Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, Milo said:

After this week, I’m confused on Labours Brexit stance?

 

Can someone explain?

They are waiting to support anything that will bring down the government. That is their only goal.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Milo said:

After this week, I’m confused on Labours Brexit stance?

 

Can someone explain?

Basically they might have another referendum but they are not sure, if there is another referendum remain maybe an option. Labour will vote down any deal that does not include 'a' customs union but they will remove us from 'the' customs union. 

 

Basically the same as the Tories but the is a big red Labour Brexit for the many not the few- blah blah fairness, rights, equality, Palestine etc

[Voll Blau]

11 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

These are the same people that would call you a racist for waving the St George's flag or the Union Jack in your own country.

These days if you say you're English you'll be thrown in jail.

 

Seriously though, apart from that idiotic tweet by Thornberry a while back, that's clearly not true is it?

[davieG]

16 hours ago, MattP said:

For those who are Labour members can you explain why Palestine is now such a huge issue? I get its always been a part of the cause for the left in general but how has become so big and so important so quickly?

 

Voted as a more important issue than Brexit and the NHS on the list of topics to discuss at conference and the crowd is full of people waving the flag, they interviewed a couple of members on Politics live as well and they both had the flag on the lanyard.

 

I'm trying to think of another nation where a major political party would converge and you would see hundreds of flags from a different nation and not see a single one of their own country. From the outside looking in its so strange. 

 

Mob mentality, getting carried away by one or more mouthy upstarters and then wanting to 'fit in'

[Finnegan]

10 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

These days if you say you're English you'll be thrown in jail.

 

Seriously though, apart from that idiotic tweet by Thornberry a while back, that's clearly not true is it?

 

The people that tend to get called racist whilst flag waving generally are actually racist and are just salty about being called on it. Nationalist nobs like BNP / EDL supporters getting all INGURLUND. 

 

It's not like anyone's walked in to the last night of the proms and screamed RACIST at Deidre in the third row, is it? 

 

Or pulled up next to some family of four in their Prius at the traffic lights during the world cup and yelled RACIST at them for having flags on the car. 

 

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure 100x more ironically sensitive, easily offended little racist snowflakes complain about "not being allowed to wave the flag!" than people ACTUALLY object to others waving flags. 

 

Just like 100x more morons complain about political correctness than are ACTUALLY impacted by so called over the top political correctness. 

Edited 27 September 2018 by Finnegan

[yorkie1999]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The people that tend to get called racist whilst flag waving generally are actually racist and are just salty about being called on it. Nationalist nobs like BNP / EDL supporters getting all INGURLUND. 

 

It's not like anyone's walked in to the last night of the proms and screamed RACIST at Deidre in the third row, is it? 

 

Or pulled up next to some family of four in their Prius at the traffic lights during the world cup and yelled RACIST at them for having flags on the car. 

 

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure 100x more ironically sensitive, easily offended little racist snowflakes complain about "not being allowed to wave the flag!" than people ACTUALLY object to others waving flags. 

 

Just like 100x more morons complain about political correctness than are ACTUALLY impacted by so called over the top political correctness. 

Probably because they're all waving EU flags instead of the Union Jack.

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The people that tend to get called racist whilst flag waving generally are actually racist and are just salty about being called on it. Nationalist nobs like BNP / EDL supporters getting all INGURLUND. 

 

It's not like anyone's walked in to the last night of the proms and screamed RACIST at Deidre in the third row, is it? 

 

Or pulled up next to some family of four in their Prius at the traffic lights during the world cup and yelled RACIST at them for having flags on the car. 

 

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure 100x more ironically sensitive, easily offended little racist snowflakes complain about "not being allowed to wave the flag!" than people ACTUALLY object to others waving flags. 

 

Just like 100x more morons complain about political correctness than are ACTUALLY impacted by so called over the top political correctness. 

This reminded me of a story I read years back 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/681829/England-fan-flags-car-pathetic-racist-Asda-supermarket

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

This reminded me of a story I read years back 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/681829/England-fan-flags-car-pathetic-racist-Asda-supermarket

 

End of the day though, boil it down and its just one nutcase. Or quite possibly even just one troll on the wind up. 

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, Milo said:

After this week, I’m confused on Labours Brexit stance?

 

Can someone explain?

Basically stand back and hope for a car crash, then try and get a General Election out of it. Keep convincing voters that they respect the result of the referendum, whilst also throwing enough crumbs on the table to keep those who want a second referendum onside.

[Innovindil]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

End of the day though, boil it down and its just one nutcase. Or quite possibly even just one troll on the wind up. 

Indeed, wasn't trying to make more of it. The story just gave me a chuckle is all. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

End of the day though, boil it down and its just one nutcase. Or quite possibly even just one troll on the wind up. 

There are quite a lot of these kind of 'trolls' it seems that attend the Labour conference though (and other party conferences for balance).

 

I mean seriously why on earth in Great Britain, in England, in Liverpool would a room full of people be wearing Palestine Lanyards and waving Palestine flags? Its absolutely incompressible, needless and pointless. 

[breadandcheese]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

Basically stand back and hope for a car crash, then try and get a General Election out of it. Keep convincing voters that they respect the result of the referendum, whilst also throwing enough crumbs on the table to keep those who want a second referendum onside.

I think it's more active than that.  The policy seems to be to vote down any deal in the hope they can get the numbers and bring down the government, leaving little time to negotiate anything in the time frame and ultimately falling into a no deal brexit.

 

This is chaotic and grossly irresponsible of any party.  The time to put pressure on the government to make the deal in the manner you want is now, but Corbyn and his cronies aren't doing that.  They're letting the government bumble on until the last minute when they hope to pull the rug out and drop the country in a chaotic mess in the hope they can emerge victorious out the other end.  Hugely irresponsible.

Edited 27 September 2018 by breadandcheese

[deep blue]

6 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I think it's more active than that.  The policy seems to be to vote down any deal in the hope they can get the numbers and bring down the government, leaving little time to negotiate anything in the time frame and ultimately falling into a no deal brexit.

 

This is chaotic and grossly irresponsible of any party.  The time to put pressure on the government to make the deal in the manner you want is now, but Corbyn and his cronies aren't doing that.  They're letting the government bumble on until the last minute when they hope to pull the rug out and drop the country in a chaotic mess in the hope they can emerge victorious out the other end.  Hugely irresponsible.

Absolutely agree with this. The government have been dragging their feet over the last 2 years by not facing up to the unreality of their negotiation stance; equally, the Labour party has sat on its hands, and the fence, when it should have been proposing a credible alternatve way of proceeding.

 

For me, both parties have been more concerned with protecting their unity, trying to resolve their internal squabbles, rather than acting in the best interests of the country.

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, Milo said:

After this week, I’m confused on Labours Brexit stance?

 

Can someone explain?

 

30 minutes ago, Strokes said:

They are waiting to support anything that will bring down the government. That is their only goal.

 

Here's a pretty objective assessment of Labour's Brexit stance, including their "six tests" for any deal May negotiates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548

 

So, basically....

- If May delivers a "have cake and eat it" Brexit deal (economic benefits equivalent to SM/CU, reformed freedom of movement, security deal, protection of rights etc.), Labour will support that. But May won't deliver that.

- Labour will oppose Chequers, any Canada-type deal, No Deal....so the outcome will depend on how many Tory and DUP MPs vote with the Govt (whatever deal or no deal they come back with).

 

Strokes is right but phrases it as if there's something wrong about an Opposition wanting to bring down a Govt. Labour wants to bring down the govt and get an election....with the goal of taking power and implementing its policies.

But they'll only get that opportunity if there's a major Tory/DUP rebellion.

Likewise, their fallback position is now for a second referendum IF May doesn't deliver an acceptable deal and IF they cannot get an election. Again, though, they'll only get that if a lot of Tory/DUP MPs vote for a second referendum. 

 

What Labour's Brexit stance would be IF Parliament voted for an election or a second referendum is still unclear - as unclear as what the Tory stance would be. If it happens (and it's more likely than most people reckon), I presume both main parties would be seriously divided, and both would be partly influenced by the mood of the electorate (which might shift wildly in any direction over the coming months). If we have an election, it wouldn't surprise me if Labour's stance is: Brexit according to 6 Tests, if possible (might be possible, but probably isn't)...or a second referendum if that isn't possible. The EU would need to agree a deadline extension if Labour was in Govt and called a referendum. My guess is that the EU would do that, given the possibility of the UK voting to stay in - but I might be wrong about that.

 

Thus, in the hypothetical scenario of us having an election and Labour winning a majority (both odds-against now, but both conceivable given political divisions/volatility), unless the electorate had shifted massively towards Remain (unlikely), I'd expect Labour to try to negotiate a Cake Brexit, to fail, then to negotiate an extension beyond March and call a second referendum. All clear as mud - and what happens in the Tory Party matters more for now.

 

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Here's a pretty objective assessment of Labour's Brexit stance, including their "six tests" for any deal May negotiates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548

 

So, basically....

- If May delivers a "have cake and eat it" Brexit deal (economic benefits equivalent to SM/CU, reformed freedom of movement, security deal, protection of rights etc.), Labour will support that. But May won't deliver that.

- Labour will oppose Chequers, any Canada-type deal, No Deal....so the outcome will depend on how many Tory and DUP MPs vote with the Govt (whatever deal or no deal they come back with).

 

Strokes is right but phrases it as if there's something wrong about an Opposition wanting to bring down a Govt. Labour wants to bring down the govt and get an election....with the goal of taking power and implementing its policies.

But they'll only get that opportunity if there's a major Tory/DUP rebellion.

Likewise, their fallback position is now for a second referendum IF May doesn't deliver an acceptable deal and IF they cannot get an election. Again, though, they'll only get that if a lot of Tory/DUP MPs vote for a second referendum. 

 

What Labour's Brexit stance would be IF Parliament voted for an election or a second referendum is still unclear - as unclear as what the Tory stance would be. If it happens (and it's more likely than most people reckon), I presume both main parties would be seriously divided, and both would be partly influenced by the mood of the electorate (which might shift wildly in any direction over the coming months). If we have an election, it wouldn't surprise me if Labour's stance is: Brexit according to 6 Tests, if possible (might be possible, but probably isn't)...or a second referendum if that isn't possible. The EU would need to agree a deadline extension if Labour was in Govt and called a referendum. My guess is that the EU would do that, given the possibility of the UK voting to stay in - but I might be wrong about that.

 

Thus, in the hypothetical scenario of us having an election and Labour winning a majority (both odds-against now, but both conceivable given political divisions/volatility), unless the electorate had shifted massively towards Remain (unlikely), I'd expect Labour to try to negotiate a Cake Brexit, to fail, then to negotiate an extension beyond March and call a second referendum. All clear as mud - and what happens in the Tory Party matters more for now.

 

Surely though the EU are no more likely, probably less likely to agree to what Labour are asking for than they are the Chequers option.

 

e.g. Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

 

I'd assume not without being in the Single Market and Customs Union unless I've misunderstood what the EU are saying.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

These days if you say you're English you'll be thrown in jail.

 

Seriously though, apart from that idiotic tweet by Thornberry a while back, that's clearly not true is it?

I quite dislike Thornberry but I didn't see the big deal with the tweet (if you're referring to the white man van photo), in fact I thought it was one of the better things she's said or done. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

26 minutes ago, bovril said:

I quite dislike Thornberry but I didn't see the big deal with the tweet (if you're referring to the white man van photo), in fact I thought it was one of the better things she's said or done. 

Its basically racism towards white working class Brits who live on council estates. I am not too sure how this could be seen as one of the better things seen or done.

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its basically racism towards white working class Brits who live on council estates. I am not too sure how this could be seen as one of the better things seen or done.

how on earth was it "racist"? I don't understand why she felt the need to tweet it, but equally not sure quite why everyone lost their shit about it. I thought it was quite a good provincial England kind of shot.

Funniest bit was when they interviewed the guy and he actually turned out to be the cliched white van man.

[Finnegan]

Racist

 

It was somewhat snobbish, classist and ridiculously naive for a politician. 

 

But racist!? Can't say "white van man" anymore in case it offends whites, IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAAAAAAAAD

Edited 27 September 2018 by Finnegan

[bovril]

Just now, Finnegan said:

Racist

 

It was somewhat snobbish, classist and ridiculously naive for a politician. 

 

That's one interpretation. It's a photo, it can be interpreted however you like. As a piece of photojournalism, I actually thought it was quite good for that very reason. If it had been taken by a random photographer nobody would have cared.

There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Emily Thornberry.  

[Guest MattP]

More evidence that shows what a complete shambles the Tory campaign was last year. How they let the opposition get away with it was beyond belief. The sums didn't add up, but they went with it anyway as McDonnell said they may as well as they were behind in the polls.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-2017-election-campaign-nhs-spending-plans-a8555621.html

 

Quote

 

One of Labour’s triumphs in the 2017 election was the popularity of its “fully costed” manifesto. But a new book reveals that Jeremy Corbyn’s top aides, including Seumas Milne, his director of strategy, feared the party’s spending plans would unravel during the campaign, but were overruled by John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor.  

A book to be published tomorrow reveals the existence of an internal email before the launch of Labour’s manifesto that “highlighted some of the problems with Labour’s cost estimates, including the lack of detail on capital spending, as well as some individual costings that were implausible or entirely absent”.

 

At the time, the manifesto was well received, and the short document setting out the costs of Labour’s promises and how they would be paid for, “Funding Britain’s Future”, was widely accepted. Labour were helped by the Conservatives’ refusal to provide costings for their manifesto, which allowed Corbyn and McDonnell to contrast the government’s plans with their own “fully costed” proposals.

 

Privately, however, their staff had told them their figures didn’t add up. The email identified problems with “almost every area of the manifesto, including welfare, health, education, the economy, transport, policing and prisons”, according to Philip Cowley and Dennis Kavanagh, authors of The British General Election of 2017, the latest in the respected series of academic election books. The email estimated, “even conservatively”, that the manifesto implied “billions of unaccounted spending”.

 

 

[fuchsntf]

16 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

she's done more to help people in her lifetime than you could even begin to comprehend. 

 

she has dedicated her life to improving the lives of those around her - a neanderthal? no. 

 

you might not think she's fit for office now which is fair enough but she doesn't deserve any of the abuse she gets. 

 

 

 

Taken from: https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/

 

What have you ever done for anyone DT? One could claim you're the neanderthal with your backwards homophobic views.

In her younger days,she rode on that  shining horse,she was a good politician ,a great servant to the people...her service

her forward ideas....Somehow she lost that right and fight within....She still carries the old flag,but only imo,I can't agree today

with a lot of what she comes out with,Interviews,documentries,political panels,and discussions..She has changed ...

 

Edited 27 September 2018 by fuchsntf

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, davieG said:

Surely though the EU are no more likely, probably less likely to agree to what Labour are asking for than they are the Chequers option.

 

e.g. Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

 

I'd assume not without being in the Single Market and Customs Union unless I've misunderstood what the EU are saying.

 

I suspect that it mainly depends what Labour means by its "test" on migration, which is worded very vaguely.

If it means that Labour would insist on ending freedom of movement, I'd agree with you. There's as little chance of the EU allowing SM benefits without freedom of movement as there is of them agreeing to May's different cake agenda.

 

However, if the EU and a hypothetical Labour Govt adopted a flexible approach to immigration, it might unblock the impasse. Agreement on the other 5 tests would be possible if an agreement on migration were possible, I think.

It's politically impossible for the EU to allow an opt-out from freedom of movement - and politically impossible for Labour not to address the immigration issue.

But what if the UK signs up to freedom of movement but the EU allows a temporary, partial restriction for several years (there are precedents) and Labour legislates on the issue in the UK forcing employers to seek British job applicants, carrying out more employment inspections etc?

 

It's interesting that the test on migration is worded so vaguely. Doesn't say "no freedom of movement", only "fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities".

 

If the migration issue could be resolved, SM/CU benefits might be feasible, though we'd be giving up our seat at the table and would still presumably be accepting European Court rulings. A lot of people would be unhappy about that, but I'm not sure it's a deal-breaker in the same way that freedom of movement / immigration is....

 

The other surprising thing about those Six Tests: there's nothing about a UK Govt having the right to nationalise utilities, to run a deficit/debt greater than that allowed under EMU or to invest more in industry. I assumed this was part of the reason for Corbyn's Euroscepticism: feeling that EU membership prevented such economic intervention. Presumably he's been persuaded that he could negotiate a Soft Brexit deal that would allow Labour to pursue such policies or that current EU rules aren't a major obstacle.

 

To some extent, Labour is already better placed to do a divorce deal as they're open to "a Customs Union", which would address the Irish border issue - the most urgent obstacle - while the Tories are not.

If that issue can be resolved, that unlocks the transition period to December 2020 - and there's every prospect of the immediate deal on future EU-UK relations being a fudge outlining broad intentions, to be negotiated over the next 2 years.

 

Of course, there'll probably never be a Corbyn-led govt, so this is all irrelevant and it's what happens in the Tory party that matters! 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

That's one interpretation. It's a photo, it can be interpreted however you like. As a piece of photojournalism, I actually thought it was quite good for that very reason. If it had been taken by a random photographer nobody would have cared.

There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Emily Thornberry.  

 

The fact that the meaning is so easily attached when it comes from Thornberry makes it even more naive, though, really. 

 

Let's say Tommy Robinson uploads a photo of a bunch of women in burkas stood queuing for the job centre, he could add literally zero text but the assumption would still be he was sneering and people would lose their shit over it. 

 

It would be "one interpretation" that he was being offensive but cmon, there's about a 99.9% chance it would be the correct interpretation just as Thornberry probably didn't think "oh, I just loved the lighting of the shot and the way the van was framed in the backdrop against the flags." 

[Guest MattP]

There is something quite nice and filthy about Emily Thornberry. I can forgive her for the flag thing, she lives in Islington, works in parliament and is married to a Lord, she's probably never seen an England flag hanging from the window of a house before that. (The only reason she was sacked was because Milband at the time was trying to portray the party as a patriotic one, it wouldn't raise an eyebrow if she did it now)

 

She's probably the most competent person in the Labour shadow cabinet as well, I'd prefer to have people like her inside of it and trying to moderate than lunatics rather than her being locked out.