The UK has plenty of time to have an election -- or a referendum. I am sure that the EU would agree to any required extensions.
The EU is unhappy about their position -- they are determined to punish any who leave with a bad deal as they have to do so to prevent more from leaving. Punishing the UK will also hurt the EU. Brexit costs the EU serious money that they have to make up. You can be sure any sign that the UK might have second thoughts will be allowed room by the EU.
Labour Leave
https://twitter.com/labourleave/status/1062438846481289216
"MPs have a choice now - either put your name to the greatest national humiliation of modern times, or vote down the deal and respect the biggest democratic vote in our history. You can't do both."
English Radical History (and vid)
https://twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1062290960636395522
"Peter Shore, Labour MP, discussing the 'Common Market' in 1975. 'The message that comes out is fear, fear, fear..."
Why would May want to call an election? At this point an election would probably tear the Conservatives in two. On the other hand she could call a referendum in an attempt to push through her deal if she can't get it approved in Parliament.
Why would May want to call an election? At this point an election would probably tear the Conservatives in two. On the other hand she could call a referendum in an attempt to push through her deal if she can't get it approved in Parliament.
It's not that she'd WANT to call an election...she might be forced into one if she loses a no-confidence motion. She and her government could be defeated at the polls in that scenario, if the Labour Right could FINALLY abandon its arrogant and ultimately anti-democratic fixation with removing Corbyn as leader and accept that most Labour supporters and likely Labour VOTERS back Corbyn and his policies and want Labour to go back to actually disagreeing with the Tories again, rather than doing what they, the Labour Right wanted the party to do in 2015 and reduce the differences between the two parties to "it's enough that we will cut slightly LESS".
If given the chance I think the "Labour Right" will vote to bring down May's government and trigger an election. However I don't think the Conservatives will allow themselves to be put into that position.
If she cannot make a deal with her own people, she will have backed herself into a referendum even if she did not want one.
Without Deselections Corbyn Project Will Fail
"A journalist should always tell the truth however unwelcome or unpalatable. And the truth is this: Without deselections, the Corbyn project will fail." - Neil Clark.
Labour pledges £100m a year to help rough sleepers in winter
Labour has pledged £100m a year in additional help for rough sleepers in cold weather, which the party says is key to reducing the unacceptably high number of homeless people who die each year.
There is already a severe weather emergency protocol, under which local authorities are meant to provide extra assistance for homeless people during cold snaps and other weather events such as heatwaves and floods.
Labour argues that this does not always translate into a place being available for all those in need. Under the party’s plan, councils would have to work with charities and others to make sure there is enough accommodation when temperatures are forecast to fall below freezing.
The party said the government did not know properly which areas have sufficient provision, and that since October last year an estimated 484 people had died homeless.
Labour’s plan would put initial one-year funding of £100m into a new rough sleepers cold weather fund, which would also find staff to connect them with support workers, with the longer-term aim of helping them stay off the streets permanently.....
..appears to be a huge uptick in media attacks on corbyn. things are coming to a head.
..appears to be a huge uptick in media attacks on corbyn. things are coming to a head.
...that may be because Brexit is also coming to a head. The situation with Brexit may end up realigning British politics much in the same way the First World War did. The Conservatives, Labour, UKIP, and the LD's all have much to gain and/or lose within the next few months.
The only reason the anti-Corbynites are pushing Jeremy Corbyn to try to stop Brexit(something they KNOW can't be done, since they know the EU can't be persuaded to let the UK stay after all)is that doing so would drive the one-third of Labour voters who voted Leave permanently out of the party. This is about making it impossible for Corbyn to lead Labour to victory in a general election so that the right-wing of the party can take over and drive all of Jeremy's supporters away. The Labour Right doesn't care that this would make it impossible for Labour to win another general election-since no significant group of possible supporters or voters would ever join Labour after it went back to the Third Way-they simply want to prevent any alternative to the status quo from ever having a chance. They'd be happy to see Labour reduced to the current support level of every mainland European "social democratic" party, just to be able to show how effective they had been at enforcing "actually existing centrism".
There is nobody within Labour pushing the hopeless "stop Brexit" cause who actually thinks socialism or even social democracy would be possible in the UK if Brexit WERE somehow to be reversed. Everyone knows it means permanent austerity-at times possibly on the scale inflicted in Greece-and that the EU can never be made into an institution with humane economic values.
If the EU could be changed in anyway at all, it might be different, but everything in the EU is carved into stone.
Then why should Remain supporters and people backing a people's vote support Labour?
See Varoufakis: The Euro Has Never Been More Problematic
pushing Jeremy Corbyn to try to stop Brexit(something they KNOW can't be done, since they know the EU can't be persuaded to let the UK stay after all
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but after months of me saying it was too late since the UK had already pushed the eject button, the European Court of Justice made a liar out of me by ruling the UK can, in fact, unilaterally stop Brexit if it wants to.
See Varoufakis: The Euro Has Never Been More Problematic
Doesn't the UK already use their own currency, the pound?
pushing Jeremy Corbyn to try to stop Brexit(something they KNOW can't be done, since they know the EU can't be persuaded to let the UK stay after all
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but after months of me saying it was too late since the UK had already pushed the eject button, the European Court of Justice made a liar out of me by ruling the UK can, in fact, unilaterally stop Brexit if it wants to.
There's a lot of support currently in the UK to have a "people's vote" to allow the UK to remain in the EU.
Doesn't the UK already use their own currency, the pound?See Varoufakis: The Euro Has Never Been More Problematic
Obviously. And obviously too the subject of the presentation is directly pertinent to this thread. But of course you have to actually watch it to know that.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but after months of me saying it was too late since the UK had already pushed the eject button, the European Court of Justice made a liar out of me by ruling the UK can, in fact, unilaterally stop Brexit if it wants to.
I figured the same, prior to that ruling.
I find it interesting that the ECJ was willing to take the time to rule on this when the UK government had not asked it to, nor given any reason to think they were looking to scuttle Brexit.
Seems a bit like going to the courts to ask them to rule on how property would be divided IF you chose to divorce your spouse. I think, typically, courts would say "come back when you've initiated divorce proceedings; we're not here to help you speculate better".
There's a lot of support currently in the UK to have a "people's vote" to allow the UK to remain in the EU.
They already had a "people's vote".
Well if this was Canada we would have multiple votes. Each time making the question more confusing in a effort to make the outcome clearer.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but after months of me saying it was too late since the UK had already pushed the eject button, the European Court of Justice made a liar out of me by ruling the UK can, in fact, unilaterally stop Brexit if it wants to.I figured the same, prior to that ruling.
I find it interesting that the ECJ was willing to take the time to rule on this when the UK government had not asked it to, nor given any reason to think they were looking to scuttle Brexit.
Seems a bit like going to the courts to ask them to rule on how property would be divided IF you chose to divorce your spouse. I think, typically, courts would say "come back when you've initiated divorce proceedings; we're not here to help you speculate better".
There's a lot of support currently in the UK to have a "people's vote" to allow the UK to remain in the EU.They already had a "people's vote".
Many people in the UK want another vote now that they have a better understanding of what the possible outcomes of Brexit are. As it turns out, most people in the UK and most MP's in the UK are opposed to the deal the government of the UK and the EU have arrived at.
The Chilling Manipulations of the Institute for Statecraft are Straight out of the Cold War Playbook
"As the prospect of a socialist government is now a real possibility, it seems that vested interests will stoop to all manner of dirty tricks and smears to provent that eventuality..."
Fake Labour Accounts Fueling 'Anti-Semitism Crisis'
"High profile politicians were fooled by networks of trolls aiming to frame Jeremy Corbyn. It is well established Israel has been running both covert and overt efforts against Jeremy Corbyn since he became leader..."
Israel. Again. Zios gotta go.
A large majority of the British people want a second referendum. The latest poll gives Remain a 12% lead.
an even greater % of Labour voters, some 80% feel the same way.
yet Corbyn is doing everythin* he can, through some crazy ideological stubbornness, to resist a referendum.
he is a disaster as leader and his favour ability has deservedly tanked.
Weren't you last seen predicting a disaster for Labour in the 2017 election?
Polls also showed remain winning before the referendum. And I'm sure you would be calling for a second vote had remain won by a close margin. Right?
Corbyn won the leadership twice on a promise to give the membership more say. But now that the membership by a huge margin wants acsecind referendum he is igniring them.
his standing has dropped like a stone as the link i provided demknstrates. Evennthe totally ineffective Theresa May is better regarded by the public
It's not the Labour membership pushing for a second referendum. A lot of them voted for Remain, but they know Brexit can't be stopped. And You know perfectly well that Corbyn can't support a second referendum without driving the Northern Labour voters who voted Leave on anti-austerity grounds out of the party and possibly giving UKIP a chance for a comeback. And you also know that most of those who are demanding that Corbyn try to do the impossible and stop Brexit are his enemies, the 160 or so MPs who are only in the House now because Blair imposed them as the Labour candidates in their constituencies, who are basically the last supporters of the Third Way in all of the party and who are nearly alone in continuing to defend austerity and Thatcher's anti-worker laws. I'd have voted Remain on anti-bigotry grounds, but it is now clear that staying in the EU makes it impossible for a Labour government to carry out actual Labour policies, the kind of policies that can't be carried out under the EU's requirements of perpetually low taxes on the rich and perpetual balanced budgets.Corbyn won the leadership twice on a promise to give the membership more say. But now that the membership by a huge margin wants acsecind referendum he is igniring them.
his standing has dropped like a stone as the link i provided demknstrates. Evennthe totally ineffective Theresa May is better regarded by the public
Corbyn's stature has only grown since you last posted here, despite the antisemitism slur and despite the unrelenting hostility of the Tory press and the BBC there. And there is simply no figure within the PLP, and certainly none that you'd approve of as a "moderate"(i.e., a sectarian Blairite) who could ever inspire high voter turnout or win the votes of the young. It's time to move on, nicky. The people in your wing of Labour, the ones who were pushing for Labour to vote for Tory cuts in benefits in 2015 and therefore end the last remaining policy differences Labour had with the Tories at that time, have lost the party, have lost the rank-and-file, and have lost the voters. In the name of the good of the people, the anti-Corbynites have a moral obligation to stop trying to undermine Jeremy, stop the senseless, destructive campaign to drive his supporters out of the party, and stop giving aid and comfort to the Tories. They need to accept that their day is done and that no one wants them back.
..corbyn has already agreed to a 2nd ref at the last convention where a deal was struck. nicky is trying to use that now to inflate a division that isn't there. i saw some internal labour polls recently and something like 73% of the membership supports corbyn.
Thanks for the clarification, epaulo13. That's Nicky for you...still hasn't given up on forcing Labour back into the hands of its right wing-even though 2010 and 2015 proved that Labour can never win again under a leader from the right wing. Nobody in the UK wants the political spectrum reduced to a kind of non-choice people like nicky want-an election where the options are reduced to the nearly invisible differences between Theresa May and someone like Margaret Hodge or Sadiq Khan.
..as i pointed out upthread there is an uptick re attacks on corbyn. this will intensify with the brexit issue being used to drive a wedge between corbyn and the population as a whole. the biggest fear of the right being the labour platform.
Corbyn won the leadership twice on a promise to give the membership more say. But now that the membership by a huge margin wants acsecind referendum he is igniring them.
his standing has dropped like a stone as the link i provided demknstrates. Evennthe totally ineffective Theresa May is better regarded by the public
Survation, most accurate pollster in the 2017 election: Labour up 3.
https://www.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Topical-Poll-Survey-Summary-Document-.pdf
That poll also shows that 57.5% of decided people support a people’s vote and that 70% of decided 2017 Labour voters support a people’s vote.
There's no need to have the revote before the GE. What matters more than anything else is getting the Tory government out of power. A revote can follow soon after.
Stopping Brexit but having the Tories continue to impose brutal crippling austerity is a meaningless, useless result.
So the Conservative government should just be allowed to implement their version of Brexit and then the UK will have to wait 3 years until the next election in 2022 before the Conservative agenda has any chance of being stopped? Even in 2022 the Conservatives could win another election especially since May will no longer be their leader.
No, the answer isn't to do whatever they want. it's 1)to fight for a "soft Brexit" rather than "no-deal Brexit" while they are in power, to keep defeating the May "no deal" deal, 2) to keep mobilizing mass popular opposition to the Tories(which can only be done as long as Labour has either Corbyn as leader or another left-wing leader; it instantly becomes impossible to do so if a "Labour moderate" ends up in the leader) and building support for a clear alternative set of policies to the Tory/Blairite status quo.So the Conservative government should just be allowed to implement their version of Brexit and then the UK will have to wait 3 years until the next election in 2022 before the Conservative agenda has any chance of being stopped? Even in 2022 the Conservatives could win another election especially since May will no longer be their leader.
Let's face it, if Brexit were stopped, it would be back to living within the constraints of the permanent austerity EU, so it would be as if May and the Tories were staying on in power no matter who on the next election. No matter who won, low taxes on the rich and a perpetual balanced budget would be mandatory, which would make any semblance of socialism or even social democracy unachieveable. It would be different if the EU was changeable, but everything about it is cast in stone. No reforms or changes are possible in how it is run or what it demands, because the EU can never be made to serve anyone but the rich.
I wish it weren't the case, but, soft Brexit is the only arrangement which preserves trade ties to Europe and makes actual socialist policies possible. You simply can't have a country with humane, egalitarian economic policies under Brussels. It would be different if change in how the EU was run is possible-but it simply isn't. The EU is run by and for those who have one mission and one mission alone: to destroy the social welfare systems and workers' rights laws of all member countries, and replace them with nothing but market forces.
This is why the "second referendum" push within Labour-it cannot have any motivation other than a desire to prevent Labour from reversing Thatcherism-Mayism.
If the EU prevents social democracy, how can countries like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Austria be so social democratic? Even with Corbyn as PM in a UK outside of the EU, I don't see the UK becoming as social democratic as a country like Sweden or Denmark.
If the EU prevents social democracy, how can countries like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Austria be so social democratic? Even with Corbyn as PM in a UK outside of the EU, I don't see the UK becoming as social democratic as a country like Sweden or Denmark.
All of those countries established their social welfare states and workers' rights provisions BEFORE the EU was set up. Since the EU was created, all of those countries have been pushed to reduce taxes on the wealthy, cut the social wage, put "fiscal discipline" above social equality and impose "labour market flexibility"(i.e., the right of the bosses to exploit workers). None are anywhere near as social democratic or egalitarian as they were prior to the imposition of EU economic policies. If you are leading a newly elected or re-elected "social democratic" government in an EU country, you can't significantly increase tax on the wealthy, you have to meet externally imposed spending constraints, AND you have to keep selling off what remains of the state assets...so the only thing you can do is, maybe, make slightly smaller cuts in benefits and deregulate labour markets with slightly less vigor. That's why nearly every social democratic party in mainland Europe, including the original SPD in Germany, is in long-term and probably permanent decline.
The objective should be to end the EU as currently constituted and replace it with something that unites Europe democratically from below...something that takes the side of the 99%, not Goldman Sachs.
(dupe post-self delete).
All of those countries established their social welfare states and workers' rights provisions BEFORE the EU was set up. Since the EU was created, all of those countries have been pushed to reduce taxes on the wealthy, cut the social wage, put "fiscal discipline" above social equality and impose "labour market flexibility"(i.e., the right of the bosses to exploit workers). None are anywhere near as social democratic or egalitarian as they were prior to the imposition of EU economic policies. If you are leading a newly elected or re-elected "social democratic" government in an EU country, you can't significantly increase tax on the wealthy, you have to meet externally imposed spending constraints, AND you have to keep selling off what remains of the state assets...so the only thing you can do is, maybe, make slightly smaller cuts in benefits and deregulate labour markets with slightly less vigor. That's why nearly every social democratic party in mainland Europe, including the original SPD in Germany, is in long-term and probably permanent decline.
The objective should be to end the EU as currently constituted and replace it with something that unites Europe democratically from below...something that takes the side of the 99%, not Goldman Sachs.
It does seem that somehow the UK Parliament will end up supporting some kind of soft-Brexit since a very large majority in the UK House of Commons opposes a hard-Brexit. If there is a soft-Brexit, I think many Leavers will be disappointed and UKIP will have an opening to make a resurgence. A lot of Remainers could also be disappointed so Labour has to play a delicate balancing act trying to retain their support.
Perhaps some of the Corbynistas may comment on the decline in Corbyn’s support as best PM declining from 40% to 20% over the last 18 months.
do you think this has anything to do with his incomprehensible position(s) on Brexit?
Perhaps some of the Corbynistas may comment on the decline in Corbyn’s support as best PM declining from 40% to 20% over the last 18 months.do you think this has anything to do with his incomprehensible position(s) on Brexit?
Nicky, let's review your history here. Not only did you support Mulcair throughout, but I recall you behaving very obnoxiously towards anyone who questioned him. Then after Mulcair led the NDP to a result following which any respectable party would have dumped him on the spot, you insisted that he should stay on and was the best choice available. And before the last British election, you continued to insist that Corbyn would be a disaster and that he had to go because he can't win. I think that says a great deal about your analysis and how seriously you should be taken on these topics.
Yes yes Aristole, Im sure we can all agree i am an awful person.
Now that is out of thay i would be interested to hear how you answed mg question.
You want an honest answer to your question? Of course Corbyn has a net negative approval rating. He's a politician, and 99% of the time, if you ask the people "do you like such-and-such a politician?" the answer is a resounding "NO!" But Corbyn has put economic issues on the agenda that have not been discussed openly in the media for a long time. These economic issues do resonate with people, and when you look at the overall party polling numbers, for the most part, Labour has been holding its ground against the Tories very well. If Corbyn can keep the focus on the economy, he will do very well.
Galloway: TMOATS, 18 Jan, 2019 (podcast)
Brexit, Abbot and Corbyn's possible betrayal...
Yes yes Aristole, Im sure we can all agree i am an awful person.
Now that is out of thay i would be interested to hear how you answed mg question.
If Corbyn's rating as best pm has actually fallen(btw, the most recent Survation poll has Labour three points up, so the man can't be doing that badly) it's largely due to the relentless and savage attack he's been under by the BBC and the Murdoch press. No party leader, facing unending distortions, smears, lies-such as what even you would have to admit was outright slander in case of the bile Margaret Hodge flung at him-would be doing well on that rating facing that form of assault.
Here's the point that you've not responded to, Nicky: what possible good would it do for Corbyn not to lead the party anymore when there is no one you would approve of-you would only accept another Blairite like maybe Chuka Umunna, the guy who calls human beings "trash"-has any personal popularity or any possibility of getting young voters to the polls? Virtually no one under 50 in the UK is going to vote for Labour under another leader who backs fiscal conservatism, continued military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world, continued UK government support for Saudi Arabia, and the preservation of Thatcher's anti-worker laws, and there is no large bloc of voters from any other demographic or part of the political spectrum who would rush into replace them if they all stayed home from the polls, as they all would under any leader you would approve of(and, in Canada, as they did under your hero Mulcair).
It does seem that somehow the UK Parliament will end up supporting some kind of soft-Brexit since a very large majority in the UK House of Commons opposes a hard-Brexit. If there is a soft-Brexit, I think many Leavers will be disappointed and UKIP will have an opening to make a resurgence. A lot of Remainers could also be disappointed so Labour has to play a delicate balancing act trying to retain their support.
That's what those of us who have defended Corbyn's position have been saying. It's why he can't push for a second referendum, and why the push for a second referendum has been led, within the party, by his enemies, by those in the PLP who still haven't given up on replacing him with a reactionary, including the sizeable bloc of Labour MPs who only have their seats now because Blair imposed them as Labour candidates, against the will of their own constituency parties, in the 1994-97 period. This group of MPs either don't realize that they themselves are essentially the last Blairities in the entire UK, or they simply don't care. They will fight to keep their party out of power until they are permitted to seize control of it and drive everyone else away and erase most major policy differences between Labour and the Tories, as their political ancestors did during the long, ugly siege they carried out in the Eighties and early Nineties.
It's why he can't push for a second referendum, and why the push for a second referendum has been led, within the party, by his enemies
..this is only partially true. there is a greater debate going on that includes remain as an option. many inside the party want remain. the enemies are just trying to manipulate that. they are not leading it.
..yes labour leadership needs to watch the polls..be careful with what they choose and when. paul mason says let the membership choose as there is more than 200 constituency offices wanting labour to sign on to remain. they are trying to force a conference to decide that.
..a paul mason explainer
Brexit: Why Labour should stick to its conference strategy
A second referendum is not a “trap” set by the far right or the centrist elite… it’s an opportunity to prevent economic, geopolitical and social disaster. But we’ve got to mobilise in the face of the reactionary backlash it will provoke.
Today (19/01/2018) something significant happened to Labour’s Brexit policy. Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit minister, clarified it into phases.
1. We vote down Theresa May’s deal.
2. We fight for a general election. If we can’t achieve that…
3. We push, in Parliament, for Labour’s much softer version of Brexit during the next two weeks.
4. And if that fails we fight for a second referendum.
Starmer said: “Securing a general election is — and always will be — our priority as it’s the only way to deliver the radical change this country needs…but we are now at the third phase of our policy.”
quote:
Since just before Christmas there has been a push against this strategy from inside parts of the Labour left. The opponents of the above strategy say (variously):
Because the strategy was agreed at a 300+ compositing meeting in September, lasting hours, and passed unanimously by conference, which gave Starmer a standing ovation, the opposition to it has taken two forms: (a) attempts to deny what was decided and (b) threats, reported in the Guardian, by a few people to resign shadow front bench positions if it’s implemented.
The denial goes like this: Labour decided to support “all other options on the table” and should now, like a stuck record, keep moving votes of no confidence and do nothing else. There is no specific commitment to the second referendum, say its critics.
But Starmer made clear today, apparently with the backing of Jeremy Corbyn, that Labour would not support any “other options” than its own Brexit plan and a second vote.
He made clear that — even as Labour continues to push more No Confidence votes, we have passed into phase three: for the next ten days at least we are fighting for Labour’s softer Brexit proposal in Parliament.
Here’s why even those of us who would rather Remain have to support this.
We are in the last stages of trying to honour the spirit of the June 2016 referendum.
Here’s why even those of us who would rather Remain have to support this.We are in the last stages of trying to honour the spirit of the June 2016 referendum.
BINGO! The problem with opposing a referendum is that their opponents will say, "why are you afraid to take this to the people?" The fact is, the UK voters had a choice of Remain or Brexit. Remain lost, get over it and move on. Resisting this only plays into the hands of the far-right and confirms the suspicion of the voting public that democracy is a sham anyways.
Remain lost, get over it and move on.
..this is not what is being said. mason is talking about process. meaning the constituencies that want remain get behind the plan laid out by starmer. if a vote comes before an election or deal for a soft brexit there will be a revisiting of which position to take then. if the polls are right that people in the gb want remain labour better not be on the wrong side of that vote. it could loose them the election.
