UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[A Horse Named Stranger]

22 hours ago, Spockydog said:

But there is hope. Labour are slowly getting their shit together, and the party conference will be interesting, especially in light of news like this:

Labour 'could win 1.5m more votes' by backing Brexit referendum

If I do end up moving back, it'll either be to Glasgow or a beautiful little town called Lanark, out in the countryside. Every cloud has a silver lining. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Arghs, ffs. sorry, somehow I couldn't add my own comment to the post.

 

Anyway, I am less optimistic with regards to Labour. Everything the leadership has done thus far is to say, nope, will of the people. not a second referendum. Don't put it on the list of topics as it would embarass our dear Jeezer (see what I did there?).

And in parliament, the leadership around the dear Jeezer has thus far either voted alongside the goverment, when it came to Brexit, or on the last crucial vote, they advised their MPs to abstain (which to their credit, most didn't do, but voted against the Goverment (with the exception of the Vauxhalö Kipper, Mann, and who was the other one that propped up the Tory goverment).

It would really help, if Labour wasn't lead by a leaver at this point in time. So he (and thus by extension the entire party) has sort of a credibility problem (at least imho), when it comes to Brexit and a second referendum. And they seem to be hellbent to win those mythical blue collar labour voters, they lost to UKIP - not really caring about the majority of their voters who back(ed) remain.

I mean, even people like Starmer, who of all people should know better, has really performed some amazing verbal gymnastics. The entire Labour gig is apparently, we tell the public what it wants to hear (we will be able to deliver a good brexit) and not what it needs to hear (there's no good brexit, just damage mitigation in some shape or form).

[Spockydog]

Tom Watson tells Corbyn: ‘We must back members on new Brexit vote’

Quote

Watson says that while he would prefer Brexit to be debated in an election soon, he is clear that the views of the membership in favour of another public vote must be respected.

“Jeremy and I were elected in 2015 to give the Labour party back to its members,” he says. “So if the people’s party decide they want the people to have a final say on the deal, we have to respect the view of our members and we will go out and argue for it.” He added: “That is what happens when you return the party to the members.”

Asked if this should mean Labour commits to another national vote in its next election manifesto, he said: “There is going to be pressure in the system for that to happen.”

This is going to be a real test of Corbyn's integrity. You can't spend three years banging on about party members' voices being heard, only to ignore them when what they're saying doesn't suit your ideological worldview. If he tries to have his cake and eat it here, he'll be finished.

 

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Tom Watson tells Corbyn: ‘We must back members on new Brexit vote’

This is going to be a real test of Corbyn's integrity. You can't spend three years banging on about party members' voices being heard, only to ignore them when what they're saying doesn't suit your ideological worldview. If he tries to have his cake and eat it here, he'll be finished.

Corbyn just confirmed that he will back a new Brexit vote if conference votes for it. Which given there's been 100 motions to do exactly that, I think will happen.

Interesting move. Corbyn gets to say he's listening to the will of the Labour Party and portray himself as working in the best interests of the country. He can also spin this whichever way the result comes out (he's not been shy so far about saying he'll fight to implement Brexit). On the minus side, it may appear opportunistic (but he can deflect that by saying he wasn't in favour personally, but is listening to the party) and of course there could be an internal Labour slug-fest about which result the party would fight for if a second referendum or general election is called. Of course, Corbyn's calculation may be that a second referendum is unlikely compared to a general election if May loses a key vote and a vote of no confidence is triggered.

The question now is if enough Tory rebels and the SNP would join Labour in toppling May and trying to trigger a general election, and what the DUP and LibDems would do.

[Spockydog]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

The question now is if enough Tory rebels and the SNP would join Labour in toppling May and trying to trigger a general election, and what the DUP and LibDems would do.

According to the Times, May and her flying monkeys were drawing up contingency plans for a November election. With the change of policy at the top of the Labour party, those plans are now likely to be shelved. Brexit is doomed and the Tories are fucked.

 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

But what if there’s a second referendum and Brexit wins again? Not impossible, is it?

[Spockydog]

14 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

But what if there’s a second referendum and Brexit wins again? Not impossible, is it?

You've clearly not seen any polls recently.

ETA: Polls can be bullshit, but I've not seen much anecdotal evidence of Remain voters who, disillusioned with the lies and incompetence of the Brexiters, have switched their choice to Leave. 

[Spockydog]

Marr visibly shitting himself on BBC1 right now. Lol.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Spockydog said:

ETA: Polls can be bullshit, but I've not seen much anecdotal evidence of Remain voters who, disillusioned with the lies and incompetence of the Brexiters, have switched their choice to Leave. 

?

I think there might be an error, there. :)

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

?

I think there might be an error, there.

What? You think thousands of 2016 remainers have changed their minds since voting? 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Nah, just my reading comprehension is a bit challenged today.

I simply have overread the "not" in your post.

Apologies.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Anyway, time for my obligatory let's rain on the Labour parade.

 

Quote

• Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and the most powerful union leader in the party, has intervened in an attempt to stop Labour edging towards backing a second referendum on EU membership. Delegates will debate the topic on Tuesday, and the wording of the composite motion that will be put to a vote will be decided tonight. In an pre-conference interview Jeremy Corbyn said he would be bound by any conference decision. (See 9.09am.) This prompted the People’s Vote campaign to issued a statement from the Labour MP David Lammy saying:

There ar

        Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and the most powerful union leader in the party, has intervened in an attempt to stop Labour edging towards backing a second referendum on EU membership. Delegates will debate the topic on Tuesday, and the wording of the composite motion that will be put to a vote will be decided tonight. In an pre-conference interview Jeremy Corbyn said he would be bound by any conference decision. (See 9.09am.) This prompted the People’s Vote campaign to issued a statement from the Labour MP David Lammy saying:

        There are really positive signs coming from the Labour leadership this weekend that they are listening to our party’s members, affiliates and voters. Demands for a People’s Vote have been getting louder and louder by the day.

    But McCluskey said, if there were to be a second referendum, it should not include the option of remain. Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, also sounded sceptical about holding a second remain/leave vote (see 2.24pm), and Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, said she had “reservations” about the idea. (See10.20am.)
 

e really positive signs coming from the Labour leadership this weekend that they are listening to our party’s members, affiliates and voters. Demands for a People’s Vote have been getting louder and louder by the day.

But McCluskey said, if there were to be a second referendum, it should not include the option of remain. Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, also sounded sceptical about holding a second remain/leave vote (see 2.24pm), and Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, said she had “reservations” about the idea. (See10.20am.)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/sep/23/labour-conference-liverpool-jeremy-corbyn-say-he-will-accept-any-labour-conference-decision-on-second-brexit-referendum-politics-live

Well, you can see where my scepticism with regards to the current Labour leadership and Corbyn fighting Brexit comes from.

Part of me is also expecting a major gaffe by Abbott at this point.

[Spockydog]

Seeing as the vast majority of Labour Party members want to remain in the EU, McCluskey's personal opinion is neither here nor there. He can go fuck himself. 

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Seeing as the vast majority of Labour Party members want to remain in the EU, McCluskey's personal opinion is neither here nor there. He can go fuck himself. 

Since when did the majority of members of any political party determine policy? I've never heard of a party being run like that. The members elected Corbyn as a leader, not a delegate, and they should have been aware of his long established attitude towards the EU.

Of course the members should be listened to, but that doesn't mean they should be obeyed at all times. Like it or not (and I don't like it, but that's another issue) the trade unions are a well established part of the Labour Party as well. At the last election, we were told Labour would not try to stop Brexit, and a lot of us voted for them with that understanding. 

I wonder if Remainers would say it would be equally as outrageous if Theresa May backed a second referendum against the wishes of her party members?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

At the last election, we were told Labour would not try to stop Brexit, and a lot of us voted for them with that understanding. 

A lot of what? Sorry to break it to you. Labour Leave Voters are a small minority. The vast majority of Labour voters are Remainers.

 

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Since when did the majority of members of any political party determine policy? I've never heard of a party being run like that. The members elected Corbyn as a leader, not a delegate, and they should have been aware of his long established attitude towards the EU. 

As a Labour voter you should've been aware of the parties longstanding pro European lean - if you have to go back to the days of Enoch Powell to make out Labour as an anti-European party, I am recquired by law to laugh you out of the room (well, maybe not, but I really should be).

Furthermore, Corbyn made quite a few promises during the last leadership challenge he faced. First, that party members should have a bigger say in determining party policies, and not just being forced to accept, what the leadership offers. As somebody who voted for Corbyn, you should have been aware of that, too. Well, Corbyn, also moved heavily towards a Norway style deal on that occasion, which later dismissed as not a good deal for Britain.

So please, spare me (and everybody else) that I switched my vote for Labour over Brexit, and will never vote for them again, thus my vote is more important than ordinary Labour voters bs.

The argument, is neither good, nor convincing in any way. If you want a leave party, go to UKIP. There are the true beleavers.

[mankytoes]

34 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

A lot of what? Sorry to break it to you. Labour Leave Voters are a small minority. The vast majority of Labour voters are Remainers.

As a Labour voter you should've been aware of the parties longstanding pro European lean - if you have to go back to the days of Enoch Powell to make out Labour as an anti-European party, I am recquired by law to laugh you out of the room (well, maybe not, but I really should be).

Furthermore, Corbyn made quite a few promises during the last leadership challenge he faced. First, that party members should have a bigger say in determining party policies, and not just being forced to accept, what the leadership offers. As somebody who voted for Corbyn, you should have been aware of that, too. Well, Corbyn, also moved heavily towards a Norway style deal on that occasion, which later dismissed as not a good deal for Britain.

So please, spare me (and everybody else) that I switched my vote for Labour over Brexit, and will never vote for them again, thus my vote is more important than ordinary Labour voters bs.

The argument, is neither good, nor convincing in any way. If you want a leave party, go to UKIP. There are the true beleavers.

I don't know if you can call about 65% "a vast majority", but yes, I was aware of that, though I always appreciate an unnecessarily patronising tone. My point was about parties sticking to their manifestos. 

Are you "recquired by law" to use this ridiculously smug tone? Is this how you talk to people when you aren't behind a keyboard? I'm really unsure why you're bringing up Enoch Powell, anyway.   

Right, they can have their say. I never saw anything to say that they would be able to force a u-turn based on conference voting. 

Well, I did switch my vote to Labour over Brexit, I voted Lib Dem before, but I didn't really feel like I could when they were building their whole campaign around trying to reverse the election result (which gained them very little). I wouldn't say "I will never vote for them again", honestly I find it pretty childish when voters say that. If they have the best manifesto and the right people, of course I'd vote for them. 

UKIP are dead, which I did say they would be if we voted Leave (I haven't got too many political predictions right in recent years, so it's worthy pointing these out...). Even when they weren't, I don't consider them ethical. You can't just look at one issue. 

I'm not going to be quiet on this, because there is this constant narrative from both sides that the left and the Labour Party are pro Remain, and the right and Tories are pro Leave. It's such an oversimplification. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I felt obliged to repay the smug tone of bringing up that The members elected Corbyn as a leader, not a delegate, and they should have been aware of his long established attitude towards the EU.

You wanna talk about patronising, let's start there then?

Anyway, having that said.

Just now, mankytoes said:

I don't know if you can call about 65% "a vast majority", but yes, I was aware of that, though I always appreciate an unnecessarily patronising tone. My point was about parties sticking to their manifestos. 

Two thirds, yes, I'd call that a rather vast majority, at least in politics. So why should your (and that of your fellow third) count more than two third of the parties voters? That was a serious question, as you keep on banging on, how that is totally unfair towards your Labour vote.

Just now, mankytoes said:

Right, they can have their say. I never saw anything to say that they would be able to force a u-turn based on conference voting.  

So you didn't see a party conference passing a new manifesto based on the will of two thirds of its members? And an even bigger part of the Labour MPs? It's really hard not to laugh at that, after you made that rather smugh comment about Labour members should have known about the preferences of their elected party leader... And both Tories and Labour campaigned on seeing the referendum result thru, and with the Tories, there you would have a majority of their membership backing you on your Brexit pursuit, so why Labour then?

1 minute ago, mankytoes said:

Well, I did switch my vote to Labour over Brexit, I voted Lib Dem before, but I didn't really feel like I could when they were building their whole campaign around trying to reverse the election result (which gained them very little). I wouldn't say "I will never vote for them again", honestly I find it pretty childish when voters say that. If they have the best manifesto and the right people, of course I'd vote for them.  

You said, yourself, you'd switch back to LibDems after Brexit is done and dusted. Although, why a staunch leaver would ever vote (or claim to) for arguably the most pro remain party in England, that is beyond me. I'd could make guess about it being Farron, and some of his views...

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not going to be quiet on this, because there is this constant narrative from both sides that the left and the Labour Party are pro Remain, and the right and Tories are pro Leave. It's such an oversimplification. 

So you are denying, that the bulk of the leave vote came from the Tories and people further to the right? Sorry, but that was the backbone of the leave voters.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I felt obliged to repay the smug tone of bringing up that The members elected Corbyn as a leader, not a delegate, and they should have been aware of his long established attitude towards the EU.

You wanna talk about patronising, let's start there then?

Anyway, having that said.

Two thirds, yes, I'd call that a rather vast majority, at least in politics. So why should your (and that of your fellow third) count more than two third of the parties voters? That was a serious question, as you keep on banging on, how that is totally unfair towards your Labour vote.

So you didn't see a party conference passing a new manifesto based on the will of two thirds of its members? And an even bigger part of the Labour MPs? It's really hard not to laugh at that, after you made that rather smugh comment about Labour members should have known about the preferences of their elected party leader... And both Tories and Labour campaigned on seeing the referendum result thru, and with the Tories, there you would have a majority of their membership backing you on your Brexit pursuit, so why Labour then?

You said, yourself, you'd switch back to LibDems after Brexit is done and dusted. Although, why a staunch leaver would ever vote (or claim to) for arguably the most pro remain party in England, that is beyond me. I'd could make guess about it being Farron, and some of his views...

So you are denying, that the bulk of the leave vote came from the Tories and people further to the right? Sorry, but that was the backbone of the leave voters.

Ok, if you really see that on the same level as " I am recquired by law to laugh you out of the room", I guess you are. 

I'm not saying we should count for more, I'm saying we should at least be considered, because in a lot of coverage we're completely ignored. I mean I've heard people saying that people clearly want to stay in Europe because so many voted for Labour, it's ridiculous, and this is perpetrated from all sides. 

Why Labour? Because, as I said, I'm not a single issue voter, you can't just ignore every other issue because of Brexit, there's still healthcare, education, etc.

Maybe. I don't believe in party loyalism. I think party loyalism is a terrible thing in our country. I will choose every election based on who I think will run the country best. 

Again, because you don't vote in an election based purely on Europe. I've never voted Lib Dems in a European election. You've got to look at the manifesto overall. Farron didn't bother me particularly, no. 

No, I'm saying it's an oversimplification. There has always been a significant element on the political left who have been against the EU, and I don't think we're getting a proportional voice here. People like a simple narrative.

[Spockydog]

 

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Since when did the majority of members of any political party determine policy? I've never heard of a party being run like that. The members elected Corbyn as a leader, not a delegate, and they should have been aware of his long established attitude towards the EU.

This is what democracy, real democracy, should look like. Party membership votes on whether they think a prospective policy is a good idea. If said policy is adopted it is then put before the electorate. Sounds like a great idea to me. Or perhaps you'd rather we continued to have public policy dictated by shadowy donors and corporate lobbyists. Because that's worked out amazingly well for the people, hasn't it?

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Of course the members should be listened to, but that doesn't mean they should be obeyed at all times. Like it or not (and I don't like it, but that's another issue) the trade unions are a well established part of the Labour Party as well. At the last election, we were told Labour would not try to stop Brexit, and a lot of us voted for them with that understanding. 

McCluskey was giving a personal opinion. He hasn't polled his members on the issue so he hasn't got a clue what they really want. And as for the last election, a lot of us voted Labour despite Corbyn's position on Brexit, desperately hoping for a change of policy. The way things are going, the next election is going to be fought on Brexit. Not 'No Deal or Chequers', but 'In or Out'. And if you still want out, you'll have to vote Tory. Hope you don't choke.

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I wonder if Remainers would say it would be equally as outrageous if Theresa May backed a second referendum against the wishes of her party members?

I'm growing increasingly convinced that May's mission since 2016 has been to completely scupper Brexit. If that is her plan, then she's doing a fantastic job.

[Spockydog]

Labour 'could win 1.5m more votes' by backing Brexit referendum
 

Quote

Labour could win more than 1.5 million extra voters if it backed a second referendum on Brexit, potentially delivering the party a Commons majority, according to new polling for the campaign group People’s Vote.

Labour’s policy on Brexit will be a central issue at its conference in Liverpool, which kicks off on Saturday, with more than 100 local parties urging the leadership to back a referendum on any final Brexit deal.

The poll is aimed at allaying the anxieties of Labour voters in pro-leave constituencies, who fear that opening up the possibility of revisiting the Brexit vote could alienate their supporters.

While the organisers stress the complexities of asking such hypothetical questions, they argue that the large sample size – more than 10,200 people were asked in late August and early September – plus the heavy margins support the idea of an electoral boost if Labour changes policy.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this news had something to do with the abrupt change in policy.