Change UK: Chuka Umunna resigns from Labour party and launches Independent Group

[TopCat]

I eagerly await more revelations from the former colleagues as to how much they hate each other now.

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[Pickman's model]

it is a pity the number of days between each incarnation not listed

 

[Sue]

On R4 just now calling for Corbyn to 'put aside his personal and political ego.'

 

[Proper Tidy]

I see wollaston is a libdem now father

 

[Gerry1time]

I see wollaston is a libdem now father

I was in Totnes a short while ago, and the Mrs asked me what the town was like politically. I said it was the sort of place that was generally a fight between the tories and the lib dems. Little did I realise how that fight would all be within one person.

 

[Wilf]

Oswald Mosley - Conservative > Independent > Labour > New Party > British Union of Fascists > Brixton Prison > Holloway Prison with his wife

 

[Gramsci]

On R4 just now calling for Corbyn to 'put aside his personal and political ego.'

I read this few days ago:

Remainers will do anything to stop Brexit, except install Corbyn as PM. Why? | Rafael Behr

I agree with it. Any sensible Remainer would support Corbyn idea of temporary government.

But that is not what Chuka and his Lib Dems are about.

They would rather scupper this idea than see Corbyn temporarily running the country.

As a Remainer I despair.

The attitude of Chuka and Swinson bolsters left argument for Brexit.

Chuka and his new LD chums want return to the good old days of (Neo Liberal) centre politics and an unreconstructed EU.

I'm afraid a lot of the mainstream Remain argument is about not just staying in EU but getting rid of "populists" like Corbyn and returning to supposedly sensible centre ground politics.

 

[moochedit]

What's the pink on the last column ("the inds")?

Is there a tig splinter group i've missed?
(I assume the grey "ind" means not in any party?)

Needs updating for sarah whatshername joining the lib dems.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

What's the pink on the last column ("the inds")?

Is there a tig splinter group i've missed?

yes, it was a split from tinge / upchuk

 

[moochedit]

yes, it was a split from tinge / upchuk

Of ffs!

 

[Gerry1time]

Chuka and his new LD chums want return to the good old days of (Neo Liberal) centre politics and an unreconstructed EU.

I don't think it's that at all. That sort of analysis assumes Jo Swinson and the people around her care about political theory. Most Lib Dems don't, they just get elected because it's a steady job that makes them feel personally validated, it provides them with a social circle they'd otherwise lack, and because they're good at delivering leaflets without complaining.

I think this particular issue is much more that Jo Swinson was very young and naive when she got drawn by the bright lights of government into being part of the Tory coalition. It's hurt her politically ever since, both within and outside the party. So to get away from this she's decided to have a stance of 'no more coalitions' since running for leader, and you can see why. She had to end the narrative of 'Vote Lib Dem, get Tory / Labour' or whoever else they may back. Hence her coming out with 'We'd support a national unity government, but not under Corbyn', which got rightly ridiculed.

Now she's stuck. She wants to stop Brexit, but also wants to get away from the 'Lib Dems just prop up parties that don't win majorities' narrative, but the two may be mutually exclusive.

 

[Raheem]

Chuka and his new LD chums want return to the good old days of (Neo Liberal) centre politics and an unreconstructed EU.

Think you may be crediting them with more integrity than they actually have. A Labour-led caretaker government would give centrists much less influence than a Clarke/Harman/etc government, which would effectively be the MP's equivalent of a really good 90s nostalgia disco.

 

[redsquirrel]

I don't think it's that at all. That sort of analysis assumes Jo Swinson and the people around her care about political theory.

The fact that "centrists" like the LDs and their supporters don't see their politics as ideological (in fact believe their politics to be anti-ideological) does not mean that that those politics are not ideological.

Their decision to support the Tories underpinned by their highly ideological belief in neo-liberalism, their pro-EU beliefs are part of that neo-liberalism. Voting to attack those on benefits, voting to attack workers that is not naiveté it is a committed ideology

Swinson said zero hour contracts were a “useful tool for flexibility in employment”.

Laws called the NHS a “second-rate, centralised, state monopoly service,” and said, “private sector providers are more efficient than the NHS.” As well as arguing for “more competition within the NHS,” the authors called for more private prisons and Royal Mail privatization.

You don't qualify for the Labour Shadow Cabinet these days unless you have studied the Venezuelan guide on how to bankrupt a rich economy

Cable's comments follow those by his predecessor Tim Farron, who told Business Insider that Labour had now become a "Trotskyist party."

 

[Kaka Tim]

I don't think it's that at all. That sort of analysis assumes Jo Swinson and the people around her care about political theory. Most Lib Dems don't, they just get elected because it's a steady job that makes them feel personally validated, it provides them with a social circle they'd otherwise lack, and because they're good at delivering leaflets without complaining.

I think this particular issue is much more that Jo Swinson was very young and naive when she got drawn by the bright lights of government into being part of the Tory coalition. It's hurt her politically ever since, both within and outside the party. So to get away from this she's decided to have a stance of 'no more coalitions' since running for leader, and you can see why. She had to end the narrative of 'Vote Lib Dem, get Tory / Labour' or whoever else they may back. Hence her coming out with 'We'd support a national unity government, but not under Corbyn', which got rightly ridiculed.

Now she's stuck. She wants to stop Brexit, but also wants to get away from the 'Lib Dems just prop up parties that don't win majorities' narrative, but the two may be mutually exclusive.

if it wasn't for the brexit stuff, shed get into another coalition with tories at the drop of a hat

 

[kebabking]

if it wasn't for the brexit stuff, shed get into another coalition with tories at the drop of a hat

Nah, she wouldn't do it at the drop of a hat.

The Tory party of 2019 is a rather different party to the Tory party of 2010 - in the same way that Labour is - and the current Tory leadership are rather less LibDem friendly than the Tories of David Cameron and Oliver Letwin. The LD's also now have the experience of the fall-out of a Tory coalition to mull over.

I doubt the LD's would touch a Johnson-esque would-be government with a stick. A Rory Stewart/David Gauke/Amber Rudd/whatever government might be a different story, but even without the Brexity stuff, Johnson's very visible shift towards the right makes him simply too bitter a mouthful for the LD's.

 

[binka]

Johnson's very visible shift towards the right makes him simply too bitter a mouthful for the LD's.

You give the lib dems far too much credit, they would relish the chance to be a 'moderating influence' within this government

 

[Ming]

Nah, she wouldn't do it at the drop of a hat.

The Tory party of 2019 is a rather different party to the Tory party of 2010 - in the same way that Labour is - and the current Tory leadership are rather less LibDem friendly than the Tories of David Cameron and Oliver Letwin. The LD's also now have the experience of the fall-out of a Tory coalition to mull over.

I doubt the LD's would touch a Johnson-esque would-be government with a stick. A Rory Stewart/David Gauke/Amber Rudd/whatever government might be a different story, but even without the Brexity stuff, Johnson's very visible shift towards the right makes him simply too bitter a mouthful for the LD's.

Just one thing. Cameron lied about 'no top down reorganization of the NHS' and then introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (opening up all core services to potential privatization) and as to old mister Letwin?
Letwin: 'NHS will not exist under Tories'

 

[kebabking]

Just one thing. Cameron lied about 'no top down reorganization of the NHS' and then introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (opening up all core services to potential privatization) and as to old mister Letwin?
Letwin: 'NHS will not exist under Tories'

Which rather illustrates my point about how the Tory party of 2019 looks rather different to how the Tory party of 2010 looked to the LD's, which therefore suggests they will react rather differently to it.

 

[Ming]

Which rather illustrates my point about how the Tory party of 2019 looks rather different to how the Tory party of 2010 looked to the LD's, which therefore suggests they will react rather differently to it.

I don't think they've changed at all. Same agenda. Cameron's version was 'hug a husky' but was really 'now let's get rid of the green crap'. All about managing change I guess.

 

[redsquirrel]

Just one thing. Cameron lied about 'no top down reorganization of the NHS' and then introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (opening up all core services to potential privatization) and as to old mister Letwin?
Letwin: 'NHS will not exist under Tories'

What is the relevance of this re the LDs?
As the Laws quote above shows the LDs are entirely happy, indeed eager even, to open up 'public' sectors to the market.

 

[Ming]

Which rather illustrates my point about how the Tory party of 2019 looks rather different to how the Tory party of 2010 looked to the LD's, which therefore suggests they will react rather differently to it.

One other point. The 'trade deal' that John Bolton is saying we're 'first in line' for? Because we're predictably desperate. The NHS is one of the prime and most valuable cuts on the plate. And I doubt Congress will actually block it over the GFA (too much money involved).

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I doubt the LD's would touch a Johnson-esque would-be government with a stick. A Rory Stewart/David Gauke/Amber Rudd/whatever government might be a different story, but even without the Brexity stuff, Johnson's very visible shift towards the right makes him simply too bitter a mouthful for the LD's.

if they can go in to a coalition that includes post-farage UKIP in bolton, i would not be at all surprised

 

[Funky_monks]

You give the lib dems far too much credit, they would relish the chance to be a 'moderating influence' within this government

Quite, to assume that the Lib Dems even know what a principle is, let alone have any is quite a leap.

 

[Gerry1time]

The fact that "centrists" like the LDs and their supporters don't see their politics as ideological (in fact believe their politics to be anti-ideological) does not mean that that those politics are not ideological.

Their decision to support the Tories underpinned by their highly ideological belief in neo-liberalism, their pro-EU beliefs are part of that neo-liberalism. Voting to attack those on benefits, voting to attack workers that is not naiveté it is a committed ideology

I didn't say the Lib Dems though did I? I said Jo Swinson and those around her. Nick Clegg, David Laws and the orange bookers around them were definitely ideological and neo-liberal. They've all gone from positions of influence now though, apart perhaps from Ed Davey, but the membership didn't vote for him in the leadership election just now. If you want to waste your energy keeping on fighting a party that used to exist then that's of course up to you. I'd rather fight things as they currently are.

if it wasn't for the brexit stuff, shed get into another coalition with tories at the drop of a hat

Would she balls. The last coalition took them from 57 seats to 8 seats. Do you really think they'd risk that again?

What is the relevance of this re the LDs?
As the Laws quote above shows the LDs are entirely happy, indeed eager even, to open up 'public' sectors to the market.

Didn't David Laws lose his seat in 2015? Along with the rest of the neo-liberals that took over the party? The lib dems are shit in many ways, but they're really not shit in the ways they used to be, and people need to keep up with that.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I didn't say the Lib Dems though did I? I said Jo Swinson and those around her. Nick Clegg, David Laws and the orange bookers around them were definitely ideological and neo-liberal. They've all gone from positions of influence now though, apart perhaps from Ed Davey, but the membership didn't vote for him in the leadership election just now. If you want to waste your energy keeping on fighting a party that used to exist then that's of course up to you. I'd rather fight things as they currently are.



Would she balls. The last coalition took them from 57 seats to 8 seats. Do you really think they'd risk that again?



Didn't David Laws lose his seat in 2015? Along with the rest of the neo-liberals that took over the party? The lib dems are shit in many ways, but they're really not shit in the ways they used to be, and people need to keep up with that.

So how would you define their politics now? Apart from in a practical or operational sense (not wanting to suffer a 2015 type wipeout again) what's changed? Ideologically what's changed?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Also, sorry, but lol at idea that 'neoliberals took over' the libdems. The whole concept of the organge book was of a reclamation of liberalism (wasn't that it's tag line), reasserting liberal values in economics as well as social issues (!).

They didn't take it over, they were always there. The social liberal wing didn't even show a flicker of resistance either

 

[Proper Tidy]

Cunts then, cunts now, forever cunts

 

[Gerry1time]

So how would you define their politics now? Apart from in a practical or operational sense (not wanting to suffer a 2015 type wipeout again) what's changed? Ideologically what's changed?

I wouldn't. That's what's changed. They were always a rag bag of different opinions, best summed up by the idea that getting them to do anything was like hearding cats. It's why they succeeded at a local level, because they could say anything to anyone and still genuinely mean it, but also why they always failed at a national level, where people expect to see coherent policies. A bunch of neo-liberal 'professional politicians' then turned up, took them over, fucked them over, then left. Now they're back to being what they were before, a whole mix of different odd things, some good, some bad, depending on your viewpoint. Just look at the latest campaign strapline 'Bollocks to brexit'. What does that actually mean specifically? Very little, because they're unlikely to agree on any policy specifics. But it's a message that can be tailored to mean lots of different things to different people, which will keep them getting elected in various places now and again.

 

[Gerry1time]

The social liberal wing didn't even show a flicker of resistance either

Lol.