So to summarise. We're leaving the EU but staying in the EEA with unchanged Single Market access, full financial services passporting and continued trading of Euro denominated products. We'll be allowed to turn the exceptions in FoM into proper restrictions with no reciprocal restrictions on us. Our long term interests won't suffer from the loss of Commissioner, MEP's and council members. All the other EFTA states and the European Parliament will agree to this. All Leave voters will accept continued large annual migratory flows and the multi billion £ annual budget contributions we'll have to continue paying.
I'm pleased that's sorted then.
We haven't had any firm proposals of what is to come. I think what you've done here is merge multiple suggestions into one to make it look ridiculous.
The hilarious bit is that NAFTA is far more dominated by the US, than the US is by Germany. The number of successful ISDS claims against the US by Canadian or Mexican firms...
Zero
Yes but for Trump entrenching a 'victim' complex amongst his base is a tactical manoeuvre
I'm still struggling to understand those who still think Trump won't become president. It's hard to see how he can't win at the moment.
Because his coalition is about 40% of the US, and he's really pissed off large chunks of the other 60%.
The NAFTA stuff is good, populist red meat. If he hadn't managed to monumentally upset women, and hispanics, he might have stood a chance.
The US can join our new five eyes free trade area
A UKUSA (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) free trade area (...even to some extent political union) should have happened post-WWII.
There is now a new chance that, once we get EFTA membership sorted, we can arrange something with the other four Anglo nations.
I suggested on a previous thread, somewhat tongue in cheek, that we ought to seek some kind of reciprocal migration rights with Canada, USA, Aus and NZ. If we were going to have free movement with 400 million other people, it would make more sense on a lot of levels for them to be Anglophone countries with comparable GDP/capita to us. In an age of cheap and rapid air travel, distance is rather less of an object than 50 years ago.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU.
Unfortunately it is likely, for reasons of inertia if nothing else, that article 50 will be invoked. But it's still not clear to me why (apart from wanting to avoid responsibility) parliament is not considering the referendum result before making a decision on whether it's in the interests of the UK to leave the EU. It seems obvious to me that the addition of a referendum into the usual democratic process does not remove the role of parliament and the government in the matter.
Essentially, Parliament ignores what the voters said (which Parliament CAN do if it wishes of course) and it will find itself on the receiving end of a shit storm so great from the electorate that it'll make this past weeks events look like a walk in the park.
Does anybody seriously want Prime Minister Farage and UKIP government within the next decade? Because that's what you'll get if you just tell the voters to do one.
There has to be a fundamental change after this vote, clearly. I think the political class will get away with EEA if they play it right but that's the absolute minimum voters want and even that won't be enough for a lot of them...
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Well if your analysis is correct, the EU will need an institutional framework for a two speed Europe which will ultimately subsume EFTA into the outer core. At some point we'd inevitably face a choice between rejoining the EU as an associate member or quitting.
Or perhaps the EU becomes a federal state and EFTA (Britain included) becomes that federal state's neighbouring (but still sovereign) allies/economic partners... there is no need for a complex system of associate/outer membership when the inner core (which will eventually be the entirety of the EU) becomes a single country. The other countries of Europe become just that - the other countries of the Europe.
The philosophical challenge is that even in the fully developed version of a federal superstate, it will still always be made up of sovereign entities with the theoretical power to secede unilaterally. As such it will never be 'one country' in the sense you imply.
The institutions are fundamentally designed to cater for multiple countries pooling their sovereignty, and it's completely unsatisfactory to have a significant group of nations being beholden to the decisions made by the core, but having no real way to take part in the decision making process.
That's the present situation. Clearly the EU's next step is away from that model and towards an actual federation, where sovereignty is genuinely split between the federation and its states like in the US.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
I disagree. After forty years of terrier-like adherence to unpopular causes, and obtaining Ph.Ds in "The Rulebook and Standing Orders: a Revolutionary Perspective", Corbyn and his mates are battle-hardened from wars of attrition fought through 1970s General Management Committees and on the GLC, and were fully expecting and prepared for this counter-revolution...
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
Corbyn's educational qualifications extend to 2 E's at A Level. How the heck did he get to be leader of the opposition?
So to summarise. We're leaving the EU but staying in the EEA with unchanged Single Market access, full financial services passporting and continued trading of Euro denominated products. We'll be allowed to turn the exceptions in FoM into proper restrictions with no reciprocal restrictions on us. Our long term interests won't suffer from the loss of Commissioner, MEP's and council members. All the other EFTA states and the European Parliament will agree to this. All Leave voters will accept continued large annual migratory flows and the multi billion £ annual budget contributions we'll have to continue paying.
I'm pleased that's sorted then.
It's the best we're gonna get - or as near as we can manage - because, with the announcement of the EU army, there really is no way we're going back IN.
I think you need to think of it like this: which Democrat states can Trump flip, and which Republican states are threatened?
Trump can win a bunch of rustbelt states from Hillary: Ohio and Michigan being the major ones.
But: Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada are unwinnable for Trump and Arizona and Utah could flip the other way. That means that even if Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio all fall to Trump, he probably falls short.
Trump can win, but he's the underdog.
You think Florida is unwinnable? The 26th June poll has Clinton with a 3pt lead. Also polling is indicating that Pennsylvania could flip, which would be huge for Trump. He's still behind but only by 4pts.
I do agree that under the College he has a tough task.
The Five Eyes as a more well known grouping would be a much cooler union to be part of, name wise.
Sounds like an evil organisation..... maybe more than a hint of truth in that
"Gentleman, welcome to the 'Dark Order'" "Boss?" "Yes?" "Could we perhaps rename our secret society a little? It makes us sound, well, evil. Which we are, of course, but is it really necessary to make it so obvious?"
Useless fact: the number of votes cast at the referendum narrowly failed to beat the 1992 record. The referendum total was 33,577,342 compared to 33,614,074 in 1992.
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
If Leave was a single platform, that would be great. But we're not. We contain people that see the EU as a capitalist plot and want to use our exit to increase tariffs on steel to protect Port Talbot. We have people who want us to sign an FTA with China, so we'll never be able to impose a penny of tariffs on Chinese steel. We contain people who want WTO, who want Canada, and who want EFTA/EEA.
I don't know what the answer is; I only know that nobody knows it.
I fail to see how that makes a blind bit of difference. It made little difference when we discussed it before the referendum; it makes even less now the referendum is over.
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
I'm still struggling to understand those who still think Trump won't become president. It's hard to see how he can't win at the moment.
Because his coalition is about 40% of the US, and he's really pissed off large chunks of the other 60%.
The NAFTA stuff is good, populist red meat. If he hadn't managed to monumentally upset women, and hispanics, he might have stood a chance.
The US can join our new five eyes free trade area
A UKUSA (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ) free trade area (...even to some extent political union) should have happened post-WWII.
There is now a new chance that, once we get EFTA membership sorted, we can arrange something with the other four Anglo nations.
Why do people cling to the fantasy that the USA would be interested in such a thing? It is a global power with its own interests.
Erm, care to explain then why it *wouldn't* be interested in a free trade area with the other four main English-speaking nations?
The EU has embedded into your mind that you can only be a member of a single bloc... but that's only true with blocs that are actually political unions rather than economic areas. There should be nothing stopping a country being a member of more than one trade bloc.
The US already has deals with three of the four of the four of those via NAFTA and TPP. It was negotiating with the fourth via TTIP before we Brexited. A Five Eyes deal on top just to suit us now we've stropped off sounds like a white Commonwealth anglospherist fantasy to me.
So to summarise. We're leaving the EU but staying in the EEA with unchanged Single Market access, full financial services passporting and continued trading of Euro denominated products. We'll be allowed to turn the exceptions in FoM into proper restrictions with no reciprocal restrictions on us. Our long term interests won't suffer from the loss of Commissioner, MEP's and council members. All the other EFTA states and the European Parliament will agree to this. All Leave voters will accept continued large annual migratory flows and the multi billion £ annual budget contributions we'll have to continue paying.
I'm pleased that's sorted then.
We haven't had any firm proposals of what is to come. I think what you've done here is merge multiple suggestions into one to make it look ridiculous.
I think some remainers are still in the denial phase - there is no way we won't leave the EU. Article 50 to be invoked by end of 2016 for sure. As much as I would prefer it not to be the case, we have made our choice. I don't doubt that our parliament would keep us in if they thought they could get away with it, but we are no longer wanted by the important players in the EU. Doesn't matter what Lithuania says, the only one in our corner that matters is Merkel, and she is not as omnipotent in Europe as people portray. The rest will want us gone quick and getting on with their ever closer union.
Our future is now Britzerland (or Brorway, Briceland, Briechtenstein , take your pick!) the EU will integrate into a federation a lot quicker without us. There won't be contagion. We are the most eurosceptic country in Europe and we only voted out by 52-48, with a rabidly anti Eu press and mainstream politicians campaigning to leave - in other EU states it's just a secondary part of your bog standard far right platform. Not gonna happen.
Shilly shallying over invoking Article 50 is just adding to the air of uncertainty Drag it on too long and increasing damage is done to the City for no purpose.
Exactly. we should indicate Asap and certainly before September that we will go down eea route without special negotiations on FoM. Giving some clarity on direction is what businesses need now.
Anything that requires special negotiations cannot provide clarity because it leaves open the possibility that agreement won't be reached.
The most reassuring thing that could happen right now is to indicate that the Article 50 can will be kicked for as long as we feel like it (i.e. until we get something regarded by the government as better than the status quo).
There's no time limit on invoking Article 50. Referendums are only advisory so theoretically we could never invoke it. Yet the uncertainty of not invoking it is perhaps even riskier than doing so.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
I disagree. After forty years of terrier-like adherence to unpopular causes, and obtaining Ph.Ds in "The Rulebook and Standing Orders: a Revolutionary Perspective", Corbyn and his mates are battle-hardened from wars of attrition fought through 1970s General Management Committees and on the GLC, and were fully expecting and prepared for this counter-revolution...
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
Corbyn's educational qualifications extend to 2 E's at A Level. How the heck did he get to be leader of the opposition?
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
If Leave was a single platform, that would be great. But we're not. We contain people that see the EU as a capitalist plot and want to use our exit to increase tariffs on steel to protect Port Talbot. We have people who want us to sign an FTA with China, so we'll never be able to impose a penny of tariffs on Chinese steel. We contain people who want WTO, who want Canada, and who want EFTA/EEA.
I don't know what the answer is; I only know that nobody knows it.
Well said, Mr. Robert. This life thing is sort of tricky, ain't it? No certainties, few even really solid bets. We just have to muddle through making our decisions based on our beliefs and values.
It is a real bugger, but somehow mankind has managed to move on from living in caves.
I think it was fairly obvious to everyone that Corbyn will never resign. He's probably the biggest walking disgrace in British politics right now. In order for him to go, Labour will have to rally around a single candidate and do him in a leadership election. And if he wins that, they'll have to make Labour pretty much impossible for him to lead - like the PLP having a different leader to Corbyn. Either that, or they have to hope that a snap GE is called, and Corbyn gets clobbered there and so has no choice to leave. But I'm beginning to think, even in the event of losing a GE this man wouldn't resign either.
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
If Leave was a single platform, that would be great. But we're not. We contain people that see the EU as a capitalist plot and want to use our exit to increase tariffs on steel to protect Port Talbot. We have people who want us to sign an FTA with China, so we'll never be able to impose a penny of tariffs on Chinese steel. We contain people who want WTO, who want Canada, and who want EFTA/EEA.
I don't know what the answer is; I only know that nobody knows it.
They never will, because there is no answer.
If the final proposal isn't put to a vote there will be hell to pay. If a small, determined group of anti-eu people can have made so much trouble imagine what the betrayal of pretty much everyone who voted could otherwise result in.
At least with a vote then the government can say that they only betrayed a minority.
And on Corbyn winning the leadership election: well today, Paul Waugh reported that his own council in Islington, has turned against him. Islington is surely the most left-wing place in Britain? I wonder if that's something to read into.
Death toll is now reported to be 50+ on Istanbul. Sky reporting that the turks think it is ISIS.
There is some doubt regarding who is responsible. Officials put IS in the frame and the attack type looks like it could be theirs, but IS sources don't seem to want to put their stamp on it as yet..
And on Corbyn winning the leadership election: well today, Paul Waugh reported that his own council in Islington, has turned against him. Islington is surely the most left-wing place in Britain?
Yes. That's why we had a referendum about it. One side won; one side lost. That's how it works. You don't get a rematch because you don't like the outcome.
If Leave was a single platform, that would be great. But we're not. We contain people that see the EU as a capitalist plot and want to use our exit to increase tariffs on steel to protect Port Talbot. We have people who want us to sign an FTA with China, so we'll never be able to impose a penny of tariffs on Chinese steel. We contain people who want WTO, who want Canada, and who want EFTA/EEA.
I don't know what the answer is; I only know that nobody knows it.
If the final proposal isn't put to a vote there will be hell to pay.
I'm fine with another vote on those grounds, but one isn't needed - people voted without a clear prospectus other than the eventual endgame, and now its in the hands of our elected representatives. Plus coming back to the electorate runs the risk Leavers will also find the people can give the 'wrong' answer.
And on Corbyn winning the leadership election: well today, Paul Waugh reported that his own council in Islington, has turned against him. Islington is surely the most left-wing place in Britain? I wonder if that's something to read into.
They made a tactical withdrawal of motion of support, AIUI...
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
Great analysis David but rather than 'vying with' the SNP for fourth place Corbynite Labour would certainly be behind them, unless they could mop pretty much every abstention and spoiled ballot (unlikely). The risks for the Corbyn camp are too extremely high. I cannot see the PLP backing down now, so it may actually come to it that the party will split.....
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Quite right Nick.
Jeremy should stick to his guns, the leadership is a matter for the members - that is the rulebook !
If the MPs had followed the spirit of the rulebook in the first place they woudn't be suffering because of it now - they agreed an MP threshold for just this sort of situation, if that rule was important to them, they shouldn't have ignored it at the time, in spirit, by having people who didn't support him nominate him.
That's true but equally if Corbyn has followed the spirit of the Labour constitution he would have resigned having lost the backing of 80% OF HIS OWN MPS. When the rules were changed, no-one saw it necessary to say that one in such a position must resign, assuming that no-one would ever carry on in such circumstances.
Corbyn should simply have been subjected to a leadership challenge. The wave of resignations and the shutting down of the opposition is parliament is incredibly high risk. If Corbyn is reelected it is game over for your party.
I think it was fairly obvious to everyone that Corbyn will never resign. He's probably the biggest walking disgrace in British politics right now. In order for him to go, Labour will have to rally around a single candidate and do him in a leadership election. And if he wins that, they'll have to make Labour pretty much impossible for him to lead - like the PLP having a different leader to Corbyn. Either that, or they have to hope that a snap GE is called, and Corbyn gets clobbered there and so has no choice to leave. But I'm beginning to think, even in the event of losing a GE this man wouldn't resign either.
That's it. Even a crushing defeat (highly likely) would be unlikely to cause him to resign. He'll blame the defeat on the PLP rebellion.
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win.
I query how deeply committed the Corbynista wave of members are. Many may already have drifted off now the moment of magic has gone - what with attention spans these days, they may have lost interest some time ago. Others may have stuck around but become less sanguine about his prospects, especially young'uns disappointed he didn't put his shift in during Brexitref.
I'm also told the young'uns like Vice News these days and that documentary about him can't have helped one jot.
The flip side is that, even though the party may have been changed too by the walk-out of many centrist members disgusted by Corbyn's initial victory, these people have the chance to get their party back, and will be motivated to rejoin for the big vote.
So, after the second referendum, what's to stop the losers calling for a third? At what stage do we have legitimacy?
Not everyone calling for a second referendum is calling for rerun. Some are calling for one to be on the deal prior to or toward the end of the article 50 period. Now, that idea makes little sense to me, the EU isn't going to predeal us to that extent before article 50, and if we said no to the deal at the end of article 50 we still leave but without anything we may have gotten in that deal, so why risk it?
But I think it important to distinguish that idea from 'let's rerun'. The latter is not illegal, but politically hard to justify, likely to have the same result and, as you say, what would stop the calling of a third? The former would be a vote on a new situation.
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
This is a lot like the "Should we ask the voters if they want to leave the EU" question. The argument against giving them the choice is that they may choose it, if they do it will produce a very, very bad outcome, and when they make the choice they may not fully grasp the badness of the outcome.
Just in case you're not convinced how bad this outcome is going to be, we're talking about going into an election where either: a) Nearly all the candidates have said they have no confidence in their leader, and they're noe standing for election asking the voters to make that person Prime Minister. b) Most of the incumbent MPs have been deselected, and many are presumably running against the official Labour candidate either as independents or as part of a new party.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
Quite right Nick.
Jeremy should stick to his guns, the leadership is a matter for the members - that is the rulebook !
If the MPs had followed the spirit of the rulebook in the first place they woudn't be suffering because of it now - they agreed an MP threshold for just this sort of situation, if that rule was important to them, they shouldn't have ignored it at the time, in spirit, by having people who didn't support him nominate him.
That's true but equally if Corbyn has followed the spirit of the Labour constitution he would have resigned having lost the backing of 80% OF HIS OWN MPS. When the rules were changed, no-one saw it necessary to say that one in such a position must resign, assuming that no-one would ever carry on in such circumstances.
Corbyn should simply have been subjected to a leadership challenge. The wave of resignations and the shutting down of the opposition is parliament is incredibly high risk. If Corbyn is reelected it is game over for your party.
Exactly. These are playground tactics from children, who think Corbyn will run home in tears to Mummy, just like they would...
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
Since the EU is a constantly evolving institution, I don't think either option in the referendum could be put forward as representing a preservation of the status quo (or at least, a lasting one). That's one argument against imposing a supermajority. There are democratic arguments against supermajority too, of course.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
No, it reflects his steadiness under fire: I like to think I'd do exactly the same. I was talking this evening to three Tories (social friends) who said they would probably never vote for him, but his nerves were impeccable, and they wished their own people were more like that "instead of tossing their toys out of the pram whenever anything doesn't go their way".
MPs don't have a special right to choose the leader, or indeed a special right to be Labour candidates. They do have the right to trigger an election and ask the membership to choose. For Corbyn to deny them that choice would be to let down members who want him to continue. We shall see if that's a majority or not. Why should he be intimidated out of giving us the choice?
This is a lot like the "Should we ask the voters if they want to leave the EU" question. The argument against giving them the choice is that they may choose it, if they do it will produce a very, very bad outcome, and when they make the choice they may not fully grasp the badness of the outcome.
Just in case you're not convinced how bad this outcome is going to be, we're talking about going into an election where either: a) Nearly all the candidates have said they have no confidence in their leader, and they're noe standing for election asking the voters to make that person Prime Minister. b) Most of the incumbent MPs have been deselected, and many are presumably running against the official Labour candidate either as independents or as part of a new party.
I think it was fairly obvious to everyone that Corbyn will never resign. He's probably the biggest walking disgrace in British politics right now. In order for him to go, Labour will have to rally around a single candidate and do him in a leadership election. And if he wins that, they'll have to make Labour pretty much impossible for him to lead - like the PLP having a different leader to Corbyn. Either that, or they have to hope that a snap GE is called, and Corbyn gets clobbered there and so has no choice to leave. But I'm beginning to think, even in the event of losing a GE this man wouldn't resign either.
That's it. Even a crushing defeat (highly likely) would be unlikely to cause him to resign. He'll blame the defeat on the PLP rebellion.
I think you are right about this. The waves of resignations and motions of no confidence are a sign of weakness, not strength. They are trying to blackmail or shame him into resigning because they are scared that they will lose a leadership election with the current Labour electorate. And so far Corbyn is not shifting. I do not see how Labour avoids breaking into 2 in this scenario.
@jimwaterson: Talking to ex shadow cabinet minister (that doesn't narrow it down) who concludes "the party's fucked", not sure Eagle/Watson can unfuck it.
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
The Labour brand is strong. Put a 'Labour' candidate up in say Hull or Liverpool it will beat any "SDP Mk2". Diana Johnson MP for Hull North is MP because she had 'Labour ' after her name - no one voted for Diana Johnson they all voted for Labour. Take that away she and many of the resigners lose their safe seat.
So, after the second referendum, what's to stop the losers calling for a third? At what stage do we have legitimacy?
Not everyone calling for a second referendum is calling for rerun. Some are calling for one to be on the deal prior to or toward the end of the article 50 period. Now, that idea makes little sense to me, the EU isn't going to predeal us to that extent before article 50, and if we said no to the deal at the end of article 50 we still leave but without anything we may have gotten in that deal, so why risk it?
But I think it important to distinguish that idea from 'let's rerun'. The latter is not illegal, but politically hard to justify, likely to have the same result and, as you say, what would stop the calling of a third? The former would be a vote on a new situation.
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
What should have happened is no referendum, as we are a representative democracy. If we had to have a referendum it should have been a super majority required, a clear precedent that was set when we joined in the 1970s.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Well if your analysis is correct, the EU will need an institutional framework for a two speed Europe which will ultimately subsume EFTA into the outer core. At some point we'd inevitably face a choice between rejoining the EU as an associate member or quitting.
Or perhaps the EU becomes a federal state and EFTA (Britain included) becomes that federal state's neighbouring (but still sovereign) allies/economic partners... there is no need for a complex system of associate/outer membership when the inner core (which will eventually be the entirety of the EU) becomes a single country. The other countries of Europe become just that - the other countries of the Europe.
The philosophical challenge is that even in the fully developed version of a federal superstate, it will still always be made up of sovereign entities with the theoretical power to secede unilaterally. As such it will never be 'one country' in the sense you imply.
The institutions are fundamentally designed to cater for multiple countries pooling their sovereignty, and it's completely unsatisfactory to have a significant group of nations being beholden to the decisions made by the core, but having no real way to take part in the decision making process.
Not really. What you are describing is an "intergovernmental" model. The EU is actually "Supranational". (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union). The Founding Fathers always intended it to be so, to replace nation states altogether. There were some noble motives behind this - which are a separate discussion.
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
The Labour brand is strong. Put a 'Labour' candidate up in say Hull or Liverpool it will beat any "SDP Mk2". Diana Johnson MP for Hull North is MP because she had 'Labour ' after her name - no one voted for Diana Johnson they all voted for Labour. Take that away she and many of the resigners lose their safe seat.
Put a UKIP candidate up in Hull and they may well beat a free-movement-backing Labour party. They'd almost certainly beat two Labour parties competing against each other.
So, after the second referendum, what's to stop the losers calling for a third? At what stage do we have legitimacy?
Not everyone calling for a second referendum is calling for rerun. Some are calling for one to be on the deal prior to or toward the end of the article 50 period. Now, that idea makes little sense to me, the EU isn't going to predeal us to that extent before article 50, and if we said no to the deal at the end of article 50 we still leave but without anything we may have gotten in that deal, so why risk it?
But I think it important to distinguish that idea from 'let's rerun'. The latter is not illegal, but politically hard to justify, likely to have the same result and, as you say, what would stop the calling of a third? The former would be a vote on a new situation.
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
I have no interest in rerunning a referendum which rejected one proposal but without giving a coherent replacement. We need to be shown a replacement which we can then vote on. At that point, the opposite would then be what is on the table from eu membership. Likely that might be a worse deal than what we have now but at least people would have had a proper binary choice, not the status quo versus a vague idea.
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win.
I query how deeply committed the Corbynista wave of members are. Many may already have drifted off now the moment of magic has gone - what with attention spans these days, they may have lost interest some time ago. Others may have stuck around but become less sanguine about his prospects, especially young'uns disappointed he didn't put his shift in during Brexitref.
I'm also told the young'uns like Vice News these days and that documentary about him can't have helped one jot.
The flip side is that, even though the party may have been changed too by the walk-out of many centrist members disgusted by Corbyn's initial victory, these people have the chance to get their party back, and will be motivated to rejoin for the big vote.
Does anyone have much sense of the numbers?
My sense is that the Corbynista types love nothing more than a battle and will become involved again to protect their man even if they haven't been that involved in the interim. The Momentum movement now appears from the outside to be a very powerful force in the party. I would like what you say to be true because we urgently need a sane opposition testing the government's position in a meaningful way but I fear it is not.
(Am trying to figure out what percentage of the Sun readership will have heard of Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff - think that aspect is going to go over some younger heads even if the independence day reference doesn't!)
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
The Labour brand is strong. Put a 'Labour' candidate up in say Hull or Liverpool it will beat any "SDP Mk2". Diana Johnson MP for Hull North is MP because she had 'Labour ' after her name - no one voted for Diana Johnson they all voted for Labour. Take that away she and many of the resigners lose their safe seat.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
The Labour brand is strong. Put a 'Labour' candidate up in say Hull or Liverpool it will beat any "SDP Mk2". Diana Johnson MP for Hull North is MP because she had 'Labour ' after her name - no one voted for Diana Johnson they all voted for Labour. Take that away she and many of the resigners lose their safe seat.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
(Am trying to figure out what percentage of the Sun readership will have heard of Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff - think that aspect is going to go over some younger heads even if the independence day reference doesn't!)
It seems to me quite likely that Corbyn will win another leadership contest because the membership of the Labour party has changed significantly since he became leader and indeed in the run up to his win. This puts the MPs in the PLP is a very difficult position. In such a scenario they will have to leave the party. Corbyn is making it equally clear that if they don't they will be deselected in any event. If they want to continue with a career in politics then they have to leave the party (assuming Corbyn is re-elected).
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
The Labour brand is strong. Put a 'Labour' candidate up in say Hull or Liverpool it will beat any "SDP Mk2". Diana Johnson MP for Hull North is MP because she had 'Labour ' after her name - no one voted for Diana Johnson they all voted for Labour. Take that away she and many of the resigners lose their safe seat.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
True. But it will make some MPs who are less than enthused with Corbyn very nervous.
It's why the 10 years of EFTA/EEA option is so attractive: it stops the disappearance of firms now, and allows us the window to negotiate more down the road
But once we're in EFTA it won't be any easier to change that status than it has been to get us out of the EU. You'd need a whole new referendum and all the associated disruption.
Oh, we'd never leave EFTA/EEA. Why would we? It's popular with something like 85% of Norwegians.
Well if your analysis is correct, the EU will need an institutional framework for a two speed Europe which will ultimately subsume EFTA into the outer core. At some point we'd inevitably face a choice between rejoining the EU as an associate member or quitting.
Or perhaps the EU becomes a federal state and EFTA (Britain included) becomes that federal state's neighbouring (but still sovereign) allies/economic partners... there is no need for a complex system of associate/outer membership when the inner core (which will eventually be the entirety of the EU) becomes a single country. The other countries of Europe become just that - the other countries of the Europe.
The philosophical challenge is that even in the fully developed version of a federal superstate, it will still always be made up of sovereign entities with the theoretical power to secede unilaterally. As such it will never be 'one country' in the sense you imply.
The institutions are fundamentally designed to cater for multiple countries pooling their sovereignty, and it's completely unsatisfactory to have a significant group of nations being beholden to the decisions made by the core, but having no real way to take part in the decision making process.
Not really. What you are describing is an "intergovernmental" model. The EU is actually "Supranational". (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union). The Founding Fathers always intended it to be so, to replace nation states altogether. There were some noble motives behind this - which are a separate discussion.
To move beyond nation states in practice, but legally the foundation is still of sovereign states coming together by treaty.
So, after the second referendum, what's to stop the losers calling for a third? At what stage do we have legitimacy?
Not everyone calling for a second referendum is calling for rerun. Some are calling for one to be on the deal prior to or toward the end of the article 50 period. Now, that idea makes little sense to me, the EU isn't going to predeal us to that extent before article 50, and if we said no to the deal at the end of article 50 we still leave but without anything we may have gotten in that deal, so why risk it?
But I think it important to distinguish that idea from 'let's rerun'. The latter is not illegal, but politically hard to justify, likely to have the same result and, as you say, what would stop the calling of a third? The former would be a vote on a new situation.
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
What should have happened is no referendum, as we are a representative democracy. If we had to have a referendum it should have been a super majority required, a clear precedent that was set when we joined in the 1970s.
But Ho hum, good night.
The nature of the question was boneheaded - do you want a specific thing that you know about or something else? A choice between two clearly defined choices would have worked but, as it is, we now have so many competing versions of what it meant and what to do that more people will feel that their views have been ignored than if we hadn't held a referendum in the first place.
So, after the second referendum, what's to stop the losers calling for a third? At what stage do we have legitimacy?
Not everyone calling for a second referendum is calling for rerun. Some are calling for one to be on the deal prior to or toward the end of the article 50 period. Now, that idea makes little sense to me, the EU isn't going to predeal us to that extent before article 50, and if we said no to the deal at the end of article 50 we still leave but without anything we may have gotten in that deal, so why risk it?
But I think it important to distinguish that idea from 'let's rerun'. The latter is not illegal, but politically hard to justify, likely to have the same result and, as you say, what would stop the calling of a third? The former would be a vote on a new situation.
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
What should have happened is no referendum, as we are a representative democracy. If we had to have a referendum it should have been a super majority required, a clear precedent that was set when we joined in the 1970s.
But Ho hum, good night.
The nature of the question was boneheaded - do you want a specific thing that you know about or something else? A choice between two clearly defined choices would have worked but, as it is, we now have so many competing versions of what it meant and what to do that more people will feel that their views have been ignored than if we hadn't held a referendum in the first place.
This is exactly correct. We have seen the triumph of tactics over strategy.
If Boris has so many on board already the anyone but Boris crowd need to clear the field fast. Too much of a lead with MPs and Boris may pick up e en more votes than he woukd anyway as people sweep behind an expected winner.
(Am trying to figure out what percentage of the Sun readership will have heard of Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff - think that aspect is going to go over some younger heads even if the independence day reference doesn't!)
Yes - I'm old enough (just!) to remember Doris Day, but I didn't get it. I'm not even sure now that it's intended to be a reference to her, though William's link is tempting!
I'm sorry but only 24% of Labour voters voting Leave does not tally with the huge Leave leads in Labour heartlands, the polls are way underestimating wwc voters in England outside London, again.
I'm sorry but only 24% of Labour voters voting Leave does not tally with the huge Leave leads in Labour heartlands, the polls are way underestimating wwc voters in England outside London, again.
24% of previous labour voters voted leave. The other leave voters had never voted previously as ivoting wouldn't make a difference in the safe labour seat.
Sadly for labour these voters now know where the polling station is, so Next time they will vote ukip as they will have found their party that could actually win provided all their friend turn up
This is a lot like the "Should we ask the voters if they want to leave the EU" question. The argument against giving them the choice is that they may choose it, if they do it will produce a very, very bad outcome, and when they make the choice they may not fully grasp the badness of the outcome.
Just in case you're not convinced how bad this outcome is going to be, we're talking about going into an election where either: a) Nearly all the candidates have said they have no confidence in their leader, and they're noe standing for election asking the voters to make that person Prime Minister. b) Most of the incumbent MPs have been deselected, and many are presumably running against the official Labour candidate either as independents or as part of a new party.
The party represents the views of its members. If Corbyn is re-elected, we're in the position that we've re-run the referendum and got the same result. The MPs then need to either stop whinging, leave, retire or be deselected. If they are really concerned about Labour winning seats, and not merely indulging their personal views, then they won't stand as independents. If they do, they may mostly fail - the market for a pro-EU centre-left ex-Labour party run by someone who most people have barely heard of is limited. But they're free to try - standing for what you believe in and giving an honest choice is the very definition of democracy. What is dishonest is seeking votes as the representative of a party whose elected leader you oppose and want to undermine.
We need to keep a sense of proportion in assessing the role of MPs here. I used to claim a decent personal vote, but I'm no illusions that I'd have got more than 10% if I'd stood as Independent Labour. Nor is there any particular reason why the party should have followed my advice, or that of numerous other MPs mainly elected because of the party label. Maybe it's how Burke thought the system should work, but it's not actually worked like that for the last 50 years.
Conversely, though, if he's not re-elected, left-wing members need to put up with it too, and Corbyn won't be leading a dissident ex-Labour left-wing party. They don't own the party either.
I'm sorry but only 24% of Labour voters voting Leave does not tally with the huge Leave leads in Labour heartlands, the polls are way underestimating wwc voters in England outside London, again.
I imagine that previous non voters are the reason for the high leave vote in those areas.
The still don't get it do they? The Guardian, Polly, Dawkins, 80% of Westminster. They still think that what happened on Thursday can somehow be ignored or reversed when the electorate comes to their "sense's".
This is possibly the defining moment of the 21st century for this country but they've not woken up to the new reality.
To his credit I think Cameron has but he is in the minority.
Yes it does. I imagine the Guardian decided not to let the facts get in the way of it's weak joke. However she does speak for Remainia. No other front rank politician is marshalling a pro European response. Of course it's all about her independence positioning how sitting in the smouldering ruins I appreciate her gesture.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
It's important to note that there are two different groups of rebels - people like Southam who disapprove of Corbyn and/or his policies and think he shouldn't be PM and people who don't feel that but just think he's not doing well and they need a (so far unspecified) more popular leader. Most of the resignation letters are in the latter category.
If he's re-elected, the first group really need to go - perhaps by forming another party - if they're honest. The second group will shake their collective head dubiously but can honestly stand on the Labour ticket, if they want to.
Thanks for the thought provoking article Tissue Price. I think you are bang on the money with that assessment of both Boris Johnson and Theresa May at this point. But where I differ from your analysis is on George Osborne, I have never bought into the idea that he ever wanted the Leadership, but rather that he wanted to have a continued pivotal position of power within this Conservative Government. Had Remain won, even narrowly. I think that far from being fatally wounded in his ambitions, Osborne would have remained a key player, ultimately helping to decide the timing of Cameron's departure at the optimum time for his chosen successor.
We keep forgetting that it was Osborne, and not Cameron who was Michael Howard's favoured candidate to run against David Davis eleven years ago. But unlike Gordon Brown, Osborne realised that he simple was not the man to led the party or to appeal to the electorate. And nothing in the intervening period has suggests that either he or the electorate have changed their minds on this view. Osborne has never enjoyed the big Conference Set piece stage events, a key party of the Leaders job, and often appeared uncomfortable or even surprised when he scored a hit and tickled the party faithful with an eye catching fiscal policy.
Osborne really did seem to prefer to sit back and work behind the scenes, leaving Cameron to be the front man of this Leadership team. I still maintain that Osborne remains one of the most underrated politicians in UK politics, but a politician who really did enjoy the cut and thrust of performing at the despatch box in the HoC's in his Treasury brief. So as the issue of buyers remorse has been raised in on the back of the EU Ref result, so too will it appear on the Conservatives backbenches when both Cameron and Osborne leave their jobs in that house.
Personally, if I was the new Leader of the Conservative party who wanted to negotiate the best deal for the UK on the back of Brexit... I certainly would not chose to side line Osborne, someone who has not only built up some very useful contacts in the EU, US and IMF, but who will also bring real experience and insight to a UK negotiating team. Not only has he been an integral part of the Cameron's Leadership team in Government, he was also a key player in preparing for Coalition with the Libdems in the event of a Hung Parliament six years ago.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
It's important to note that there are two different groups of rebels - people like Southam who disapprove of Corbyn and/or his policies and think he shouldn't be PM and people who don't feel that but just think he's not doing well and they need a (so far unspecified) more popular leader. Most of the resignation letters are in the latter category.
If he's re-elected, the first group really need to go - perhaps by forming another party - if they're honest. The second group will shake their collective head dubiously but can honestly stand on the Labour ticket, if they want to.
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option. One reason why politicians who can't realistically win tend to resign is that it frees up people on their side to make their next move.
This is explained by his fundamental lack of intelligence. A decent man - which Nick assures us Corbyn is - would not be behaving in this way if he were bright.
I disagree. After forty years of terrier-like adherence to unpopular causes, and obtaining Ph.Ds in "The Rulebook and Standing Orders: a Revolutionary Perspective", Corbyn and his mates are battle-hardened from wars of attrition fought through 1970s General Management Committees and on the GLC, and were fully expecting and prepared for this counter-revolution...
The careerists up against them think a few tears, pleas and walk-outs will induce collapse, as if they are blancmanges in their own image.
They really don't know what they're dealing with. And never did...
Corbyn's educational qualifications extend to 2 E's at A Level. How the heck did he get to be leader of the opposition?
The still don't get it do they? The Guardian, Polly, Dawkins, 80% of Westminster. They still think that what happened on Thursday can somehow be ignored or reversed when the electorate comes to their "sense's".
This is possibly the defining moment of the 21st century for this country but they've not woken up to the new reality.
To his credit I think Cameron has but he is in the minority.
I can't help sympathising with them to a certain extent since I voted the same way as they did, but in the end you have to accept the result however much you disagree with it.
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option.
If only. That relies on two big assumptions (a) that hard left zealots are capable of rational thought and (b) that they would be more concerned about a Labour electoral wipeout than the failure of their new electoral vehicle to attain full ideological purity. If for years you've been flogging the dead horse of a far left grouping so irrelevant that it can't even scrape together enough signatures to contest elections, then the prospect of taking over a viable party and turning it into one capable of even 10% support might still be quite attractive.
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option.
If only. That relies on two big assumptions (a) that hard left zealots are capable of rational thought and (b) that they would be more concerned about a Labour electoral wipeout than the failure of their new electoral vehicle to attain full ideological purity. If for years you've been flogging the dead horse of a far left grouping so irrelevant that it can't even scrape together enough signatures to contest elections, then the prospect of taking over a viable party and turning it into one capable of even 10% support might still be quite attractive.
Indeed, the pay-offs for Team Corbyn as so different from those for the rest of the PLP that the latter simply don't understand him. Classic Game Theory set up ...
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
SNIP
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option. One reason why politicians who can't realistically win tend to resign is that it frees up people on their side to make their next move.
No, the Government are not busy blowing up the economy, they are trying to make the best of the decision made by the UK electorate! I voted to remain in the EU, was gutted by the result, but that is democracy and the voters have spoken. Been amazed at the sheer anger being directed at the Conservative Government from those on the losing side of this Referendum for allowing this referendum to happen. But they had a clear mandate to hold that EU Referendum, just as the SNP did with the Indy Ref after the 2011 Holyrood elections. And despite all the wailing from the Libdems, both the Conservatives and the SNP got a far clearer mandate than they did to hold a referendum on our voting system via a Coalition Government agreement.
Been following politics closely for thirty years, and the one issue that has continued to fester within the Conservative party was the EU. And that was because it was continuing on a road to a federal state that saw more and more major decisions being made that impacted in the UK on a daily basis without our consent. But you just have to look at the last Euro elections, UKIP were becoming the dominant UK party in the EU Parliament while not even having a single MP at Westminster! And it wasn't just disaffected Conservative voters that were voting Ukip, it was Labour voters turning out in their droves in their heartlands. I have been of the opinion for a while now that Ukip will like the SNP in Scotland, now flourish in the vacuum being left by the Labour party in their heartlands if they don't fundamentally modernise and start speaking for rather than down to their Labour heartlands. If the last three Holyrood elections were not a loud enough wake up call, then the Welsh Assembly election result really was the final warning.
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option.
If only. That relies on two big assumptions (a) that hard left zealots are capable of rational thought and (b) that they would be more concerned about a Labour electoral wipeout than the failure of their new electoral vehicle to attain full ideological purity. If for years you've been flogging the dead horse of a far left grouping so irrelevant that it can't even scrape together enough signatures to contest elections, then the prospect of taking over a viable party and turning it into one capable of even 10% support might still be quite attractive.
Indeed, the pay-offs for Team Corbyn as so different from those for the rest of the PLP that the latter simply don't understand him. Classic Game Theory set up ...
Corbyn, unlike the plotters, is no doubt aware of Chairman Mao's motto.
'Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent...'
Now - of all times - is not the time to abandon the revolution, but to consolidate it!
No, the Government are not busy blowing up the economy, they are trying to make the best of the decision made by the UK electorate! I voted to remain in the EU, was gutted by the result, but that is democracy and the voters have spoken. Been amazed at the sheer anger being directed at the Conservative Government from those on the losing side of this Referendum for allowing this referendum to happen. But they had a clear mandate to hold that EU Referendum, just as the SNP did with the Indy Ref after the 2011 Holyrood elections. And despite all the wailing from the Libdems, both the Conservatives and the SNP got a far clearer mandate than they did to hold a referendum on our voting system via a Coalition Government agreement.
Been following politics closely for thirty years, and the one issue that has continued to fester within the Conservative party was the EU. And that was because it was continuing on a road to a federal state that saw more and more major decisions being made that impacted in the UK on a daily basis without our consent. But you just have to look at the last Euro elections, UKIP were becoming the dominant UK party in the EU Parliament while not even having a single MP at Westminster! And it wasn't just disaffected Conservative voters that were voting Ukip, it was Labour voters turning out in their droves in their heartlands. I have been of the opinion for a while now that Ukip will like the SNP in Scotland, now flourish in the vacuum being left by the Labour party in their heartlands if they don't fundamentally modernise and start speaking for rather than down to their Labour heartlands. If the last three Holyrood elections were not a loud enough wake up call, then the Welsh Assembly election result really was the final warning.
I'm not disputing that the government had a mandate to do this stupid thing, but the result isn't going to be pretty, and the voters aren't going to say, "Fair enough, it's all our fault for voting leave, thank you for doing such a great job limiting the damage."
The upshot should be a great opportunity for Labour, and for the left in particular, since they have majority support with the membership and a decent grip on the NEC. However, it looks like they're instead going to insist on trying to hang onto Corbyn, which seems like a coin flip that either cedes control of the party back to the centrists or splits the party and loses them most of their MPs.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
It's important to note that there are two different groups of rebels - people like Southam who disapprove of Corbyn and/or his policies and think he shouldn't be PM and people who don't feel that but just think he's not doing well and they need a (so far unspecified) more popular leader. Most of the resignation letters are in the latter category.
If he's re-elected, the first group really need to go - perhaps by forming another party - if they're honest. The second group will shake their collective head dubiously but can honestly stand on the Labour ticket, if they want to.
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option. One reason why politicians who can't realistically win tend to resign is that it frees up people on their side to make their next move.
Is there a market for "Progressive Democrats" ? An alliance of breakaway Labour MPs*, Liberal Democrats. At least, it would limit the massacre. Remember this time, the breakaway Labour MPs will be the bigger majority.
*assuming Corbyn wins a Leadership contest. Also Labour Party assets are owned by CLPs apart from Labour HQ assets.
That was indeed the SDP experience. And they had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams leading them (and of course Bill Rogers). Real heavyweights, especially in Roy's case!
I think the lessons are mostly applicable but the branding is probably not as strong now as it was back in the day.
It's important to note that there are two different groups of rebels - people like Southam who disapprove of Corbyn and/or his policies and think he shouldn't be PM and people who don't feel that but just think he's not doing well and they need a (so far unspecified) more popular leader. Most of the resignation letters are in the latter category.
If he's re-elected, the first group really need to go - perhaps by forming another party - if they're honest. The second group will shake their collective head dubiously but can honestly stand on the Labour ticket, if they want to.
The problem I'm having with all this is that aside from who is right to be indignant about who, the most optimistic case so far articulated for keeping Corbyn seems to result in SPDv2 and an electoral wipeout for Labour.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option. One reason why politicians who can't realistically win tend to resign is that it frees up people on their side to make their next move.
Is there a market for "Progressive Democrats" ? An alliance of breakaway Labour MPs*, Liberal Democrats. At least, it would limit the massacre. Remember this time, the breakaway Labour MPs will be the bigger majority.
*assuming Corbyn wins a Leadership contest. Also Labour Party assets are owned by CLPs apart from Labour HQ assets.
I'm not sure whether it would limit the massacre, it may well make it worse. But I think it's where we're headed.
Find a couple of big donors, maybe a union or two. There will be plenty of Short money around, and if more than half of you do it you'll be back on the front benches next week. I know it will feel difficult as you've given years of your life to the Labour brand, but that brand is now trash and someone needs to oppose the government at this turbulent time.
I’m not just talking about social media. I’m talking about much of the broadcasting establishment. Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
It's the second one. If you paid attention to the campaign, then the positions they took afterwards, I think this is pretty much impossible to deny.
Edit to add: In theory it could be "cynical manipulators of non-racist people concerned about immigration" but they were definitely taking the voters for chumps.
I’m not just talking about social media. I’m talking about much of the broadcasting establishment. Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
That's hilarious. After a 43 year culture war against our place in Europe Hannan is bleating about 5 days of blow back. Well he can suck it up. He's the establishment now. He Brexit, he can can fix it.
I’m not just talking about social media. I’m talking about much of the broadcasting establishment. Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
That's hilarious. After a 43 year culture war against our place in Europe Hannan is bleating about 5 days of blow back. Well he can suck it up. He's the establishment now. He Brexit, he can can fix it.
PoliticalBetting.com the home of "grown-up" political discussion....
17.4 million people voted to Leave, are they all racists ? Its the Remainers that need to suck it up, stop throwing their toys around like spoiled 2 year olds and start working for the country. Abdicating and saying they because you didn't break it, you are not going to contribute to fixing it is the act of a petulant child.
I get the impression that rather too many people on these forums, supposedly politically engaged people that supposedly love their country would much rather gloat over a pile of smouldering ashes than help make things better.
Find a couple of big donors, maybe a union or two. There will be plenty of Short money around, and if more than half of you do it you'll be back on the front benches next week. I know it will feel difficult as you've given years of your life to the Labour brand, but that brand is now trash and someone needs to oppose the government at this turbulent time.
Most MPs represent safe seats. Facing a competitive election is not something they're prepared for.
Given that Rotherham still returns a Labour MP, the prospect of trying to persuade voters to try New Coke must look a lot like hard work.
Re: Boris, he looked to me to be both disciplined, and hard working during the referendum campaign. That doesn't look like a token effort from someone who was just positioning themselves.
That said, I read his Churchill book recently (v.good) and in that he said Churchill adopted the political cause of not giving home rule to india, to gain standing with a faction in parliament that he could use to further his political ambitions.
Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
It's the second one. If you paid attention to the campaign, then the positions they took afterwards, I think this is pretty much impossible to deny.
Edit to add: In theory it could be "cynical manipulators of non-racist people concerned about immigration" but they were definitely taking the voters for chumps.
That's the same lazy thinking from the media that says that Terrorists are Muslims so all Muslims must be guilty by association.
If they want to pull up Farage for his poster then they should talk to Farage about it, rather than the one man who didn't mention immigration throughout the campaign. It's not racist or xenophobic to mention that increasing the population by a third of a million per year is stretching life to breaking point in certain areas.
I’m not just talking about social media. I’m talking about much of the broadcasting establishment. Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
That's hilarious. After a 43 year culture war against our place in Europe Hannan is bleating about 5 days of blow back. Well he can suck it up. He's the establishment now. He Brexit, he can can fix it.
PoliticalBetting.com the home of "grown-up" political discussion....
17.4 million people voted to Leave, are they all racists ? Its the Remainers that need to suck it up, stop throwing their toys around like spoiled 2 year olds and start working for the country. Abdicating and saying they because you didn't break it, you are not going to contribute to fixing it is the act of a petulant child.
I get the impression that rather too many people on these forums, supposedly politically engaged people that supposedly love their country would much rather gloat over a pile of smouldering ashes than help make things better.
Quite. Too many people are now wishing ill on the UK, rather than accepting the decision that's been made and getting on with adjusting to the new normal and making it work.
If they want to pull up Farage for his poster then they should talk to Farage about it, rather than the one man who didn't mention immigration throughout the campaign.
This is the amazing thing about the Leave campaign, nobody seems to be responsible for it. Hannan knew perfectly well what message they were sending, it was perfectly open to him to say that his proposed plan didn't make any difference to immigration. Of course he didn't do that, he was happy to collect the votes of people who didn't want immigration and let the voters find out later.
It's not racist or xenophobic to mention that increasing the population by a third of a million per year is stretching life to breaking point in certain areas.
If you think the campaign was all about population, why were they running posters of lines of brown people who aren't in the UK, when most of the EU population increase was white people who are?
Comments
Does anybody seriously want Prime Minister Farage and UKIP government within the next decade? Because that's what you'll get if you just tell the voters to do one.
There has to be a fundamental change after this vote, clearly. I think the political class will get away with EEA if they play it right but that's the absolute minimum voters want and even that won't be enough for a lot of them...
The man has everything. I think even MPs on the right of the party love him.
SO is only kidding he is a massive fan really
I do agree that under the College he has a tough task.
"Boss?"
"Yes?"
"Could we perhaps rename our secret society a little? It makes us sound, well, evil. Which we are, of course, but is it really necessary to make it so obvious?"
How many of them would take such a radical step? In the case of the SDP it was not enough to give the party the critical momentum it needed to ultimately thrive in the brutal FPTP system. In this case it could in theory be more than 100, possibly nearer 150. That would have major implications. It means they would become the official Opposition in Parliament and Corbyn's band would be reduced to vying with the SNP for 3rd place. It means that they would get the media attention that comes with that.
What would they do with it? Well, the cause of the anger with Corbyn is that Labour were so pathetic in arguing the case for the EU. To these people this is visceral and there is genuine and deep distress arising from the result. Such a party would be pro-EU and in an early election would be committed to never implementing the Article 50 procedure. It is not impossible that some Tory remainers will find such a position attractive. There are a lot of votes available for such a view.
It seems that whoever the Tory leader is they will accept that Out means Out even if they want a position that is not very far out or barely out at all. Their ability to resist an early general election will be contingent upon keeping their own remainers onside. If they left to the new centre left pro-EU grouping the government could fall.
What would Corbyn's cronies position be shorn of their centre left? Who knows? Frankly, who cares?
It is a real bugger, but somehow mankind has managed to move on from living in caves.
If the final proposal isn't put to a vote there will be hell to pay. If a small, determined group of anti-eu people can have made so much trouble imagine what the betrayal of pretty much everyone who voted could otherwise result in.
At least with a vote then the government can say that they only betrayed a minority.
And which leader will want to stake their careers on another risky referendum anyway?
We had the referendum, leave won. And the world changed.
The sooner these MP's come to terms with this and start moving forward positively towards an EEA type solution the better for everyone...
Honestly!
Good night
I'm also told the young'uns like Vice News these days and that documentary about him can't have helped one jot.
The flip side is that, even though the party may have been changed too by the walk-out of many centrist members disgusted by Corbyn's initial victory, these people have the chance to get their party back, and will be motivated to rejoin for the big vote.
Does anyone have much sense of the numbers?
But I think it important to distinguish that idea from 'let's rerun'. The latter is not illegal, but politically hard to justify, likely to have the same result and, as you say, what would stop the calling of a third? The former would be a vote on a new situation.
Honestly, perhaps there should have been a threshold for victory above simple majority, and a promise there would be no further referendums on the same deal, but both sides are disappointed in that regard.
Just in case you're not convinced how bad this outcome is going to be, we're talking about going into an election where either:
a) Nearly all the candidates have said they have no confidence in their leader, and they're noe standing for election asking the voters to make that person Prime Minister.
b) Most of the incumbent MPs have been deselected, and many are presumably running against the official Labour candidate either as independents or as part of a new party.
Fatal Error.
All milk spilled under the bridge now, of course.
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/747907433788542976
But Ho hum, good night.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/one-in-four-labour-voters-less-likely-vote-party-eu-referendum?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union). The Founding Fathers always intended it to be so, to replace nation states altogether. There were some noble motives behind this - which are a separate discussion.
Boris is blond
She is blonde
Good night!
(Am trying to figure out what percentage of the Sun readership will have heard of Doris Mary Ann Kappelhoff - think that aspect is going to go over some younger heads even if the independence day reference doesn't!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/boris-johnson-prime-minister-brexit-second-eu-referendum
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/the-guardian-view-on-scotland-and-brexit-nicola-sturgeon-speaks-for-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Sadly for labour these voters now know where the polling station is, so Next time they will vote ukip as they will have found their party that could actually win provided all their friend turn up
Had me laughing no end about how the name of the "Five Eyes" alliance "would be rather less cool if one of the members dropped out."
As for Doris - they really don't make them like they used to, do they? Had to wipe a tear from eye (as I do every time). Top stuff.
We need to keep a sense of proportion in assessing the role of MPs here. I used to claim a decent personal vote, but I'm no illusions that I'd have got more than 10% if I'd stood as Independent Labour. Nor is there any particular reason why the party should have followed my advice, or that of numerous other MPs mainly elected because of the party label. Maybe it's how Burke thought the system should work, but it's not actually worked like that for the last 50 years.
Conversely, though, if he's not re-elected, left-wing members need to put up with it too, and Corbyn won't be leading a dissident ex-Labour left-wing party. They don't own the party either.
http://news.sky.com/story/1718885/pm-blames-brexit-on-immigration-concerns
This is possibly the defining moment of the 21st century for this country but they've not woken up to the new reality.
To his credit I think Cameron has but he is in the minority.
If he's re-elected, the first group really need to go - perhaps by forming another party - if they're honest. The second group will shake their collective head dubiously but can honestly stand on the Labour ticket, if they want to.
We keep forgetting that it was Osborne, and not Cameron who was Michael Howard's favoured candidate to run against David Davis eleven years ago. But unlike Gordon Brown, Osborne realised that he simple was not the man to led the party or to appeal to the electorate. And nothing in the intervening period has suggests that either he or the electorate have changed their minds on this view. Osborne has never enjoyed the big Conference Set piece stage events, a key party of the Leaders job, and often appeared uncomfortable or even surprised when he scored a hit and tickled the party faithful with an eye catching fiscal policy.
Osborne really did seem to prefer to sit back and work behind the scenes, leaving Cameron to be the front man of this Leadership team. I still maintain that Osborne remains one of the most underrated politicians in UK politics, but a politician who really did enjoy the cut and thrust of performing at the despatch box in the HoC's in his Treasury brief. So as the issue of buyers remorse has been raised in on the back of the EU Ref result, so too will it appear on the Conservatives backbenches when both Cameron and Osborne leave their jobs in that house.
Personally, if I was the new Leader of the Conservative party who wanted to negotiate the best deal for the UK on the back of Brexit... I certainly would not chose to side line Osborne, someone who has not only built up some very useful contacts in the EU, US and IMF, but who will also bring real experience and insight to a UK negotiating team. Not only has he been an integral part of the Cameron's Leadership team in Government, he was also a key player in preparing for Coalition with the Libdems in the event of a Hung Parliament six years ago.
It strikes me that since they have majority support with the membership and the government is busy blowing up the economy, the left should be able to come up with a less disastrous option. One reason why politicians who can't realistically win tend to resign is that it frees up people on their side to make their next move.
"Tissue_Price said:
Hanretty 3am update:
Predicted probability of Britain Remaining: 0"
"Why is Remain still evens with Betfair?"
Been following politics closely for thirty years, and the one issue that has continued to fester within the Conservative party was the EU. And that was because it was continuing on a road to a federal state that saw more and more major decisions being made that impacted in the UK on a daily basis without our consent. But you just have to look at the last Euro elections, UKIP were becoming the dominant UK party in the EU Parliament while not even having a single MP at Westminster! And it wasn't just disaffected Conservative voters that were voting Ukip, it was Labour voters turning out in their droves in their heartlands. I have been of the opinion for a while now that Ukip will like the SNP in Scotland, now flourish in the vacuum being left by the Labour party in their heartlands if they don't fundamentally modernise and start speaking for rather than down to their Labour heartlands. If the last three Holyrood elections were not a loud enough wake up call, then the Welsh Assembly election result really was the final warning.
'Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent...'
Now - of all times - is not the time to abandon the revolution, but to consolidate it!
The upshot should be a great opportunity for Labour, and for the left in particular, since they have majority support with the membership and a decent grip on the NEC. However, it looks like they're instead going to insist on trying to hang onto Corbyn, which seems like a coin flip that either cedes control of the party back to the centrists or splits the party and loses them most of their MPs.
*assuming Corbyn wins a Leadership contest. Also Labour Party assets are owned by CLPs apart from Labour HQ assets.
Find a couple of big donors, maybe a union or two. There will be plenty of Short money around, and if more than half of you do it you'll be back on the front benches next week. I know it will feel difficult as you've given years of your life to the Labour brand, but that brand is now trash and someone needs to oppose the government at this turbulent time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/we-leavers-are-not-racists-bigots-or-hooligans--no-matter-what-t/
...At the time, I dismissed it as a clumsy slip by one reporter. How wrong I was. Since the vote, Remainers have been lashing out like frustrated toddlers. If you voted Leave, you’re a bigot, a hooligan, a thug.
I’m not just talking about social media. I’m talking about much of the broadcasting establishment. Interviewers start from the proposition that Leavers are either racists themselves or cynical manipulators of racism.
Edit to add: In theory it could be "cynical manipulators of non-racist people concerned about immigration" but they were definitely taking the voters for chumps.
17.4 million people voted to Leave, are they all racists ? Its the Remainers that need to suck it up, stop throwing their toys around like spoiled 2 year olds and start working for the country. Abdicating and saying they because you didn't break it, you are not going to contribute to fixing it is the act of a petulant child.
I get the impression that rather too many people on these forums, supposedly politically engaged people that supposedly love their country would much rather gloat over a pile of smouldering ashes than help make things better.
Given that Rotherham still returns a Labour MP, the prospect of trying to persuade voters to try New Coke must look a lot like hard work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
That said, I read his Churchill book recently (v.good) and in that he said Churchill adopted the political cause of not giving home rule to india, to gain standing with a faction in parliament that he could use to further his political ambitions.
https://www.hodder.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9781444783056
If they want to pull up Farage for his poster then they should talk to Farage about it, rather than the one man who didn't mention immigration throughout the campaign. It's not racist or xenophobic to mention that increasing the population by a third of a million per year is stretching life to breaking point in certain areas.