2019 UK election

..a 3.56 min video

The Most Radical Government This Country Has Ever Seen | John McDonnell

‪“We will be the most radical government this country has ever seen. Why? Because the challenges we face need radical changes and we’ll succeed”‬

eta: fixed the link

I am watching this debate about electability polarize between having the potential to get enough support to make a difference and actually standing for something that does make a difference.

Despite the venom being sprayed around here the reality is that both are essential as either it won't happen or is pointless if it does. (And you can play that last statement both ways on both arguments.)

The people who are debating what it takes to have a party that can win an election are no more or less legitimate than those who want the party to mean something if it does win. These are opposites of the same coin.

Politics is about power if you cannot get power there is no value in sucking up support that prevents someone else from winning and making at least some changes but if you do not stand for real things then you have no business seeking power.

This is a debate here as well as in the UK.

How much do you compromise to get a shot at power? 

Is angst and division over the compomise or lack of it going to push you away from any chance at power?

What political configuration is best to make a perspective successful (leading to the ideas being defeated at the polls or swamped by being in a party not committed enough to them)? There is surely a balance to be found there.

What about the value in parties? Some see them as raising issues (but to what end?) and others see a need to get those persepectives in power. People often disagree less on the issues than the objective.

Same thing in the Brexit debate. The party is split less on seeing problems with Europe than on what to do about it:

1) avoid enabling a right wing Brexit that would see the EU tilt to ultra conservative positions without any obstacle and in so doing harm many vulnerable people OR

2) avoid entrenching an inflexible right wing project in the EU and missing an opportunity to break away from that.

People here are fighting both positions although in reality what we would all want is something that could avoid both scenarios. The hopeful left Brexit we could all support does not exist but neither does the fantasy that the EU is a hopeful place for left ideals despite the propaganda.

People that have the same values are pounding each other rhetorically in this thread.

 

 

"Breaking: Brexit Party will NOT contest any seats won by the Conservative Party in 2017. They will target Labour and other party seats only with a target of 317 seats. This may damage Labour Party's chances of a majority."

https://twitter.com/bywirenews/status/1193868458716475392

 

"The embourgeoisification of the 'left' and the proletarianisation of the right is my early take-away from the general election so far. Labour speaking for and to the middle class, the metropolitan, the comfortable and the educated. A labour movement without workers."

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1193846676999553024

  'Hill & Knowlton socialism'.

josh wrote:

Brexit Party (NI) leader Nigel Farage announces his party will not contest the 317 seats won by the Conservative Party (ECR) in the previous general election in an attempt to not split the pro-brexit vote.

Once again, unlike the left, the right understands how FPTP works and uses that understanding to their advantage. The right know how vote splitting tilts elections and they usually use that knowledge to their advantage. Will the left ever learn?

josh wrote:

Somewhere I posted above an agreement in Wales between the Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru.  Labour was not included on Brexit.  Had those remainers not made overturning the results of the 2016 referendum the hill to die on, we wouldn't be faced with a Boris Johnson-led government.

There was simply no reason to place the EU issue over all other issues and no reason to push Labour to go all out Remain.  None. At. All.

Communists For Labour Victory and Mass Campaigning

https://communist-party.org.uk/britain/2557-communists-for-labour-victor...

"The Communist Party reaffirms its commitment of September 23 to work for the election of a left-led Labour government in the forthcoming General Election...However, an influential faction of the Parliamentary Labour Party has long represented the interests of monopoly capital and British imperialism and will continue to seek ways of frustrating and undermining their own party's bold, radical platform.

These MPs understand that the neoliberal treaties and rules of the EU have been designed to limit or block policies for progressive advance. Everything therefore needs to be done to halt further advances by this anti-democratic, anti-socialist faction which prioritises EU membership above winning a Corbyn-led government. In particular, the Communist Party calls for resistance to a second referendum and to the attempts to commit Labour in advance to campaigning for a 'Remain' option should such a referendum take place.

For the labour movement in Britain, the absolute priority beyond the election of a left-led Labour government must be the struggle to ensure that Labour's programme is implemented. Communists understand that all kinds of obstacles will be placed in the way of a left-led government and its policies by the capitalist class, the state apparatus and the EU. This makes it all the more important to continue building, mobilising and politicising extra-parliamentary mass movements not least the campaign for a left and people's Brexit..."

Ken Burch wrote:

josh wrote:

Somewhere I posted above an agreement in Wales between the Lib Dems, the Greens and Plaid Cymru.  Labour was not included on Brexit.  Had those remainers not made overturning the results of the 2016 referendum the hill to die on, we wouldn't be faced with a Boris Johnson-led government.

There was simply no reason to place the EU issue over all other issues and no reason to push Labour to go all out Remain.  None. At. All.

Corbyn's Labour Official Opposition should have backed May in establishing a Brexit agreement with the EU if they didn't want Brexit to become the biggest issue the UK has seen since World War 2. Like it or not Brexit has been the biggest issue in the UK since the split referendum result and Labour has to deal with that fact of life.

josh wrote:

Labour was in a no-win situation.  Members of the PLP are divided as are its supporters,  More so than the Conservatives.  It should have bit the bullet and supported adhering to and implementing the results of the referendum without a deal once its clear that a deal could not pass parliament.  It would have taken a temporary hit, but would have kept its working class support.  It would have lost some voters, but to the Lib Dems not the Tories.  Now, they are losing voters to both, as well as the Brexit party.

Very few Labour supporters support a no-deal Brexit while very many Labour supporters are completely opposed to a no-deal Brexit. The option of a no-deal Brexit has never been even considered in the UK House of Commons because the vast majority there see it as being harmful to the UK, politically, socially, and economically.

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

People that have the same values are pounding each other rhetorically in this thread.

..i don't agree. different values are being debated. the way forward is being debated. 

I think Brexit is very much a difficult choice as you are throwing vulnerable people under the bus for a longer term benefit and principles. I do not think that people who really consider all the values we believe in here can like either option.

..i don't expect all to agree. or that it be easy. when has the struggle for a better world ever been easy? but that's why the debate. how to move forward. with all due respect i don't think that we all share the same values here on babble. that's an assumption i don't share. 

Perhaps all may be too much -- but there are definitely people on both sides of Brexit here that have similar values and are caught up in the impossibility of the present choice where the vulnerable people of the UK lose no matter which decision is made.

I think the rhetoric across this debate too often has people accusing the other of being not left enough when neither present option is left at all and the only question is which option is worse and that is about judgement rather than values. The differences are based on a prediction of the future in many cases but there is no pure principled position. You cannot say that dealing with EU is principled but to say that you should not deal with them on principle but should support the option of Farage and Johnson is laughable.

Corbyn is being hammered for a number of reasons but one of them is in trying to avoid both ends of a polarized debate where the right control both poles. Given the delicacy of this situation I think that the anger between people here on Brexit is not warranted. The left has no principled option in this debate right now and only a series of tactical guesses.

Is the UK better getting out and fighting with the right after a Brexit? Maybe. Depends on whether you think that fight is winnable. If you do then there is no way you can agree with remain from a left perspective but if you think that the left now in the EU is no match for the forces of Farage and company then you might want to hang on for the EU to at least moderate the rightward tilt, perhaps in the hope that a future generation may think differently. However, saying yes to Europe now means giving up on leaving for at least a generation.

People here should at least be able to cough up some sympathy for the position they oppose given the choices and the players involved.

Those attacking Brexit might want to stop for a minute and look at what was done to Greece; those saying brexit is the best thing going might  want to really thing about who will pay the price for this in a short term that might last over a decade given the political alignment in the UK.

Yes, we should debate but there are some debates where you should be able to recognize that those on the other side are not really against you on the most important principles -- they are simply seeing a set of facts and predicting a result that is different but no more or less certain than yours. People here are arguing with closed minds about so-called principles rather than even hearing the points the other side is making that speak to the same prinples if they would only listen for a bit.

But how do you argue when the debate is a lose-lose proposition? Hard to tear down one side passionately when you admit that neither side can lead to something good for the poeple most vulnerable.

I do believe that the choice between Brexit or not could only confidently be made by someone who is over-confident about their ability to predict the future. We are all guessing and speculating but there is nothing to support tearing the other side down in the manner that is happening here.

BTW: My position here is that I do believe in a final vote on a negotiated deal (or no deal if one cannot be negotiated). I have always supported similar positions including with respect to seperation of Quebec or of Scotland as well. I think these decisions require two votes -- one to start a negotiation and one to judge  the result. In both cases 50% plus one. 

I do not have a strong position for or against Brexit as I think that the choice is hard and should be made by those paying the price of it. I do not see the conditions to support either side and think an opportunity has been lost. 

I think that Labour should have admitted the critical problems of each side and produced a vision for what an acceptable deal in the EU would look like and what an acceptable Brexit deal would look like from the point of view of the non-rich of the country. I suspect that if they did this they would lay out two positions that are both not on the table and likely would not be possible. However, that at least would allow Labour supporters understand the chocies they are making. This could have shown leadership when campaigning for either of the right wing options would have not been leadership any more than hoping it would go away (be decided by someone else) which seems to be the Labour position.

I agree there would have been problems trying to sell this apporach but no more than trying to sell one of the other approaches or the fence-sitting position they have taken. Labour is on the fence for good reasons that it refuses to have the courage to explain clearly.

I am neither pro nor anti Corbyn either. I think judgment of him should be fairly mixed. I suspect the problems in strategy and communciations are not all on him. Also he took a gamble that looked reasonable in the past. Who knew that the Conservatives would be unable in three governments sink or swim on this and this would be around for a third mandate that Labour would have to take a position on?

It is understandable that Labour would wish to focus on the many other issues non-Brexit related that the country is facing coming from the right and hurting people.

So for the sake of clarity there is my position which is less cut and dried than many here might like but the situation is necessarily complicated.

..the public and the party i imagine. 

NDPP wrote:

Europhiles Idea of Democracy

https://twitter.com/rexitFreedom/status/1193984988653477890

"Keep voting until you do what we want."

 

"The left-wing case for Brexit is strategic and clear. The EU is not - and cannot become - a democracy. Instead it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime." Paul Mason, May 2016

https://twitter.com/typofoto/status/1193670423571025920

Before Russophobia took his mind...

Sure but the motives of Farage and company is to go further and faster in this direction than Europe.

This present choice is between bad and worse with it unclear which is which.

If anything is to be criticized about the labour party it is the failure to inject a real left position into the debate in terms of what the UK could do not to screw its people or to screw them worse depending on which choice you pick.

I reject the idea that the Labour party was helpless to speak about alternatives. It gambled on talking about other priorities (all important) hoping this would go away and this did not go away and they are about to pay the price.

I cannot say that this was entirely a bad gamble -- even thought they have lost. They were thinking they could not change the result and that it would be resolved before this many elections allowing Labour to keep their powder dry and look at what the situation was when they got control and do a plan then. This was the most likely gamble and to do something else may have backfired as well. Unfortunately, this plan has backfired and they are about to pay for it.

 

Ken Burch wrote:

It wouldn't be progressive to have the NDP and the Greens withdraw their candidates from every seat the Liberals won in the last election, which seems to be what you're arguing for.

That's not what I'm arguing for. If the parties don't agree on changing to another electoral system I think they should each agree on standing down in the 90 or so marginal ridings where one of them is considered closest to winning or losing to the Conservatives. I think the Liberals should be expected to stand down in roughly as many ridings as the NDP and Greens are. Instead of stepping down I think it would be better if the parties agreed on electoral reform which could include instant runoff voting or a semi-proportional system.

The Johnson-Farage pact is a dramatic electoral opportunity for Labour

This election will be won or lost on a single question: what matters? What issue, at 6pm on Thursday 12 December, will be in the mind of a van driver who has just finished work as they go out into the darkness — which in northern England descends mid-afternoon — and queue to vote?

The Conservative gamble was that the issue would be Brexit: or more specifically “getting Brexit done”. They calculated that by actually achieving a deal, no matter how shabby, combined with the widespread crisis fatigue among voters, it would give them a chance of flipping enough Labour Leave voters to win a majority. The Tory electoral machine would squeeze the Brexit Party vote, while the salience of the Brexit issue itself would stop Labour squeezing the Lib Dem vote.

But the dramatic decision by Nigel Farage to stand candidates down in 317 Tory-held seats has changed the game. And it was clearly not a unilateral decision: Boris Johnson, behind the scenes, sent emissaries to plead with Farage to make this move, while the right-wing tabloids mounted a public campaign of pressure on all his candidates to stand down.

quote:

With the liberal conservative vote softening, Johnson’s strategists clearly understood the organic squeeze on Brexit Party voters was not enough; that something drastic had to happen. And getting Farage to stand down half his candidates is fairly drastic. To understand how this might change the dynamics of the next 29 days, you have to understand how it was supposed to play out.

In phase one, the Tories have been trying to otherise Labour, making its candidates out to be terrorists, thugs and anti-Semites, while focusing all minds on Brexit. That’s why they have made almost no policy announcements and done very little stump campaigning.

Phase two begins with the manifestos: Labour’s comes out next week, and will no doubt concretise the £400bn borrowing around specific spending plans. Following the adoption of more relaxed fiscal rules, it is likely to offer a “tax the rich” programme at least as big as 2017’s £49bn plan. 

quote:

Phase three is going to be a stage-managed elite panic over Corbyn. Forget the “Zinoviev letter”. If it looks like Labour has closed the polling gap on the Tories through relentless doorstep work and “organic social media”, there will be one Zinoviev letter per day in the run-up to the poll: ludicrous fake news stories amplified willingly by people who call themselves journalists.

It won’t, of course, be MI5 doing the faking. We exist, for now, in a democracy ruled by law. But numerous external actors stand poised to help stop a progressive government and force through Brexit. Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, said publicly in June that, if Corbyn’s election appeared likely, the US “won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best.” 

Seasoned observers of Kremlin propaganda, meanwhile, noted with interest an article by the news agency Sputnik headlined “Labour Party Suffering Drastic Loss Of Support”, which cherrypicked recent polling figures. The Russian-owned outlet has turned mildly but relentlessly negative against Corbyn since the election was called, for example repeating “intelligence community fears” that the Labour leader is a national security risk.

quote:

Faced with the Tory fake news attack on its fiscal policies, Labour has weathered the storm and pushed back. The result is Sajid Javid’s refusal to agree to a TV debate with John McDonnell.

But while Labour has inched forward a few points in the polls, the self-inflicted squeeze on the Brexit Party vote is handing the Tories even bigger gains. And so, beyond Labour’s control, a new and more rational panic will begin — among the clear majority of voters who want to stop Brexit. They understand that the Johnson-Farage pact signals the emergence of a new kind of conservatism, which is prepared to crash out of the transition period without a deal in 12 months’ time — and which holds our democratic institutions in contempt.

Labour Has Days to Dump Its Unappealing Brexit Policy Before Its Manifesto is Agreed

https://t.co/cK9OVGV4aJ

"No matter how hard Labour tries to pretend otherwise the forthcoming general election is a Brexit election. It is defined by Brexit in the same way as the 2017 general election was. At that time, Labour was able to get a hearing on its domestic policies because, at the very last minute, a sentence that promised to respect the result of the referendum was inserted in its manifesto. The Tories and Labour were thus on an even keel as far as Brexit was concerned, and that's how Labour made its unexpected gains...

All Labour can offer is a re-run of the Brexit negotiations that have numbed the nation and sapped its energy. A Corbyn Labour government would thus put its domestic agenda on hold to spend precious months in negotiations with the EU to get a 'better' withdrawal agreement. Having done so, the public would not be asked to say yay or nay to the deal in a straightforward ballot; instead, they would be asked to choose between the deal and reversing the result of the 2016 referendum - what Labour calls putting 'the final decision in the hands of the people.' But the people have already made the decision to leave the EU and that was 'the final decision, the once-in-a-lifetime decision. Labour's public vote on the deal is nothing more than a second referendum.

The election manifesto on which Labour will fight the general election is yet to be written. Last time round, in 2017, under the heading 'Negotiating Brexit', Labour stated that the party 'accepts the referendum result.' The voting public will watch to see if this remains Labour's policy. If it doesn't, Labour will have turned its  back on the biggest democratic vote in British history. If it is retained, it will contradict the policy of a second EU referendum. A second referendum is inconsistent with accepting the results of the first - and it won't escape the voting public that there is no guarantee that those who refuse to accept the results of one referendum would accept the result of a second.

Some attempt to play down the importance of Brexit. It's argued that Brexit is one issue among many. But Brexit is a defining issue, it will define the future direction of the century. Most of Labour's economic and industrial programme will clash with EU rules and regulations including public control of nationalised industries, procurement policy and state aid as well as VAT. As for the threat to the NHS, the EU poses a greater threat to the NHS than any British government. We have control over the latter; we have none over the former.

For those who want the government to get on with it - and that is a majority of people - Labour's current policy on Brexit holds little appeal. The Labour leadership must be aware that Labour's contradictory policies are untenable and unsustainable. The electorate will see through them. They need more than fine-tuning they need change. All eyes will be on Labour's election manifesto."

 

The Battle For An Independent Britain is There To Be Won

https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/battle-independent-britain-there-be-won

"...The election is a trap to distract us into yet again delegating the job of achieving independence to parliament. But parliament sees its task as the opposite, to block it. Much more important then victory in this contrived election is the organisation that is taking place around the country. There is a growing realisation that parliament cannot deliver Brexit, independence or democracy..."

Can't imagine why the working class wouldn't trust Corbyn's Labour?

https://twitter.com/BBCLookNorth/status/862292802708832260

 https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1185958081588613120

..if a brexit is to happen it needs to happen in an organised manner. here is a scenario. labour wins the election, labour begins to implement it's manifesto, the eu says no, labour moves forward anyway, the eu resists, the uk citizens become incensed and activated against the eu. in this scenario the eu can not wage a pitched battle with the uk citizens without waking people from other eu countries. from here with the implementing of the manifesto power shifts. a new world begins.   

..consider this as well. the eu is carved up by the states. the less power the state has the less the piece of the pie and the less say you get. france and germany, the powerhouses of the eu, get industry. the uk, a powerhouse in it's own right, gets to be the eu financial centre. london to be exact. under mcdonnell's critical lefty eye the eu would not be able to use this financial centre as a weapon in the way it was used against greece. not to mention that the uk is not greece. and the manifesto is a much more powerful document than the boastful words of syriza. implementation of the manifesto is key to liberated uk. not brexit..because past uk governments were/are the eu politically.  

nicky wrote:

Letter in today's Guardian:

But antisemitism is central to a wider debate about the kind of country we want to be. To ignore it because Brexit looms larger is to declare that anti-Jewish prejudice is a price worth paying for a Labour government. Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next?

Opposition to racism cannot include surrender in the fight against antisemitism. Yet that is what it would mean to back Labour and endorse Mr Corbyn for Downing Street. The path to a more tolerant society must encompass Britain’s Jews with unwavering solidarity. We endorse no party. However, we cannot in all conscience urge others to support a political party we ourselves will not. We refuse to vote Labour on 12 December.
John le Carré (David Cornwell), Fay Weldon, Joanna Lumley, William Boyd, Simon Callow, Antony Beevor, Sathnam Sanghera, Janina Ramirez, Trevor Phillips, Jimmy Wales, Suzannah Lipscomb, Tom Holland, Frederick Forsyth, Peter Frankopan, Ghanem Nuseibeh, Dan Snow, Fiyaz Mughal, Tony Parsons, Dan Jones, Maajid Nawaz, Oz Katerji, Nick Hewer, Ed Husain, Terry Jervis

 

It's clarifying to see such a list of open, unashamed liars who have such prestige in elite circles.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

nicky wrote:

Letter in today's Guardian:

But antisemitism is central to a wider debate about the kind of country we want to be. To ignore it because Brexit looms larger is to declare that anti-Jewish prejudice is a price worth paying for a Labour government. Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next?

Opposition to racism cannot include surrender in the fight against antisemitism. Yet that is what it would mean to back Labour and endorse Mr Corbyn for Downing Street. The path to a more tolerant society must encompass Britain’s Jews with unwavering solidarity. We endorse no party. However, we cannot in all conscience urge others to support a political party we ourselves will not. We refuse to vote Labour on 12 December.
John le Carré (David Cornwell), Fay Weldon, Joanna Lumley, William Boyd, Simon Callow, Antony Beevor, Sathnam Sanghera, Janina Ramirez, Trevor Phillips, Jimmy Wales, Suzannah Lipscomb, Tom Holland, Frederick Forsyth, Peter Frankopan, Ghanem Nuseibeh, Dan Snow, Fiyaz Mughal, Tony Parsons, Dan Jones, Maajid Nawaz, Oz Katerji, Nick Hewer, Ed Husain, Terry Jervis

 

It's clarifying to see such a list of open, unashamed liars who have such prestige in elite circles.

What the hell do they want? Labour can't just instantly expel anyone who is simply accused of antisemitism.   Virtually all of the accusations made by Margaret Hodge were lies and she knew they were lies.

SAw a new poll for the UK:

WTF was slightly ahead of OFFS while ROTFL was  significantly behind in third while LOL was trailing.

I am distressed to hear , Ken, that Hugh Gaitskell is staring down disapprovingly on me from heaven.

The numerous prominent writers who sent the letter to the Guardian cannot simply be dismissed as “liars” or “zionists” or whatever. Most are traditional Labour supporters and few are Jewish. Can it be that they simply understand the depths of anti-Semitism in Corbyn’s circle better than some who post here?

Finally for this morning, we read here frequently that no other possible Labour leader could do better than Corbyn in this election. This is of course nonsense. Corbyn has consistently polled worse than any other leader in history.

Here is more proof. Corbyn’s approval level runs well behind that of Labour support in EVERY poll released during this campaign. It is blindingly obvious that without him as an albatross around Labour’s neck, Labour would prosper electorally.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/15/the-voting-pollings-bad-for-lab-but-corbyns-ratings-are-even-worse/