Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[Thush]

What should Labour MPs do who represent constituents in areas that voted Leave?

[oldfordie]

I'm sure they can discuss the impact of moral authority upon a group of loons with Jeremy and John as they all head into the aye lobby with May and Gove.

Yes. the loud minority opinion must be obeyed when it suits your cause.

[killer-heels]

Their only choice is to be in line with the Tories and UKIP?

I thought Corbyn and McDonnel were serving up a new kind of politics.

Most of the constituencies voted for Leave. Maybe under PR they could pander to Remain voters, but with FPTP they would stand more to lose as all those constituencies outside cities would be prime for UKIP and Tory.

Ultimately I think they should take the gamble of pissing off ardent Remainers as they have very few options with the Lib Dems having very little power. If they piss off Leavers though then they have more choice in terms of options to allign themselves with.

[Yorkykopite]

He backs it because the great struggle against the global elite is more important to him than the lives of normal voters, and anyway he's hoping for the cataclysmic event that will kick off the revolution. He's a prick.

The struggle against the "global elite" - ie international capital - does need to take place. But the best place to wage that struggle is via international institutions. The EU is far from perfect. But it gives, or gave, the labour movement another instrument with which to fight for workers' rights on the same level that capital operates on.

But McDonnell's model of socialism is stuck in the 19th century. Of course he can't wait to trigger Brexit. He's a Little Englander - like his boss - and it allows him to forget about the global economy and pretend that the socialist dawn is a British General Strike away.

[oldfordie]

What should Labour MPs do who represent constituents in areas that voted Leave?

It's irrelevant what people voted, Labour should do what there supposed to do. hold the government to account. they are now voting to give the Torys the power to do as they please on Brexit without having any clue of what that plan is. they are giving their blessing for the Torys to run riot. they are agreeing with the Torys that they are right to trigger article 50 without a plan.
Japan knows more about the government plans on Brexit than Parliament. that is scandalous. has that ever happened before.
This is about stopping the Torys from abusing the wishes of the British people to implement a Tory Brexit that favours their policys rather than the wishes of the British people. yet Labour have said they will back the Torys and vote to trigger article 50.

[bigbonedrawky]

What should Labour MPs do who represent constituents in areas that voted Leave?

Call them all a basket of deplorables and ignore them... 

[lfcderek]

It's irrelevant what people voted, Labour should do what there supposed to do. hold the government to account. they are now voting to give the Torys the power to do as they please on Brexit without having any clue of what that plan is. they are giving their blessing for the Torys to run riot. they are agreeing with the Torys that they are right to trigger article 50 without a plan.
Japan knows more about the government plans on Brexit than Parliament. that is scandalous. has that ever happened before.
This is about stopping the Torys from abusing the wishes of the British people to implement a Tory Brexit that favours their policys rather than the wishes of the British people. yet Labour have said they will back the Torys and vote to trigger article 50.

"It's irrelevant what people voted"
     - Democracy at it's finest.

"Labour should do what there supposed to do. hold the government to account."
    - Indeed! The Tory's should be heavily criticized if they don't trigger article 50 - which is what we told them to do in the Referendum.

"without having any clue of what that plan is."
    - Sorry. I don't remember any caveat's on the Referendum ballot paper about 'A PLAN'. It simply asked whether we should leave the EU.  i.e. should we trigger article 50 ?  We said YES.


'THE PLAN' should then surely be - to get the most beneficial terms possible in the 2 years after we trigger that article 50 - that same article 50 we told them to trigger in that Referendum thingy.

[Mutton Geoff]

The struggle against the "global elite" - ie international capital - does need to take place. But the best place to wage that struggle is via international institutions. The EU is far from perfect. But it gives, or gave, the labour movement another instrument with which to fight for workers' rights on the same level that capital operates on.

But McDonnell's model of socialism is stuck in the 19th century. Of course he can't wait to trigger Brexit. He's a Little Englander - like his boss - and it allows him to forget about the global economy and pretend that the socialist dawn is a British General Strike away.

Out of interest what model of Socialism from the 19th century can run parallel with being a Little Englander Yorkie i am genuinely intrigued by this suggestion.

Also not defending the man i dislike him as well .

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

    - Indeed! The Tory's should be heavily criticized if they don't trigger article 50 - which is what we told them to do in the Referendum.

That would be the non-legally binding, advisory referendum. If the people are stupid enough to vote for something which will negatively impact on them (as a whole) then I'm all in favour of the government reversing the decision.

See my signature

[SP]

"It's irrelevant what people voted"
     - Democracy at it's finest.

"Labour should do what there supposed to do. hold the government to account."
    - Indeed! The Tory's should be heavily criticized if they don't trigger article 50 - which is what we told them to do in the Referendum.

"without having any clue of what that plan is."
    - Sorry. I don't remember any caveat's on the Referendum ballot paper about 'A PLAN'. It simply asked whether we should leave the EU.  i.e. should we trigger article 50 ?  We said YES.


'THE PLAN' should then surely be - to get the most beneficial terms possible in the 2 years after we trigger that article 50 - that same article 50 we told them to trigger in that Referendum thingy.

The leap out of a plane without a parachute and think of something before hitting the ground stratagem.

The MPs responsibility is to defend the country's best interests. Rejecting a half arse plan with huge risks and insisting on a coherent plan is absolutely what they should be doing.

The inability to just implement a plan is due to the failings of the original question. Leave is loosely defined, and no particular implementation of Leave has a mandate.

[lfcderek]

That would be the non-legally binding, advisory referendum. If the people are stupid enough to vote for something which will negatively impact on them (as a whole) then I'm all in favour of the government reversing the decision.

See my signature

But of course. Everybody (on both sides) were at pains to point that out during the campaign. I remember that very distinctly. If the NO vote had won - the government would have every right to trigger article 50 anyway. Christ, aren't 'the people' bloody stupid.


See my sig - which is
                     "The greatest argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation  with the
                       average voter. "


WOW

[lfcderek]

The leap out of a plane without a parachute and think of something before hitting the ground stratagem.

The MPs responsibility is to defend the country's best interests. Rejecting a half arse plan with huge risks and insisting on a coherent plan is absolutely what they should be doing.

The inability to just implement a plan is due to the failings of the original question. Leave is loosely defined, and no particular implementation of Leave has a mandate.

This is like being in some sort of alternative universe. Months of discussion and debate (ad nauseum some would say) is equivalent to "jumping out of a plane without a parachute" is it?

And your views would be the same if the result had gone the other way ? The government had ignored it and triggered article 50 anyway ?

Really ?

Yeah right.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

But of course. Everybody (on both sides) were at pains to point that out during the campaign.

Seems a lot of people either didn't hear this or have chosen to ignore it

[Mutton Geoff]

This is like being in some sort of alternative universe. Months of discussion and debate (ad nauseum some would say) is equivalent to "jumping out of a plane without a parachute" is it?

And your views would be the same if the result had gone the other way ? The government had ignored it and triggered article 50 anyway ?

Really ?

Yeah right.

to be honest i agree with SP the remainers' had no plans as they expected to win and the leavers had no plans anyway , so now they are doing the planning on a beer mat strategy didn't matter how you voted, a government with decent forward planning on getting the best out of brexit might have been an idea to run with.

Right now we have three agenda led people not on the same chapter let alone page going to negotiate for this country is anyone leaping for joy about that?

[lfcderek]

Seems a lot of people either didn't hear this or have chosen to ignore it

Now - Either you're not appreciating my satire - or I'm not appreciating yours.

Or both?

Or neither?

Let's be clear then.

BOTH sides took the referendum as binding. If NO had won - then that really would have been the end of it for a generation as far as am concerned.

[oldfordie]

"It's irrelevant what people voted"
     - Democracy at it's finest.

"Labour should do what there supposed to do. hold the government to account."
    - Indeed! The Tory's should be heavily criticized if they don't trigger article 50 - which is what we told them to do in the Referendum.

"without having any clue of what that plan is."
    - Sorry. I don't remember any caveat's on the Referendum ballot paper about 'A PLAN'. It simply asked whether we should leave the EU.  i.e. should we trigger article 50 ?  We said YES.


'THE PLAN' should then surely be - to get the most beneficial terms possible in the 2 years after we trigger that article 50 - that same article 50 we told them to trigger in that Referendum thingy.

"It's irrelevant what people voted"
     - Democracy at it's finest.
"Labour should do what there supposed to do. hold the government to account."
    - Indeed! The Tory's should be heavily criticized if they don't trigger article 50 - which is what we told them to do in the Referendum.rendum.

Yes of course it's irrlevent what people voted, the question was what do Labour MPs do now. the answer is what they are supposed to do hold the government to account. did that referendum vote say anything about article 50 having to be triggered in March 2017, can you show me that caveat,?
 Parliament does not need caveats to give them the right to stop a bill that they believe is disastrous for our country, does that really need to be explained or justified..that has played a part in our democracy for hundreds of years. you want to by-pass this democratic process on a advisory referendum result that carry's no weight or mandate.
So you haven't got the moral high ground on this as you want to ignore the very basics of democracy.

'THE PLAN' should then surely be - to get the most beneficial terms possible in the 2 years after we trigger that article 50 - that same article 50 we told them to trigger in that Referendum thingy.

Again, we did not tell our government how and when article 50 is to be triggered or whether the plan shouldn't be put back to the public for approval.
I accept the fact that Cameron promised a 2ND referendum as people change their minds, I voted in the 1ST referendum to stay back in 1975, people have the right to change their minds and if Parliament feels a 3rd referendum is needed for the country to decide our next step then that is democracy in action. it certainly isn't triggering article 50 with no scrutiny or understanding of what happens next, that is irresponsible, our MPs should never act irresponsible when making such massive decisions.

[lfcderek]

Yes of course it's irrlevent what people voted, the question was what do Labour MPs do now. the answer is what they are supposed to do hold the government to account. did that referendum vote say anything about article 50 having to be triggered in March 2017, can you show me that caveat,?
 Parliament does not need caveats to give them the right to stop a bill that they believe is disastrous for our country, does that really need to be explained or justified..that has played a part in our democracy for hundreds of years. you want to by-pass this democratic process on a advisory referendum result that carry's no weight or mandate.
So you haven't got the moral high ground on this as you want to ignore the very basics of democracy.
Again, we did not tell our government how and when article 50 is to be triggered or whether the plan shouldn't be put back to the public for approval.
I accept the fact that Cameron promised a 2ND referendum as people change their minds, I voted in the 1ST referendum to stay back in 1975, people have the right to change their minds and if Parliament feels a 3rd referendum is needed for the country to decide our next step then that is democracy in action. it certainly isn't triggering article 50 with no scrutiny or understanding of what happens next, that is irresponsible, our MPs should never act irresponsible when making such massive decisions.

I'll ask again should I ?

The result is for NO.

The government then ignores that and triggers 50 anyway (they had a parliamentary majority)  because they felt that it was in the national interest.

That OK is it?

Or could it possibly be that your complaints are based around the fact that the people voted opposite to the way you did?
 
Surely not!




Difficult and complicated this democracy thing - isn't it ?


NB. As for when to trigger - 9 months too short?  2 years?  5 years?  25?

or is it really never? - and sod what the MAJORITY want.

[oldfordie]

I'll ask again should I ?

The result is for NO.

The government then ignores that and triggers 50 anyway (they had a parliamentary majority)  because they felt that it was in the national interest.

That OK is it?

Or could it possibly be that your complaints are based around the fact that the people voted opposite to the way you did?
 
Surely not!




Difficult and complicated this democracy thing - isn't it ?


NB. As for when to trigger - 9 months too short?  2 years?  5 years?  25?

or is it really never? - and sod what the MAJORITY want.

I'll ask again should I ?

The result is for NO.

The government then ignores that and triggers 50 anyway (they had a parliamentary majority)  because they felt that it was in the national interest.

That OK is it?

Or could it possibly be that your complaints are based around the fact that the people voted opposite to the way you did?

I assume you mean if the government took the decision to leave the EU without holding a referendum, is that right?
You may not like it but yes they have the power to do this, we actually joined the EU with no referendum. our government made that decision. afaik they made that decission after 21 DAYS of debates.
My complaint is based on wanting this whole farce cleared up one way or another. a minority of leave voters argue leaving the EU means leaving the single market and stopping freedom of movement, where the hell did that come from in that referendum result?  that is not true.
Some argue it's stopping EU bureaucracy which means taking away workers rights. people gave many reasons for leaving the EU that are not connected to the EU.
I want our MPs to know exactly what sort of Brexit the Torys want. if the Torys say our only option is a soft Brexit that takes us out the EU and keeps us in the single markets then fine, lets get this clarified and see how people react.
If the Torys say they want to take us out of the EU +the single market then I want the electorate given the opportunity to give them a mandate to do this with another referendum.
The Torys have no mandate to take us out the EU +the single market. that would be their decision not the publics.

[zero zero]

'THE PLAN' should then surely be - to get the most beneficial terms possible in the 2 years after we trigger that article 50 - that same article 50 we told them to trigger in that Referendum thingy.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”

Which warrior is Leave?

[lfcderek]

Re the 'Representative Democracy' issue.

We do indeed have a Parliamentary democracy where we vote for someone to 'Represent' our best interests in the governance of the country.

In practice we vote for a Party. A political organization which brings together similar minded individuals who stand on a manifesto. When we vote we, essentially, pick the package that best 'Represents' our views. We never agree with everything - we just choose the best fit.

This was different.

A single issue - YES or NO.

What we do after (triggering) is a different matter.

Most things will be up for grabs - although not free movement in my opinion since I feel that, in essence, was the Referendum question along with the supremacy of British Law over European.

[SP]

You may feel that, but that was not the question.

[lfcderek]

By the bye

Re: The Labour Party - Where to now? (*)

If the attitude represented on here in the last couple of hours is symptomatic of the Labour Party and it's supporters

then

the probable answer will be

Oblivion.

[oldfordie]

By the bye

Re: The Labour Party - Where to now? (*)

If the attitude represented on here in the last couple of hours is symptomatic of the Labour Party and it's supporters

then

the probable answer will be

Oblivion.

Sadly, I think we agree on that one. Labour have to distance themselves from a Tory Brexit.

[zero zero]

If the attitude represented on here in the last couple of hours is symptomatic of the Labour Party and it's supporters

You're been debating yourself in your last three posts.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

You're been debating yourself in your last three posts.

I think he's losing the argument regardless

[MOZ]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 33% (+4)
LDEM: 10% (+3)
UKIP: 7% (+1)
(via Ipsos Mori)

[SP]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 33% (+4)
LDEM: 10% (+3)
UKIP: 7% (+1)
(via Ipsos Mori)

The change figures are comparing with October's results. Comparing the above with September's equivalent poll gives:
CON: 42% (+2)
LAB: 33% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 7% (-2)

And August swings about a bit too. The Ipsos polls appear to be a bit all over the place. It could be noise, or it could be Corbyn's hide to avoid gaffes strategy starting to pay off.

[Thush]

Isn't a Labour increase in the polls what people want? Not sure why the first instinct would be to change the basis on which the polls are read or claim the increase is due to other non-Corbyn reasons, rather than say this is a good thing and Labour could be progressing in the right direction with the electorate.

Seems like "Polls down = Corbyn's fault. Polls up = Some other reason".

I might have misunderstood your post though.

[oojason]

Isn't a Labour increase in the polls what people want? Not sure why the first instinct would be to change the basis on which the polls are read or claim the increase is due to other non-Corbyn reasons, rather than say this is a good thing and Labour could be progressing in the right direction with the electorate.

Seems like "Polls down = Corbyn's fault. Polls up = Some other reason".

I might have misunderstood your post though.

No mate, you didn't. It's just another dig at Corbyn.

[Redman0151]

Glad to see a shift towards Labour again, silly changing the parameters just to find a way to turn it against Corbyn

[SP]

Isn't a Labour increase in the polls what people want? Not sure why the first instinct would be to change the basis on which the polls are read or claim the increase is due to other non-Corbyn reasons, rather than say this is a good thing and Labour could be progressing in the right direction with the electorate.

Seems like "Polls down = Corbyn's fault. Polls up = Some other reason".

I might have misunderstood your post though.

It's context as to whether the movement is significant. It is a reasonable first step whichever way the polls move.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/mori

If it swings the other way next month, the comments would still be valid. That poll just seems a little too volatile to have that much faith in.

[SP]

Glad to see a shift towards Labour again, silly changing the parameters just to find a way to turn it against Corbyn

Even sillier pinning too much analysis on a single datum. If I was really playing the spin game I would have used a longer time scale. Labour have been in the range 34-35% on Ipso Mori since March. Which suggests that October's 29% is an aberration. There was not major cock up that should have had that large an impact. The October figure is probably not as bad as it appears, which makes the recovery and reversion to a longer term mean less impressive than it appears. It does look like statistical noise rather than anything wildly significant.

[filopastry]

Even sillier pinning too much analysis on a single datum. If I was really playing the spin game I would have used a longer time scale. Labour have been in the range 34-35% on Ipso Mori since March. Which suggests that October's 29% is an aberration. There was not major cock up that should have had that large an impact. The October figure is probably not as bad as it appears, which makes the recovery and reversion to a longer term mean less impressive than it appears. It does look like statistical noise rather than anything wildly significant.

If the next ICM has these kind of numbers that would be a far better number for Labour as they have generally been the most Con leaning of all the pollsters, I think they were also the pollster that changed methodology most after the polling disaster that was the 2015 GE.

[Trada]

Like I said before I'm glad I live in Frome that has been totally taken over by local people winning all the seats on the town Council.

Its a Anti Austerity town, They try to get everyone to pay the real living wage.

They just had a referendum about how the council will spend its money for the next 10 years and people choose the good option, building cycle paths and things to help the poor and disable and not for profit house.

People had a Migrate demo  not long ago, but it was about letting more into the town and we have just had some more Syrian families come not long ago.

The BBC were here the other month filming a new project they have just started for a program the council have put some fridge and Freezers in a block in the town center and people take any unwanted cold and frozen food there and anyone can go there and help themselves to it for free.

And people say oh its no good being a campaigning and Demo party and they have done that as well saving local bus services.

Of course its just the town council but they have made a big difference to the town. The guardian voted it one of the coolest places to live in the UK. 

To think in the 80's it was a shithole and town sign on the way in had graffiti on it saying "will the last person to leave FROME turn off the lights."

Russell Brand was walking about in the town center not long ago and Billy Bragg did a free mini concert outside our local record shop, some of Poldark was filmed here even Victoria and Beckham were spotted.

Its a little socialist oasis in an County run by the Tories.

Jeremy is so right about people power its the way forward.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

How do they try to get people to pay the living wage, just curious

[killer-heels]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 33% (+4)
LDEM: 10% (+3)
UKIP: 7% (+1)
(via Ipsos Mori)

Interesting. I wonder whether the divisiveness of the states has made an impact here? Also I still maintain that May is on a honeymoon period and as the realities become apparent, Labour can make inroads.

Labour still needs to get into the freedom of movement debate.

[TepidT2O]

Interesting. I wonder whether the divisiveness of the states has made an impact here? Also I still maintain that May is on a honeymoon period and as the realities become apparent, Labour can make inroads.

Labour still needs to get into the freedom of movement debate.

How can they?

What's labour policy on freedom of movement?

Normally as an opposition you can fudge your position until an election campaign.  In this case, they can't, they need to be clear, concise and direct.

[killer-heels]

How can they?

What's labour policy on freedom of movement?

Normally as an opposition you can fudge your position until an election campaign.  In this case, they can't, they need to be clear, concise and direct.

Some want controls and a reduction (Starmer), some want full freedom of movement (Corbyn), some are just like me screaming racism (Abbot) and some are taking the Lib Dem position of not talking about it at all and just talking about trade (Kendall, Thornberry).

[zero zero]

Normally as an opposition you can fudge your position until an election campaign.  In this case, they can't, they need to be clear, concise and direct.

There's a first time for everything, I suppose.

[oldfordie]

Interesting. I wonder whether the divisiveness of the states has made an impact here? Also I still maintain that May is on a honeymoon period and as the realities become apparent, Labour can make inroads.

Labour still needs to get into the freedom of movement debate.

Labour can argue the Freedom of movement debate by arguing. the question now is not are people for or against freedom of movement. the question now is are people willing to pay the price to stop freedom of movement as the EU keep telling us, Freedom of movement +the single market are inseparable. you can't have one without the other.
This has been a fiasco. we are still having polls asking what do people prioritize, the single market or freedom of movement, we are now at the stage of what price are we willing to pay to get these priority's. what we would like and what we are willing to pay are 2 different things.