UK Politics: The Love Song of A. B. de Pfeffel Johnson

[SeanF]

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 7:27 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Spot the contradiction.

As for the council results, Labour were defending Milliband's 2012 high point, which they did - and picked up the London mayoralty while they were at it. Could Labour have done better? Yes, of course, but its window to do so was limited. All in all, apart from Scotland (which is just the general election realignment translating into local councils) it was OK. I'd also point out that some of the actual authors of Labour's Scottish collapse (John McTernan) have been some of the most vicious attackers of Corbyn's electability.

I repeat that I don't think Corbyn winning a general election is likely. But neither do I think "Oh My God, Labour is dooooomed!","Labour faces oblivion," "Labour will lose a hundred seats!" is in any way shape or form justified by actual data. Corbyn was labelled "unelectable" by a bunch of right-wing arseholes from Day One (many of whom having lost elections themselves), and their behaviour (given full voice in the likes of The Guardian) has done more to ensure Labours "unelectability" than Corbyn ever has. 

As for where Labour goes from here - assuming a likely Corbyn re-election, it's a richly deserved deselection time.

Even Milliband's results in 2012 were no better than mediocre.  He won back a lot of seats, but they were gains compared to a really dire performance for Labour in 2008.   His results in the local elections of 2011, 2013, and 2014 were a good deal worse than mediocre.  Had one looked at Parliamentary by-election results, local election results, and the European elections of 2014, and ignored opinion polls, one would have had to conclude that Labour weren't likely to trouble the scorers in 2015.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 17.7.2016 at 3:02 PM, Werthead said:

I think Scotland could be a self-solving problem. Certainly if the same thing happens in 2020, and Scotland remains part of the union, then Scottish voters wil have to start asking themselves if voting for the SNP makes sense when they will never, ever be able to form a majority UK government and actually get things done. With Labour often having a similar platform, we could see a drift back to them over time.

The alternate option is that they hope that Labour pulls it back in England and then forms a coalition with the SNP instead, which is what I think they were hoping for last time.

22 hours ago, mormont said:

The answer is complicated. I think it could have done so at various points in recent history, but at this precise moment, the likelihood of a second independence referendum overtakes that. If that happens, and the vote is yes this time, then obviously the game's over as far as Scotland is concerned. On the other hand, it it's a no, then, well, the SNP may well implode. So clearly that's a chance for Labour to come back.

I will address the two of you, since my response seems to be somewhat of a reply to both.

So, you agree that without an SNP implosion Labour is unlikely to win back Scotland? I don't think that the SNP does necessarily need implode if IndyRef2 fails. The SNP is a local party, so as long as they scream Scotland's interest loud enough they should be doing ok. In a way Brexit might even help the SNP, because Westminster can no longer hide behind the EU. And in contrast to Labour the SNP only needs to represent Scotland (and do so loudly at best) not the entirety of the UK. If they somehow end up in a coalition and ruling from Westminster, that might turn out to be a poisonous chalice, since ranting against Westminster from Edinburgh looks somewhat less credible, if your party is co-ruling in Westminster. So if they were to rule with Labour, they would need to demand a steep price for their votes. If they can deliver concessions from London, then the SNP might be better off staying the hell away from a Westminster cooperation with Labour. But given the dire straits Labour are in right now, that looks like a rather academic discussion for the moment. The chalive from the palace... Anyhow.

 

 

22 hours ago, mormont said:

The history of how Labour in Scotland got to this point isn't in any way structural, but seems to me to have been entirely avoidable. Nor am I suggesting it's all Corbyn's fault: that was never my suggestion, and would in fact be a bizarre allegation, so apologies if that wasn't clear. In my view, it's much more a series of failures by various people, including past Labour First Ministers and others in both the Scottish and UK Labour parties.

Most situations are avoidable at some point. But now, I really think Labours woes in the North have become a structural problem for them, and it will take them quite some time to fix it (if they can fix it at all). So now they really need an SNP implosion to get back into the game in Scotland (well, at least that's how it looks to me). 

General observation, you don't really seem to like the SNP that much. 

So how do you rate the chances of indyref2, if Sturgeon comes back with a quickpath bacl into the EU, that involves adopting the Euro as new currency. I still think this also more of an academic question, since I somehow doubt she got the insurances she wanted from the EU, thus the coordination meeting with May.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

 General observation, you don't really seem to like the SNP that much. 

So how do you rate the chances of indyref2, if Sturgeon comes back with a quickpath bacl into the EU, that involves adopting the Euro as new currency. I still think this also more of an academic question, since I somehow doubt she got the insurances she wanted from the EU, thus the coordination meeting with May.

Oh, I think he does.

I don't believe Nicola Sturgeon wants a secondref at the moment. There is too much uncertainty and losing the second time round comes with more of a cost than losing the first referendum. The economic fundamentals are also not good. But the SNP will look at polling and how the public mood changes between now and 2017. The FM could still wind up backing herself into a corner and come to feel she has to call a new ref or be seen to be bottling out.

In economic terms the SNP case is pretty well bust. They will have a worse solution to the currency question this time (a Scottish Pound, and the euro is as popular as dried vomit), and Scotland is now dependent on money from England to fund the public services because of the oil price collapse. We also do 4x as much trade with the rUK as with the EU, so the case for running after the single market in preference to staying in the UK does not hold up, at all (but if the UK does stay in the single market there may not be much of a case for calling indyref 2 anyway). The border could also be a real issue this time too. So, from a practical point of view Indyref 2 does not look good at all for the SNP.

However, while NO might not struggle with the message so much, we could have a problem with our messengers. Labour is now very demoralized and listless, and some people whose No vote rested on internationalist zeal will have had their fires quenched by Brexit. There will be a powerful new grievance too, our 'european identity' is being taken away from us, against our will, by England. That might annoy people enough to drive up the YES vote. Quite a few pundits seem to think the fact England (and Wales) voted against what was perceived to be economic self interest somehow makes it more likely Scotland will too, but I'm not really convinced of that.

A few other issues.

Westminster will not want to be seen to block a newref (although it is entitled to do so) but Theresa May might try to control the timing, franchise and question this time. A tougher line could also be adopted because the current FM was a signatory to the Edinburgh agreement, and by pushing for another ref is really going back on her promises and proving herself very untrustworthy.

I had also thought myself that the SNP's inability to get guarantees from the EU, and a new membership deal plus transition agreement would be fatal, but I guess we'll see if that is really the case. Surely they must know this wont be forthcoming anyway.

So the truth is, no one really knows wrt Indyref 2. It is not clear whether it will be called or who would win if it were. If I really had to guess, I think the SNP won't try to have one until the next Scottish Parliament. But I also think that if they called a newref for this time next year they would lose again. Overcoming the status quo and the economic fear argument is hard, and the Brexit campaign only managed it because of longstanding and unaddressed concerns about mass immigration.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

So, you agree that without an SNP implosion Labour is unlikely to win back Scotland?

It's unlikely, but not impossible. The situation at the moment is unpredictable, but Labour in Scotland have deep roots, so if they can hit on a winning formula nationally they should be able to win back some ground in Scotland too. The 'standing up for Scotland' issue is one they need to address, and I personally think they need to address their response to the SNP as part of that. I think the intemperate response Scottish Labour had to the SNP drove voters away.

1 hour ago, Notone said:

I don't think that the SNP does necessarily need implode if IndyRef2 fails.

Maybe not. A lot depends on the result, the campaign, and the reasons for it failing. But it will definitely create an opening for Labour.

1 hour ago, Notone said:

 If they somehow end up in a coalition and ruling from Westminster, that might turn out to be a poisonous chalice, since ranting against Westminster from Edinburgh looks somewhat less credible, if your party is co-ruling in Westminster.

This will simply never happen, not only because the SNP are well aware of that problem but because they frankly have no interest in being in power at Westminster in any way, shape or form. They might trade support on, say, a Labour budget if it were the only way to get another referendum. That's as far as they would ever go.

1 hour ago, Notone said:

Most situations are avoidable at some point. But now, I really think Labours woes in the North have become a structural problem for them, and it will take them quite some time to fix it (if they can fix it at all).

You'll have to explain what you mean by this, I'm afraid.

1 hour ago, Notone said:

General observation, you don't really seem to like the SNP that much. 

I've voted for them many times (although I've also voted Green, Lid Dem and Labour on occasion), and voted Yes in the referendum. But I try to be objective.

1 hour ago, Notone said:

So how do you rate the chances of indyref2, if Sturgeon comes back with a quickpath bacl into the EU, that involves adopting the Euro as new currency. I still think this also more of an academic question, since I somehow doubt she got the insurances she wanted from the EU, thus the coordination meeting with May.

Well, as Meow says, this is not the situation Sturgeon wanted to have the second referendum in: things are much too chaotic. Worries about the currency played a big part last time and can only play a bigger one in any imminent referendum, for example. It's also true, though, that if there is to be a second referendum it's best done sooner than later: and that it should be presented as the only option. Hence, the very public search for alternatives. If one can be found, it can be put in place: it only needs to be a temporary solution until more propitious conditions arise. If it can't, the electorate will know that the SNP at least tried to find another solution. It's a good attempt to turn a bad situation to advantage, IMO.

If there is a second referendum soon... it's hard to say. I've spoken to many people who've changed their mind both before and after the EU referendum, but as I say, those currency worries will bite hard, and some people will be worried about more uncertainty. The EU position will be huge, not only as the ostensible trigger, but because voters will be looking for a security blanket.

[Shryke]

So on the Labour Clustershambles front, these were some interesting perspectives from members of the Labour Shadow Cabinet on Corbyn:

This is from Lilian Greenwood, former Shadow Secretary of State for Transport:

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members

This one is from Thangam Debbonaire, former Shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport:

The first one is a little long and rambly if what you want is just the criticisms, but the thrust of it is various incidents she describes where Corbyn agreed to various policies and such with her and then would undercut her or change his mind later without telling her. This kinda summed up her feelings really:

Quote

 

Now I’d ask you to imagine how you would you feel if you agreed something with your boss but he then did something completely different. 

Something that undermined you. 

Something they hadn't even had the courtesy to tell you about.

 

A few more quick quotes as illustration:

Quote

 

Despite our agreed policy, despite Jeremy's Director of Policy and I agreeing our position, without saying anything to me, Jeremy gave a press interview in which he suggested he could drop Labour’s support for HS2 altogether. He told a journalist on a local Camden newspaper that perhaps the HS2 line shouldn’t go to Euston at all but stop at Old Oak Common in West London – but he never discussed any of this with the Shadow Cabinet, or me, beforehand.

I felt totally undermined on a really difficult issue. 

And when 2 frontbenchers voted against the 3 line whip at 3rd Reading in March he did nothing.

Telling one of them “well I've done it enough times myself”. 

Breaking the principles of collective responsibility and discipline without which effective Parliamentary opposition is not possible.

When I raised my concerns it was simply shrugged off. 

It undermined me in front of colleagues and made me look weak.

It made me feel like I was wasting my time.

That my opinion didn't matter.

And it made me miserable.

 

Quote

 

And as we left at 5am, defeated and in despair, we finally got sent lines to take from the Leader's office. Acknowledging Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart for their work in the Leave campaign. Their work in direct opposition to Labour Party policy.

And shortly after we heard Jeremy calling for the immediate triggering of Article 50. Without any discussion with the Shadow Cabinet or the Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party.

Think about that. The country had just voted to leave the EU after more than 40 years and Jeremy made a major announcement on the Party’s position without waiting to discuss it with the Shadow Cabinet, without even consulting the leader of our MEPs in Europe.

 

 

The second account is shorter and more general and also worth a read. This bit at the start is in some ways kinda the money quote though, and I've seen some of the press run with it:

Quote

Mr Corbyn appointed me and press released this without my knowledge or consent whilst I was in the middle of cancer treatment. He then sacked me the next day when he realized he had given away part of someone else's role. But didn't bother to tell me that either. By then my office had been besieged by press and the story was out that I was Shadow Minister. I decided to make the best of it and to serve. I worked on his Arts policy whilst I was still having treatment but in Bristol.

When I went back to Westminster, I discovered that he had sacked me but hadn't told me and did not have any ideas for how I was supposed to explain it to Bristol West members or constituents. I was then faced with the choice of telling the truth - that he had made a series of errors, and inevitably thereby face a pile of criticism from his supporters - or say I had changed my mind about accepting the role - and thereby face a pile of criticism from.his supporters. And I knew the pile would arrive because I had seen how it went for others who had resigned. And because Corbyn supporters had already piled into me for disloyalty when I had had to miss votes for cancer treatment.

I then, contrary to the story he keeps giving on TV, found it near on impossible to get to talk to him about this problem
Eventually I did get to meet him and he had nothing to say. No idea what to do.

 

The impression they both give to me is that (at least from their perspective), Corbyn seems like he just doesn't really care what his MPs think that much nor feels the need to deal with that. He does what he wants without consultation or communication or in contradiction to previous consultation and communication.

[Chaircat Meow]

So, Trident is being renewed.

The SNP are claiming Scotland is opposed to the weapons but polling presents a more nuanced picture. Scottish voters are either split down the middle or are marginally pro-Trident. Hypocritical SNP still want to be in NATO too.

In other news, Cometh the hour, cometh the man? Can Owen Smith save the Labour party from the Corbynistas? I think he will fail but I really hope he succeeds (assuming he beats Eagle - I think he is the better candidate). Corbyn is running the opposition into the ground with grave consequences for our democracy.

[Liffguard]

Regarding Trident, I pretty much agree with the position Crispin Blunt takes (the only conservative MP to vote against the Vanguard replacements). You can read his thoughts here.

[Talleyrand]

The war was bad and all but I've never really understood all this Blairism is tory lite talk - putting to the side some of the rather nice pro-socialist minded things they passed such as the Minimum Wage Act it's not like they were Tory lite and Tory just so happened to become more centrist all by their own.

Blarism dragged both groups towards the centre and towards his style of politics - does anyone really think that before Blair beat them 3 times in a row the Tories would ever have "Call me Dave" as a brand of leadership? 

[Hereward]

45 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Regarding Trident, I pretty much agree with the position Crispin Blunt takes (the only conservative MP to vote against the Vanguard replacements). You can read his thoughts here.

I agree wholeheartedly with that case.

[mormont]

[mod] Folks, let's keep it civil, please. [/mod]

[Chaircat Meow]

Newsflash from the nats: Scottish independence would be a bit shit after all.

George Kerevan has just admitted that a separatist Scotland would face five years (a number likely plucked from nowhere) of austerity and would need to sell off public assets to get the reserves to run the new currency. Just how dare he, is he saying we are 'too wee, too poor and too stupid ...'

The plan also seems dependent on the UK leaving the single market, which is by no means certain, and losing the passport for the financial services (but I think the SNP would have to join the euro in the end, if they are serious about poaching a lot of London's business).

So, not sure what is going on here. The SNP could be trying to avoid a referendum soon, and being honest about the costs does seem the best way to do that. Although, of course, if it does turn out that the public are not put off by this then they know they have a decent chance of winning any future referendum. Possibly they think claiming separation has no costs, like last time, just won't wash anymore, post Brexit and the oil crash.

It is very early days, but the more I hear about SNP plans for a potential future separation bid, the more confident I become that it is not going to materialize.

[mormont]

To be fair, George Kerevan is a backbench MP. He doesn't speak for the SNP, any more than Jacob Rees-Mogg speaks for the Tories.
 So most likely what is going on here is that George Kerevan is offering a personal view.

[Chaircat Meow]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

To be fair, George Kerevan is a backbench MP. He doesn't speak for the SNP, any more than Jacob Rees-Mogg speaks for the Tories.
 So most likely what is going on here is that George Kerevan is offering a personal view.

You could be right but I doubt this wasn't cleared before it went out (the SNP are hyper disciplined). It also confirms other things that have been filtering through about a possible change in strategy. And Kerevan is part of a group focusing on the currency question, and the SNP must know now that a separate currency is the only option.  

 

 

[Maltaran]

Corbyn has said that the new constituency boundaries could mean mandatory reselection for all Labour MPs

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Corbyn has said that the new constituency boundaries could mean mandatory reselection for all Labour MPs

Corbyn is out to destroy the Labour party.

Time for everyone who wants a centre-left alternative to stand up to him and drive him and his cultists out of the party.

[Hereward]

I can't find a link without a paywall, but The Times poll is saying that 2.5m Labour voters are now backing May over Corbyn. As Corbyn supporters are apparently largely concentrated in London and the southeast, i.e. often in unwinnable Tory seats, that could be even more catastrophic than it sounds,

[Liffguard]

I honestly wonder what Labour's strategy is if Corbyn retains the leadership. He's deeply unpopular with the population as a whole but I can't see how the MPs could legitimately unseat him if he handily wins a second leadership election. Fall-in behind him and try make the best of a bad situation? Give up 2020 as lost and start positioning for post-election leadership challenges? Break away either to other parties or to form a new one? None seem like good options.

[Chaircat Meow]

31 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I honestly wonder what Labour's strategy is if Corbyn retains the leadership. He's deeply unpopular with the population as a whole but I can't see how the MPs could legitimately unseat him if he handily wins a second leadership election. Fall-in behind him and try make the best of a bad situation? Give up 2020 as lost and start positioning for post-election leadership challenges? Break away either to other parties or to form a new one? None seem like good options.

I had heard that they would keep challenging him, in an effort to wear him down. So, if not Smith, then the next challenger. But, I don't think this is that realistic. Yet if they did manage to tire him out somehow and get him to resign then the far left won't be able to get anyone else on the ballot. So maybe arrange a little accident for Jez: mishap with a marrow in the allotment perhaps. But yea, no good/sensible options.

[Liffguard]

That seems like a bad idea on their part. Constant leadership challenges will be just as damaging to the party's standing with voters as Corbyn's leadership, probably more so. Moreover it would do a lot of internal damage that might never get truly resolved.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

That seems like a bad idea on their part. Constant leadership challenges will be just as damaging to the party's standing with voters as Corbyn's leadership, probably more so. Moreover it would do a lot of internal damage that might never get truly resolved.

It was just an idea, I don't think that it will happen. Smith is likely their last hope for the next few years.

But, on the bolded, I'm not really convinced. What can be more damaging than recommending to the country a PM who you think is totally unfit.