or x-1". Horse stable etc.