Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[SpackleFrog]

The people who complain the most vociferously about being called drunk are drunk. And the people who complain most loudly about being named airhead? What might they be?

Empty vessels make the most noise. But it's wicked to mock the afflicted.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Just catching up on this thread.. huh?! Why would David Cameron secretly favour leave? Is this similar to the “novikchok poisoning was false flag by uk govt” reasoning? Or am I missing something?

 

[redsquirrel]

Just catching up on this thread.. huh?! Why would David Cameron secretly favour leave? Is this similar to the “novikchok poisoning was false flag by uk govt” reasoning? Or am I missing something?

He wouldn't, and yes it is similar to that but it's a view Ming has repeatedly made

Can't back it up with anything, that's true. Just a feeling. A no-deal Brexit is a hell of an opportunity if your already wealthy and it'll enable them to push further getting rid of the welfare state.

 

[danny la rouge]

Just catching up on this thread.. huh?! Why would David Cameron secretly favour leave? Is this similar to the “novikchok poisoning was false flag by uk govt” reasoning? Or am I missing something?

You’re not missing anything. We’ve had that view put on the thread several times before.

It comes, I think, via this reasoning:

Farage and BJ and the ERG etc are wild eyed zealots and neocons and worse (which is correct). Therefore they’re the bad guys. (Also correct).

Therefore I oppose them on this issue and others opposing them must be my fellow travellers (faulty logic).

Therefore bad guys like the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the banks and financial institutions, the majority of Tory MPs and all those others I normally wouldn’t consider “fellow travellers” must be lying when they say they support Remain, because Remain is a progressive stance and they’re all reactionary. (Faulty Logic step two).

It comes from a failure to correctly position the issue within existing ideological and economic structures, and from the fallacy “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.

 

[xenon]

And also that capitalist institutes and interests, aren’t embodied in a monolithic whole without antagonistic motivations

 

[danny la rouge]

And also that capitalist institutes and interests, aren’t embodied in a monolithic whole without antagonistic motivations

Absolutely. The EU is beloved of the neoliberal project (because capital likes to cross borders), but UK neoconservatives tend to be Euroskeptic etc. But to imagine that neoconservatism is the majority ideology in the Parliamentary Tory Party is a huge error.

(It’s also worth remembering that the division between neocon and neolib is not binary, and a sliding scale between the two might exist in any one given individual).

 

[redsquirrel]

It comes, I think, via this reasoning:

Farage and BJ and the ERG etc are wild eyed zealots and neocons and worse (which is correct). Therefore they’re the bad guys. (Also correct).

Therefore I oppose them on this issue and others opposing them must be my fellow travellers (faulty logic).

...

It comes from a failure to correctly position the issue within existing ideological and economic structures, and from the fallacy “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.

(It’s also worth remembering that the division between neocon and neolib is not binary, and a sliding scale between the two might exist in any one given individual).

And the same thinking in reverse leads to the attempt to eliminate the ideological differences and divisions between left-liberalism, social democracy and socialism (we're all on the same side, we all want the same things)

 

[danny la rouge]

And the same thinking in reverse leads to the attempt to eliminate the ideological differences and divisions between left-liberalism, social democracy and socialism (we're all on the same side, we all want the same things)

Yup. And the differences are also strategic.

I think campaigning for Corbynite Labour is a waste of energy. A Corbyn-led government, if it ever happens, might be marginally better than May (the hyperbole that calls him Marxist is so far wide of the mark as to be ludicrous), but because you can’t have socialism in one country (because capitalism is global, so opposition has to be global), he wouldn’t get away with anything the international capitalist institutions and so on couldn’t swallow. (David Harvey in a recent podcast gives the example of Mitterand having to reverse hard on various manifesto commitments once in power). This is called “the realities” and realpolitik.

So while I might (might) cast a vote for a political party for some tactical reason, going further than that: campaigning for one, joining one, is a diversion. Even when they have good intentions, they get coopted and subsumed in the establishment. Look at the history of the Labour Party. (And if you think Atlee is a shining beacon, remember the welfare state and the NHS were mooted before he took power by others in the establishment, were supported by Tory governments and the post War Consensus after he left power, and were in fact a compromise that capital felt it had to concede to - small l - labour in the wake of the War. It was a necessary pressure value, in the view of capital. It came from years of working class activity and pressure, not because of one GE result. That result was an effect not a cause).

Reduction of politics into electoral politics is misdirection and saps useful energy.


So, while you can’t have “socialism in one country”, the working class can, if organised, cohesive and strong, win useful concessions at historic points of crisis. The energy therefore needs to go into working class organisation and activity.

 

[redsquirrel]

Yep, total agreement with that from me.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yup. And the differences are also strategic.

I think campaigning for Corbynite Labour is a waste of energy. A Corbyn-led government, if it ever happens, might be marginally better than May (the hyperbole that calls him Marxist is so far wide of the mark as to be ludicrous), but because you can’t have socialism in one country (because capitalism is global, so opposition has to be global), he wouldn’t get away with anything the international capitalist institutions and so on couldn’t swallow. (David Harvey in a recent podcast gives the example of Mitterand having to reverse hard on various manifesto commitments once in power). This is called “the realities” and realpolitik.

So while I might (might) cast a vote for a political party for some tactical reason, going further than that: campaigning for one, joining one, is a diversion. Even when they have good intentions, they get coopted and subsumed in the establishment. Look at the history of the Labour Party. (And if you think Atlee is a shining beacon, remember the welfare state and the NHS were mooted before he took power by others in the establishment, were supported by Tory governments and the post War Consensus after he left power, and were in fact a compromise that capital felt it had to concede to - small l - labour in the wake of the War. It was a necessary pressure value, in the view of capital. It came from years of working class activity and pressure, not because of one GE result. That result was an effect not a cause).

Reduction of politics into electoral politics is misdirection and saps useful energy.


So, while you can’t have “socialism in one country”, the working class can, if organised, cohesive and strong, win useful concessions at historic points of crisis. The energy therefore needs to go into working class organisation and activity.

tbh you see labour in power up and down the land, and their activities don't suggest that a national labour government would be any more progressive than, say, the labour party in local government in hackney.

 

[Sue]

tbh you see labour in power up and down the land, and their activities don't suggest that a national labour government would be any more progressive than, say, the labour party in local government in hackney.

For those unfamiliar with Hackney Council, there are 55 Labour councillors and five Tories so Labour can do whatever they like really. Stuff like this, for example.

'Zero affordable housing' scheme for Kingsland Fire Station site approved by planning committee - Hackney Citizen

 

[Pickman's model]

For those unfamiliar with Hackney Council, there are 55 Labour councillors and five Tories so Labour can do whatever they like really. Stuff like this, for example.

'Zero affordable housing' scheme for Kingsland Fire Station site approved by planning committee - Hackney Citizen

not to mention what former mayor jules pipe - now in charge of planning in london - did to the haggerston estate, the colville estate etc etc etc ad nauseam

it's interesting that two people from hackney now occupy high office in the mayor's administration, the nefandous pipe in charge of planning and the equally unspeakable sophie linden in charge of mopac, the mayor's office on policing and crime

 

[SpookyFrank]

For those unfamiliar with Hackney Council, there are 55 Labour councillors and five Tories so Labour can do whatever they like really. Stuff like this, for example.

'Zero affordable housing' scheme for Kingsland Fire Station site approved by planning committee - Hackney Citizen

True everywhere. Any party that has a stranglehold on the local authority and no prospect of ever losing it will inevitably turn corrupt.

Here our long-serving council leader, an evangelical gentrifier and friend of dodgy business interests, is stepping down because he's likely to lose his support after the next elections anyway. There's a strong possibility some momentum-approved bod will take his place. My hopes for this change improving anything are not high.

 

[Pickman's model]

True everywhere. Any party that has a stranglehold on the local authority and no prospect of ever losing it will inevitably turn corrupt.

Here our long-serving council leader, an evangelical gentrifier and friend of dodgy business interests, is stepping down because he's likely to lose his support after the next elections anyway. There's a strong possibility some momentum-approved bod will take his place. My hopes for this change improving anything are not high.

meet the new boss...

 

[Wilf]

In passing, I wonder if Bercow could just about have done May a favour. Was looking like she would have lost mv3 or would have looked even weaker had she pulled it. Now the EU will gift her an extension, allowing her to claim that what she's putting in to parliament is 'different', give her more time to bribe the dup, push a few more MPs to the point where they cave in etc. She's clearly not resigning and this might ultimately keep things in her hands (at least versus parliament - it probably weakens her further against the EU). Have a vague memory that we might have ended up with 'EQs' next week, some kind of procedure to float different options (?). Does the 'constitutional crisis' avoid May having to face that?

 

[two sheds]

Yup. And the differences are also strategic.

I think campaigning for Corbynite Labour is a waste of energy. A Corbyn-led government, if it ever happens, might be marginally better than May (the hyperbole that calls him Marxist is so far wide of the mark as to be ludicrous), but because you can’t have socialism in one country (because capitalism is global, so opposition has to be global), he wouldn’t get away with anything the international capitalist institutions and so on couldn’t swallow. (David Harvey in a recent podcast gives the example of Mitterand having to reverse hard on various manifesto commitments once in power). This is called “the realities” and realpolitik.

So while I might (might) cast a vote for a political party for some tactical reason, going further than that: campaigning for one, joining one, is a diversion. Even when they have good intentions, they get coopted and subsumed in the establishment. Look at the history of the Labour Party. (And if you think Atlee is a shining beacon, remember the welfare state and the NHS were mooted before he took power by others in the establishment, were supported by Tory governments and the post War Consensus after he left power, and were in fact a compromise that capital felt it had to concede to - small l - labour in the wake of the War. It was a necessary pressure value, in the view of capital. It came from years of working class activity and pressure, not because of one GE result. That result was an effect not a cause).

Reduction of politics into electoral politics is misdirection and saps useful energy.


So, while you can’t have “socialism in one country”, the working class can, if organised, cohesive and strong, win useful concessions at historic points of crisis. The energy therefore needs to go into working class organisation and activity.

Yes I'd largely agree. When's it coming though? In the meantime if people want to organize for Corbyn to get in and they see it as a good use of their time then I think that's fine for them. I don't see it as an either/or but a both/and.

And £500 billion investment in infrastructure and people may not bring back the PWSC but it could alleviate some of the worst conditions that people are living under. That's important.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes I'd largely agree. When's it coming though? In the meantime if people want to organize for Corbyn to get in and they see it as a good use of their time then I think that's fine for them. I don't see it as an either/or but a both/and.

And £500 billion investment in infrastructure and people may not bring back the PWSC but it could alleviate some of the worst conditions that people are living under. That's important.

I didn’t want to give the impression that I was telling others what to do: I was explaining what my own analysis was.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Yup. And the differences are also strategic.

I think campaigning for Corbynite Labour is a waste of energy. A Corbyn-led government, if it ever happens, might be marginally better than May (the hyperbole that calls him Marxist is so far wide of the mark as to be ludicrous), but because you can’t have socialism in one country (because capitalism is global, so opposition has to be global), he wouldn’t get away with anything the international capitalist institutions and so on couldn’t swallow. (David Harvey in a recent podcast gives the example of Mitterand having to reverse hard on various manifesto commitments once in power). This is called “the realities” and realpolitik.

So while I might (might) cast a vote for a political party for some tactical reason, going further than that: campaigning for one, joining one, is a diversion. Even when they have good intentions, they get coopted and subsumed in the establishment. Look at the history of the Labour Party. (And if you think Atlee is a shining beacon, remember the welfare state and the NHS were mooted before he took power by others in the establishment, were supported by Tory governments and the post War Consensus after he left power, and were in fact a compromise that capital felt it had to concede to - small l - labour in the wake of the War. It was a necessary pressure value, in the view of capital. It came from years of working class activity and pressure, not because of one GE result. That result was an effect not a cause).

Reduction of politics into electoral politics is misdirection and saps useful energy.


So, while you can’t have “socialism in one country”, the working class can, if organised, cohesive and strong, win useful concessions at historic points of crisis. The energy therefore needs to go into working class organisation and activity.

Agree with most of this, but if one of the ways that the working class was getting organised was through the Labour Party, would you then see electoral campaigning as part of that? Not saying that's what's happening now as Momentum/Labour Left seem mostly focused on the internetz and passing resolutions in meetings that I would guess are very boring.

 

[two sheds]

Agree with most of this, but if one of the ways that the working class was getting organised was through the Labour Party, would you then see electoral campaigning as part of that? Not saying that's what's happening now as Momentum/Labour Left seem mostly focused on the internetz and passing resolutions in meetings that I would guess are very boring.

There's a fair amount of canvassing going on down here, and regular stalls in Truro to talk to people. They have community organizing courses too, but not sure how that's followed up.

 

[SpackleFrog]

There's a fair amount of canvassing going on down here, and regular stalls in Truro to talk to people. They have community organizing courses too, but not sure how that's followed up.

To be fair if the extent of that canvassing/stall stuff is to convince people to vote for Labour I don't think that counts.

 

[danny la rouge]

Agree with most of this, but if one of the ways that the working class was getting organised was through the Labour Party, would you then see electoral campaigning as part of that? Not saying that's what's happening now as Momentum/Labour Left seem mostly focused on the internetz and passing resolutions in meetings that I would guess are very boring.

I don’t think that getting organised around the Labour Party has proved effective. It hasn’t produced organised working class self-activity. In fact, parliamentary politics is like petitioning in that it’s asking other people to do things. Which they mostly aren’t able to do (for reasons given above). It amounts therefore to indirect inaction. This is the opposite of what’s needed: a self-confident, self-conscious, organised and active working class.

Look at the history of the Labour Party: its movement is in the other direction. Yes, there are times when Labour Party electoral share has been high that have coincided with high working class organisation, but again because there is a tendency to equate electoral politics with politics, this is seen the wrong way around: cause is confused for effect.

Furthermore, not every period of Labour being in power has been correlated with working class self confidence and organisation. The Blair/Brown years saw the working class sidelined and forgotten.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don’t think that getting organised around the Labour Party has proved effective.

for the past 29 years i've heard people talking about 'reclaiming' the labour party. and no one's managed it in all that time. perhaps it's time to give it up as a lost cause.

 

[Brainaddict]

Did this get posted here? A look at the material interests behind ruling class Brexit funding/support: Revealed: How dark money split the Tories’ ruling elite

 

[danny la rouge]

for the past 29 years i've heard people talking about 'reclaiming' the labour party. and no one's managed it in all that time. perhaps it's time to give it up as a lost cause.

I’ve been hearing it since 1983. “We just need to get into power, then the masks can come off and we can govern as socialists”. Never happened. Doubt it ever will. Not waiting another 36 years to find out if it ever does.

I think a far better use of effort and time is building working class self confidence and self management. And doing it by getting involved in stuff that matters locally.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I don’t think that getting organised around the Labour Party has proved effective. It hasn’t produced organised working class self-activity. In fact, parliamentary politics is like petitioning in that it’s asking other people to do things. Which they mostly aren’t able to do (for reasons given above). It amounts therefore to indirect inaction. This is the opposite of what’s needed: a self-confident, self-conscious, organised and active working class.

Look at the history of the Labour Party: its movement is in the other direction. Yes, there are times when Labour Party electoral share has been high that have coincided with high working class organisation, but again because there is a tendency to equate electoral politics with politics, this is seen the wrong way around: cause is confused for effect.

Furthermore, not every period of Labour being in power has been correlated with working class self confidence and organisation. The Blair/Brown years saw the working class sidelined and forgotten.

Totally appreciate that all of that. But when Corbyn was elected, and then when he was challenged, people flooded into the Labour Party. They haven't then got organised inside the Labour Party, or at least not to do anything beyond vague 'vote labour' electoralism. If they had would your attitude be different?

 

[SpackleFrog]

for the past 29 years i've heard people talking about 'reclaiming' the labour party. and no one's managed it in all that time. perhaps it's time to give it up as a lost cause.

To be fair there's lots of things people have talked about over the last 29 years that no one has managed but we can't give everything up as a lost cause

 

[SpackleFrog]

Moving back on to Brexit (dunno why really) but May hasn't made any kind of public statement since Bercow's ruling has she? Will she say anything before PMQ's tomorrow? Is she definitely alive?

 

[danny la rouge]

Totally appreciate that all of that. But when Corbyn was elected, and then when he was challenged, people flooded into the Labour Party. They haven't then got organised inside the Labour Party, or at least not to do anything beyond vague 'vote labour' electoralism. If they had would your attitude be different?

I think they haven’t because that’s not what electoral politics are for.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Moving back on to Brexit (dunno why really) but May hasn't made any kind of public statement since Bercow's ruling has she? Will she say anything before PMQ's tomorrow? Is she definitely alive?

Was she ever alive?

 

[SpackleFrog]

I think they haven’t because that’s not what electoral politics are for.

Fair enough. I think there can be other kinds of electoral politics. Although there aren't in practice right now so perhaps it's a moot point.