This comes from Politics Home this morning:
Andrew Gwynne said Labour had so far managed a "very clever" line on Brexit, but admitted that "could become a political problem" for the party.
Jeremy Corbyn has so far emphasised a flexible approach, with a spokesman for the Labour leader saying this week that it would be wrong to "sweep options off the table".
And Mr Gwynne hinted that the party could yet change tack if public opinion changes.
“We recognise that the country voted to leave. Whether public opinion shifts in the course of the next couple of years will be interesting to see," Mr Gwynne told an event organised by PR firm Four Public Affairs.
It's this last sentence opinion that worries me. I would have though Labour would want to shape public opinion rather than shape itself in response to it. Isn't that what politics is about, especially on the left? Surely it's not about working within the Overton Window but moving it? If not, what's the point? As it stands it seems that what Gwynne is saying is where the Mail goes Labour will follow. And that's pretty depressing.
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 think it’s a matter of timing, the longer the process goes on, the more faded peoples memories become about why they voted to leave and to Labours advantage, the more damage the Tories inflict on themselves.
So why not help them make up their minds by setting out a positive alternative?
I’m not sure there is a positive alternative other than remaining, everything else is a compromise. It’s important to understand just how bad it could be, maybe once that is clearly understood (ie the documented result of negotiations) the realisation that even compromise is a step backwards will be obvious and the idea of remaining being the best option will become clear.
I posted this on a previous thread on here, and have made similar points elsewhere. It’s “focus group syndrome”.
‘This .. is what you get when you don’t have proper democracy (deliberative with citizens in charge) but have self-serving representatives who represent nothing but the dogma of their parties and their narrow sectional interests, mainly those of the rich and powerful who have captured much of the state apparatus, rather than represent the interests of the citizenship as a whole. These are politicians who will not lead, who will not face down the racists, the xenophobes, the Little Englanders.
The idea that the referendum was democracy in action is ludicrous. The whole campaign was an exercise in lying, and the best lies won. A brave politician would have said this is madness, an act of monumental self-harm and we are not going to be bound by it’.
There are several books now on the way to a better democratic settlement.
That’s the Labour we know in Scotland and when its tactics don’t work, obstruct anyone who is leading.
Again an appeal to remember where we are and what sort of country we are in at the moment (a very badly managed one where people are being manipulated by vested interests).
I honestly believe that Corbyn is playing it right.
I don’t like it anymore than you. Shaping opinion on austerity is one thing; shaping opinion on BREXIT is another because many people think they had a vote on it and ‘did’ democracy.
The phoney war will end like all phoney wars do: in their own time. Then will be the time to strike.
I go along with that.
I think the problem is many instinctively agree but hard-Remain want to stir it up for mixed-motive.
Which is needing neoliberalusm to stumble on to create a ‘stop Brexit’ mood and the EU to stumble on in its failed state to to help neoliberalism stumble on.
Objective debate about single market us caught in the crossfire of the neoliberal remainers fighting for a ‘reformed EU’ after not allowing reform agendas enter the Referendum debate. What with New Labour for example saying TTIP ‘not that bad’ type stuff.
The bottom line objective opinion is overlooking IMO is that the complexity is being used by media and cross-party neoliberal – helping their own cause and their EU ambition simultaneously – to use fear of hard Brexit simply to get hard Remain.
And us Remain-Reformers want neither.
Fair point & I agree, it is about moving political opnion. But Labour’s 2017 GE campaign around its radical manifesto did just that. Policies that had long been buried by the neo-lib empty suits are now front & centre of the national debate.
Had Labour adopted the Lib Dem approach to Brexit, May would now have her 100 majority & the manifesto would have been drowned at birth. And we’d be well on our way to a very hard & nasty Brexit, with all other options steamrollered out of the way.
Events change public opinion more that political rhetoric. But to be able to react to that sea change, you must have your boats in position.
You think Labour is setting the national debate?
I wish it was
I don’t see it
Not setting the national debate? As far as I can see Labour did it’s best to do so in the General Election campaign and has proved remarkably popular since. On austerity, tuition fees, possible renationalisation and a big step towards a more Courageous State I can’t see how you can make that claim.
Pilgrim is absolutely right — had they played a more LibDemmy line, May would almost certainly have her huge majority.
That the ‘national debate’ has not moved on I think has, I’m afraid to say, got rather too much to do with much progressive commentary being concerned with eating humble pie and clambering back on board rather than setting out what a radical and sustainable post-Brexit UK might look like.
I have to say I want that radical state
I can’t see how a nationalism that facilitates this country’s move to the right, or the destruction of value that Brexit will involve, can help achieve it
And right bow everything is peripheral to Brexit
I think the clue may be in last few words of this sentence:
“Mr Gwynne told an event *organised by PR firm Four Public Affairs*.”
Surely that’s what they have been doing since the inception of ‘New’ Labour?
The real focus for the leadership is on winning the next GE. Thats the real prize they are looking at.
To that end, some cynical game playing and some unedifying unprincipled positional movement is to be expected.
It’s demeaning of course but its all about playing the game and putting Labour in a position to capitalise on the Tories imploding.
That the party is playing a very dangerous game with the gravest issue facing our country for decades is neither here nor there.
Straightforward, honest politics….yeah right.
I think Corbyn and Labour are right to keep options open, wait for “events”, then choose the moment carefully. First, conference has to be negotiated. For outsiders a trivial distraction perhaps, but right now for Labour, crucial to keep the party true to its members, and credible to the country. The right wing media are just waiting to use any Corbyn moves on any issue, to lie and discredit him (see the tuition fee lies).
As a staunch remained, and Corby supporter, I am hoping that partyolicy
Sorry, tried to correct my typo and inadvertently posted.
As a staunch remainer,and Corbyn supporter, I am hoping, and expecting, that party policy will reflect the wishes of the party membership, 70% pro remain. Certainly not the Daily Mail.
For a pro-remain party, they have a worrying tendency to whip their MPs to support the governments hard brexit position before sacking any dissenters.
I too want that radical (courageous) state – I have always said that and always will until we get it. I want to see Richard’s ideas used.
And I think that the last election result may be telling us that public opinion is swinging behind this radicalism too.
But the pig in the poke, the dog in the manger is BREXIT. It distorts everything. It is self indulgent – a none-issue created and abused to huge levels that has made us lose focus on what really matters. It has thrown us off the scent of austerity and its dire consequences.
BREXIT has given many of us something to hate and to fear – the EU. And that sentiment is extremely difficult to deal with once it is unleashed – which is Labour’s current problem. What could be directed towards the Tories points to Europe instead.
Forgive me a moment but I went to see the film ‘Dunkirk’ at the weekend and to be honest it is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen at a cinema in a long time.
I cannot believe that the director (Christopher Nolan) also directed ‘Interstellar’ – an amazingly ambitious film that pushed the limits of storytelling and ideas about human life to the limit. It got me thinking about all sorts of big ideas afterwards – a tribute to the quality of a film – for me any way.
‘Dunkirk’ however plays to much more base English emotions and sentiment (besides giving no sense of scale to the disaster, dwelling too much on the harrowing struggles of drowning men in ships, convoluted story lines and a sound track that sounds as though it was recorded on a building site – shame on you Hans Zimmer!).
I have to confess that the bit where Kenneth Branagh’s character sees the flotilla of boats coming out of the mist towards the beach and his eyes begin to water backed by a slow mo’ version of Elgar’s ‘Nimrod’ made me cry. But then I felt manipulated by this film and ‘manned up’.
But then again this has happened to me before when faced with the WWII of our past. My partner and I were on one of our walks through London in the late 1990’s when we lived there I think and we happened to come across the ceremony where they were unveiling a statue to Bomber Command (at long last – depending on your point of view).
We stood and watched and then there was a noise and looking up – there was a fly past of a Hurricane, Spitfire and a Lancaster in formation above the parade. As soon as I saw them the hairs on the back of my neck went up and I just started crying. I just lost my composure. I still do not know why. It was involuntary – just as much as it was when watching the scene in Dunkirk above. It poked something deeply embedded in my psyche by the culture I had been brought up in.
I am no unquestioning patriot. But I am fascinated by my response to these events and all I can say is that even though I was born in 1965, I have had WWII (our ‘finest moment’) rammed down my throat since I was a boy. Certain aspects of the conflict are ingrained in me and seems inculcated in those around me (as well as me). BTW I always thought that our finest moment was the creation of the NHS and the Welfare State to be honest.
I have seen this film portrayed as representing our generations’ ‘Dunkirk moment’ which is the BREXIT issue and I can see why some might say this.
The way in which the Leave campaign and the media has portrayed BREXIT (this time plucky England versus Europe instead of the Nazis or with our backs to the wall on a beach) and the way they have unified people against the EU smacks to me of the same sort of thing. There is something about the British character and our deference to our history that is so easily manipulated by our rulers and our media – by politicians and filmmakers like Nolan.
The film has rave, effusive reviews nearly everywhere (again I think they reflect this ingrained regard we have for those times). However, at the end of the film there is a huge mistake that to me shows the film up for what it is – a vacuous, manipulative typically over emotional and sickening exercise in exploiting collective British memory.
The returning soldiers get onto a train which really should be made up in this era of Southern Railway coaches (Maunsell designs perhaps?). The ones on the Bluebell Railway I have used have a lovely green external paint job with plush red upholstery on the seats and wooden interiors.
When the soldiers in the film (set – remember – in 1940) get inside their train however, they are sitting on a train whose interior is strictly a 1970’s British Rail corporate rail blue ‘upgrade’ of what is I believe a British Rail MK1 Tourist open Second (TSO) coach built from the mid to late 1950’s! It’s so embarrassing.
It is a huge oversight and for me confirms that like the Leave campaign, there is nothing authentic about this film that we are being presented with. It is just as inauthentic as the Leave campaign’s lies about the NHS losing funds to the EU, immigration and how the EU was dragging down our economy (when in fact is British/Tory austerity that has been destroying it). The appeal is to emotions – not rationalism.
Nevertheless, the plaudits for the film carry on as does the myths and imaginary fight the British public has with the EU. When I’ve told people that Nolan’s film is bad, I get told off by others whose relations were involved in Dunkirk for talking ill of our brave, dead heroes for what is really just my criticism of a film!
Similarly if Corbyn and Labour start arguing that BREXIT is the big mistake many of us know it to be, the latent emotional anti-EU attitudes in the British public that have been ingrained for so long will be taken advantage of again by the Leavers and the media. Labour cannot take that risk at the moment in my view.
The film is a curate’s egg. The railway stuff was poor. So to arw the container cranes at Dunkirk and modern buildings on the sea front
But I liked the time line interaction
Haven’t seen the film yet. But this country’s failure to get over WW2 is an utter tragedy.
It just goes on and on and on.
Fair enough – I’ve liked timeline interaction since Tarantino 1990’s movies but Nolan stretches the idea to its limits in my view.
Funny enough criticism of the film is now emerging.
I still think that it is purely manipulative. As for Nolan’s view that he wanted the nation’s youth to watch it – you’ve got to be joking. Let them read objective analytical history about it – not this bunkum.
Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have been opposed to the EU (and previously the EEC) throughout their political careers. They belong to the body of opinion that sees the EU as a capitalist conspiracy. Moreover many of the things they would like to do are not possible if Britain is in the EU. So they support the idea of leaving the single market and the customs union. In terms of the politics the majority of Labour voters voted remain but 70% of Labour seats voted leave. This shows that the two kinds of Labour voter are geographically distinct with the Labour leave voters concentrated in the North and the Midlands. This makes the politics of it very difficult for them, even if you discount the first two factors I mentioned.
What’s bizarre is most of what they want to do is possible in the EU
I’m told that apparently Benn’s diaries allude to Corbyn being on the pro EU wing of the party post Maastricht.
I’ve never read Benn’s diaries but this would be interesting if true…
The EU is a capitalist conspiracy but the WTO isn’t effectively manipulated as one also?
http://www.frontline.in/columns/Jayati_Ghosh/countries-vs-corporations/article9630454.ece
On what planet does Jeremy Corbyn reside?
Corbyn is right to be wary of the EU – its architecture has plenty of ex Goldman Sachs alumni in it.
However, I am sure that Labour knows that the alternative to the EU – an open door trade policy with the USA that allows them to get all the benefits and screw us over,is even worse.
Corbyn has never been rabidly pro-American in my view as say Blair and other New Labour darlings were.
For new UK trade deals, we will get what we demand/reject. Its good to see that the media are finally picking up on the very dark side of what now passes for ‘international trade deals’ ie dropping health and safety standards. I hope a lot more is forthcoming eg bringing the implications of investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) to public attention.
Considering the long-term deep involvement of Liam Fox with US big business and the ALEC organisation, the wishy washy call for him to do this or that (38 degrees) should be, instead, a call for Theresa May to remove him from the Secretary of State for International Trade position. Its obvious who he is working for and it ain’t us.
People will NOT gradually forget why they voted Brexit and this drawn out enquiry announced today, which is framed in such a way as to provide a voice for business needs but not people’s priorities, is clearly taking the p*** and will be perilous to the government for that reason. And what will Labour contribute – the usual indeterminate each way bet?
Note how that beacon of social responsibility, Goldman Sachs, is speaking up for open borders for workers. GS is the biggest users of the Mode 4 mechanism bringing intracorporate workers in from India.
Businesses that want to bring in workers should guarantee their exit – with a bond, Otherwise the gain to (mostly big) business, in terms of cheap labour becomes everyone else’s responsibility in housing etc.
It’s disgraceful that Corbyn with his silly answer about the Labour manifesto (the one promising to dump tuition fees..?) refused to contribute to a unity government.
May should have drawn the line on this definitively – you are in with a positive contribution or you are out and irrelevant. She was in too weak a position to do this at the time. Everyone I speak to would like to see a unity govt for Brexit rather than the destructive Punch and Judy scenario. Anyone can snap at the heels but where is the intelligent, positive contribution? Not from anyone in Labour, though Gardiner is prepared to get a bit real.
You’re assuming inaction is, actually, doing nothing..
Just like not voting, it’s not a non action.. it has consequences.
What Labour IS doing is keeping the pressure on the government by focusing on desirable goals – eg, we want the same benefits as being members of the EU – and not ruling out any options, like remaining a member of the single market, but simultaneously ruling out a no deal, extreme Brexit.
I would argue this covers most of what the public want, both leavers and remainers.
How that happens is the question, but with Labour not being in the negotiating seat all they can do is put forward ideas.
There idea, that I can see, is to attempt to get a bespoke free trade agreement that emulates the EU benefits without being a member. There is, I believe a very small chance that could happen if the UK offered something that other EU countries could not offer, like a Tobin tax on financial transactions that goes to the EU. We all know it’s very unlikely a bespoke FTA could be done in 2 years, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try (or pressure the Conservatives to try).
Labour not taking a dictatorial stance on this (except to reject a no deal option) is action in itself, because what it is doing is allowing events (eg, negotiations) demonstrating what the REAL options are with Brexit. No amount of dictating to the public would be as effective as giving us breathing space to watch and see the issues unfold. No amount of ‘scaremongering’ last year about US trade deals flooding our markets with animal products we don’t approve of or forcing our own farmers out of business made the difference to swing the vote towards remain. Seeing the realities now are much more persuasive.
Labour did not call the referendum and the party campaigned to remain. They are not responsible for the current mess, the Tories are, and an extension of that remain campaign can only be successful if the public are allowed to follow the ‘negotiation’ process and see what we end up with.
The events are leading the public opinion, and will do so far more effectively than Labour campaigning for overturning the result or pushing for SM membership, etc. And Labour can’t be held responsible for the events that unfold, because they are a result of the negotiation process and the Conservatives’ actions here and abroad.
It’s not only public opinion that needs to change either. Pro EU Tories will soon start to rebel, many of them under pressure from their business and financial donors. Until these Tories rebel, there is no way for the opposition parties to affect any changes in what the Conservative party want to do.
Labour has lead opinion with their manifesto for this recent general election. We were at a crossroads where the country could’ve taken a dangerous lurch to the right, with a powerful conservative party that could enact whatever Brexit it wanted. As it happened, the Labour manifesto was the real answer to the EU Referendum question from last year – that big middle finger people thought they were showing to the ‘establishment’, all those people left behind by globalisation and neoliberalism, who had been told for years to blame the EU and immigrants, not the government. Labour’s manifesto offered the hope that many ‘thought’ the leave vote offered when they voted that way.
Labour is allowing the events to unfold and offering a hopeful alternative for the future of the UK.
Barry Gardiner’s article in The Guardian explained the reasons for leaving the SM/CU, but at the same time is also showed the reason to vote remain in a referendum on the deal, when the options are Norway style deal vs Remain*. Labour can highlight and commentate, so the public can make up their own mind. Emphasising jobs and workers rights keeps the pressure on the government and is the kind of thing the majority agree with.
Anything else they try to do at this time is going to be gesture politics that will cost them dearly in support, resulting in another snap election as the government try to take advantage to increase their majority. then we’re really in trouble.
I do understand people’s frustration, but I think Labour’s stance on this is the best one they can take in a very tricky political period. Allowing public opinion to shift doesn’t have to be inaction.
*I believe the Conservatives will be forced to accept a Norway style deal as the timescales just don’t allow for a bespoke FTA and pro EU Tories will rebel and insist on benefits we can’t otherwise get. In order to relinquish responsibility for this decision, and limit the damage it does to their support from leave voters, they will put the Norway option to a referendum, with remain as the alternative. In which case, I can see people choosing remain, because a Norway style deal only loses us power, but really gains us nothing.
I admit I think you are being generous to Labour when it is very clear that Starmer and Gardiner are very far apart.
I am much closer to Starme
I also think it disingenuous for Labour to argue that it wants all the benefits of being inbthe single market and customs union but say it does not want the obligations that go with that.
And I think both issues will hauntil Labour unless it resolves them and takes a lead – which an alternative government has to do
I think these issues will resolve themselves within a matter of months. Once they have, people will move on. Many already have, as Brexit wasn’t mentioned at all on the doorstep or on stalls during the election (admittedly being pregnant I couldn’t do as much campaigning as others).
As for being generous to Labour, I don’t see an alternative because times are too politically heated and me attacking them will make the likelihood of getting a progressive government into power. I’m just urging people to be patient for a little longer.
Barry Gardiner said on BBCQT: ‘the decision to leave was a political decision, not an economic decision’. He does not agree with it from a economic standpoint, but the politics of it is complex. I believe it will be resolved though – I’m not even convinced we will leave.
We shall see..
*will make the likelihood of getting a progressive government into power even less likely*
that should say!
ps. I can’t change my typos but I do know my there/their/they’re normally..!
We all do it