Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can Vince make a Brexit-exit work for the Lib Dems?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can Vince make a Brexit-exit work for the Lib Dems?
In the week when the Brexit talks finally got down to business, the Lib Dems acquired a new leader to head up the fight to – well, that’s the first question: what exactly are the opponents of the government’s Brexit policy (which itself is hardly perfectly defined) themselves advocating?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Can Vince make a Brexit-exit work for the Lib Dems?"
No.
"And can he expand new Lib Dems support beyond Europhiles?"
Yes.
One of the many tragedies of politics is that there rarely seems to be any reward for being proved right.
So the LibDems need more than Brexit. Their problem is that the public desires change at a time when, to them at least, the LDs don't appear to be offering any.
Brexit has given a massive boost to LD membership*, but these new members often are single issue members rather than over the broader range of policy. Opposition to Brexit becomes too dominant as a factor, and in 18 months becomes obsolete. I don't see Cable having the energy or guile to revive the party on a wider policy platform. He is also particularly tainted by student fees, which are going to grow as an issue by the time of the next election as more and more millenials are sucked into the quicksand of debt.
*The Tories have not published recent membership figures, but were dropping quickly 4 years ago. It is quite possible that both LDs and SNP are near equal in numbers.
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/07/20/whats-happening-with-mortality-rates-in-england/
Much of New Labour health policy I disagreed with, but many of the lower profile changes in public health policy over those years are paying dividends. In particular I am thinking of the National Service Frameworks and Quality Outcome Formulae.
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/07/13/10-facts-that-sum-up-our-nations-health-in-2017/
On an individual basis, calorie restriction does bring longevity, and quite possibly health too (reduced dementia risk for example), but how possible is it for whole populations? Intake is also only part of the story. We consume fewer calories than previous generations, but decreasing activity rates have outdone that effect. Humans seem fundamentally like other animals - we are lazy!
Opposition to the EU is an obsession with the far right and lesser extent far left parts of the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean that the centreground nessicarily is europhile. The nature of centrist politics is consensual, unifying and compromising to balance competing interests. This is common to the LDs historically, but also to New Labour and One Nation Toryism. The Brexit debate leaves little ground for compromise on such a binary choice, so little space for the essence of centrism. The closest philosophical position would be a soft EEA/EFTA type Brexit, which in my view should be LD policy. I do have major doubts as to whether such a compromise is available or saleable to the British public, or sustainable in the longer term. Why dance to anothers tune?
I do agree with Dr F, though that the emphasis in the early years of this century on public health did seem to have considerable effects.
I wonder if this is a bit of a mistake. If leaving the EU, medium term, is successful, it just looks wrong and anti-democratic (and before anyone says "But how can a referendum be undemocratic?" I'd point out the Lib Dems opposed a Lisbon referendum when it was available, saying they wanted an In/Out one, then opposed an In/Out referendum, and now oppose the result of the referendum. The only reason they want to consult the public is because it's necessary for us to remain in the EU. At every other opportunity they have opposed a referendum, or any policy that doesn't mean more integration).
If leaving the EU, medium term, is a failure, people may have sympathy but this will also be akin to proposing better fire safety in Rome after half of it burnt down.
Probably the last time I'll post this, but my mid-season review is up, including a bar chart with 30 bars:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/mid-season-review-2017.html
I think that the explanation of why progress in longevity in England* is so much better than other countries is due to other aspects of preventative care such as getting high risk patients treated early with hypertension, diabetes etc as well as tertiary care in specialised stroke services etc.
* Public Health England publish their figures, the devolved nations I am less familiar with.
It wouldn't matter quite so much if a new,future looking, Macronist progressive agenda was core to their appeal.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/tuerkei/sigmar-gabriel-die-tuerkischstaemmigen-menschen-in-deutschland-gehoeren-zu-uns-15117186.html
A very fair piece from David H (and, as always, many thanks). I don't agree with all of it as usual but the general thrust is reasonable.
As a LEAVE-voting LD, I was uncomfortable with a lot of what Tim Farron said in the aftermath of the referendum. To narrow it, I voted to leave the EU, I didn't vote to leave Europe. I'm opposed to the Single Market not because of FoM but because as a device it enriches the wealthier areas of the EU and impoverishes the poorer.
That's not to say we shouldn't and can't have a constructive positive economic relationship with the EU (the political relationship will be more difficult) and work with them in areas of mutual interest and concern. As to whether that's what either the current British Government or the EU wants, that's more open to question.
Beyond that, Britain needs to develop a similar model of international economic co-operation with other areas and countries. On immigration, there needs to be a transparent and fair process applicable worldwide but recognising and indeed encouraging those who want to come to learn or bring needed skills from wherever to study and/or settle. If we are the place where people come to learn, fine - let them study and take back to their own countries that which they have learned from us and use it.
Conversely, there will be areas of the world from which we can learn and the door must be open for British people to go and develop those new skills and bring them back to enrich our country and society.
Yes, we must have an outcome to A50 that works for the whole country, not just business and if May can't deliver a decent Treaty, it has to be opposed but not on the basis either that opposing it means staying in the EU or that opposing it means crashing out without an agreement.
I'd much rather we work to get a Treaty that's right (even if transitional periods allowing for further negotiation are required) than condemn the whole thing and campaign to re-join the EU as though 23/6/16 hadn't happened.
I think there is a bloc of voters out there who want a constructive and positive relationship with the EU, an immigration policy that's fair and transparent and a global, outward-looking country for the 2020s. I don't see either the Conservatives or Labour speaking to that group - the LDs could and in time might but need to make their own journey away from past battles.
On a final point and where I do disagree with David is this notion that suddenly large areas of the country are no-go areas for the LDs. It's always been the case - even in 2005, the LDs were competitive in only 100 seats. All parties have areas where they don't exist or matter - the Conservatives don't exactly run Labour close in East Ham (nor does anyone else), The first priority for the LDs is to get back in as many of the 46 seats won in 1997 as possible.
frankly they'd have done a better job
I do wonder if this is a slight repeat of the We Must Stop This tendency that Blair and Gina Miller and so forth have had. By wasting their ammunition, money, media time etc on trying to deny a democratic result and decry it as unending woe, they're losing a one-off opportunity to try and channel the result in a way that they would see as better (namely, closer ties to the EU whilst still leaving).
If Blair had kept his Lisbon referendum promise, we wouldn't be invoking Article 50 because, in all likelihood, it wouldn't exist.
The LD's should put Brexit to the edge, rather than front and centre of their offer. The priority should be to build a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity. Explain why the national economy is not like a household budget and why the banks want you to think it is. Get the economy working for all, not just a few.
Unfortunately, due to the poisonous experience with the Coalition and in particular the likes of Danny Alexander being closely associated with austerity, this isn't likely to happen.
Anyway, I've become a fan of Richard Murphy. Good blog on this yesterday.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/21/we-can-afford-all-the-public-services-we-need-its-only-our-economic-model-that-prevents-it/
Vince may be in his element if and when it comes to a forensic dissection of the detail and he may well see the anomalies before others on the Conservative side in particular.
May's problem will be to try and prevent an unholy alliance of those who want a stronger break from Europe and those who want to keep a closer relationship. In trying to please both sides, she may well finish up pleasing neither and facing real problems in the Commons.
This will put a fair bit of pressure on health services; not just from false positives, but from required treatment (or advice) for conditions that would have been left undiagnosed before.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/09/corbynomics
https://wingsoverscotland.com/happy-holidays/#comments
Chris Cairns excelling again.
Tuition fees was just awful - had we argued against them and lost that on the floor of the Commons, we could have said to the NUS and others "well, we tried" but to turn round and campaign FOR them was unbelievably bad. Could you imagine a Conservative arguing for cutting taxes and then turning round and supporting a 2p rise in income tax ? I remember Norman Lamont saying "no VAT on fuel" and then introducing it. It killed the Conservatives at the 1993-95 local elections.
The second disaster was the AV referendum - AV has never been LD party policy (STV is the preferred proportional option). AV is in some respects worse than FPTP but as the Conservatives wouldn't even put STV on the ballot paper, Nick felt he had to go back to the Party with something on constitutional reform (he didn't). Could the Conservatives have supported a more proportional system for English local elections (proportional systems exist in Northern Ireland, Scotland and London) and kept FPTP for Westminster ? I think there was a deal to be done there and a wiser leader might have settled for that.
That reassurance has been shattered.
Your other alternative is bolder. Cheat Parliament of its chance to vote down a deal by never reaching one. Keep your hostage in Downing Street and storm on towards the cliff edge in which we tumble out of the EU without agreement. Persuade public opinion that Brussels bullies brought us to this breakdown, negotiation is now impossible, and Britain must walk away — and damn the consequences.
Damning the consequences is all that’s open to you now. Double or quits: a reckless strategy that could destroy the Conservative party and land you in the rogues’ gallery of history, but it’s your only hope. You speak for millions, but unfortunately not tens of millions. Good luck Charles; good luck, James F and James D; good luck Freddy, Rod, Dominic, Douglas. The way things are going it’s double or quits for all of you. We who are not about to die, salute you.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/dear-leavebugs-its-time-to-admit-your-mistake/
They aimed at the 48% and their main policy is ... we'll have another referendum because we didn't like the result last time, which begs the question ... what then? In 18 months time, and if they succeed, we'll go back on bended knees and accept any deal that Barmier and Juncker want. Is that what the 48% want?
It's an incoherent policy. The more stubborn the EU becomes, the less the electorate will accept their rule. .'Vote LD ... Because we are not worthy.' isn't a vote winner. Only the most fanatical Remainers think it is.
'Many people voted for Brexit because they were fooled into a fear of “80m Turks coming to live in their village”, Vince Cable has said.'
Many, Vince? Most of the 52% ? And have you thought about what motivated the others?
It's an extraordinarily complacent and conceited comment.
What it suggests is that Vince Cable isn't willing to learn from the fact that 52% didn't want what was on offer. Which makes him look a bit old and moth-eaten, to me.
instead we have just a long whinge about how we're all going to die and the world will stop
they have learnt nothing from the experience and havent the courage to question what went wrong for them or put forward an alternative
It's a single issue because it is THE single issue in politics. Just as the LDs USP was opposition to Iraq from 2003, it helps for a third party to have a single distinctive policy. Nobody cares about the rest of it.
The argument for having another referendum is NOT about trying to cheat anyone out of anything. It is about applying proper scrutiny to whatever deal Messrs May, Davis and Fox achieve from the A50 negotiations or should we just "trust Theresa" and not worry our pretty little heads about the economic future of the country or have a say in it ?
Absurd.
I do agree rejecting the deal cannot imply wanting to stay in the EU but nor should it implym wanting to crash out of the EU without an agreement. We should be trying to get the best possible agreement for the country as a whole not the Conservative party in particular.
Nobody is suggesting going back to the EU "on bended knees" either. It's perfectly credible for a Party to campaign to want to re-join the EU but nobody is saying we would re-join on the EU's terms. It would be a negotiated re-entry (ooer).
The LDs can't influence how the EU behaves. If it is a deliberate British tactic to make the EU look stubborn, then May and Davis ought to be honest and say so.
Perhaps you are blindly prepared to accept any old guff May throws at you, perhaps you want us to crash out of the EU without any agreement at all.
I want something different and better.
This goes beyond Brexit, which is a symptom of the issue rather than being the issue itself. In any case Brexit is not going to be resolved within a decade.
About 30% of voters are emphatically internationalist according to a study I saw, so there is plenty of opportunity for the Lib Dems if they go down this route. The internationalist crowd are split on the other main issue of social welfare. The new Lib Dems would need to bridge that divide. There is no mileage in them picking sides on austerity (@Monksfield) as the other two parties have that sewn up.
But, that might be a evolved survival mechanism as well.
It's probably because we worked so hard in the past, most of the time, that it's a way of our bodies and minds forcing us to be idle to conserve ourselves.
It's a good piece by David, as usual, evinced by the number of serious responses on the thread. A basic problem for those of us who really care about the EU is that most people don't, and we struggle to understand their ambivalence. Sure, nearly everyone has an opinion, but it's seen by many as a second-order issue, whether Britain should belong to this organisation or that, one that doesn't affect them directly. Sure, there are a few obvious effects, like foreign currency being more expensive, but not obvious everyday impacts, and the overselling of Project Fear has made people a bit complacent.
Moreover, it's seen as complex and difficult. What % can confiently explain the difference between Single Market membership and Customs Union? Between EU membership and EFTA membership? I'm not convinced that every MP would pass the test, let alone half the voters.
So it's an issue that's seemingly not very important to everyday life, very complicated, and the LibDems talk about nothing else. Meh.
Will that change as politics becomes dominated by Brexit in the next 18 months? Only in broad terms - I think people will take a view on whether withdrawal is working out and whether the government is doing a broadly good job of making sense of it. But being seen as wildly committed either way is not the way to win hearts.
If remainers couldnt put a positive case for immigration - and there is one if it is controlled - then that simply says your front men arent very good.
Intellectually outplayed by Nigel Farage - that;s you that is.
However you took a comfort blanket of calling everyone a xenophobe and ignored the consequences of uncontrolled immigrtion on housing, wages, public services and social cohesion. And as we have seen at the more recent setpieces of polling voters are more concerned with the hardships of life than name calling from the self righteous.
It's very telling that to so many of its leading figures - who hark from the social democrat wing of the party from the early-mid 80s - the latter is much more important.
The danger is they look like they're fighting yesterday's battles.
Anyway he makes a lot of sense to me.
There are plenty, quite possibly a majority of voters at present, who think that the vote to Leave was a mistake. The Lib Dems are right to pursue their votes. However, their strategy in doing so to date has been lamentable.
But Monksfield, if you have seen the light on this why wouldn't you just vote Labour next time, since their manifesto embodied these principals?
To answer my own question, I can think of two reasons: a) tactical voting (Labour can't win here) or b) lack of confidence in Corbyn as a potential PM. For my own part if the LibDems did as Monksfield suggests and built 'a narrative that opposes the bullshit of austerity' I would be very likely to vote for them and I think they would capitalise on the inevitable Tory backlash.
"I want something different and better."
Have you ever thought that the UK negotiators might agree with you? It will be as a negotiated settlement. If you don't like it because you think it bears a Party brand, what is the real alternative?
You can go back and say 'I want' as many times as you want. IF the EU just say go forth and multiply, you can carry on demanding 'I want' like a spoilt child - it will make no difference.
May called a daft election, but they did end up the largest party. They have first down and get to run with the ball. It's no use carping from the side lines demanding a seven point touch-down. (Rules of American Football are available on demand).
What will that achieve? It will show a disunited front but little else.
We will have a choice. Accept the negotiated terms or crash out without a deal. You might prefer the latter as it might aid your efforts to re-join later. Not sure you'll have a lot of enthusiasm for that by the voters.
It's interesting we've lost that distinction between xenos and barbaros because, for some, it's the crux of the matter on the EU (or, for Scottish nationalists, on independence). I'm not saying non-Britons are barbarians, or that that's how SNP types view the English, just that there's a difference between people from a different part of the same country and between people from another country (or, indeed, between given groups of countries).
It's a potentially very useful distinction. Alas, the trend now is to over-simplify rather than consider with nuance (hence all the stuff on Twitter about the British Empire being good or bad. It is amusing, though, that people quote the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" line without considering Caesar's genocide of half a million Germanians, the appalling treatment of the Cimbri that led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and so on).
The Liberal Democrat should focus on how to get closer to the EU post-Brexit if, indeed, that is their wont.
But, that won't win them masses of votes by itself.
They need to focus on their USP as a party, and that isn't the EU.
nothing has changed
http://www.campaignforsocialism.org.uk/articles/2017/7/19/helicopter-view-of-the-2017-ge-resultsa-tale-oftwo-parties
On the leadership, we all know Vince is there for 24-36 months at most before Jo Swinson takes over and I suspect there will be a contest then.
On the point of single issue, as I've said elsewhere, it is crucial for a third party to have a single USP which sets it apart from the other parties. UKIP had that for a while, the LDs had it with Iraq - we knew where Blair stood, we knew where IDS and Howard stood but Charles Kennedy was somewhere else, saying something else and getting the same opprobium from many of the same people then as those opposed to leaving the EU are getting now.
It's not about the complexity or nuances but perceptions. The Conservatives are seen as anti-EU and pro-LEAVE, the Labour position is unclear but the LDs are clearly pro-REMAIN. As with Iraq where the LD position was initially a minority and much vilified position but came to be seen as the correct position in the light of events, it is presumably the LD (and others) view that, the referendum notwithstanding, events will show their position to be the correct one and that sensible people will recognise that and endorse it.
That journey has barely begun and may go nowhere or it might end in complete vindication for the REMAIN camp - I don't know. As with Iraq, there is huge uncertainty over what might happen in the next 24-36 months and the received wisdom now might look ridiculous down the line.
In decades to come, voting Leave will be about as reputable as choosing to fight for the Confederacy. Whatever the theoretical merits of states' rights, the reality of the motivations for the fight will irredeemably taint the cause and shame its advocates.
There is plenty of that for them to get their teeth into over the next 4-5 years.
I have no skin in the game when it comes to the electoral success of the Liberal Democrats.
probably one of your dafter statements
anyway last time I looked I wasnt voting to be part of a state run laregly for Germany's benefit
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/all-cancers-combined#heading-One
Unsurprisingly (because it's bloody difficult) no one seems to want to commit themselves on better detection/ better reporting vs real change in incidence. My guess is that it is mainly the former, partly because you would expect the sharp decline in smoking to outweigh increased fattiness (and alcohol consumption is apparently trending downwards too).
But if you want to piss off a cancer patient, there is just no better way than to tell him it's all about refined white sugar and modern farming practices. Trust me on this.
I think as we saw with Maastricht and Lisbon, there is scope for further negotiation IF the public reject the initial Treaty. It would have been better if, to borrow the analogy, the Conservatives instead of taking the ball and the first down for themselves, had formed an All-Star team with a clear play. At the moment, there's very little clarity as to the play and every chance the quarterback will fumble or be sacked (in all senses of the word).
What you're telling me is I have a choice between a bad deal and no deal - I'd prefer a choice between a bad deal and a chance to go back and get a better deal.
youve now sunk to the level of cut and paste
ho hum
https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/888366220071903234
I remember ten years ago when he used to be sensible. Now he's just a bonkers loon. Driven mad by Brexit.
It matters because it implies both Remainers and those in government responsible for carrying out Brexit are focusing on the wrong things.
Lord Alanbrooke and others were quite happy to deal with the murderous scum that was the USSR to defeat Hitler. And yet we hear nothing of the millions Stalin murdered and the associated opprobium.
The moral of the story is the victor writes the history and at this stage it's too early to say who the Brexit victor is.