I read an article by Andrew Gwynne MP, who is head of strategy for Labour in the Guardian, and was baffled by his logic. The main claims with which I take issue are in this paragraph:
On Brexit, what Labour is trying to achieve is much harder and more complex than those who say we need to simply swing behind remain admit. It would be the easiest option and perhaps superficially give us a short-term boost, but we are a national party seeking support from people all over the country, unlike the “leave means leave” charade of the Tories and Nigel Farage, or the “stop Brexit” simplicity of the smaller parties.
There are two key questions to ask, but they are alternatives. The first is ‘How wrong can he be?' And the other option is ‘How disingenuous can he be?'
Let's deal with ‘wrong' first. First, what Labour might have ever tried to achieve on Brexit is now history. It's nonsense to pretend otherwise. What ‘a' customs union rather than ‘the' Customs Union was meant to mean is now irrelevant, and a red herring anyway since ‘a' customs union with the EU was never a viable option given they would only do ‘the' customs union. There are only three options now. They are No Deal, May's Deal and Revoke, Remain and Reform. Those are it. There is nothing else on the proverbial table Labour likes to pretend exists. And Labour is not going to back May's Deal unless it wants to commit electoral suicide, and lose in the Commons as well, so there are actually only two options. They are No Deal and Remain. To pretend that there is anything else is just that: a pretence. And to pretend that the choice is hard is absurd: it's not. It's obvious. No Deal would be a catastrophe; is probably illegal is a misnomer because there has to be a deal. That means that the first half of this paragraph is nonsense.
The second half may be worse. What it says is Labour wants to be all things to all people in order to secure their vote. But that is complete nonsense.
It does not want the support of homophobes, even though they exist.
Or racists.
Or misogynists.
Or those who oppose union rights.
They may want to persuade those people they are wrong. But they are not seeking to garner their support as they are. And I sincerely hope that they are not willing to appease them to win their votes. Instead, they oppose them. They take a position. They say they are wrong. They go without their votes. Because it's the right thing to do.
As it would be the right thing to do to say that Labour opposes Brexit because it will destroy the well being of millions of people in this country and benefit only a small, largely already wealthy, minority who seek it to make profit at cost to society at large.
How hard is that for Labour to do? It's not hard at all, I would have thought. It's what politics is about, after all. Taking a principled position is at the core of politics. Arguing for it when others do not agree is what political leadership is about. As is the resulting risk-taking. And people vote for that integrity.
But Labour has forgotten that. At its very core - and I am presuming Andrew Gwynne represents its very core - it is wrong then.
And it is either does not know that, in which case it is unelectable, or Gwynne knows that what he is saying is wrong, which makes him disingenuous, and Labour unelectable.
I will leave others to decide which is worse. But either way, no wonder Labour lost seats. And will continue to do so.
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 about the structural unemployment and economic hardship the EU has imposed on southern and eastern europe through free movement of labour and highly regulated labour markets..fair enough the richer countries have benefited but only to the detriment of poorer nations. E,g 90% of Bulgarian medical students emigrate upon graduation.
What about germanys influence of the ECB? They ignore the pressing problems of unemployment and a lack of growth in the poorer nations with too much of a bias towards the old anti inflationary stance of the bundesbank.
The single currency is a totally flawed concept and is centre stage in the EUs target of a federal state.
The CAP was the most inefficient economic policy known to man.
How can you preach democracy and the EU in the same breath?
So there you go..i am actually undecided if it came to a second referendum but i do know understand there are plenty of valid objections to membership and it is absolutely wrong for you to asset brexiteers are in any way necessarily bigots or fascists or whatever..the EU as an entity is massively flawed and contrary to what you say forcing change from within in the direction Britain wants it to go just isn’t going to happen..so allow a balanced argument and don’t force your prejudice unfairly by imposing “slanderous labels” on people with a different view to yourself.
That was the ECB and the euro
I do not defend it for a moment
It needs reform
But there is no chance of that from outside
And this does not apply to the UK because the EU gave us a choice. Some democratically made a bad choice. WEe made a better one. But let’s not pretend that this was imposed then
I am sorry -0 but I find people making stuff up – and you are – really unappealing
But then this is about the twentieth identity you have used on this site
Richard, it sounds like you don’t believe Labour should support the deal at all even if it were subject to a ratification referendum. Am I right?
I do not think it should support the deal: it’s an awful deal, why support it?
The Greens believe any deal should be subject to a ratification referendum and I guess Labour can say: ‘We tried to respect the result and we are giving the public a chance to accept or reject the deal that’s actually on offer.’
I would have preferred a Norway option if we did have to leave but I am still a remainer
Matt Barker says:
“I would have preferred a Norway option if we did have to leave but I am still a remainer”
But, but …. but we’re not Norway. And we already had (and for now still have) ‘The UK Bespoke’ deal.
Why is anyone even thinking about Norway ? (Except perhaps as a holiday destination; I’m told it’s a very nice country)
Why is anyone even thinking about leaving at all ? Why are we still talking about something so entirely foolish after three years of having it explained that it is a recipe for disaster ?
Largely I believe it is the result of parliamentary group-think. We don’t have nearly enough social diversity in our parliament. Ergo we don’t, in reality, have a representative democracy.
Andy, our current deal is very good for us. James O’Brien nicknamed it ‘Germany Plus.’
Revoke, remain and reform, using the Green New Deal, sounds like the best way forward.
If May’s deal WERE subject to a referendum vs Remain, Remain would win as virtually everyone hates her deal.
I must mention Owen Smith speaking out and saying he’d vote against Brexit as it’d harm his constituents even if they punished him at the ballot box. That’s courageous
I agree: our current deal is very good: better than anything we could get
@Matt Baker
“I must mention Owen Smith speaking out and saying he’d vote against Brexit as it’d harm his constituents even if they punished him at the ballot box. That’s courageous”
Is it come to this? Where to speak honestly requires our representatives to be ‘courageous’ ? His constituents should perhaps have the opportunity to unseat him BEFORE he has the opportunity to cast a vote against their wishes (?) Force a bye election Mr Smith if you want my recognition of your courage. Otherwise: No cigar, Pal’.
Many MPs are acting as delegates rather than representatives. Also the referendum was won on lies and incompatible promises. We were supposed to have £350m per week for the NHS, the easiest trade deals in history and they needed us more than we needed them.
Johnson, Fox and Davis were in the top jobs in government and had every opportunity to make Brexit work
Matt Barker says:
“Johnson, Fox and Davis were in the top jobs in government and had every opportunity to make Brexit work”
There was never a chance of making Brexit work. The referendum was not supposed to go the way it did. They were playing a very silly, very expensive game and by winning the referendum, by mistake, they lost the game.
Good point Andy; the look on Johnson and Gove’s faces said it all on the morning of 24 June
I don’t think there’s a single word I would disagree with there, Richard.
I’m utterly dismayed at the ‘stance’ (and that is to pretend there is anything worthy of the name) that Labour is taking and has taken throughout.
Gwynne refers to the ….“leave means leave” charade of the Tories”…. apparently oblivious to the fact that Labour has accepted exactly the same vacuous charade.
I can’t imagine what the writer was using for a brain when he wrote this. Nor indeed why the Guardian would think it fit to get past the ‘spike’.
Richard Tuck’s position is that the left’s ‘natural’ position should be opposition to the undemocratic EU. He seems to think that a genuine Brexit, whatever that is, would lead to a Labour government and lead to Scotland not wanting to leave the UK. A Labour government freed from EU policy restrictions would then enact ‘traditional socialist’ policies — if he means those of the ’70s, I am not sure I am interested. I think we should move on, as indeed we have, and implement modern socialist policies. I am not certain Tuck knows what he is talking about when it comes to the EU, even allowing that the EU is more than a little undemocratic.
I am not sure why he thinks the UK will vote for a form of socialism if it leaves the EU that it has never voted for before, and which Corbyn is clearly unable to deliver
larry says:
“…. I am not certain Tuck knows what he is talking about when it comes to the EU,….”
If you are reporting him correctly he doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp when it comes to the UK either. 🙂
The only way the Left can be of use to us – real people – is if it stops being Left with all the confused Neo-lib/Third Way / historical Marxism paraphernalia and strikes out a new direction along the lines of GND, MMT, PQE etc.
In other words it needs to be novel and try out these new ideas and stop rehashing old ones.
Labour to me is just as narrow minded as any Tory party in its own way.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:”
“In other words it needs to be novel and try out these new ideas and stop rehashing old ones.”
If by ‘the left’ here, you are alluding to the Labour party, I have one question:
Have you ever seen a leopard with stripes ?
Okay; two questions: Do you ever expect to see a leopard with stripes ? 🙂
It’s a funny old world Andy.
You never know what might happen, so it is always worth speculating.
And do not rule out that Labour might change because it simply has to.
And what we are seeing is maybe the birth pangs of a much more mixed political economy, coalition and PR – the end of FPTP effectively.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“….. do not rule out that Labour might change because it simply has to.”
Well it did before; it became Blairite ‘New Labour’. That sort of pragmatism I can do without. I think we all could have done without that.
I can’t quite see how we will change the real options without a PR voting system that allows much more nuanced policy choices. At present it’s rather like buying a suit with a choice of jacket or trousers that fit, but with the other looking as if it belongs to someone else. Burton’s solved that problem a long time ago, but it seems to defeat our politicians to see it as a problem in the political arena , let alone address it. 🙁
Perhaps the way to go is for the rUK to vote SNP and take to wearing kilts. (?) 🙂
“They may want to persuade those people they are wrong. But they are not seeking to garner their support as they are. And I sincerely hope that they are not willing to appease them to win their votes. Instead, they oppose them. They take a position. They say they are wrong. They go without their votes. Because it’s the right thing to do.”
A really excellent point – I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better explanation of what is wrong with Labour’s position than you have given in this article.
I like a lot of Labour’s policies under Corbyn, and for me that makes it all the more upsetting that they’ve got it so totally and utterly wrong on Brexit.
Thank you so much for this article. Your point is well taken. Basically any party that wants to be ‘all things to all people’ is doomed. Unless all people agree on every issue–what a wonderful world, eh, as long as they all agree with ME–that’s just not possible.
A party should set out its principles, and work its proverbial tail off to get people on board with those principles. Enough people to sway an election, and give the party a chance to put the principles into practice.
Who knows. If the principles are sound enough they may END UP representing what all the people believe. But a party that tries to be all things to all people at the start of the process, when there is great division of opinion and orientation, is doomed to failure. By representing ‘everybody’ it will end up representing nobody …and won’t be able to effect any real change.
When I first heard Corbyn speak of social justice and redistribution of wealth, I was taken in for a while, not long, but long enough to feel as if I was back in my twenties, hoping for Utopia. Populism can be attractive when your brain is switched off.
And that’s the trouble, Corbyn’s Utopia belongs to another world, not this very real one we live in.
The trouble with him and his close entourage is that they don’t want to, or can’t, get real. They’re in a sort of unattractive parallel universe, where appeasing racist thugs has become an apparently inevitable path to reach Utopia.
“Respect the vote” …I hear them repeat as a mantra, rather than repeat why this vote was definitely not respectable, for all the reasons we’ve heard again and again from other sources, not from Labour who lack the courage to tell it as it is, yet can do so on other issues.
Labour have serious problems they need to address before they can govern, but then look at the Tories in government…
No wonder the Brexit gamble is such a mess. I’m all in favour of revoking an illegal vote and clearing up the mess.
The EU is in need of reform, many voices inside it are ready and organised to challenge the Status Quo…one way or another…as we’re likely to see on 23rd May.
The EU is aware that reform is the only way it’ll survive this huge populist wave weakening and threatening almost all its members.
For the EU, it is reform or disappear. For the UK, it is Remain or disappear.
These are frightful times, yet there so much potential thanks to the Extinction Rebellion wave and all the other environmentalist movements very loudly countering greed and ignorance, beyond party politics.
Marie Thomas says:
“When I first heard Corbyn speak of social justice and redistribution of wealth, I was taken in …..”
Indeed, he talks well; interviews superbly in an unflappable way, which is impressive (well I’ve been impressed), but there are such big ‘buts’…
…and increasingly I’m afraid the ‘buts’ have it (to paraphrase the parliamentary vote declaration). His party membership gave him a mandate for changing the Party and he did bugger-all about it. I think it’s too late now. 🙁
You’re spot on there Marie. One of the reasons I rarely listen to the news any more is to avoid the ‘respect the referendum result’ phrase from moderate Tories and Labour MP’s who should know better. It’s blindingly obvious the result is not valid since it was obtained by lies and electoral fraud. And we can now see the damage its doing to the economy and the UK’s reputation, and we haven’t even left yet. All due respect to Owen Smith for his stance.
The fact that Labour, as the main opposition party, doesn’t say this, is all the proof I need that Corbyn and his coterie don’t get it. Come the Euro elections, Labour deserve to lose votes and MEP’s just as much as the Tories. I’ll be voting Green. Given that the Euro elections are held using a (not the best) form of PR, my vote might, for the first time in my life, actually get someone I voted for elected. Apparently, the Greens only need another 1% on top of the vote they got last time, to get an MEP elected in the Eastern region. Here’s hoping………
I hope you get your wish. I would have liked to vote Green in these EU elections, as I’ve done before on a few occasions, but having looked at the most likely win on the pro-Remain side, I have voted Plaid (postal).
We cannot afford to split the remain vote here, so a tactical vote it was.
The Greens are closest to my values, but this time I can’t afford the luxury.
Plaid have been in coalition with the Greens several times in my constituency, they are well aware of the substantial Green vote in their electorate and can’t afford to lose it, so they do listen to pressure.
The outgoing MEP is doing a decent job in Brussels, and I’m happy to back her up, for as long as she’ll be there…
Long live coalitions