Current Affairs The Labour Party

[NilSatisOptimum]

I think the point is that his team have gazumped the Labour Brexit secretary tbh.

Whole point being a leader is to challenge those under you as it's their role to challenge their leadership. He may not be happy but that's part and parcel of collective and democracy.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The point was that the media gets to tell us what facts it wants. Starmer may well have been angry that Corbyn didn’t include that piece in his letter; did you see any context given as to why he didn’t, or details of discussions between the two over this, or when that bit of the letter went into it? Surely that’s required before coming to a decision over it?

I was under the impression that we'd both made our minds up on this (assuming such things go both ways)?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Whole point being a leader is to challenge those under you as it's their role to challenge their leadership. He may not be happy but that's part and parcel of collective and democracy.

Seems convenient, as when he doesn't lead like this he's "listening to the membership", and when he overrules everyone, he's "being a leader".

 

[Number_25]

You’d think this would be major news given the recent furore in Labour, especially as the reasons publicly given for the vote are largely the same, but it seems not.

Almost as there's an agenda against the Labour Party, or something.

 

[tsubaki]

I was under the impression that we'd both made our minds up on this (assuming such things go both ways)?

That depends what making your mind up means, if you mean I think Corbyn will go down the road set by Labour at conference (all options including 2nd ref) then you are right.

I bet though that if that’s what happens - that he calls for a second vote as an alternative to playing chicken with reality - we will be told by the media that People’s Vote forced him into it, and that he is much weaker as a result. If there’s a GE as well then “his” betrayal of Labour Leave voters will no doubt be raised by the same people too.

 

[abelard]

Bruce, perhaps you could explain what exactly any other Labour leader should/would be doing that wouldn't A) bring us even closer to No Deal and/or B) cost them either Leave or Remain ultras in the latest breathless Yougov poll?

It seems like what you want - what you think would be Responsible Leadership - would be for Corbyn to have gone all in for a second referendum on 24 June, even thought it demonstrably can't even muster 100 votes in parliament; the media would still accuse him of being a Czech sleeper agent; you still wouldn't vote for him; and never again would Middlesborough, Stoke, or Mansfield either (bunch of icky racists anyways...), effectively guaranteeing permanent Tory rule.

If you have a plausible alternative, which isn't just idle whinging that you aren't going to get everything your way, and that Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall would have run with yesterday, don't keep us in suspense.

 

[roydo]

That depends what making your mind up means, if you mean I think Corbyn will go down the road set by Labour at conference (all options including 2nd ref) then you are right.

This has puzzled me recently, the "Going with conference" thing. Honest question, no agenda, genuinely interested.

Does the bulk of Labour policy have to be passed by conference before it can be policy, if that makes sense? I fully understand how the PLP will twist and shake according to debates and votes in the HOC at times, thats normal politics. But if, say, the conference voted to remove nukes, would that HAVE to be official policy? (They may well have done for all I now)

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce, perhaps you could explain what exactly any other Labour leader should/would be doing that wouldn't A) bring us even closer to No Deal and/or B) cost them either Leave or Remain ultras in the latest breathless Yougov poll?

It seems like what you want - what you think would be Responsible Leadership - would be for Corbyn to have gone all in for a second referendum on 24 June, even thought it demonstrably can't even muster 100 votes in parliament; the media would still accuse him of being a Czech sleeper agent; you still wouldn't vote for him; and never again would Middlesborough, Stoke, or Mansfield either (bunch of icky racists anyways...), effectively guaranteeing permanent Tory rule.

If you have a plausible alternative, which isn't just idle whinging that you aren't going to get everything your way, and that Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall would have run with yesterday, don't keep us in suspense.

I don't think he could do any more than sit on the fence if he took the remain and leave camps within Labour as being fundamentally wedged. What I'd like to see from the political class generally is a much greater degree of honesty around the various issues wrapped up in Brexit, whether the actual mechanics of the EU, the impact migration has played on British society or the post-industrial realities and challenges many parts of the country face.

That dollop of honesty and evidence-based policy making is sorely needed, and I haven't really seen any politician taking that mantle and running with it. That to me would not only have been responsible leadership, but would be very much in keeping with the Corbynite mission to present a better form of politics when he first came into office and started reading questions from voters at PMQs.

That approach would quite probably have lost him some votes among those who are so wedded to their views that they aren't for changing come what may, but that's what I would have liked to see from him. As a very simple and throwaway example. He mentions workers rights an awful lot, and they might even be one of his rules, but I bet hardly anyone could actually communicate what those rights are, or how they have emerged via the EU. Who better to explain these things than the Labour movement?

 

[tsubaki]

This has puzzled me recently, the "Going with conference" thing. Honest question, no agenda, genuinely interested.

Does the bulk of Labour policy have to be passed by conference before it can be policy, if that makes sense? I fully understand how the PLP will twist and shake according to debates and votes in the HOC at times, thats normal politics. But if, say, the conference voted to remove nukes, would that HAVE to be official policy? (They may well have done for all I now)

Historically it did (and Conference actually passed a call for unilateral disarmament in 1960, but Gaitskell ignored it), but after the rows of the early 80s the leadership took more and more control until by Blair's time it was largely a forum for terrible speeches. It has come back a bit since 2010, but even recently the leadership has had the ability to manage what gets passed until it is more acceptable to it and the PLP (the Brexit resolution being a good example of this).

 

[abelard]

I don't think he could do any more than sit on the fence if he took the remain and leave camps within Labour as being fundamentally wedged. What I'd like to see from the political class generally is a much greater degree of honesty around the various issues wrapped up in Brexit, whether the actual mechanics of the EU, the impact migration has played on British society or the post-industrial realities and challenges many parts of the country face.

That dollop of honesty and evidence-based policy making is sorely needed, and I haven't really seen any politician taking that mantle and running with it. That to me would not only have been responsible leadership, but would be very much in keeping with the Corbynite mission to present a better form of politics when he first came into office and started reading questions from voters at PMQs.

That approach would quite probably have lost him some votes among those who are so wedded to their views that they aren't for changing come what may, but that's what I would have liked to see from him. As a very simple and throwaway example. He mentions workers rights an awful lot, and they might even be one of his rules, but I bet hardly anyone could actually communicate what those rights are, or how they have emerged via the EU. Who better to explain these things than the Labour movement?

But...he says things like that all the time. Ensuring that UK rights never fall behind what the EU guarantees is one of his non-negotiable conditions for a deal with May.

A more instructive question might be why whenever he does, it either doesn't get reported, or doesn't count because of how he voted in 1975 or whatever

Jeremy Corbyn says EU membership the best way to protect workers' rights

Jeremy Corbyn says EU membership the best way to protect workers' rights

Despite campaigning to leave during the last referendum, the Labour leader now believes it is better to remain in to ‘protect social and human rights, tackle climate change and clamp down on tax dodgers’

www.independent.co.uk

“Over the years I have continued to be critical of many decisions taken by the EU and I remain critical of its shortcomings, from its lack of democratic accountability to the institutional pressure to deregulate or privatise public services,” he said in the speech at Senate House in London.

“Europe needs to change. But that change can only come from working with our allies in the EU. It’s perfectly possible to be critical and still be convinced we need to remain a member“.

“You cannot build a better world unless you engage with the world, build allies and deliver change. The EU, warts and all, has proved itself to be a crucial international framework to do that.”

“It is sometimes easier to blame the EU, or worse to blame foreigners than to face up to our own problems. At the head of which right now is a Conservative government that is failing the people of Britain,” he said.

“There is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union, just as there are is also a powerful socialist case for reform and progressive change in Europe.

“That is why we need a Labour government, to stand up at the European level for industries and communities in Britain, to back public enterprise and services, to protect and extend workers’ rights and to work with our allies to make both Britain and Europe work better for working people.”

“There is nothing remotely patriotic about selling off our country and our national assets to the highest bidder, or in handing control of our economy to City hedge-funds and tax-dodging corporations based in offshore tax havens.

 

[roydo]

Historically it did (and Conference actually passed a call for unilateral disarmament in 1960, but Gaitskell ignored it), but after the rows of the early 80s the leadership took more and more control until by Blair's time it was largely a forum for terrible speeches. It has come back a bit since 2010, but even recently the leadership has had the ability to manage what gets passed until it is more acceptable to it and the PLP (the Brexit resolution being a good example of this).

Thanks mate. So more of a steering group than a full on policy making forum?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But...he says things like that all the time. Ensuring that UK rights never fall behind what the EU guarantees is one of his non-negotiable conditions for a deal with May.

Like I said, he talks about workers rights an awful lot, but I've never heard him explain what those rights are, how they were secured, what they grant us, and how leaving the EU could jeopardise them. I get that the media are not natural bedfellows, but the last few years have shown us that the Internet affords an ample platform to get your message out if you so wish, so that seems a bit feeble to say he talks about these thing but no one broadcasts them. The media are rubbish conduits for anything detailed and balanced, so if you want politics to be evidence-based and sensible then you have to find another way.

 

[roydo]

Like I said, he talks about workers rights an awful lot, but I've never heard him explain what those rights are, how they were secured, what they grant us, and how leaving the EU could jeopardise them. I get that the media are not natural bedfellows, but the last few years have shown us that the Internet affords an ample platform to get your message out if you so wish, so that seems a bit feeble to say he talks about these thing but no one broadcasts them. The media are rubbish conduits for anything detailed and balanced, so if you want politics to be evidence-based and sensible then you have to find another way.

I guess its a symptom from a career where he hasnt really had to explain detail at all. Just offer platitudes that an echo chamber likes to hear. Same affliction with Rees Mogg. Spout stuff their audience will lap up, then move on.

Not a critique, more an observation really. Makes sense to me anyrate.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I guess its a symptom from a career where he hasnt really had to explain detail at all. Just offer platitudes that an echo chamber likes to hear. Same affliction with Rees Mogg. Spout stuff their audience will lap up, then move on.

Not a critique, more an observation really. Makes sense to me anyrate.

Aye, and to be fair, no politicians have really done this over the past few decades, which perhaps explains why we're in the mess we're in today.

 

[roydo]

Aye, and to be fair, no politicians have really done this over the past few decades.

Not ever.