I caused upset to some on Twitter last night when I said
So far it looks like today is the day Labour committed us to hard Brexit
When people demanded to.know my reasoning I explained, saying:
Some don't see why I am saying Labour failed today. So let me explain. Turning up was not good enough to win. They had to give the Tory rebels a reason to vote with them. They failed to do so. That is a Labour failure in my opinion.
It seems that those who think me wrong to have made my comment thought that Labour turning up and voting pretty much en bloc against the government was enough for it to fulfil its duty. I disagree.
That's the most basic duty of an opposition. But by definition it can never win from that position: it is in opposition precisely because it has fewer votes than the government can usually muster. So if an opposition is to win - and there was some expectation that it might yesterday - and rebellions have happened before now on this issue - then it has to give reason for the rebellion to take place.
In my opinion Labour has failed to do that: it's internal divisions and inconsistencies did not let the Tory rebels rebel with a clear conscience by saying they were voting for a better plan.
I can't see that better plan from Labour as yet. Frankly, it is still putting forward suggestion just as likely to be unacceptable to the EU member states as the ones the Tories are delivering. In that case it could not hope to win.
And for those who say being in opposition is all about almost imposing a successful three-line whip I'd suggest a little more thinking. I'd suggest it's actually about looking like a credible alternative, and so far on Brexit Labour is failing to be that credible alternative.
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:
The simple answer is that Labour can’t and doesn’t have to – yet. The party can’t, firstly, because organisationally it is being transformed in to movement rather than a political party – with a modern gloss being put on a mish-mash of traditional English socialism, of a view of the EU as some sort of uber-capitalist conspiracy, of elements of labour-managed economy and of the lingering legacy of the Communist International. It is as quaint and as irrelevant as the Empire 2 delusions of the Tory Brexiteers in the European Research Group headed up Jacob Rees-Mogg. In fact they are mirror images of each other with roughly the same support in the Commons (and probably in the country). Secondly, it can’t because quite a few MPs are hoping to hold on to seats in constituencies where a majority of voters went for Brexit.
And it doesn’t have to while there are 15 or so Tory remainers who are prepared to rebel and defeat the Government. All it has to do is to muster as many MPs as it can to continue to expose the Government to the threat of defeat on key amendments and to force the Government to soften its approach to Brexit.
I’m in agreement with you. But it seems we’re in new territory with Brexit – which has created divisions across and within the main Party lines. Historically May has been pro-EU and Corbyn anti-EU. It’s an issue where emotions run high and critical analysis low. Additionally – and crucially – their constituencies fall into both camps. Although May is struggling hard to hold her party together, when push comes to shove the Tories are more pragmatic (and ruthless) than Labour. They will make whatever ideological sacrifices are necessary to hold onto power. You only have to follow ‘Squawkbox’ to get a feel for the degree of internal strife the LP is experiencing at every level. While his initials may be JC, I don’t think Corbyn can perform the miracle needed to provide a coherent alternative narrative supported by his MPs, membership and appealing to the majority of voters.
Bottom line = the Tories will do deals, muddle through, deliver a hard(ish)-Brexit and blame everyone but themselves for the ensuing negative outcomes. Problem, reaction, solution? We’ll never know. It’ll be interesting to see if the DM under Geordie Greig will provide a more nuanced editorial view.
Theresa May is only in power because Labour has effectively saved the Conservative government by acts of omission (a strategy of opaque bluster and systematic non-opposition). I can only assume Labour is pro-Brexit. It is very doubtful if 50% of British voters are still pro-Brexit, but even if they are – who is representing the 48% who voted Remain? Neither of the only two parties that can govern Britain represent the 48%. Half the country has effectively been disenfranchised – by Westminster.
I keep writing this on your Blog, Richard; and the one thing I have learned? Even here, nobody seems interested. Fortunately, people think a little differently in Scotland.
“Neither of the only two parties that can govern Britain represent the 48%. Half the country has effectively been disenfranchised — by Westminster.
I keep writing this on your Blog, Richard; and the one thing I have learned? Even here, nobody seems interested. Fortunately, people think a little differently in Scotland.”
You’re completely correct in your first comment John. Labour’s lack of leadership in opposing something any intelligent progressive can see will be very bad for the UK is wretched. Your second is unfair on those of us in England and Wales who are interested (actually ****ing furious) about this rotten situation.
Which is not to say I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for the Scots, being run by the arrogant, stupid and dishonest Conservatives, who are now using Brexit as an underhand method to reverse devolution. I see the SNP MPs have walked out of Parliament in protest at the lack of time given to debate devolution.
I don’t blame them, one little bit.
You are right
That is what deeply annoys me
SotD,
I understand your feelings. My problem is, in Scotland, we need all the help we can get; and nothing happens; few protests, a sense of pervasive popular inertia seems to cover England like a fog. If this was not so, the MPs of the major parties would be a lot more ‘spooked’ by public disapproval, than – quite clearly – seems to be the case.
I know the media represent vested interests (period!); but still…. nothing(?)…….
Everything is ‘still’.
You hit the nail on the head regarding the Labour divisions – with a recent PLP meeting suggesting that there were at least 50 MPs who’d vote down the Customs Union or EEA Corbyn had very little wriggle room – any plan capable of tempting the Tory rebels would almost certainly see some, if not all, of these MPs voting the other way. Let’s not forget that, despite their bluster and fluttery eye-lids, these rebels still are yet to rebel in any meaningful way.
Putting forward a ‘viable’ alternative policy here would only draw attention to Labour’s troubles here when all the attention should be on May and her minions/masters. Corbyn has every right to fudge-along for a little longer given that had he been in charge from the outset the negotiations would not be in the ludicrous mess that they are now.
Short of asking to withdraw A50 what precisely would you like them to have proposed yesterday and what evidence do you have that any of it could have been passed?
I am not saying I have an answer
That was Labour’s job to do
And it clearly only managed to by and large keep its own line intact
That was not enough
This is an incredibly weak stance. “you’re doing it wrong, I but it’s not my job to tell you how you’re doing it wrong”. You must know how they’re doing it wrong, if you believe they’re doing it wrong, so why wouldn’t you enlighten them?
There job is to build alliances that let then change government policy
Mine is to point out that this is their job
And I have already provided ample comment on how I would do that
The cowardice and self-interest of some MPs annoys me. Their job is to represent the interests of their constituents as best they can and (if need be) suffer the consequences. Their primary focus should not be their continuation as MPs
I think they are also over estimating the number of votes that would be influenced by a single issue (even a massive one like Brexit) in a general election where voters have to weigh up many concerns and vote on the balance of them.
This is a comment I posted elsewhere
The trouble with Labour peddling fairy stories on Brexit, is that when we get back to arguing for better economic policy and a more equal society, people will assume it is just more fairy stories.
The Labour Party cannot oppose brexit until there is no longer a majority in the UK supporting brexit, and I see no signs of any increase in support for “Remain”.
This leads on to the poverty of the propaganda in favour of “Remain”, which continues to be as abysmal as during the referendum campaign. There is a hard core (20%?) of racist and nationalistic brexit supporters who cannot be reached, but nothing is said that is persuasive to waverers like myself who might be persuaded by economic arguments.
For instance I have yet to see anybody set out exactly what tariffs the EU would impose in a no deal Brexit. I realise it is complex, perhaps a suitable subject for a blog.? Assuming no treatys and also nothing punitive for dumping I think we are talking about average 5% tariffs, with perhaps 35% for some goods such as cars? If the UK retaliates, (rather than the lunatic Patrick Minford proposal that we accept tariffs without imposing them in return) is this such a bad thing?
Furthermore what can Remainers suggest to bring about the labour shortages that so many Brexit voters crave? There is a pent up demand for substantial wage increases, better conditions and dignity at work for unskilled workers with no educational qualifications. How can this be delivered without restricting the freedom of movement of Lithuanian workers for whom our minimum wage is well above their own country’s average wage?
We can restrict movement within the EU
Others do….
And also the Tories have no intention of creating the labour shortages that voters in seats like Mansfield crave. They have said that they will have quotas after Brexit that give employers all the labour they want, and so wages will remain low and workers controlled by gangmasters.
We need some action, perhaps a ban on gangmasters, or a requirement that unskilled jobs are advertised locally and offered at the Jobcentre, not recruited en masse abroad.
Hi,
In answer to the point about there being no shift in opinion on Brexit.
I did a moving average chart of responses to the “right/wrong to leave the EU” question that has been asked since the referendum. This shows a consistent drift to “wrong” and has basically flipped from one that matched the result (52 right, 48 wrong) to the opposite now.
Small changes, and of course there are a minority who think it was wrong that still think it should go ahead, but fertile territory for the remain cause. This is especially true since many of the worst effects are yet to manifest themselves.
Tariffs are not the critical issue. Regulations are the crucial issue. It does not even matter whether you pass laws in Britain to ‘fix’ the starting point; they will soon enough diverge. It is called entropy. What then? How do we do it? The EU has a huge bureaucracy set up to deliver high standard regulations over the quality of goods. They EU has been doing it for half a century, and for up to 28 countries (not least FOR US); it is a huge, accomplished, powerful and efficient machine – and it protects both consumers and producers).
We do not have that resource any longer, and have lost that kind of complex capacity. It is a huge, costly time-consuming and very difficult task to provide it in short-order, from ‘scratch’. Meanwhile, we in Britain have done precisely nothing in two years to fix that; or provide customs/borders with the infrastructure to do anything at all. Brexiteers want to change everything, by do precisely nothing to achieve it. The whole thing is absurd. Please try and think this through!
I think the sort of people who voted to leave hoping their income would be boosted are likely to be disappointed. The loss of the single market will hit the export of services and the loss of the customs union will increase the cost of cross border trade. (possibly wiping the savings on not contributing to the EU budget) . I read that 40% of our manufactured exports are components and they benefit from the easy movement due to the customs union and this could be lost. So there will be a loss to make up.
60% of our trade is with the EU or countries which have a Free Trade Agreement with them. I don’t see many of the FTAs being just rolled over. Of the remaining 40% the majority of trade is with the US or China. We run a deficit with China (Germany sells a lot more per head to them than we do: being in the EU doesn’t stop them ) and a small surplus with the USA. I don’t see Trump’s people giving us a ‘soft’ deal. So the remaining markets will have to deliver a surplus.
In our low productivity, low investment country the principle exports gainers are likely to be service industries and in return for increased access for them, i guess is that we would let in more physical goods and they would be cheap. This will, I assume, be sold as a gain for he British people,’ but it will impact on wages , jobs and businesses, often in those sectors and areas like the North East and Midlands who voted to leave believing it would improve their income.
The Brexit leaders like Rees-Mogg and Redwood and those with stake in financial services should do well out it.
There are a number of assumptions here as I am not an expert. If I am wrong about any of them, I’d like to hear.
LaS
Everyone talks about tariffs but, outside agriculture, tariffs are at a comparatively low level. The killer for British industry is leaving the single market because suddenly we are a third country and our components don’t count towards local content – hence you hear of advice to Dutch manufacturers to find alternatives to British suppliers.
Plus the whole point of regulatory harmonisation is to prevent the need for checks that x is compatible with the regulation. The moment you go down the route of deviation which the Brexiteers trumpet as being a saving grace of this madness, by definition, you need to demonstrate compliance and that is what will destroy British participation in just in time manufacturing continent-wide.
If British suppliers want to sell into Europe they will have to meet local standards anyway and the cost advantage of manufacturing to a single standard infinitely outweighs the benefit of so called cost savings through deviation from those standards. I’m ancient enough to remember the pre-single market hassle, delays and cost implications of getting approvals from German, Dutch, French, Swedish, Danish, Finnish approvals houses. All worked to the same base standard but with subtle tweeks!
And that’s before we even start to talk about recognition of qualifications etc.
That is the killer point
And a customs union / agreement does not solve it
And few of our politicians appear to have a clue about that
@John D,
Thank you. You make some valid additional points. Like you, I think the Tories will muddle through. Ironically, the fear of a Corbyn-led government will impose the necessary discipline on both fractious wings of the Tory party. And never underestimate the ability of the Tory party to shapeshift so as to retain a grip on power. There is an interesting debate going on within the party and its affiliated think-tanks about good capitalism versus bad capitalism. It looks like the Tories eventually will muster sufficient sense and ability to help to save capitalism from itself as it is going seriously off the rails. Labour used to have some ability in this respect, but it’s been totally sidelined now it’s being led by those “fermenting (sic!) the overthrow of capitalism”.
As for the DM, even under Dacre it has the rip-off energy suppliers and other rip-off merchants in its sights. That’s not unconnected to the debate in the Tory party I’ve mentioned. Grieg probably will be more nuanced – particularly in relation to the EU. But will he be able to set the daily agenda for the broadcasters to the extent Dacre did?
The reason Labour isn’t coming up with an achievable plan for Brexit is the same reason the Tories aren’t. It isn’t about what might fly with the EU, or being sensible, or any of that. It’s about England’s future identity and role in the UK, Europe and the world, which the English are a long way from being clear on. Scotland has long since checked out of any interest in that, and NI is well on the way to leaving. Wales might stick with England. For this question (England’s identity and role), it’s much more important to engage in discussion and argument with other groups in England than it is to pay attention to Scotland, NI, Ireland, or the EU, and that is what is happening. I doubt it will be over by March 2019, so some version of Brexit will happen and the argument/evolution will go on. In the meantime the UK is falling apart (e.g., yesterday’s action in Westminster is reverberating in here in Scotland), which is good for this English debate because it will help focus English minds on England and remove the temptation to think about Global Britain or UK grandeur and the like.
I think yesterday will reverberate in Scotland for a long time
15 minutes and no Scottish MPs called to discuss Scotland?
Staggering
Indeed, Richard, and I find BBC’s reporting of it baffling. I’ve heard different accounts on different BBC channels by different reporters and all have referred to yesterday’s 15-minute charade as “a debate”. This is thoroughly disingenuous: there was no debate. Instead Lidlington talked for the entire allotted 15 minutes thereby excluding any possibility of debate. ‘Debacle’ would be more accurate.
It was undisguised filibustering which, unsurprisingly, has been seen in Scotland as contemptuous. The frustration and anger it caused was the direct cause of today’s walkout by the SNP MPs and not, as suggested on various BBC broadcasts, a cheap, premeditated publicity stunt. Serious constitutional issues are at stake and, over a protracted period, the UK government has failed to engage with Scottish Govt’s concerns. To then structure yesterday’s business to ensure the SNP’s Amendment would only be addressed very late in a busy session reeks of deliberate stage management. To then talk it out without hearing any of Scotland’s concerns being aired simply confirms suspicions of contempt for Scotland, its Parliament and, by extension, its people.
I agree with all that
I think the anger wholly justified
“The reason Labour isn’t coming up with an achievable plan for Brexit is the same reason the Tories aren’t. It isn’t about what might fly with the EU”
I think pigs might fly before anyone can come up with a coherent approach to Brexit which will not damage our country. I know that our Government can, and will, not before the end of next March.
Both the Conservative and Labour parties have had nearly two years to identify the “red lines” they want to abide by with clear arguments for them. From there a “principled” Brexit plan would be possible from each party. These plans would then be launched into the public arena with their justifications. The EU negotiators could choose to favour one over the other and say why or reject both. Parliament could then proceed accordingly pursue the plan favoured by the EU, call the whole thing off or go forward with a no deal. As it stands emotion and personal career ambitions have been allowed to push out reason resulting in the current state of chaos.
Whoever is writing the history of the Labour party needs to record that this present crowd in Parliament have managed to achieve the biggest dismantling of rights, benefit and jobs – and allowed the Conservatives to get away with blue murder on all sorts of issues. As with the Conservatives – I am still waiting for Corbyn et al to paint me a picture of their vision of the future – or have I missed it somewhere ? Please enlighten me someone……….
History must record that any dismantling of rights, benefit and jobs taking place at present is being done by the Government that commands a majority in Parliament, from the Tories and DUP.
You certainly have missed something big. Remember the Labour party that would not vote against Tory cuts for fear of being seen as soft on claimants? That has been replaced by one that offers whole hearted opposition to every Tory cut. Remember the party that was afraid to make any spending commitments for fear of Tory jeers about where the money would come from? We have replaced that with one dedicated to achieving a massive transfer of wealth for the top 1% to the majority. Labour has broken with the neo-liberal concensus that everything has to be approved by the wealthiest and by the Sun and Daily Mail, and is committed to enhancing rights.
In the 2010 Parliament the Liberal democrats and Tories passed a whole load of pernicious legislation. There are nowhere near as many such laws in the offing now as the evil shower are so tangled up in Brexit.
I am still waiting for Corbyn et al to paint me a picture of their vision of the future — or have I missed it somewhere ? Please enlighten me someone……….
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/
Labour’s ‘tactics’ (if they have any), may be incomprehensible to everyone (no least the Labour Party); but let us move on to something less fatuous. Dominic Grieve MP only enters the stage when he has something effective to do. It seems the impenetrable deal concocted with her own MPs by our permanently bumbling PM, Theresa May; whose crafty fudge cobbled with the Conservative Remain group only yesterday, may be falling apart already; as it unsurprisingly, perhaps is apparently failing to survive Mr Grieve’s forensic scrutiny. No surprise there; after all this is a Theresa May fudge.
This unfolding problem is perhaps one reason that the Government did not see the SNP ‘line in the sand’ resistance coming yesterday (or perhaps I give the Conservative Government too much credit for any capacity for sober foresight). Mr Mundell now appears troubled with the dawning realisation today, as he stumbled through his abject defence of his performance as Scottish Secretary (in his case, an oxymoron), that the amiably courteous Ian Blackford may now resort to Parliamentary guerrilla tactics (the first resort, perhaps was yesterday; which left the Speaker muddled, even with the help of the Clerk). Thresesa May’s Government may yet find itself pinned on the rack; between SNP’s resort to torture by Erskine May, and Grieve’s rigorous analytical scalpel. What then?
We shall see. We live in interesting times.
The SNP are, like it or not, probably the most able group in parliament
If guerrilla tactics start they will be good at them