According to the Guardian:
Keir Starmer has committed to pursuing a major rewrite of the Brexit deal with the EU if Labour is elected, citing his responsibility to his children and future generations.
However, as they note:
He ruled out rejoining the EU, the customs union and the single market.
So, he's not serious in that case because those and freedom of movement are the things that are so obviously needed. Anything else is tokenism.
The best thing that can be said about this is that the failure to deliver is being built in early and is even being pre-announced ahead of the election.
What is Labour for?
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:
What is Labour for?
As I think John Warren would agree (although that should never be taken for granted!), Labour is for itself.
But this also puts Labour in a really difficult position – the only way to make up for the losses of BREXIT is to grow the economy more internally and that means masses of internal investment for which I see no appetite whatsoever.
All I see from Labour is GIGO – garbage in = garbage out.
I do agree. Brexit was a disastrous electoral mistake. We need the investment and the labour the EU provides (ask the soft fruit growers, seasonal labour only Europe can provide. For Scotland EU membership is a critical factor because we have an existential demographic crisis. Scotland’s native fertility rate is 1.3 births per woman: the replacement rate is 2.1 per woman. You work it out. Only the EU provides redemption from this destiny, not least because we have long experienced the benefits, which we can readily compare with chaos and deprivations of Brexit Britain: but at the same time the EU alone also offers young Scots a reciprocal, richer, wider range of ready opportunity in the world than a perversely inward, backward looking, shrunken UK.
100% correct John: Scotland simply cannot afford to remain in the UK – politically, economically or demographically. It will inevitably lose its identity, culture and experience, yet again, massive emigration of its brightest. In contrast, provided it meets the criteria, an independent Scotland would be welcomed into the EU or the single market or the FTA. The EU is fully aware that Scotland was torn out of the EU against the wishes of most of its electorate by Brexit and needs to be a participant in its own right in a wider global marketplace to fulfill its enormous potential.
Labour’s a waste of space isn’t it? Just for folk who can’t recognise when they’re being gas-lighted!
He’ll say whatever he thinks he needs to say to win the next election. And once he’s won it, he’ll do exactly whatever he wants to do, irrespective of what “pledges” or “manifesto promises” were heralded and sworn to. It’s all just a big game. Say some stuff now to keep the media off their back and the xenophobic red/blue wallers on side, then all bets are off as to what he’ll actually do when in power. One thing I’m certain off though, is it won’t be anything that history will remember him for… his ambitions go no further than being able to add “Prime Minister” to his list of titles. They certainly don’t extend to improving the lot of the ordinary citizen.
And whilst I’m here, I listened to the witterings on Radio 4 yesterday about how the UK should engage with China. It struck me as the equivalent of straightening the pictures on the wall as an earthquake hits. Should I give a monkey about our relationship with China, when it’s our relationship with the very planet on which our whole existence depends, that is the existential crisis we should be attending to? As if “the 3 Cs” are going to make a blind bit of difference to a flash flood or a wildfire. Whilst we’re “challenging or cooperating or competing”, the world is burning. The only thing we’ll be competing on soon is the last remaining spot of high ground left on Earth because you can be sure as hell that all scope for cooperation and challenge will have disappeared by then. I despair…
Might Labour, like the Conservatives and, possibly, the Lib Dem party,, be for the fat wallets and purses even at the cost of the thin ones?
The strategic error in Labour’s position is similar to the Tory party’s position. Both think the EU gives a sh*t about Brexit, whereas it has moved on, and with a greater confidence.
Brexit may be a running sore in England but here in the EU it’s historic, over and these days the EU has better things to do (Lampedusa for example) than listen to the embittered whinings of an ex.
It will just shrug if presented with “cake and eat it” 2.0 no matter what colour the ribbon is on it.
The question is will the EU want to change things too much? It’s certainly in Britain’s interest to change things, and change them a lot (and change them on to a path to rejoin), but the EU have said many times that they are not intererested in Britain cherry picking.
I think (and very much hope) this is all a ‘don’t scare the red wall’ (or what they still think is opinion there) strategy. However, public opinion has shifted a great deal towards rejoin (latest poll 62% rejoin, 38% stay out) – Labour has to be bolder.
Essentially the ‘strongest growth in the G7’ won’t happen unless – at least – joining the customs union and single market. Fully joining the EU would be the very best.
Labour party members and Labour voters are over 70% in favour of a path to rejoining, so I hope Starmer is going to be pushed in this direction come what may.
The crumb of comfort I have is that, at least Starmer says he wants to change the utterly awful ‘deal’ that is there now, as I wouldn’t have put past him to double down and say ‘nothing needs to change’.
Duncan wrote: “…the EU have said many times that they are not interested in Britain cherry picking.” Back in the 1990s I was working in Germany and a German colleague gave the best critique I’ve heard of the UK’s attitude to its (then) membership of the EU. He said “we’re all going to a football match. Some of us will go in the players’ entrance, get changed and go out to play the game; the rest of us will go into the grandstand and simply watch the game and shout at the players. Britain sits in the grandstand and shouts – mainly abuse”. That was a good decade before the Brexit referendum. It rang true then and still does to this day and the memory of the obstructive behaviour of Farage and his supporters in EU debates (while happily pocketing their EU salaries and massive expenses) won’t be forgotten.
All the bluster around rejoining or staying out will only reinforce Europe’s view. If approaches to rejoin are made, expect the price of tickets for the grandstand to be massively higher than they were and, once bitten twice shy, the EU would view the UK with understandable suspicion and keep it at arm’s length. The notion of UK exceptionalism and being a “special case” will not be tolerated.
That was us.
And Starmer has to find a way to convince the EU otherwise in a FPTP system.
No chance…..
In power, Labour’s hand will most likely be forced by events. There is currently no growth, and no credible or viable plan to restore growth – including trade deals with far flung emerging markets. This means that as long as inflation remains in the system, everyone on average will be poorer- especially those unable to work the system, such as the powerful unions. Labour’s current economic policies will not move the dial – so the SM and CU are in fact the clearest and simplest way to square this circle. At the end of the day, economics always trumps the words of politicians.
Why will infaltion stay in the system?
Reducing inyterest would remove most of it now.
The crackpottery of Liz Truss goes on. Her stupidity and ignorance, her failure, her Conservative Party’s disastrous mismanagement; she is already rewriting as the fault of the Left – which has been out of power for decades. Note the technique – the Right is never wrong; if the Right is found out, it all because what you thought was the Right, was really the Left. This was Hayek”s technique in the ‘ Road to Serfdom’. So if you think Truss was wrong, then she must be Left. So Truss herself, according to Truss, must be wrong. It wasn’t Truss, it was the “reaction”. It wisnae me. Yes Liz, it was you. You just don’ understand what you are doing. You, and the right Right are quite simply out of their depth. There is too much regulation! No mention of Brexit. No mention of the Financial Crash – right wing capitalism free of regulation. Why does this irresponsible fool still command a public access microphone? Only in this feckless country.
I’ve said it before and I shall say it again: the priority has to be to get rid of the Tories, and the only way to do that is to vote Labour, even if their proposed policies are nowhere near good enough to mend and renew our broken nation(s). Labour do not attract many of us, for they are dull, unexciting, unimaginative, and offer a restricted vision of the future; but they are not the Nasty Party – they may be dull, but they are not evil like so many Tories, they are not corrupt, they are not fascist, they are not cruel, they are not anti progress, they are not constantly looking back to a supposed golden age of God King and Empire. Furthermore, they do have men and women of talent and wisdom among them, who will surely be able to urge the party and a Starmer led towards more progressive and enlightened policies. My inclination would be to vote Green (at least in England), but with the FPTP system of electing MPs, that would be a waste of the vote. Notice how it is quite probable that in Mid Beds, Mad Nad’s old seat, the Tories are likely to return an MP to Westminster with only 35% of the vote because the anti Tory vote will be split equally between other parties. If any of you folk reading this are contemplating witholding your vote out of disgust for Labour, just remember that you could thereby effectively be voting Tory.
I used to think as you do.
I now do not.
I do not think Labour is benign any more. I think it is malign. And that changes everything.
No, Mike G that is wrong, with a capital W. I’ll leave aside discussion of labour people compared to tory ones, or labour’s policies, and point out the following.
There are two ways of voting. You can vote positively for a party because it’s policies are closest to the things you want, or negatively against a party because you want them out of office. You are saying your positive vote would be for the greens; so would mine.
However, you then say that due to FPTP that is a wasted vote; I disagree. If you are going to vote positively then you indicate your support for the party you most want to be in power because you think their’s are the best policies. That is the greens, for both of us.
If you are saying that due to FPTP one must vote negatively, that is different. Then, depending on the constituency, you will vote labour, LD, green or in Scotland, SNP; whichever has the best chance of defeating the appalling tories. It is a cold, rational calculation constituency by constituency that is ruthlessly focused on getting rid of the absolute maximum number of tory MPs possible. Note, however, that this is NOT, NOT, NOT the same as voting labour regardless.
The problem with this is that for it to work properly it needs co-ordination amongst the non tory parties to avoid just the situation you describe in the upcoming Mid Beds by-election.
And as far as I know, this is not happening, mainly due to labour’s refusal to lead an anti tory alliance. Just telling people ‘you’ve got to vote labour’ isn’t good enough Mike. The main reason the tories have been in since 2010, and hence why we’re in this situation, is labour’s betrayal of the left in 1997 when it dropped plans to reform FPTP, and because labour is an insanely tribal organisation that puts itself above the national interest, just like the tories.
Exactly what John Warren points out, in other words.
But we are always being told that! Have to vote labour or you let the tories in.
The poll I saw was labour and tories both on 29%. So if everyone who decided that they don’t really want to vote for them decided to vote Green, Green would win.
Or if everyone who decided they didn’t want labour or tory decided to vote libdem, libdem would win. They are on 22% of the vote in the poll I saw.
Did you know that any labour party members who state online that they voted for any other party will be banned from the party? Do you think that is acceptable in a democracy?
” Labour do not attract many of us, for they are dull, unexciting, unimaginative, and offer a restricted vision of the future; but they are not the Nasty Party – they may be dull, but they are not evil like so many Tories, they are not corrupt, they are not fascist, they are not cruel, they are not anti-progress, they are not constantly looking back to a supposed golden age of God King and Empire. ”
Mike G, you must be supremely naive if you think there is no cruelty or corruption in the Labour Party. Go and watch The Labour Files (all episodes available on YouTube) if you require proof. If they are not anti-progress, why has Starmer backtracked on every progressive pledge he made as leader? As for the harking back to a golden age every time Starmer is on television he is draped in a Union Jack. However, I do agree that Labour are dull and uninspiring.
Bloomberg and others give the annual cost of Brexit as £100 billion. A trillion in a decade.
We need politicians and journalists to keep demanding of Starmer ‘how do you justify this loss instead seeking to reverse it?’
To add to that Yougov reported in July that if the referendum were held now, 55% would vote to remain and 31% to leave.
In favour of re-joining 51% to 32%. Almost a fifth ‘don’t know.’ That last could be a problem but re-joining the single market would be the single most useful thing he could do.
Duncan wrote: “…the EU have said many times that they are not interested in Britain cherry picking.” Back in the 1990s I was working in Germany and a German colleague gave the best critique I’ve heard of the UK’s attitude to its (then) membership of the EU. He said “we’re all going to a football match. Some of us will go in the players’ entrance, get changed and go out to play the game; the rest of us will go into the grandstand and simply watch the game and shout at the players. Britain sits in the grandstand and shouts – mainly abuse”. That was a good decade before the Brexit referendum. It rang true then and still does to this day and the memory of the obstructive behaviour of Farage and his supporters in EU debates (while happily pocketing their salaries and massive expenses) won’t be forgotten.
All the bluster around rejoining or staying out will only reinforce Europe’s view. If approaches to rejoin are made, expect the price of tickets for the grandstand to be massively higher than they were and, once bitten twice shy, the EU would view the UK with understandable suspicion and keep it at arm’s length. The notion of UK exceptionalism and being a “special case” will not be tolerated.
I apologise for double-posting the above. Put it down to having to go out at short notice for a couple of hours and not remembering whether I had sent it earlier.
Surely the sensible strategy for Labour *if* it wins the GE, and the UK as a whole. would be not to go for a full rejoin, but a Norway-style relationship? I.e. single market and Customs union, and what goes with those. While giving some consolation to the Brexit-fanatic voters, and diminishing the power of fools or knaves to pressure us to join the eurozone. In fact, what should and could have been done in 2018/9 if the hotheads and the corrupt had been overcome.
Given the EU is not having us back yet that would make sense
But you have to make clear your direction of travel and Labour has not got anywhere near doing that
The Brexit-fanatics are not susceptible to ‘consolation’. I am constantly amazed by how little sensible people understand about the nature of neoliberal ideologues, or their openness to reason. or even discussion. Britain is a mess. It didn’t happen by accident. It took forty years of fanatical stupidity to arrive here. It is time to realise that you are not dealing with reasonable or sensible people. Listen to Liz Truss’s speech yesterday if you wish to have an inkling of just how absurdly, comically mad British politics has become. I keep saying this, but all institutions with any power over money or people do not attract the brightest and best. This is Britain; it is far more likely the institution will be, or has been taken over by people your best judgement would expect would quickly be rejected. They aren’t. Not least because the prevailing regime will almost certainly select for advancement those candidates most like themselves; the people least capable or inappropriate for the task. Ask yourself who is attracted to power and money; and who are most likely to climb the greasy pole; no matter what? I suggest the most ruthless, the most indifferent to the cost to everyone else of their success, and the capacity best to disguise their personal objectives.
In spite of day and daily depressing revelations about all our institutions; from Parliament, police, media, and on an on, to myriad other institutions with large public obligations; all revealing long-standing failures we are endlessly told were fixed; but clearly are not. It is long overdue to recalibrate the reality of Britain, and the gap between the reality of Britain’s values and culture, and the inflated reputation for high standards our sense of self-esteem and over-inflated interpretation of our own history we are foolishly led to adopt. It really has to stop. Only then can we address the scale of the problem; because it is quite obvious we are now going round in circles, making the same bad mistakes about people in power; time after time, after time.
I happened to stumble on a repeat of an old Have I Got News For You on Dave tonight. It was from Theresa May’s premiership and she was of course ridiculed throughout by the panel. However I was struck by an appalling thought: she may have been the best Prime Minister of UK so far in this century! Although she was far from effective and did kowtow to the DUP, she didn’t cause us to leave the EU, she didn’t start any wars, tank the economy and lie constantly about everything. It’s a damning indictment of the other six contenders and, especially, of the UK’s political system that she probably did less damage overall than they did.