What is the point of a political party that cannot make up its mind?
The most successful parties in the UK right now are two that seemingly can. They are the SNP, which does so based on common principles (broadly speaking) and the Conservativws, who do so based on a common lust for power. The LibDems were cast adrift because any such identity was lost after 2010. It's clear Labour is now going the same way.
I am well aware some do not agree with my criticisms of Corbyn. And for the record, let me be clear that the other three leadership candidates in 2015 were all hopeless, so I am not moving mindlessly right. What I am saying is that a party where the shadow minister can stand at the despatch box and say that the biggest political issue of the day presents it with immense difficulty because it cannot form a common approach to the issue has lost its purpose.
There is simple reason why Labour has reached this position. It has forgotten who it was meant to represent. It compromised to secure the support of others. And in the process it come so pragmatic that it forgot its principles. The result is that when needed it is now failing almost everyone.
Labour was a party for working people. It unashamedly sought to increase their share of the overall economic returns in the economy. To do so it protected their interests and jobs. But in the process it also fought to preserve the industries in which they worked. As a result it was dedicated to a mixed economy, modest risk, innovation that improved well being and access to justice. Social and other justice was secondary, but the idea of equality (even if it took some a long time to understand it) underpinned its logic.
And now? I can't explain what Labour is for. And nor can, I suspect, many within it. They can explain their own motivation but the essence of Labour as a party has died and I think that was what Keir Starmer was left to say yesterday.
This leaves just two question, which is how long does it take to build an alternative, and what principles should underpin it?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree that watching Starmer on the news last night was very uncomfortable but once again the broadcasters failed us. As Starmer spoke, someone spoke loudly too – from the back benches – was it on the Labour side? Or was it the Lib Dems or SNP? Who was it who seemed to object so vociferously? Whoever or whatever was ignored by the broadcaster I was watching (Channel 4).
Given that we are to believe that there will be a rebellion amongst Labour MPs this was a salient event ignored on prime time TV.
But all is not lost with Labour if indeed those rebels vote against Article 50. Hopefully it will split the party and something new will be reborn. This will be long and drawn out but it will have to happen I’m afraid. If we cannot have PR, then the parties need to fracture and form more parties, and this may force the issue on electoral reform.
The other key event on TV last night for me was Tim Farron appearing with Anna Soubury on Channel 4. Soubury completely rebuffed Farron’s fawning hand of friendship live on air and left him looking like the chump he and his rather confused party are (‘are we liberals or are we socialists or are we Tories ooh – let’s see who we can share power with first’).
One was left with little doubt that there is no willingness in public at least for even sensible MPs to share a common platform and yet a large number of people who did not want BREXIT and have even changed their minds now effectively do not know who represents their views in Parliament because of so-called party loyalty. Fantastic!
And as for David Davis’ ‘the people have spoken’ – what an abuse of language and concept. If there had been a unified voice in the vote fair enough but this was far from the case.
Mind you it was worth watching Kenneth Clarke in action who said everything that Labour and the Tory leadership did not have the courage to say. But just like Thatcher and later Blair ignored Macmillan’s rant about selling the family silver, this will not stop May and her cabal of referendum drunk kamikaze pilots who will fly us into the ground at some point.
Clare’s speech was a rare parliamentary joy
Soubrey was bizarre
Farron is struggling
He is not alone
Sorry, Clare who?
Sorry – should be Clarke
I am sure that the majority of Conservative MPs will get in line, as they usually do, to vote with the government, but it would be a mistake surely to pretend that they and their backers are united on Brexit. The toxicity of this conflict is evident in the story today about Cameron and Dacre. In a country that was split down the middle I cannot see how a political realignment on this single issue is going to come together. Meanwhile we have multiple domestic crises around health, education, social care, prisons, local government and the economy which do offer such a basis.
The party have lost their bottle. The leadership is abject but its not the only issue. There seems to be a lack of collective will and purpose about much of what it’s doing, but to be so ineffectual and weak willed on this key issue is shameful. This should be a no brainer.
Labour’s position is resolutely pro EU, it campaigned to remain, the vast majority of its MP’s, members and supporters worked and voted to do so. If that was the position in June last year, why should that change? Does the party not believe that our best interests are served by remaining in the EU? Does it not believe that leaving will be detrimental to the nation? To hear Labour MP’s say yesterday that they didn’t think leaving would be a good thing with potentially disastrous consequences, yet they will still vote against party policy and against their better judgments and back the government. Has the world gone mad?
I can only assume that they are so spooked by the threat of UKIP that they will abandon a position only endorsed at conference in September in the hope that it will stave off electoral losses.
Wake up folks! As things stand the party are going down to a calamitous loss next time around as things stand. Taking a principled position on the EU might actually enhance the party’s standing. By caving in and effectively throwing in the towel the party look weak, inconsistent and craven.
It’s utterly depressing.
The EU is not the biggest issue of the day. The biggest issue is whether we have Governments concerned only about the interests of millionaires or Governments acting in the interests of the 90%.
I am facing redundancy, and this is not the fault of the EU and it is not caused by Brexit. My job is being destroyed because the Tories won the 2015 election.
I am furious with supposedly progressive politicians who care more about the EU than they care about presenting a united front against cuts and austerity.
We might consider that the EU backstop for minimum employment rights is more important than its treatment of Greece. A sensible view is that there are good and bad aspects to the EU, and politicians who are prepared to acknowledge this rather than taking a one-sided partisan view would be in tune with a majority of the public.
I agree: Brexit is great cover for many other issues
As a public sector worker I fully agree with you LAS – all I know at the moment is that I have a job for at least 2 years – beyond that is the great unknown.
A colleague lost his job for no good reason before Xmas 2016. At least when we leave the EU the Tories will not be able to blame the EU anymore for austerity.
Hopefully people will see austerity for what it is: stupid, callous, deliberate English Tory policy to take hard working people’s livlihoods away from them.
I have a job for three years….then I am almost certainly in the EU
but they WILL blame the EU. They’ve blamed the immigrants, the workshy, the disabled, the public sector, the people with an unused second bedroom.
If this turns ugly, which it will, then the right wing press will blame those nasty, vicious Europeans. They will play the victim card. It will get ugly. This is the stuff wars are made of.
Exactly Benz0. Might be a touch alarmist but not much
I doubt few in the private sector know if they have a job for the next two months never mind two years. Perhaps that is why more and more the State should control jobs. So that jobs can be guaranteed. For life not just two years. And a universal wage on top as well.
Richard,
Exactly the same thing has happened to the Democrats in the US, for the same reasons – a charismatic Leader (Clinton there, Blair here) who traded his Party’s core values in exchange for power, glossing over the fact that he’d sawn off the branch on which his Party stood, for the temporary appearance of floating in space, before the inevitable crash to the ground.
Robert Reich has an interesting article of what the Democrats should do, which, mutatis mutandis, has relevance for Labour:http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/reich/article/The-life-of-the-party-7-truths-for-Democrats-10881387.php
You’ll note that Reich says the Democrats must “become a movement” again, which is equally true of Labour. I always thought yours, and others’, criticism of Corbyn’s desire to do this for Labour was misplaced, in that the Parliamentary route to power was essential but not sufficient: it was a case of “both/and”, rather than “either/or”.
The problem now seems to be, as per Churchill’s remark about an MP called “Bossom” – “Bossom, Bossom – neither one thing, nor the other”, that the Labour Party is in danger of becoming a “neither/nor”, rather than a “both/and”, because in hollowing out its soul under Blair, it has also forgotten the supreme political virtue of courage.
I believe, as we’ve agreed before, that Labour needs to adopt the Lansbury/Atlee modus operandi, and oppose Article 50 root and branch, and risk losing these two by-elections – and probably more in an ensuing General Election – as part of a strategy to reestablish the Party as the real voice of the oppressed and marginalised and ordinary working people (“labour”, in other words), while simultaneously sticking it to the Tories by unequivocally identifying them with the disaster that BREXIT will prove to be.
I am afraid you are right Richard that yesterday’s performance was a sad one from a man of whom I had some hopes. This is all the more peculiar because a perfectly reasonable approach to this question is available to the Labour party – namely that while we accept the result of the referendum we do not accept that it gives the Conservative party a blank cheque to determine our relationship with the EU (or the USA) and bind the country to that.
The current bill does that because it gives the Prime Minister unconditional authority to determine the timing and nature of our approach to withdrawal just as she used her prerogative powers last week in her shameful sucking up to Trump.
Assuming none of labour’s amendments are passed there is still time for the party to redeem itself at third reading.
One of the most obvious problems is the war between the so called “moderates” and the left.
If you listen here to Audrey White form Riverside, one of the suspended Labour constituencies, you may get an insight in to the problem. It is a McCarthy style attack on innocent people. If you think Corbyn is mistaken, just look at those who wield power of a totalitarian nature over democratic processes and fellow members.
The Party is at war with itself because Corbyn and his supporters want to get rid of the Washington Consensus. This sort of revolution always causes an uproar, but in this case it has turned a little bit evil in attacking innocent people with ghastly accusations. I am sure I do not need to explain further.
It is impossible to deny that these constituencies are suffering from undeserved attacks and unfounded accusations when you listen to the long suffering but ever optimistic Audrey White who is being interviewed. Starts at 14 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02pT76NG-cY
Thatcher had many enemies, – “The Doves, or the Wets” when she wanted to get rid of the Post War consensus. She succeeded. Blair and Cameron have continued. It will be harder for the left to make such a change as they are only supported by the poor and some of the middle class. A problem like the EU, where both the left and the right have different views for different reasons, will cause even further arguments. This is especially true as much of the EU constitution is now very neoliberal and the Treaties inhibit Keynesian stimulus and promote privatisation.
As a left winger my fears of leaving the EU were mainly that the Tories might sign up to TTIP outside the EU, and the deal with Trump offers no comfort either.
But I still believe that remaining within these treaties gives governments very little democratic economic choices. As Linda Kaucher and John Hilary have said, they dictate policy to suit global corporations and banks.
For me, this is not really about Corbyn. It may be true that academic lessons are not being learnt as to exactly how to spend 500bn on jobs housing and the young, but that is his good intentions. If he went tomorrow it would not matter so long as someone with his policies took his place. But the “moderates” have set the NEC and the rules to make sure that a “moderate” is pre selected. So he needs to stay and his followers must get those rule changes made. That is an essential step to making the Labour Party better.
Read moderate as neoliberal.
I have no love of neoliberalism
Or the Washington Consensus
So I di not accept your view, entirely
The reality is there is a moderate control factor
But please let’s accept the fact that Ciorbyn is utterly useless as well
Some reality on all sides would help
And please also accept I am not suggesting a revival of the Labour right
Richard I feel Sandra is getting right to the heart of a key point that largely gets ignored. I am of the left, old labour, whatever label you want to apply, though personally I consider myself more a pragmatic liberal democrat. As a strong supporter of Corbyn I never harboured any illusions about him being the second coming or even a great leader. I viewed him as an instrument of change to return the labour party to something that actually represented the labour movement. There was never any expectation of a return to the 1970s rather a repudiation of the labour right or neoliberal wonks that had taken over the PLP and hijacked the entire party.
The subsequent behaviour of both the PLP and the MSM has left me in no doubt that the one thing the neoliberal consensus fears is a genuinely popular people driven movement. The door is currently wedged open by a foot called Corbyn.
Corbyn and McDonnell are offering neoliberal economics
I despair
Just the latest ratcheting-downwards in performance of a once great party; the Liberals immolated themselves in the last government over tuition fees and now Labour are doing so over Brexit. However I think many are missing the process under way here; the demise of party politics not just any one party.
When the distance between party leadership and membership is gaping and when the whole party is confused and split on any particular issue, the symptoms point not to a problem of issue but one of process. In my opinion Labour is only one step behind the Liberals and one step ahead of the Tories in being destroyed by failing to adapt to the currents of politics in this country that have been increasingly (since the Seventies) nudging it towards issue-related functions rather than power-attaining functions. And the end-game of this process is playing out now for the Labour party.
There is no way to square this circle; it must break apart as a party organisation because it cannot BOTH achieve a form that will win it political power AND deliver a policy platform that commands widespread support.
What is coming to take over, I think, is interest or issue-related politics in which pressure groups (for want of a better word) coalesce around particular projects of social change and legislation-promotion then become quiet and less relevant when they have either failed-to or gained their objective. Many will want to hang around, addicted to the power and attention but will wither as most will recognise that their raison d’etre has been exceeded. Mission-creep is an inevitable but inevitably obvious process that will end those who fail to voluntarily call an end to the campaign.
But the era of large political parties is now obviously coming to an end, brought about by parliamentary incompetence at running the economy, the gross blunders of political gravy-trainery that brought the process into such disrepute and the obvious failure to achieve what career politicians should be there for but obviously aren’t; the public good rather than selfish personal gains. No-one should mourn but move onto what comes next; the requirement for far more citizen involvement in the political process at local and national level while careerists no longer can count on any level of support to a flag of party.
In today’s Guardian Aditya Chakrabortty writes about the loss of faith in the state. This is very much connected with both Brexit and Labour’s decline. The left needs to consider the role of the state and alternatives to deliver services, regeneration and improvements in peoples lives. The last Labour government paid lip service to recognising the potential of Development Trusts. Labour might do well to consider how some of the models developed in the non-profit sector could become the partners for a new left vision that would see the state taking much more of a back seat, while at the same time creating a new form of mixed economy where commercial enterprises are owned by organisations delivering public and worker benefits.
I argue that the state has to remain core in The Courageous State
“hey are the SNP, which does so based on common principles (broadly speaking) and the Conservativws, who do so based on a common lust for power.”
Please don’t forget the Green Party Richard. Its bad enough that the MSM ignores and ostracises them, I had hoped better of you. I’m sure many previous Labour party members would find the Green Party in synch with their beliefs.
Maybe
I do not ignore them
I admit I do not see Greens driving this though
Am I wrong?
I often think that this is the outcome of the long, slow process of disconnecting citizens from active, day-to-day democratic and political participation, which has ensued from decades of local government “reform”. We are now among the most under-represented people in Europe with the fewest elected representatives per head of population and with by far the largest municipalities. Political parties, whatever their actual membership, also have relatively few actively engaged politicians and those they have, are insulated from their electorate by its very size.
What I find really worrying is that I think the means of connecting citizens to politics and politicians are systemically absent and that that con only lead to more division, populism and ultimately, conflict.
This refers to democratic deficit within Scotland, which is a little worse than in England, but puts things much more clearly than I can…
http://reidfoundation.org/portfolio/the-silent-crisis-failure-and-revival-in-local-democracy-in-scotland/
Ken Clarke and a few others like Heidi Alexander Stella Creasy are the only ones with any credibility left.
Labour should oppose the triggering of A50 until turncoat May agrees to single market membership. I know some of the leave voters want to leave the single market too but we do not know whether there was a majority for that. The only way to know would be to hold a referendum on it, once you start down this road it is hard to stop.
Look at the map of Europe, everyone is in the single market except the former Yugoslavia, Albania and Russia, and some of them want to join. Why is it so popular do you think?
Even if we leave now the chances are we will rejoin later when people wake up and realise it was a good thing after all.
I wonder what the odds are that we will be back in by 2023?
I was going to add something on this blog specifically, Richard, but then just happened to see this on the politics live blog of The Guardian’s web site at 14.09 today (to which I subscribe by the way, so I hope they don’t mind me using it here). Really important, I think, not only in the context of what Corbyn is up to but also as an example of the utter nonsense of the many statements from May and other Brexiteers. So much for a ‘seamless’ border between the Republic and Northern Ireland:
‘May’s plan for ‘frictionless’ border with Ireland after Brexit cannot be achieved, MPs told
Lisa O’Carroll
Lisa O’Carroll
Theresa May’s declaration that she wants a “seamless, frictionless border” post Brexit in Ireland amounted to meaningless “nice words”, the government has been told.
The Northern Ireland affairs select committee has been told by two customs lawyers with decades of experience of border controls that the continuing free movement of goods is legally impossible if the UK quits the Customs Union in a hard Brexit.
Retired customs trade lawyer Michael Lux, who worked for the German ministry of finance, has said Theresa May can do what she likes once the UK leaves the European Union but that Ireland Taoiseach Enda Kenny will have to apply EU law with no choice but to have customs checks on the border. He said:
If Northern Ireland is no longer part of the customs union, Ireland is obliged to apply all these rules, what is done on the UK side if it’s outside the EU they can do what they want.
His two hours of evidence drew audible gasps from MPs as he told how every vehicle carrying goods worth more than €300 crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland would have to be stopped, even if only “for a few minutes” and checked.
Every driver would have to have an “export declaration” document before travel which would have to be cross-checked by a human being at a border check.
“It is important to understand, it isn’t just about customs, it is also about VAT and excise on alcohol and cigarettes,” he said.
Dux, who has 40 years experience in customs trade law, told how dogs taken for a walk from south of the border would need documentation as would horses being ridden for pleasure on the border region. This is currently the case on the German/Swiss border, he said.
His comments do not bode well for May and Kenny who have warned that a return to the checkpoints of the past could imperil the fragile peace in the region.
Asked by Lady Hermon what he thought of Theresa May’s comments this week in Dublin when she said she wanted a “seamless, frictionless border”, Dux replied: “Well these are nice words but what does that mean?”
Even if the export declaration paperwork was electronic, a customs official would still be required to check the reference number for the freight and declare the “export movement closed” he said.
Lux told how cross-border customs charges and possible tariffs could be the death-knell for cross-border dairy production.
Medium-sized businesses might need two people to do the administration, or they could use an agent which would charge typically between €50 and €80 per consignment for an export declaration number, explained Lux.
Even if shrewd businesses got the cost of the export declaration document down to €20, the cost of continually moving milk and milk products back and forth would be prohibitive, Lux said.
Asked if Northern Ireland could get a “waiver” from the EU because of the special conditions pertaining to the island, lawyer Eric Pickett, an expert in World Trade Organisation rules and international trade law, said this was legally impossible.
“It would be a strict violation of WTO law,” he said.’
May is talking a load of nonsense
This is a feature of political life we now have to live with
We have already seen it pre-Brexit – we were not going to leave the Single Market we were told – now we are and revisionists are denying previous comments
This will happen time after time after time
A false promise will be given and then denied
The level of ignorance of what exiting the EU will actually involve by MPs / newspapers who have gaily campaigned to leave should be sufficient to charge them with treason or something!
They truly live in La La Land.
Indeed there is a great deal of cynicism in the Republic: “Frictionless and Seamless” has been likened to Enda Kenny’s cycling shorts. He is a keen cyclist and often does the Ring of Kerry (respect I cycle myself and it is a challenging route). The consensus is that these words are meaningless- but then again the entire Brexit strategy is not well thought through.
Who knows what will happen in the North. The Good Friday Agreement worked well while the UK was in the EU and there is not necessary a Unionist majority.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-dup-has-done-the-most-for-a-united-ireland-1.2956656
Its a strange world when Ken Clarke gives by far the best speech of the day. Of course he is pretty much the last MP standing of his generation. I have little admiration for Thatcher but the quality of politicians back in the 20th century on both sides was vastly better than now; who come across as spineless invertebrates or if spines exist lemmings. Anna Soubry for whom I was developing a grudging respect was incoherent.
“Down the Rabbit Hole” was a great tag line and worth adopting. Clarke clearly is about as optimistic about Brexit going well as many contributors here (i.e. pigs might fly being more likely).
I thought that line was brilliant
Ken Clarke always did have a broader ‘hinterland’ than most with a first hand perspective on how international trade and business works. Even if he did choose some dodgy businesses to work with. So many in the Quitter camp clearly do not have a clue
BAT was not his wisest choice……
Did Clarke or any other Tory rebel say they would vote for any of the opposition amendments? With Labour supporting the substantive motion it is clearly going to go through. Voting against this is a pointless gesture, justifiable for those whose constituencies voted enthusiastically for Remain but not for those representing Sunderland or Corby. Success in voting it down would bring a constitutional crisis, and does anybody think that if the referendum had been re-run today the result would be any different?
The amendments call for the final deal to be brought back for a decision by Parliament, which is surely not against the conscience of most Tories who voted Remain, and one amendment supports the single market with which most MPs agree and which has not been rejected in a referendum.
Why are the Labour party and progressive commenters here tearing themselves apart when it is the Tories who have most reason to split?
The spotlight should be on MPs who won’t support the amendments in contradiction to their expressed beliefs. Why have Tory supporters of the single market not proposed amendments?
Agree, Sean, by far the best speech, entertaining to watch and with some nicely targetted – and fully justified – digs at fellow Tories. There will be many of them who were pro Remain but who’ve now ‘seen the light’ that will realise it was a mirage well before 2020. But as Richard notes elsewhere, revisionism will become the default setting for many a Brexiteer as they increasingly have to explain why their chosen path results in all pain with no gain for the vast majority of the citizens of the UK.
So a lot of views here that I’d share, that can be summarised as:
– this is going to become increasingly messy and chaotic as the negotiations get bitter and protracted
– given those who have been given power by the Brexit vote, policies will become even more neo-liberal – privatisation, deregulation et al
– many/most of those who voted for Brexit will be bitterly disappointed when their prospects do not improve and services decay further
– the volume of blame being attributed to the EU and migrants will merely increase
So do we just wait for it to happen and say I told you so? To each other? Surely we need to be getting this message out loudly and repeatedly, to keep those opposed to (hard) Brexit motivated, and persuade disillusioned Brexit voters. The hard core of far Right (and some far left) voters will never be persuaded and will be busy attributing blame as above.
How and who is another matter, but that’s what I’d suggest needs to be worked on now. With whomever shares this analysis, regardless of their historical tribal affiliations
Agreed
Will mail you
Agree with this too.
Am more and more of the opinion that with the fantasies of the Brexiteers (interesting to see how few of the Tories seemed to find Ken Clarke funny by the way) the Lib Dem idea of a referendum on the Brexit settlement is a must have.
Meanwhile, although he’s pretty useless on Brexit, have to also agree with Alistair that in Parliament the door of opposition to neoliberalism “is currently wedged open by a foot called Corbyn.”
Looks like the Labour Party is down to 47 MPs. At least some of the ones I respect are in there.
As for the Coopers, Milibands and Reeves’s. Spineless, Going along with a Tory fantasy because you’re terrified of a few of your constituents.
A party for the working people or a party of the working people?
A well meaning, well educated elite trying desperately to do what’s best for a class that disagrees?
We were always going to lose the vote in the House. Corbyn has been reasonably criticized for virtue signaling. Now he is being criticized for realism. And some of his sternest critics appear to be virtue signaling themselves.
The only real hope for meaningful amendment is the Lords.
I am not an academic. I am Mrs Ordinary from the North West of England. I tried to do as much research as I could before the referendum about the EU and as a result voted to Remain. I would still like to remain in the EU.
I have followed the arguments after the Brexit vote and listened to my neighbours, some of them voted leave.
All I seem to come up with are more questions.
Did the majority of MPs in all political parties vote to have the referendum in the first place?
I did not know before the vote that the referendum was advisory, was anybody shouting this from the rooftops?
I was not aware of the term ‘super majority’ , every one that I know was under the impression that which ever side got the most votes ‘won’.
I don’t recall anyone protesting about the simple majority issue.
If politicians vote against Brexit at this stage, leave voters could interpret that as anti democratic, that their vote does not count, that they are worthless, that the elite/establishment are treating them like idiots, that their opinion does not count. People could and some would get very very angry. At the moment I can’t see a different course of action other than respect the outcome of the referendum but then make every effort to get the best deal possible.
Is it a possibility that the Article 50 can be completely voted against at a later stage if a decent deal cannot be agreed?
These are the discussions that are taking place amongst my group of friends.
Thank you
You are very welcome to this discussion and Im sure that most of the people here are not academics either. Neither do they all come from the South – I was brought up near Carlisle which really is North-West, of England though not the UK
Your thoughts make total sense and I suspect reflect those of the bulk of people who voted Remain who, unlike what people read in the Mail/Sun/Express, do not belong to any elite. Just people trying to get on with their lives, and worrying about jobs, housing, public services and they and their children’s futures. If those who voted for remain were all part of some elite, then it would be too big to qualify as an elite!
Ive learnt a lot from Richard and the other contributors here. Hope we’ll hear from you again
Hi Rita…Mrs Ordinary! (or is that Mrs Smart-Cookie?!). The answer to your last question will be found, one way or the other, by following Jolyon Maugham here – https://waitingfortax.com/author/jolyonmaugham/.
Jo is, I think, a colleague of Richard’s. He has been the mover behind the High Court/Supreme Courts cases – or bits of them – and you will see that there is one more case to be argued which, if all goes well, will see it confirmed that Article 50 can be voted against/withdrawn. Some notable academics, not least the man who drafted the original Article 50 legislation, think that it can.
As to the gist of Richard’s piece today/yesterday I think that we have just witnessed the end of the Labour Party. ‘Staring into the abyss’ – Starmering into the abyss??! – was the phrase used on ‘Today’. It no longer clear what it’s for/who it represents – but it can’t represent both a middle class metropolitan ‘In’ voter AND its core working class industrial ‘OUT’ towns. As suggested above the move to the ‘middle ground’ under Mandelsson/Blair was what started this and at their door the blame should be laid. The abandoning of the Left, and getting into bed with the Tory ‘Better Together’ over independence eventually lost them the whole of Scotland while Salmond quite happily picked up all the Leftie priorities, and votes, that Labour had foolishly abandoned. At that point the possibility of another majority Labour government in the UK was all but gone.
I choose to believe that if, as many of us had hoped, Corbyn had listened to Richard and carried on along that route (albeit with someone more capable of putting across the argument) then they might, just might, have won the day. Now however the game is up. It seems inevitable that a new Party will emerge from the ruins (Keith Waterhouse, many years ago, suggested the ‘Polyocracy’ – the fact that Mrs T got rid of the Polytechnics he was inspired by dates the article!) and take the Metropolitan middle vote. If however the post-industrial working class and the ‘Precariat’ have nowhere to turn except for UKIP’s welcoming embrace…what then? That way danger lies but I’m damned if I can see the Corbyn rump securing their loyalty for all their anxiety to please them yesterday.
Thanks
I hate George Osborne with a passion and I cannot think of a more misguided, sly and knowing political figure – but his little speech in the commons yesterday about the Government not focussing on the economy in the midst of BREXIT was – well – rather a good point!
And then later – braving Channel 4 News – there is Boris’ Daily Mail writing sister cooly supporting her brothers stance (or was it ‘stances’)and then appeared to back the need to discuss how we leave properly with the full involvement of Parliament!
The tragedy of this indicates to me the parlous state of Shadow Cabinet.
Where the hell are they? How can it be that the Tories are putting forward some reasonable points whilst the Opposition is so stymied?
Answers on the back of a postacrd please to…..