The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
Yes. It's floor of support us incredible. Inthe absence of some able to seize the opportunity as tbe SNP did, it woukd clung on. It seems incredible they will not split but I remain confident they won't. I still think Corbyn will, now he can say he would have been on the ballot and won, find a successor instead and the rebels will eagerly fall into line.
The rebels seem just as emotionally invested in the labour brand than Corbyn's core support. More so in fact, given his core includes SWP and others of that ilk - they'll be very glad to be be able to give a new leader a chance even if it's Effectively Corbyn in a nicer suit. Anything to avoid facing up to their party's mass ember ship seeming implacably opposed to them.
The SWP have a few thousand members and are a total irrelevance. They are not Corbyn's core support. This sort of thing is a complete media/blairite canard designed to discredit and marginalise a large and vibrant, positive, moderate left movement.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
You are proving my point admirably. At present she is a cipher on which everyone can project their own hopes in this tumultuous time, this will change, rapidly, once she starts having to do stuff.
Certainly could. I'd like to think may will be a good leader, but the level of praise some are giving her for mere words do far us a little too certain about what she will actually be like.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
I expect the US will vote to change it to 120 or more, then 150 then so on to infinite they're not going to let Mickey Mouse run out of copyright.
Indeed. And in tech, expect Apple to do even worse evil (*)
The IP rules and regulations in TPP do really concern me, given the way they seem designed solely to be to US advantage.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
The next few weeks will see the evaporation of those calling for another referendum as trade deals materialise to our advantage. At the same time the ghastly EU will unravel before our eyes.
Have to say - for those who were concerned about security and Turkey - the last few days must have reinforced their Thank Heaven's We're Out. It may be entirely irrelevant in practical terms, but seeing IS claiming Nice and tanks rolling down the streets in Turkey aren't reassuring images.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
Nah, if we stayed in the EU we only had a deal with the EU and whoever all 28 nations could unanimously agree a deal with (which so far outside of the continent of Europe is virtually nobody).
If we leave and sign a free trade deal with the EU, which we will, then we have the potential of having everything we had with Europe but much more AS WELL. India, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on are just some of the nations who've already said they want a deal with us which will be on top of whichever deal we get with Europe.
Which is why Remaining was the weak and scared poorer alternative.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
I expect the US will vote to change it to 120 or more, then 150 then so on to infinite they're not going to let Mickey Mouse run out of copyright.
Indeed. And in tech, expect Apple to do even worse evil (*)
The IP rules and regulations in TPP do really concern me, given the way they seem designed solely to be to US advantage.
(*) Obligatory anti-Apple P rant
It's not just Apple. The fact is that the US exports IP, whether drugs, music, software or movies. (Remember Snow Crash?)
Given the US is the world's largest importer by a country mile, it gets a lot of leverage in these discussions, and it uses it well.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
You are proving my point admirably. At present she is a cipher on which everyone can project their own hopes in this tumultuous time, this will change, rapidly, once she starts having to do stuff.
I heard her speech and felt the ghostly chill of EdM and Ted Heath. The jury is well and truly out for me.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
Yet for some reason Remain campaigners thought they wouldn't. Weird ...
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
The next few weeks will see the evaporation of those calling for another referendum as trade deals materialise to our advantage. At the same time the ghastly EU will unravel before our eyes.
Have to say - for those who were concerned about security and Turkey - the last few days must have reinforced their Thank Heaven's We're Out. It may be entirely irrelevant in practical terms, but seeing IS claiming Nice and tanks rolling down the streets in Turkey aren't reassuring images.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
I expect the US will vote to change it to 120 or more, then 150 then so on to infinite they're not going to let Mickey Mouse run out of copyright.
Indeed. And in tech, expect Apple to do even worse evil (*)
The IP rules and regulations in TPP do really concern me, given the way they seem designed solely to be to US advantage.
(*) Obligatory anti-Apple P rant
It's not just Apple. The fact is that the US exports IP, whether drugs, music, software or movies. (Remember Snow Crash?)
Given the US is the world's largest importer by a country mile, it gets a lot of leverage in these discussions, and it uses it well.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
Yes. It's floor of support us incredible. Inthe absence of some able to seize the opportunity as tbe SNP did, it woukd clung on. It seems incredible they will not split but I remain confident they won't. I still think Corbyn will, now he can say he would have been on the ballot and won, find a successor instead and the rebels will eagerly fall into line.
The rebels seem just as emotionally invested in the labour brand than Corbyn's core support. More so in fact, given his core includes SWP and others of that ilk - they'll be very glad to be be able to give a new leader a chance even if it's Effectively Corbyn in a nicer suit. Anything to avoid facing up to their party's mass ember ship seeming implacably opposed to them.
The SWP have a few thousand members and are a total irrelevance. They are not Corbyn's core support. This sort of thing is a complete media/blairite canard designed to discredit and marginalise a large and vibrant, positive, moderate left movement.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. I said his core 'includes' the SWP and their ilk, not that they were its entirety or even majority. When decrying media and blairite canards, perhaps ensure first I was utilising one.
Corbyn attends rallies filled with SWP type banners, Hardly typical labour, where he is received rapturously. He demonstrably draws support from such people. Now, some think it good he can reach out that far left, and he won last year with normal members too, and might still lead with them too. But my point was his support includes those who do care less about the labour brand - part of his appeal was getting them to return after the blairite years, when his own commitment to the brand kept him in labour all through those years.
I don't think these numbers could really be better for May.
She is pushing some serious buttons amongst the electorate.
The number are meaningless. She hasnt done anything yet, except say a load of lefty-sounding stuff which isn't going to happen.
Oh, they're not meaningless. First impressions matter. If these numbers had been dire for May, that'd mean something too. She is giving the impression of a strong, tough, and slightly ruthless leader who has a plan, and knows what she's doing. That counts.
Re: the politics: that's in the eye of the beholder. My parents are very much on the Conservative Right, and loved her first Downing Street statement.
They thought it was Thatcherite.
You are proving my point admirably. At present she is a cipher on which everyone can project their own hopes in this tumultuous time, this will change, rapidly, once she starts having to do stuff.
Certainly could. I'd like to think may will be a good leader, but the level of praise some are giving her for mere words do far us a little too certain about what she will actually be like.
Well if If May is a Cypher (which she may be of course) then Jez just has to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
All the other parties can claim what they like; it is not likely to have much salience. We've seen unsuccessful election campaigns based on similar premises in the past.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
Replying to one's own post is surely the first sign of madness but I wonder if the route to compromise lies in re-empowering the party. Many Corbyn supporters, even if not the man himself, might settle for the return of shadow cabinet elections, and a greater role for conference in policy decisions, and CLPs in selecting candidates (even if from a choice limited in some way).
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above. Any return to the likes of Smith and Eagle will kill such a process of renewal stone dead. Hence why for now we have to hang on to Corbyn, until the process cannot be so easily reversed.
Chris Bryant MPVerified account @RhonddaBryant Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security. Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising
I mean he actually typed that with a straight face
On topic, it's hard to disagree with Alastair Meeks that there is betting value in backing the "any other" option for most seats at the next GE.
I don't think a new split Labour party (progressives?) would get the most seats at the GE, but they would probably come second, which makes the c.20/1 on offer value.
It is quite possible that the votes which many expected to go to UKIP in the North, might go to PD, Most of these votes are basically annoyed at the Labour Party. Most will not vote Tory.
If a viable PD came up, it is possible that these voters together with many who still would have voted Labour could tip into a few PD's winning a few seats.
I still believe a split would result in a Tory majority of about 100 -150. I am also assuming PDs will include LDs or will have arrangements with them. Anna Soubry could be a PD.
The formation of a new party costs an enormous amount of money, Ukip have been bankrolled by a handful of wealthy people for years, 1 MP. The unions fund labour, a breakaway party will need to find a way to raise £millions, no idea how they'll do it.
Ideological lefties always ignore reality.
Does anyone recall the final terms of the Trades Union Bill - IIRC the changes to the political levy don't come in until 2019 or somesuch.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
Yet for some reason Remain campaigners thought they wouldn't. Weird ...
To express an interest to trade does not mean you will have trade agreements coming off the printer ! In the beginning it will be on WTO terms. which, in many instances, will be worse than arrangements with the EU.
Or, are you saying, they will offer Britain better terms than the EU which in terms of size, is 6 times larger than the UK [ including Scotland ]
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
I can tell you now that TTIP will not happen. Not with 27 other countries having to agree , anyway.
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
If the EU had been just about trade it would have been fine.
It was all the other stuff that came with it that made it unpalatable
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
All the other parties can claim what they like; it is not likely to have much salience. We've seen unsuccessful election campaigns based on similar premises in the past.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
Replying to one's own post is surely the first sign of madness but I wonder if the route to compromise lies in re-empowering the party. Many Corbyn supporters, even if not the man himself, might settle for the return of shadow cabinet elections, and a greater role for conference in policy decisions, and CLPs in selecting candidates (even if from a choice limited in some way).
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above. Any return to the likes of Smith and Eagle will kill such a process of renewal stone dead. Hence why for now we have to hang on to Corbyn, until the process cannot be so easily reversed.
Absolutely just voted for the 6 NEC candidates closest to Corbyn
It's funny. Nobody seems to mention that greatest of death causing, waster of natural resources, and maker of fortunes: war. Ah, I am forgetting. It won't happen now. We are wiser that the previous 50-odd generations of Europeans for whom peacetime has been an interlude between armed conflict.
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above.
This is the problem. There is a difference between members and "the public".
The current Labour membership, were they to have a debate about Trident "in public" would probably vote for unilateral disarmament
Such a policy when put to a "public battle of ideas" in a General Election would get crushed.
So the question remains, should the Labour Party be a an intellectually pure talking shop and protest movement, or a party of Government?
Members want the former. MPs (and voters) want the latter
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
Yet for some reason Remain campaigners thought they wouldn't. Weird ...
To express an interest to trade does not mean you will have trade agreements coming off the printer ! In the beginning it will be on WTO terms. which, in many instances, will be worse than arrangements with the EU.
Or, are you saying, they will offer Britain better terms than the EU which in terms of size, is 6 times larger than the UK [ including Scotland ]
Yes I am saying that we will get better terms. I am saying we are likely (over the next decade probably) to negotiate trade deals much better than the EU.
If we negotiate a trade deal with the EU and with Australia alone then that already would be better as we'd have the EU (which we already had) and Australia on top of it. If we get a dozen deals as Fox has spoken about, then that would be transformatively better potentially even if we failed to get an EU deal (unlikely).
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
I expect the US will vote to change it to 120 or more, then 150 then so on to infinite they're not going to let Mickey Mouse run out of copyright.
Indeed. And in tech, expect Apple to do even worse evil (*)
The IP rules and regulations in TPP do really concern me, given the way they seem designed solely to be to US advantage.
(*) Obligatory anti-Apple P rant
It's not just Apple. The fact is that the US exports IP, whether drugs, music, software or movies. (Remember Snow Crash?)
Given the US is the world's largest importer by a country mile, it gets a lot of leverage in these discussions, and it uses it well.
Of course countries such as India , USA and Australia are anxious to set up bilateral trade deals quickly with a post Brexit UK . They see a country desperate to prove it can do better outside the EU and feel that they can use the opportunity to get very favourable trade terms for themselves out of that desperation .
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
All the other parties can claim what they like; it is not likely to have much salience. We've seen unsuccessful election campaigns based on similar premises in the past.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
Replying to one's own post is surely the first sign of madness but I wonder if the route to compromise lies in re-empowering the party. Many Corbyn supporters, even if not the man himself, might settle for the return of shadow cabinet elections, and a greater role for conference in policy decisions, and CLPs in selecting candidates (even if from a choice limited in some way).
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above. Any return to the likes of Smith and Eagle will kill such a process of renewal stone dead. Hence why for now we have to hang on to Corbyn, until the process cannot be so easily reversed.
Absolutely just voted for the 6 NEC candidates closest to Corbyn
"Left slate 6" votes will be a good pointer to the actual result I think.
@PCollinsTimes: Paul, you're 10 points behind. 40% of Labour voters prefer May to Corbyn. When do you work out it's not working? https://t.co/Eqj2WJw2bT
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
If the EU had been just about trade it would have been fine.
It was all the other stuff that came with it that made it unpalatable
My parent's generation took me into the EEC when I was 12. When I finally got the opportunity to have my say, it had turned into something quite different and not particularly attractive,
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above.
This is the problem. There is a difference between members and "the public".
The current Labour membership, were they to have a debate about Trident "in public" would probably vote for unilateral disarmament
Such a policy when put to a "public battle of ideas" in a General Election would get crushed.
So the question remains, should the Labour Party be a an intellectually pure talking shop and protest movement, or a party of Government?
Members want the former. MPs (and voters) want the latter
Not sure about that Scott.
I am pro Corbyn but not in favour of UND.
Not because its an election loser but because any disarmament needs to be done multilaterally.
Those Corbyn types I meet are split 50/50 on that issue
Chris Bryant MPVerified account @RhonddaBryant Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security. Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising
I mean he actually typed that with a straight face
The various replies to that absurd tweet are very funny. He's such a plonker. And to think he was once a vicar.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
I expect the US will vote to change it to 120 or more, then 150 then so on to infinite they're not going to let Mickey Mouse run out of copyright.
But that would not impinge on our sovereignty ? But dictated by White, Anglo Saxon Protestants is OK, I suppose.
Nah, if we stayed in the EU we only had a deal with the EU and whoever all 28 nations could unanimously agree a deal with (which so far outside of the continent of Europe is virtually nobody).
If we leave and sign a free trade deal with the EU, which we will, then we have the potential of having everything we had with Europe but much more AS WELL. India, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on are just some of the nations who've already said they want a deal with us which will be on top of whichever deal we get with Europe.
Which is why Remaining was the weak and scared poorer alternative.
This is nonsense. Those countries already have FTAs with the EU in the pipeline, so are well ahead obviously of anything with the UK. If the deals come off, they will be more important to the countries concerned than their arrangements with the UK because of market size and the influence the EU carries with third parties. And even if they don't all come off, it doesn't mean that the UK will get a better set of arrangements overall than it would have done as a member of the EU. Anti-globalisation, which is putting roadblocks into the EU deals, was a major impetus for Brexit too, and will inform any potential deal the UK might get with a third party. It's the world environment we live in now.
The critical relationship that we need to get right is still the one with the EU.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
Indeed. As yet we have words not deals and certainly not details of deals. Let's see how some of these pan out.
It's funny. Nobody seems to mention that greatest of death causing, waster of natural resources, and maker of fortunes: war. Ah, I am forgetting. It won't happen now. We are wiser that the previous 50-odd generations of Europeans for whom peacetime has been an interlude between armed conflict.
Yes we are. We also have Trident. How many of those generations were nuclear armed?
Chris Bryant MPVerified account @RhonddaBryant Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security. Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising
I mean he actually typed that with a straight face
The various replies to that absurd tweet are very funny. He's such a plonker. And to think he was once a vicar.
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
Nah, if we stayed in the EU we only had a deal with the EU and whoever all 28 nations could unanimously agree a deal with (which so far outside of the continent of Europe is virtually nobody).
If we leave and sign a free trade deal with the EU, which we will, then we have the potential of having everything we had with Europe but much more AS WELL. India, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on are just some of the nations who've already said they want a deal with us which will be on top of whichever deal we get with Europe.
Which is why Remaining was the weak and scared poorer alternative.
Doesn't it rather depend on what sort of deal the states you mention have in mind?
It's funny. Nobody seems to mention that greatest of death causing, waster of natural resources, and maker of fortunes: war. Ah, I am forgetting. It won't happen now. We are wiser that the previous 50-odd generations of Europeans for whom peacetime has been an interlude between armed conflict.
Yes we are. We also have Trident. How many of those generations were nuclear armed?
I'm thinking about Europe. Will some of those states get Trident too?
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above.
This is the problem. There is a difference between members and "the public".
The current Labour membership, were they to have a debate about Trident "in public" would probably vote for unilateral disarmament
Such a policy when put to a "public battle of ideas" in a General Election would get crushed.
So the question remains, should the Labour Party be a an intellectually pure talking shop and protest movement, or a party of Government?
Members want the former. MPs (and voters) want the latter
Not sure about that Scott.
I am pro Corbyn but not in favour of UND.
Not because its an election loser but because any disarmament needs to be done multilaterally.
Those Corbyn types I meet are split 50/50 on that issue
I am pro-nuclear but anti-Trident because it is not value for money. Nuclear deterrence does not mean Trident is the only route. When big business and Trade Unions agree, there is something very fishy.
@PCollinsTimes: Paul, you're 10 points behind. 40% of Labour voters prefer May to Corbyn. When do you work out it's not working? https://t.co/Eqj2WJw2bT
There are Corbyn supporters who seem rational and reasonable, even if they wrong (and if they are right then my gods we are in for a shock) - Mason on the other hands seems like an absolute loon. It's to the point I'm amazed he was able to hold diwn a job reporting on things, having to restrain himself from making rabid far left rants about everything.
Australia and the USA have the TTP trade deal which can be pulled off the shelf and adapted as a bilateral UK deal with the minimum of tippex. The trouble is that TTP by some accounts is an American stitch-up, and even if not, might be incompatible with any deal we hope to negotiate with the rump EU. Of course, in the real world, trade will continue in the absence of a deal (as now) so front or back of the queue was not the killer argument Remain hoped.
The US would just offer us the TPP off the shelf. It contains a couple of provisions that we might not like, mind.
Firstly, the ISDS tribunals are American and are in secret. Secondly, you are treaty bound to keep your IP laws in step with the US. So, it is definitely an abrogation of sovereignty - albeit not to EU levels.
I asked a while back, but you didn't reply so don't know if you saw the message, but don't we tend to keep IP laws in step anyway? Isn't that a modern 21st century thing that is pretty global?
I can't realistically imagine a major divergence happening between us whether we sign TPP or not.
There is some commonality, mostly related to the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. But there are significant differences.
Take the issue of copyright of broadcasts; currently in the UK we're at 50 years, and the US is at 95 years. If we signed up to the TPP, not only would we be required to change that to 95 years, but if the US Congress voted to change it (say) 120 years, we would be required to pass a law changing our term too. So, in the areas of intellectual property, it's like the EU - except that we don't get any say at all.
The Brexiters won't like that. - SOVEREIGNTY!!!!!!
@PCollinsTimes: Paul, you're 10 points behind. 40% of Labour voters prefer May to Corbyn. When do you work out it's not working? https://t.co/Eqj2WJw2bT
Alternatively (if we arent cherry-picking data) labour is one point behind at one of the most damaging times in recent history. The better Pm question does not indicate a straight preference. So the question is completely and deliberately disingenuous. I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above.
This is the problem. There is a difference between members and "the public".
The current Labour membership, were they to have a debate about Trident "in public" would probably vote for unilateral disarmament
Such a policy when put to a "public battle of ideas" in a General Election would get crushed.
So the question remains, should the Labour Party be a an intellectually pure talking shop and protest movement, or a party of Government?
Members want the former. MPs (and voters) want the latter
Not sure about that Scott.
I am pro Corbyn but not in favour of UND.
Not because its an election loser but because any disarmament needs to be done multilaterally.
Those Corbyn types I meet are split 50/50 on that issue
I am pro-nuclear but anti-Trident because it is not value for money. Nuclear deterrence does not mean Trident is the only route. When big business and Trade Unions agree, there is something very fishy.
Agree - Trident is jobs for the boys. To be honest though I'm very ambivalent on Nuclear and wish we didn't have it. If we were to get rid right now though I think we'd head even further into the leper books of alot of our allies.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
Yet for some reason Remain campaigners thought they wouldn't. Weird ...
To express an interest to trade does not mean you will have trade agreements coming off the printer ! In the beginning it will be on WTO terms. which, in many instances, will be worse than arrangements with the EU.
Or, are you saying, they will offer Britain better terms than the EU which in terms of size, is 6 times larger than the UK [ including Scotland ]
Yes I am saying that we will get better terms. I am saying we are likely (over the next decade probably) to negotiate trade deals much better than the EU.
If we negotiate a trade deal with the EU and with Australia alone then that already would be better as we'd have the EU (which we already had) and Australia on top of it. If we get a dozen deals as Fox has spoken about, then that would be transformatively better potentially even if we failed to get an EU deal (unlikely).
Primacy of the PLP may be worthless when all the other parties claim that the PLP would always be a hairs breadth away from a similar militant take over?
All the other parties can claim what they like; it is not likely to have much salience. We've seen unsuccessful election campaigns based on similar premises in the past.
There are two other problems with primacy of the PLP though, at least as things stand. First is that the current PLP apparently has no idea what it wants aside from Jeremy Corbyn's retirement. There is nothing on policy, and no alternative leader more charismatic than Corbyn has been identified.
The irony is that the current mess follows the degradation of the party in the country pursued by New Labour, with SpAds parachuted into safe seats. and the removal of policy-making and election of the shadow cabinet from the party. Concentrating power in the hands of the leader only seems like a good idea when you are the leader.
So now Labour has, thanks to New Labour, a PLP dominated by charisma-free middle-class graduates with no connection to their constituency parties, let alone their constituents, and who have no experience of campaigning or persuasion because they've never needed to fight to get selected or elected, and who have never been asked their views on any policy. Not to mention an all-powerful leader's office whose current occupant is one J Corbyn, PC MP. Heart of stone.
(That the Conservatives have or had similar problems is neither here nor there.)
Replying to one's own post is surely the first sign of madness but I wonder if the route to compromise lies in re-empowering the party. Many Corbyn supporters, even if not the man himself, might settle for the return of shadow cabinet elections, and a greater role for conference in policy decisions, and CLPs in selecting candidates (even if from a choice limited in some way).
Exactly this. It is a battle to make the party responsive and democratic again. This is not to say make it blindly left wing, just a place where policies have to withstand a public battle of ideas rather than being imposed from above. Any return to the likes of Smith and Eagle will kill such a process of renewal stone dead. Hence why for now we have to hang on to Corbyn, until the process cannot be so easily reversed.
Absolutely just voted for the 6 NEC candidates closest to Corbyn
It's funny. Nobody seems to mention that greatest of death causing, waster of natural resources, and maker of fortunes: war. Ah, I am forgetting. It won't happen now. We are wiser that the previous 50-odd generations of Europeans for whom peacetime has been an interlude between armed conflict.
Yes we are. We also have Trident. How many of those generations were nuclear armed?
I'm thinking about Europe. Will some of those states get Trident too?
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
The guy that sent the Tweet is a former Blair speech writer.
He is not the Tory press. He is someone who wants a Labour government, and knows that Corbyn can never deliver it (and may destroy the party forever)
And i think unilateral disarmament is a bad idea too, although Trident is just a pork barrel project with zero real use given its reliance on the US. I dont think it would be a core plank of any more responsive and democratic labour party either. Corbyn allows a free vote on the issue. We arent in the eighties any more.
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
The guy that sent the Tweet is a former Blair speech writer.
He is not the Tory press. He is someone who wants a Labour government, and knows that Corbyn can never deliver it (and may destroy the party forever)
Australia politicians may say bring on a trade deal with the UK, but Australia has some very protectionist rules to protect local industry. Think the negotiations wont be as easy as you think.
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
The guy that sent the Tweet is a former Blair speech writer.
He is not the Tory press. He is someone who wants a Labour government, and knows that Corbyn can never deliver it (and may destroy the party forever)
But carry on, ignore him.
Signed a PB Tory...
Phil Collins is a Blairite arse-licker. Therefore, he is like a Tory !
And i think unilateral disarmament is a bad idea too, although Trident is just a pork barrel project with zero real use given its reliance on the US. I dont think it would be a core plank of any more responsive and democratic labour party either. Corbyn allows a free vote on the issue. We arent in the eighties any more.
Corbyn will be voting against Conference-approved Labour policy.
The ENTIRE Labour party (including Corbyn) could move to the "New Democrats", offer exactly the same policies as now - and yet any one of us here standing under the Labour banner (With zip policies) would win in about a hundred seats.
This is the rebels problem the "Labour" brand is a massive massive brand name.
What they need to do is to adopt the name 'real Labour' and relentlessly refer to the Corbynist rump as 'momentum Labour'.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
Yet for some reason Remain campaigners thought they wouldn't. Weird ...
To express an interest to trade does not mean you will have trade agreements coming off the printer ! In the beginning it will be on WTO terms. which, in many instances, will be worse than arrangements with the EU.
Or, are you saying, they will offer Britain better terms than the EU which in terms of size, is 6 times larger than the UK [ including Scotland ]
Yes I am saying that we will get better terms. I am saying we are likely (over the next decade probably) to negotiate trade deals much better than the EU.
If we negotiate a trade deal with the EU and with Australia alone then that already would be better as we'd have the EU (which we already had) and Australia on top of it. If we get a dozen deals as Fox has spoken about, then that would be transformatively better potentially even if we failed to get an EU deal (unlikely).
History repeats itself twice, does it not? First as farce, second as tragedy. If Labour splits it will be the third time. It came back from the first split, and, aided by the fallout from WWII won a majority. It came back from the second and, eventually, again won a majority although many of the brighter lights had left. Maybe the farce was the pretentions of the SDP! So what will the tragedy be? Will it be the departure of the traditional base and the end of Keir Hardie etc’ dreams?
@PCollinsTimes: Paul, you're 10 points behind. 40% of Labour voters prefer May to Corbyn. When do you work out it's not working? https://t.co/Eqj2WJw2bT
Alternatively (if we arent cherry-picking data) labour is one point behind at one of the most damaging times in recent history. The better Pm question does not indicate a straight preference. So the question is completely and deliberately disingenuous. I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
Every Labour leader has been virulently attacked by the Tory press.
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
The guy that sent the Tweet is a former Blair speech writer.
He is not the Tory press. He is someone who wants a Labour government, and knows that Corbyn can never deliver it (and may destroy the party forever)
And i think unilateral disarmament is a bad idea too, although Trident is just a pork barrel project with zero real use given its reliance on the US. I dont think it would be a core plank of any more responsive and democratic labour party either. Corbyn allows a free vote on the issue. We arent in the eighties any more.
TBF, who expected to see 1970s politics again in 2015/16 either? Or even 1930s?
What we've learned over the last year is that politics runs in cycles - very long ones. I thought military coups were a bit passe except in S America.
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
If the EU had been just about trade it would have been fine.
It was all the other stuff that came with it that made it unpalatable
You're right.
I seem, like some others here, to keep rehashing old arguments, which I don't really want to do.
For my part, I support the EU because I think it's good for the countries of Europe to have an organisation where they work together, a forum where they are encouraged to sort out their differences and institutions that bind them all together. And crucially where there is no alternative to the EU for that to happen.
On the other hand by being a member, the UK and other countries give up control over our affairs to that remote institution who have far less interest than the people of our countries in what happens here and even less responsibility for it.
They are both good arguments in my view, but they are both philosophical ones. As a supporter of the EU, I can talk about peace and brotherhood, but that doesn't butter any parsnips if it means we are poorer and have fewer jobs etc. So I talk only about the practical issues.
But I hold the counterargument to the same principle. Sovereignty is meaningless if we end up being poorer and having fewer jobs. We shouldn't discount the positive arguments for the EU as being airy-fairy and then say of course the counter arguments are a dearly held principle.
On the practicalities, leaving the EU is definitely worse in the short and medium term while the long term is unknowable. That's where we end up arguing
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
As opposed to the virulence with which the Tory press heaped abuse on, say, Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband? There's a reason it is called the Tory press -- the clue is in the name.
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
Surely they defecting MPs need to do so *before* the deselections become reality, to maintain credibility rather than looking like a bunch of crybabies?
Short money will indeed follow the MPs, but only if they are members of a party extant or new - some informal grouping of Indy Labour MPs won't cut it.
The goal surely has to be to get more than half of the Lab MPs to join the new party, that way they become the Official Opposition in Parliament, with a huge amount of Short money, relegating Corbyn's party to sit with the SNP on the back benches.
SDP2 would not get any Short Money.
To get Short Money requires you to have received 150,000 votes at the previous general election which SDP2 would not have done.
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
Surely they defecting MPs need to do so *before* the deselections become reality, to maintain credibility rather than looking like a bunch of crybabies?
Short money will indeed follow the MPs, but only if they are members of a party extant or new - some informal grouping of Indy Labour MPs won't cut it.
The goal surely has to be to get more than half of the Lab MPs to join the new party, that way they become the Official Opposition in Parliament, with a huge amount of Short money, relegating Corbyn's party to sit with the SNP on the back benches.
SDP2 would not get any Short Money.
To get Short Money requires you to have received 150,000 votes at the previous general election which SDP2 would not have done.
Money will not be a problem for PD, I can assure you.
The Sun also reports May told Osborne he had 'over promised and under delivered' on his 2020 budget surplus when she sacked him.
The paper also reports May is ready to open a wave of new grammar schools tearing up rules banning the opening of new selective schools and allowing them to expand where local parents want them in the most significant departure yet from the Cameron administration
Of course countries such as India , USA and Australia are anxious to set up bilateral trade deals quickly with a post Brexit UK . They see a country desperate to prove it can do better outside the EU and feel that they can use the opportunity to get very favourable trade terms for themselves out of that desperation .
The current position of the UK seems very similar to that of its pre-EU period between 1945 and 1970. Desperate to improve its trade position, blundering from crisis to crisis and other nations seeing a weak and feeble nation and picking the bones clean.
The idea of any nation offering decent terms to the UK at the moment is quite comical.
@PCollinsTimes: Paul, you're 10 points behind. 40% of Labour voters prefer May to Corbyn. When do you work out it's not working? https://t.co/Eqj2WJw2bT
Alternatively (if we arent cherry-picking data) labour is one point behind at one of the most damaging times in recent history. The better Pm question does not indicate a straight preference. So the question is completely and deliberately disingenuous. I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
Chris Bryant MPVerified account @RhonddaBryant Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security. Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising
I mean he actually typed that with a straight face
The various replies to that absurd tweet are very funny. He's such a plonker. And to think he was once a vicar.
The fact he was a vicar goes a long way to explaining it, most are total plonkers.
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
If the EU had been just about trade it would have been fine.
It was all the other stuff that came with it that made it unpalatable
My parent's generation took me into the EEC when I was 12. When I finally got the opportunity to have my say, it had turned into something quite different and not particularly attractive,
I've lived all my life as part of the EU/its predecessors... it's time for a change
Chris Bryant MPVerified account @RhonddaBryant Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security. Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising
I mean he actually typed that with a straight face
The various replies to that absurd tweet are very funny. He's such a plonker. And to think he was once a vicar.
As a churchwarden & someone who's family is quite involved with the church, I find that there are a higher percentage of plonkers among vicars than in the general population
And i think unilateral disarmament is a bad idea too, although Trident is just a pork barrel project with zero real use given its reliance on the US. I dont think it would be a core plank of any more responsive and democratic labour party either. Corbyn allows a free vote on the issue. We arent in the eighties any more.
Aside from maintenance support it has no reliance on the US.
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
The guy that sent the Tweet is a former Blair speech writer.
He is not the Tory press. He is someone who wants a Labour government, and knows that Corbyn can never deliver it (and may destroy the party forever)
But carry on, ignore him.
Signed a PB Tory...
Besides which, the idea people on the opposing side attack virulently and that shows what they really fear, is one if the more bizarrely persistent ideas in partisan politics. Yes, political figures and media will attack an opponent they fear. That doesn't mean every time they do it it is because they fear them.
Nah, if we stayed in the EU we only had a deal with the EU and whoever all 28 nations could unanimously agree a deal with (which so far outside of the continent of Europe is virtually nobody).
If we leave and sign a free trade deal with the EU, which we will, then we have the potential of having everything we had with Europe but much more AS WELL. India, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on are just some of the nations who've already said they want a deal with us which will be on top of whichever deal we get with Europe.
Which is why Remaining was the weak and scared poorer alternative.
This is nonsense. Those countries already have FTAs with the EU in the pipeline, so are well ahead obviously of anything with the UK. If the deals come off, they will be more important to the countries concerned than their arrangements with the UK because of market size and the influence the EU carries with third parties. And even if they don't all come off, it doesn't mean that the UK will get a better set of arrangements overall than it would have done as a member of the EU. Anti-globalisation, which is putting roadblocks into the EU deals, was a major impetus for Brexit too, and will inform any potential deal the UK might get with a third party. It's the world environment we live in now.
The critical relationship that we need to get right is still the one with the EU.
You are assuming they don't want to renegotiate any of the details.
Let's say that they traded off access to one of their industries in return for, say, being allowed to a market in which the UK is the single biggest opportunity (say Australian wine or New Zealand lamb). Since the EU can no longer off that trade off, the terms of the deal need to change.
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
Surely they defecting MPs need to do so *before* the deselections become reality, to maintain credibility rather than looking like a bunch of crybabies?
Short money will indeed follow the MPs, but only if they are members of a party extant or new - some informal grouping of Indy Labour MPs won't cut it.
The goal surely has to be to get more than half of the Lab MPs to join the new party, that way they become the Official Opposition in Parliament, with a huge amount of Short money, relegating Corbyn's party to sit with the SNP on the back benches.
SDP2 would not get any Short Money.
To get Short Money requires you to have received 150,000 votes at the previous general election which SDP2 would not have done.
Money will not be a problem for PD, I can assure you.
No, you can't.
SDP2 would have no Short Money and no Union money. This immediately puts its financial situaiton in a very precarious position.
It is also unsupported by Labour members who want to deselect the right wing MPs infesting the PLP. Again, no money for them there. The only hope they have for funding is for people like John Mills to prop them up.
If you're claiming they can get tens of millions of points in backing from enough wealthy backers, you need to demonstrate some evidence of this beyond the odd claim. You'd also need to explain to potential voters how a party ENTIRELY funded by a wealth few is a popular, social democratic movement.
Well technically he doesn't have to, but I can't see it being an effective vote winner to stop it. Although were effective committed once article 50 is declared, and we're not likely to have an election before then, so he can be as stubbornly remain as he likes and it won't get tested if it hurts labour even if he wins, as by the next election we will be out and he won't have to support rejoining.
Of course countries such as India , USA and Australia are anxious to set up bilateral trade deals quickly with a post Brexit UK . They see a country desperate to prove it can do better outside the EU and feel that they can use the opportunity to get very favourable trade terms for themselves out of that desperation .
And which as no trade negotiators so won't be able to understand how bad a deal they have signed up to until years later.
Even I've been surprised at how many countries have expressed an interest in doing a trade deal with us, and just how fast. It's barely been 3 weeks.
One can only conclude that a major part of the attraction a lot of the world had in doing trade deals with the EU is precisely because the UK was in it.
It does not take many brain cells to work out that people will be desperate to trade with one of the biggest economies on the planet.
Yet for some reason Remain campaigners thought they wouldn't. Weird ...
To express an interest to trade does not mean you will have trade agreements coming off the printer ! In the beginning it will be on WTO terms. which, in many instances, will be worse than arrangements with the EU.
Or, are you saying, they will offer Britain better terms than the EU which in terms of size, is 6 times larger than the UK [ including Scotland ]
Yes I am saying that we will get better terms. I am saying we are likely (over the next decade probably) to negotiate trade deals much better than the EU.
If we negotiate a trade deal with the EU and with Australia alone then that already would be better as we'd have the EU (which we already had) and Australia on top of it. If we get a dozen deals as Fox has spoken about, then that would be transformatively better potentially even if we failed to get an EU deal (unlikely).
Only if we don't sort them out ourselves which is partially what the two year plus window is for. Which nations do you think we won't sort a deal with during that window?
It's like a divorce. Brexit is generally miserable, but now we're free! A relationship with Australia AND with America.It will be more fun and just as good!
The free trade effort is largely displacement PR. We need the agreements, given that we are leaving the EU anyway. We are unlikely to end up with a set of agreements that is significantly better for us than what we would have had anyway as a member of the EU. And none of this is a substitute for the one relationship that we MUST get right, which is with the EU.
If the USA and the EU do eventually sort out TTIP, we probably would want to be a part of it. Multilateral is much better than bilateral if you can get it. Which is a big part of the problem with Brexit.
If the EU had been just about trade it would have been fine.
It was all the other stuff that came with it that made it unpalatable
My parent's generation took me into the EEC when I was 12. When I finally got the opportunity to have my say, it had turned into something quite different and not particularly attractive,
I've lived all my life as part of the EU/its predecessors... it's time for a change
As you say Charles, for me it was the right option when it was about trade, and maybe cooperation and accords on things of common interest. You don't need a parliament split over various countries, flags, anthems and hordes of bureaucrats to do that.
Honeymoon ?!? .... the vicars daughter has barely exchanged vows .... the Cameron side of the family isn't at the nuptials, the Labour family are fighting over the Reliant Robin to get them to the church and the waiting crowds outside always like a good wedding.
First past the post is the killer argument against.
The likelist scenario for a new party is not an active split, but the wave of deselections that will follow Corbyn's victory in September. The deselected MPs will sit together until the next GE.
That said, if most of the PLP does walk away, do they walk away with most of Labour's Short money? This could be an enticing possibility.
Surely they defecting MPs need to do so *before* the deselections become reality, to maintain credibility rather than looking like a bunch of crybabies?
Short money will indeed follow the MPs, but only if they are members of a party extant or new - some informal grouping of Indy Labour MPs won't cut it.
The goal surely has to be to get more than half of the Lab MPs to join the new party, that way they become the Official Opposition in Parliament, with a huge amount of Short money, relegating Corbyn's party to sit with the SNP on the back benches.
SDP2 would not get any Short Money.
To get Short Money requires you to have received 150,000 votes at the previous general election which SDP2 would not have done.
Money will not be a problem for PD, I can assure you.
No, you can't.
SDP2 would have no Short Money and no Union money. This immediately puts its financial situaiton in a very precarious position.
It is also unsupported by Labour members who want to deselect the right wing MPs infesting the PLP. Again, no money for them there. The only hope they have for funding is for people like John Mills to prop them up.
If you're claiming they can get tens of millions of points in backing from enough wealthy backers, you need to demonstrate some evidence of this beyond the odd claim. You'd also need to explain to potential voters how a party ENTIRELY funded by a wealth few is a popular, social democratic movement.
Who gives a fuck about Short money ? PD can attract the same level of donor money as the Tories can.
Comments
The IP rules and regulations in TPP do really concern me, given the way they seem designed solely to be to US advantage.
(*) Obligatory anti-Apple IP rant
If we leave and sign a free trade deal with the EU, which we will, then we have the potential of having everything we had with Europe but much more AS WELL. India, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on are just some of the nations who've already said they want a deal with us which will be on top of whichever deal we get with Europe.
Which is why Remaining was the weak and scared poorer alternative.
The fact is that the US exports IP, whether drugs, music, software or movies. (Remember Snow Crash?)
Given the US is the world's largest importer by a country mile, it gets a lot of leverage in these discussions, and it uses it well.
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Brexit-vote-v3.pdf
Corbyn attends rallies filled with SWP type banners, Hardly typical labour, where he is received rapturously. He demonstrably draws support from such people. Now, some think it good he can reach out that far left, and he won last year with normal members too, and might still lead with them too. But my point was his support includes those who do care less about the labour brand - part of his appeal was getting them to return after the blairite years, when his own commitment to the brand kept him in labour all through those years.
@RhonddaBryant
Turkey is now and has long been a lynch pin in European and wider security. Ludicrous Brexit lies undoubtedly contributed to destabilising
I mean he actually typed that with a straight face
Or, are you saying, they will offer Britain better terms than the EU which in terms of size, is 6 times larger than the UK [ including Scotland ]
It was all the other stuff that came with it that made it unpalatable
Ah, I am forgetting. It won't happen now.
We are wiser that the previous 50-odd generations of Europeans for whom peacetime has been an interlude between armed conflict.
The current Labour membership, were they to have a debate about Trident "in public" would probably vote for unilateral disarmament
Such a policy when put to a "public battle of ideas" in a General Election would get crushed.
So the question remains, should the Labour Party be a an intellectually pure talking shop and protest movement, or a party of Government?
Members want the former. MPs (and voters) want the latter
If we negotiate a trade deal with the EU and with Australia alone then that already would be better as we'd have the EU (which we already had) and Australia on top of it. If we get a dozen deals as Fox has spoken about, then that would be transformatively better potentially even if we failed to get an EU deal (unlikely).
(Corbyn vs Argclu/ Owen Jones)
@PCollinsTimes: Paul, you're 10 points behind. 40% of Labour voters prefer May to Corbyn. When do you work out it's not working? https://t.co/Eqj2WJw2bT
I am pro Corbyn but not in favour of UND.
Not because its an election loser but because any disarmament needs to be done multilaterally.
Those Corbyn types I meet are split 50/50 on that issue
The critical relationship that we need to get right is still the one with the EU.
I think the virulence with which the tory press are attacking corbyn shows what they really fear, and it isnt the return of the likes of eagle and smith.
He is not the Tory press. He is someone who wants a Labour government, and knows that Corbyn can never deliver it (and may destroy the party forever)
But carry on, ignore him.
Signed a PB Tory...
So what will the tragedy be? Will it be the departure of the traditional base and the end of Keir Hardie etc’ dreams?
What we've learned over the last year is that politics runs in cycles - very long ones. I thought military coups were a bit passe except in S America.
I wonder if he's been spending too much time with Izzard.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-sunday-times-magazine/the-clarkson-review-joie-de-vivre-not-in-this-brexit-poster-boy-f0lx03rtr
[But then, I've long said the EU with crumble, likely with civil strife and possibly with a small war].
I seem, like some others here, to keep rehashing old arguments, which I don't really want to do.
For my part, I support the EU because I think it's good for the countries of Europe to have an organisation where they work together, a forum where they are encouraged to sort out their differences and institutions that bind them all together. And crucially where there is no alternative to the EU for that to happen.
On the other hand by being a member, the UK and other countries give up control over our affairs to that remote institution who have far less interest than the people of our countries in what happens here and even less responsibility for it.
They are both good arguments in my view, but they are both philosophical ones. As a supporter of the EU, I can talk about peace and brotherhood, but that doesn't butter any parsnips if it means we are poorer and have fewer jobs etc. So I talk only about the practical issues.
But I hold the counterargument to the same principle. Sovereignty is meaningless if we end up being poorer and having fewer jobs. We shouldn't discount the positive arguments for the EU as being airy-fairy and then say of course the counter arguments are a dearly held principle.
On the practicalities, leaving the EU is definitely worse in the short and medium term while the long term is unknowable. That's where we end up arguing
To get Short Money requires you to have received 150,000 votes at the previous general election which SDP2 would not have done.
Tories have a 10% lead, but circa 15% leads when party leader names are mentioned, including potential Corbyn replacements.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1456942/prime-ministers-promise-of-brighter-future-outside-eu-greeted-with-a-bounce-in-polls-for-conservative-party/
The paper also reports May is ready to open a wave of new grammar schools tearing up rules banning the opening of new selective schools and allowing them to expand where local parents want them in the most significant departure yet from the Cameron administration
The idea of any nation offering decent terms to the UK at the moment is quite comical.
Let's say that they traded off access to one of their industries in return for, say, being allowed to a market in which the UK is the single biggest opportunity (say Australian wine or New Zealand lamb). Since the EU can no longer off that trade off, the terms of the deal need to change.
SDP2 would have no Short Money and no Union money. This immediately puts its financial situaiton in a very precarious position.
It is also unsupported by Labour members who want to deselect the right wing MPs infesting the PLP. Again, no money for them there. The only hope they have for funding is for people like John Mills to prop them up.
If you're claiming they can get tens of millions of points in backing from enough wealthy backers, you need to demonstrate some evidence of this beyond the odd claim. You'd also need to explain to potential voters how a party ENTIRELY funded by a wealth few is a popular, social democratic movement.
The Very Reverend JackW presiding ....