The 2019 General Election

[Wilf]

But most of those concerns weren't really anything to do with our relationship with the EU - except for around immigration. The decades of under-investment and deindustrialisation that fucked those communities and led to the breakdown in community weren't caused by the EU. They are being addressed by the rest of Labour policy, policy that would (and could) be implemented whether in the EU or not.

Yeah, they weren't, true. But they were in part what drove the leave vote and certainly the last 3 years would have been a good time for Labour to get back, explicitly, overtly and loudly, on the side of those communities. Something that in turn was about policy but much more than policy. It's about matching your stance on brexit to deeper issues about neoliberalism, but also using that to get beyond brexit. Ultimately this was about having a stance on brexit that was part of something bigger and more important. Instead, here we are, with high % of voters not knowing what Labour's policy has been - and no signs of enthusiasm about the new renegotiations/2nd ref version.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The public vote bit is pretty important, for sure, but what else, formally, has changed?

It's not about the reality, it's about the perception.

what has formally changed, in addition to the trifling decision to hold a second referendum, is Labour’s position. It’s gone from a commitment to deliver a ‘People’s Brexit’ to their deal v remain. Do we even know if Labour will campaign for its own deal or if their members and MPs will be free to campaign against it?

 

[belboid]

what has formally changed, in addition to the trifling decision to hold a second referendum, is Labour’s position. It’s gone from a commitment to deliver a ‘People’s Brexit’ to their deal v remain. Do we even know if Labour will campaign for its own deal or if their members and MPs will be free to campaign against it?

So you cant actually name one thing that has changed, other than what I said. Their deal, obviously being the 'People's Brexit' they were talking about in 2017.

 

[Wilf]

what has formally changed, in addition to the trifling decision to hold a second referendum, is Labour’s position. It’s gone from a commitment to deliver a ‘People’s Brexit’ to their deal v remain. Do we even know if Labour will campaign for its own deal or if their members and MPs will be free to campaign against it?

Yeah, the doctored video of keir starmer was, indirectly, quite accurate.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Yeah, the doctored video of keir starmer was, indirectly, quite accurate.

People bleating about what Labour could have done differently should start their enquiries with the role and latitude given to Starmer

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So you cant actually name one thing that has changed, other than what I said. Their deal, obviously being the 'People's Brexit' they were talking about.

What? Let’s try it again.

2017: we respect the referendum result and we will deliver it via a people’s Brexit focussed on jobs

2019: we respect the referendum result so we will negotiate a deal which we will then put to a second referendum. Our position in that referendum is as yet unclear. We will probably have a special conference to decide if we back our deal, or remain or a free vote for all.

You think this is essentially the same. Fuck me, no wonder Labour are fucked

 

[belboid]

Yeah, they weren't, true. But they were in part what drove the leave vote and certainly the last 3 years would have been a good time for Labour to get back, explicitly, overtly and loudly, on the side of those communities. Something that in turn was about policy but much more than policy. It's about matching your stance on brexit to deeper issues about neoliberalism, but also using that to get beyond brexit. Ultimately this was about having a stance on brexit that was part of something bigger and more important. Instead, here we are, with high % of voters not knowing what Labour's policy has been - and no signs of enthusiasm about the new renegotiations/2nd ref version.

So, you're talking about framing everything as bring about Brexit? Because Labour have been talking, explicitly and overtly, about being on the side of those communities, whatever the result of Brexit. They've been saying they'll invest in those communities, they'll give money for hospitals, social care, flood defences, etc etc, whatever the outcome. The gains for those communities from Brexit are quite marginal, and the priorities for them can be carried out whether we are a member of the trading bloc or not.

 

[Proper Tidy]

But most of those concerns weren't really anything to do with our relationship with the EU - except for around immigration. The decades of under-investment and deindustrialisation that fucked those communities and led to the breakdown in community weren't caused by the EU. They are being addressed by the rest of Labour policy, policy that would (and could) be implemented whether in the EU or not.

Deindustrialisation was caused by the EU though. Not in isolation and it would have happened outside of the EU too but point stands. That's how freedom of capital within a single market with varying labour markets works. Would Cadburys have shifted production from UK sites to Poland without the EU?

 

[belboid]

What? Let’s try it again.

2017: we respect the referendum result and we will deliver it via a people’s Brexit focussed on jobs

2019: we respect the referendum result so we will negotiate a deal which we will then put to a second referendum. Our position in that referendum is as yet unclear. We will probably have a special conference to decide if we back out deep, remain or a free vote for al.

You think this is essentially the same. Fuck me, no wonder Labour are fucked

Once again, you fail to make any specific distinction, beyond the second referendum.

I'll say it again. The People's Brexit from 2017 is the same deal they are talking about now, a people's brexit focussed on jobs.

 

[belboid]

Deindustrialisation was caused by the EU though. Not in isolation and it would have happened outside of the EU too but point stands. That's how freedom of capital within a single market with varying labour markets works. Would Cadburys have shifted production from UK sites to Poland without the EU?

So it would have happened anyway, and they weren't a driver, but they did cause it? Makes no sense. Cadbury's would probably have shifted them somewhere.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Once again, you fail to make any specific distinction, beyond the second referendum.

I'll say it again. The People's Brexit from 2017 is the same deal they are talking about now, a people's brexit focussed on jobs.

The deal they seek to negotiate is the same. What they intend to then do with it. And their position on it is not.

Their position is effectively the Blair/Campbell People’s Vote campaign position

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So it would have happened anyway, and they weren't a driver, but they did cause it? Makes no sense. Cadbury's would probably have shifted them somewhere.

Proper Tidy, as you well know, is arguing that the key function of the EU is the facilitation of the free movement of capital. Deindustrialisation and capital flight was actively facilitated by both the EU and the Thatcher Government. The latter would have found it harder without, for example, the EU Coal and Steel community imposing quotas and demanding closures on member states

 

[belboid]

Except they don't want to renegotiate the deal, which is pretty significant.

 

[andysays]

Welsh Tories have apparently chosen Chris Davies as their candidate in Ynes Mos.

He's the one who lost Brecon and Radnor by election after being convicted of expenses fraud, of course

 

[Marty1]

The deal they seek to negotiate is the same. What they intend to then do with it. And their position on it is not.

Their position is effectively the Blair/Campbell People’s Vote campaign position

Let’s not beat around the bush, if Labour get into power it’s highly unlikely Brexit will happen.

 

[Raheem]

Let’s not beat around the bush, if Labour get into power it’s highly unlikely Brexit will happen.

Only true on the assumption that Brexit is not what the majority of the voting public want.

 

[Proper Tidy]

So it would have happened anyway, and they weren't a driver, but they did cause it? Makes no sense. They'd probably have shifted them somewhere.

Yes, deindustrialisation of the UK would have happened outside of the EU, while at same time being entrenched and furthered by the EU which is, fundamentally, about creating and enforcing a single market across multiple labour markets ranging from developed to low wage economies, thus meaning deindustrialisation is inevitable. There is no contradiction here and it makes perfect sense. What other view could a socialist take?

 

[Marty1]

Only true on the assumption that Brexit is not what the majority of the voting public want.

 

[treelover]

Channel 4 interviewing three MPs that have left their parties for their opinion on the election, Nick Boles & Heidi Allen (ex Tory) and Gisela Stuart (Labour right, leaver), which is basically a Corbyn pile-on. Nice bit of balance...

yes it was appalling, real bias.

 

[treelover]

Whatever your opinions about either Brexit or Trident, it's a bit of long stretch trying to pretend they are in any way related.
I'm not sure where they're going with these personal attacks on Corbyn, most voters don't give a shit if he met with the IRA or Hamas 30 years ago or whether he is reluctant to press the big button (how is this not a good thing?), Most folks have more important things to worry about can they pay their rent at the end of the month, will their kids get a decent education, how long it takes to see a doctor.
The Tories can't come close on these issues and on the one thing where they could say something meaningful about Labour's woolly and vague mutterings about the top issue of the day they just fall back on their daft slogan of "Get Brexit Done"

actually many men of a certain age do, my brother in law in his sixties, blairite, is spitting blood about JC and McDonnell, IRA, etc.

 

[treelover]

nah, he got them all and has pocketed the £100 each they paid. So that’s a cool 300k for grafting his own followers. A grifters gonna grift.

The upmarket tommy robinson, I wonder if he would have been a Spiv in the 40's?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

actually many men of a certain age do, my brother in law in his sixties, blairite, is spitting blood about JC and McDonnell, IRA, etc.

But IRA-obsessed right wing men in their sixties are not most voters. They aren't even most men in their sixties.

 

[planetgeli]

Welsh Tories have apparently chosen Chris Davies as their candidate in Ynes Mos.

He's the one who lost Brecon and Radnor by election after being convicted of expenses fraud, of course

Ynys Môn, aka Anglesey. 5000 Labour majority in a three way split. LDs have stood aside and I’m sure the 479 votes (1.3%) they got last time will be a massive help to PC.

 

[treelover]

The election that just keeps on giving.

Boles was the libertarian who claimed to like 'creative destruction' in politics, changed his tune.

 

[belboid]

Proper Tidy, as you well know, is arguing that the key function of the EU is the facilitation of the free movement of capital. Deindustrialisation and capital flight was actively facilitated by both the EU and the Thatcher Government. The latter would have found it harder without, for example, the EU Coal and Steel community imposing quotas and demanding closures on member states

...and the Thatcher government....

The EU, especially pre-Maastricht, had virtually zero effect upon deindustrialisation. Nothing to do with the closing of the mines or the steel industry or the docks. Under-investment has overwhelmingly been caused by financialisation.

Yes, deindustrialisation of the UK would have happened outside of the EU, while at same time being entrenched and furthered by the EU which is, fundamentally, about creating and enforcing a single market across multiple labour markets ranging from developed to low wage economies, thus meaning deindustrialisation is inevitable. There is no contradiction here and it makes perfect sense. What other view could a socialist take?

a socialist should recognise the contradictions. The EU is also there to protect 'heavy industry' in member states, and used there rules to stop a complete rush to the bottom by moving industries lock stock to eastern europe after its collapse, which the tories would have loved to do given no constraints.

Of course the EU is a bloc within which its easy for a neo-liberal state to operate. Slightly easier than it is outside of it. But it's still not very difficult to operate as a neo-liberal state outside of it, and as all our governments for the last forty years have been neo-liberal....

 

[agricola]

The upmarket tommy robinson, I wonder if he would have been a Spiv in the 40's?

More likely he'd have been the sort who went around telling everyone that the Japanese couldn't see in the dark, or things more than three meters away.

 

[treelover]

The vast majority of the membership, activists and MPs of the Labour Party should perhaps recognise that their own personal peccadilloes have consequences when they come into contact with the electorate.

As you correctly indicate Labour hoovered up remain support in 2017 when it had a perfectly sensible policy on Brexit.

Absolutely, they are pushing for more open borders(not complete)/free movement in the manifesto

at our CLP meeting, most were affluent public sector home owner types, and however much they care, even if they were from WC background, their priority seemed to be international ones, migration, etc, etc.There was a food bank collection , that for 80 odd people wasn't exactly substantial.

Waits for Belboid to put me right,

 

[treelover]

I'll accept that the contradictions in and between labour's members, voters and activists could never easily be resolved. But the problem is what Labour did with those contradictions, all the decidingnot to decide, waiting till this that or the other NEC meeting and the rest. Labour's body language on brexit has been dreadful, a body language that made even theresa may look resolute and looks bad against the 'getting it done' narrative of the current twat. There's an element of hindsight here, admittedly, but the moment they voted for Article 50, there should have been an aggressive articulation of a lexit (of sorts - it would have been a social democratic exit vision). I've no idea, but it might well have meant some version of the single market, but allied with a real push on workers rights and the rest - and most of all tied in with a confident left agenda at home. There would have been something there for both leave and remain areas, maybe even a way of getting beyond fucking brexit.

We've obviously been round and round these issues, but I only mention is a component of labour's current problems. They haven't really got much to say to either leave or remain areas.

Wilf For labour leader!

 

[treelover]

David Lammy has basically admitted Labour is in trouble, by calling on Corbyn to get into bed with the LidDems, etc.

Jeremy Corbyn urged to cut deals and form 'Remain alliance' to defeat the Tories

Bubble politician of a different kind

 

[treelover]

I don't know how all this stuff can have been possible in the middle of an internal civil war in which one side of the party was using brexit as it's main means of destabilising the other. This kind of message discipline on policy which goes against the wishes of most of the membership & support base would have been difficult at the best of times: under the conditions Labour have been (cough) labouring under the past few years? No chance.

R4, Today was all about Social Care this morning, Rishi Sunac was asked repeated what was their policy on it, he just kepy repeating Labout will spend 1,2 trillion, seems going for the Trumpian/High Thatcher era, appraoch.