Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[classycarra]

Had Corbyn said he was against an early election? I've been out of the country for a bit.

Not that I'm aware of. He did say he had the party 'on an election footing', 'prepared for an early election', had people working every waking hour in case of an early'.

His party haven't even drafted a manifesto, and their main policy announcement since the election was called is to add four patriotic public holidays. The manifesto is due out about five weeks or so after the election was agreed. He voted for an early election, and managed to prove himself dishonest in the process.

As per usual, he has snookered himself. Tories and their supporters in the press don't even need to fling any shit on him and hope some sticks. He's voluntary bathing in it

[Dr. Beaker]

So a video clip, the point of which, was that you can't believe a word May says, somehow proves Corbyn to be a hypocrite, even though all he has done is vote for an early election, just like any other opposition leader would have done?

There are many valid reasons to criticise Corbyn, but this is Daily Mail territory.

Untwist knickers and relax.

[SP]

So a video clip, the point of which, was that you can't believe a word May says, somehow proves Corbyn to be a hypocrite, even though all he has done is vote for an early election, just like any other opposition leader would have done?

There are many valid reasons to criticise Corbyn, but this is Daily Mail territory.

Untwist knickers and relax.

No any other opposition leader would not have done it. He pissed away a prime opportunity to twist the knife. He should have resisted the calls, citing May's own words for resisting an IndyRef. He could says that he would relish the chance to beat the Tories, but responsible Government is more important.

May would then have been forced to either repeal the fixed term act, or call a vote of no confidence - all the while allowing Labour to portray May as being irresponsible and cavalier with the future of the country. You then have an attack line that Labour would put the country first, rather than May who is playing party politics rather than negotiating Brexit. It then becomes about her character. Which can then be linked her woeful home office record.

Instead just like June 24th, he just pissed away any political advantage by adopting a position without any apparent thought.

Instead, the lazy rebuttal to accusations that she broke her word is that Corbyn voted for it too. The more worrying rebuttal is that they delve into the archive for Corbyn's past position.

All of this is vitally important because Labour is heading for a catastrophe. They need to play a blinder just to lose heavily. And May is so ripe for a political kicking, but no one is taking their opportunity.

[oldfordie]

So a video clip, the point of which, was that you can't believe a word May says, somehow proves Corbyn to be a hypocrite, even though all he has done is vote for an early election, just like any other opposition leader would have done?

There are many valid reasons to criticise Corbyn, but this is Daily Mail territory.

Untwist knickers and relax.

Use whatever word you want, if he's not a hypocrite then he's stupid. if Corbyn was going to argue this election was only called to take advantage of Labours weakness etc then why did he vote for it knowing Labour are going to be decimated.
If Labour didn't want this election then they should have said the Torys had a cabinet meeting before announcing the GE, I will announce Labours position after we have had a cabinet meeting.
There was a perfectly good reason to oppose another GE, this parliament voted to trigger art 50,they have a duty to the country to see it through, there have been too many politicians who have cut and run after and it's time we had a bit of stability.
Am not sure what was the best move but he did have options.

[Dr. Beaker]

To the general public - never mind on here - to vote against the election woud simply have been cowardice. No prompts from the media necessary on that one. And half the party (the safe half) wouldn't have followed his lead, so it would have been a Pyrrhic loss anyway.

[SP]

To the general public - never mind on here - to vote against the election woud simply have been cowardice. No prompts from the media necessary on that one. And half the party (the safe half) wouldn't have followed his lead, so it would have been a Pyrrhic loss anyway.

It would have changed the dynamic and make May justify her complete U-turn, and justify wasting the Brexit negotiation period. If she felt that way she should have called the election before invoking Article 50. To invoke Article 50, then decide to call an election without any subsequent material changes is incompetent, and she should being roasted for that. Instead just like Article 50 itself Corbyn just nodded it through.   

[stewy17]

As if the Labour party were ever going to vote against a snap election, imagine how that would look?

Honestly, there are plenty of valid criticisms of Corbyn and the labour party but this thread is over the top. It's toxic.

I'm also amazed that any Labour voter would vote against Labour unless it's a well thought out tactical vote to win a seat from the tories. How can you criticise the leadership for not providing a strong enough opposition and thereby condemning us to years of tory rule and then not vote labour (thereby condemning us to years of tory rule)?. Surely by not voting Labour we're complicit in the government we'll receive?

Do people really believe that a Corbyn Labour government would be worse for the country than more tory rule (or the snivelling snakes Lib Dems propping them up again?).

[stewy17]

It would have changed the dynamic and make May justify her complete U-turn, and justify wasting the Brexit negotiation period. If she felt that way she should have called the election before invoking Article 50. To invoke Article 50, then decide to call an election without any subsequent material changes is incompetent, and she should being roasted for that. Instead just like Article 50 itself Corbyn just nodded it through.   

When was the last time an opposition party voted against a snap election?

You seriously believe that if Labour voted against the snap election (and failed anyway to stop it) that this would reflect well with the wider electorate and the media (which is already looking for any angle it can to whip them?)?

[zero zero]

Do people really believe that a Corbyn Labour government would be worse for the country than more tory rule (or the snivelling snakes Lib Dems propping them up again?).

There won't be a  Corbyn Labour government and the only major party, not only propping up the Tories but strengthening them is Corbyn's Labour because they keep on fucking voting with them.

[zero zero]

When was the last time an opposition party voted against a snap election?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

[Alan_X]

When was the last time an opposition party voted against a snap election?

You seriously believe that if Labour voted against the snap election (and failed anyway to stop it) that this would reflect well with the wider electorate and the media (which is already looking for any angle it can to whip them?)?

Which would have been politically more astute?

1. Aid and abet the Tories in a land grab while the polls are massively in their favour, guaranteeing a landslide, because it wouldn't 'reflect well'. Is Corbyn a relative of Marty McFLy:



or

2. Ensure the Tories go into Brexit negotiations with a tiny majority and give yourselves time to get your act together.

Corbyn was either arrogant or stupid. Or perhaps his first action after the election was called tells you where his priorities lay:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-opposes-automatic-reselection-of-labour-mps-for-general-election-sources-claim_uk_58f638a7e4b0b9e9848ec795

Why on earth would you go for a snap election that's almost bound to wipe you out? Maybe the opportunity to cleanse the party seemed too good to pass up. If you think that's far fetched you really need to do some research on Corbyn.

[oldfordie]

It would have changed the dynamic and make May justify her complete U-turn, and justify wasting the Brexit negotiation period. If she felt that way she should have called the election before invoking Article 50. To invoke Article 50, then decide to call an election without any subsequent material changes is incompetent, and she should being roasted for that. Instead just like Article 50 itself Corbyn just nodded it through.

I was going to make the exact same point,she actually did the opposite, she tried to exclude Parliament from having any influence on Brexit, she paid little respect for our democracy before she triggered art 50 and she's abusing our democracy again by calling a GE and claiming this is only about Brexit.
There are 2 issues, Brexit and the weakness of the Labour party, a vote for the Torys does not endorse a hard Brexit. if she wants this endorsement then she has to call another referendum after we know what Brexit she negotiates.

[stewy17]

There won't be a  Corbyn Labour government and the only major party, not only propping up the Tories but strengthening them is Corbyn's Labour because they keep on fucking voting with them.

I don't dispute that a Corbyn government is an unlikely outcome, I'm not a moron. The hypothetical I put forward was whether any Labour supporter truly believes that a conservative government or another tory coalition would be a better outcome than a Labour government. Whilst I would likely vote against Corbyn in any labour leadership election (if a viable alternative was put forward) ideologically and morally I cannot conceive of any situation where I could not vote Labour unless I was absolutely certain that a vote for the Lib Dems or Greens would assist in bringing about the end of a Tory government.

[Dr. Beaker]

So if Corbyn decided to vote against, that would have guaranteed no early election. Bit of a stretch that, in my opinion. An equally dangerous path, to say the least.

[stewy17]

Which would have been politically more astute?

1. Aid and abet the Tories in a land grab while the polls are massively in their favour, guaranteeing a landslide, because it wouldn't 'reflect well'. Is Corbyn a relative of Marty McFLy:



or

2. Ensure the Tories go into Brexit negotiations with a tiny majority and give yourselves time to get your act together.

Corbyn was either arrogant or stupid. Or perhaps his first action after the election was called tells you where his priorities lay:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-opposes-automatic-reselection-of-labour-mps-for-general-election-sources-claim_uk_58f638a7e4b0b9e9848ec795

Why on earth would you go for a snap election that's almost bound to wipe you out? Maybe the opportunity to cleanse the party seemed too good to pass up. If you think that's far fetched you really need to do some research on Corbyn.

Is it politically astute to oppose an election, appear to acknowledge your weakness and that you are able to win an election and leave yourself wide open to criticism from a media which is already out for you? No other party advocated this and there is no evidence that sufficient non-Labour MP's would have backed this.

In what realistic circumstance do you believe that Labour voting against the snap election would have been successful?

[SP]

When was the last time an opposition party voted against a snap election?

You seriously believe that if Labour voted against the snap election (and failed anyway to stop it) that this would reflect well with the wider electorate and the media (which is already looking for any angle it can to whip them?)?

It has never occurred before. The fixed term act is new. We have never been in an Article 50 negotiation before.

Currently the Tories are perceived as a safe pair of hands. This would have allowed an angle of attack on that competency. It also removes the current Tory party line that this election is needed for the Brexit negotiations.

You could build a whole line of attack about how the Tories cavalier approach lead us into a referendum with no clear indication as to what Brexit looked like, and their cavalier approach to the negotiations and consulting parliament. Make the story about them being reckless fools - Johnson and Fox are ample evidence of that.

Sure May could have forced an election - but she would have had to use chicanery and parliamentary games to do it, reinforcing the narrative that she is putting party before country.

[stewy17]

It has never occurred before. The fixed term act is new. We have never been in an Article 50 negotiation before.

Currently the Tories are perceived as a safe pair of hands. This would have allowed an angle of attack on that competency. It also removes the current Tory party line that this election is needed for the Brexit negotiations.

You could build a whole line of attack about how the Tories cavalier approach lead us into a referendum with no clear indication as to what Brexit looked like, and their cavalier approach to the negotiations and consulting parliament. Make the story about them being reckless fools - Johnson and Fox are ample evidence of that.

Sure May could have forced an election - but she would have had to use chicanery and parliamentary games to do it, reinforcing the narrative that she is putting party before country.

Yes, saw that earlier.

Your points are all valid but I still don't see that Labour could have spun it this way and I still don't see a circumstance where an opposition party voting against a snap election could be spun positively. I've seen it said often in this thread that Labour is not connecting with the electorate, I don't believe that the arguments you have set out would have connected with the British electorate, it would only have been portrayed and widely accepted as cowardice.

They have to have a belief that they can win an election, if Labour had voted against the election they would have been open to attack from all sides and UKIP and the Lib Dems would use this to highlight the weakness and split the labour vote further.

[zero zero]

I don't dispute that a Corbyn government is an unlikely outcome, I'm not a moron. The hypothetical I put forward was whether any Labour supporter truly believes that a conservative government or another tory coalition would be a better outcome than a Labour government.

I think the overwhelming majority agree that any Labour government would be better than Tory or Tory coalition. No argument from me. It's just never going to happen under Corbyn.

Whilst I would likely vote against Corbyn in any labour leadership election (if a viable alternative was put forward) ideologically and morally I cannot conceive of any situation where I could not vote Labour unless I was absolutely certain that a vote for the Lib Dems or Greens would assist in bringing about the end of a Tory government.

On Brexit, ideologically Labour stopped being my party without telling or telling me why. My constituency doesn't even register on those tactical voting lists, so like many on here, I expect it'll be a case of voting "Labour, holding my nose".

Frankly, I'm already sick of hearing that whenever Corbyn gets the party to vote with the Tories that he had no choice. That's bollocks in my opinion. There were all kinds of other routes, some well expressed by SP. He'd get criticised? He's getting criticised now.

And in addition to Alan's point of whether it was politically astute to go into this election when Corbyn had May's own words and the Fixed Term Parliament Act to fall back on, what about financially? Labour has to fight and win in the local elections and then find money to fight and lose a general election. Doesn't make any sense to me.

[Sangria]

Yes, saw that earlier.

Your points are all valid but I still don't see that Labour could have spun it this way and I still don't see a circumstance where an opposition party voting against a snap election could be spun positively. I've seen it said often in this thread that Labour is not connecting with the electorate, I don't believe that the arguments you have set out would have connected with the British electorate, it would only have been portrayed and widely accepted as cowardice.

They have to have a belief that they can win an election, if Labour had voted against the election they would have been open to attack from all sides and UKIP and the Lib Dems would use this to highlight the weakness and split the labour vote further.

And you take your pick as to what course to pursue, and accept the consequences that go with it. Labour chose the route of supporting the snap election, so they can't then attack May for calling a snap election. That's what Labour wanted. It's in Hansard.

[SP]

So if Corbyn decided to vote against, that would have guaranteed no early election. Bit of a stretch that, in my opinion. An equally dangerous path, to say the least.

No. It would have forced May to either repeal the Fixed Terms Act - which was designed to prevent exactly what she was trying to do. That could get tied up in the Lords who could delay the repeal for up to a year - and I suspect that they would delay it - May would be attempting to circumvent an Act of Parliament for party political ends. It would be a bit of a mess.

Or she would have to go for a vote of no confidence. That could pass, but she would have it thrown back in her face at every possible opportunity.

Labour could not stop May getting an election, but they could have made the process far more difficult for May, and highlighted the naked opportunism of the snap election. As it is, the bullshit about it being for Brexit has been swallowed by way too many. Labour have made things far too easy for May on way too many occasions.

If you ask yourself the question, Would May rather Labour voted for or against a snap election, you would argue For every time.

[zero zero]

No. It would have forced May to either repeal the Fixed Terms Act - which was designed to prevent exactly what she was trying to do. That could get tied up in the Lords who could delay the repeal for up to a year - and I suspect that they would delay it - May would be attempting to circumvent an Act of Parliament for party political ends. It would be a bit of a mess.

There's also her voting record: Theresa May almost always voted for fixed periods between parliamentary elections.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=6698

[Alan_X]

Is it politically astute to oppose an election, appear to acknowledge your weakness and that you are able to win an election and leave yourself wide open to criticism from a media which is already out for you? No other party advocated this and there is no evidence that sufficient non-Labour MP's would have backed this.

In what realistic circumstance do you believe that Labour voting against the snap election would have been successful?

You do that thing called 'politics'. As Jon says, they could have made it far more difficult for the Tories by opposing them and forcing a repeal of the Fixed Term Act or a vote of no confidence.

If the concern is that you leave yourself wide open to criticism then maybe worry about the hundred other things that you're criticised for before being worried about actually acting like the opposition.

[Dr. Beaker]

You do that thing called 'politics'. As Jon says, they could have made it far more difficult for the Tories by opposing them and forcing a repeal of the Fixed Term Act or a vote of no confidence.

If the concern is that you leave yourself wide open to criticism then maybe worry about the hundred other things that you're criticised for before being worried about actually acting like the opposition.

Labour standing solidly behind Corbyn to vote against the election would never have happened.

[Sangria]

Labour standing solidly behind Corbyn to vote against the election would never have happened.

Why not? They stood solidly enough behind Corbyn when he ordered them to follow the Tories on Brexit.

[Dr. Beaker]

Why not? They stood solidly enough behind Corbyn when he ordered them to follow the Tories on Brexit.

Most of the Labour party don't 'follow' Corbyn on anything, and you know it.

[Sangria]

Most of the Labour party don't 'follow' Corbyn on anything, and you know it.

Did I imagine the 3 line whip on article 50?

[Dr. Beaker]

Did I imagine the 3 line whip on article 50?

All Labour's 'big guns' were (bafflingly) of the same mind on that one as I remember it.

[Sangria]

All Labour's 'big guns' were (bafflingly) of the same mind on that one as I remember it.

Which, of course, excuses the Labour leader. I've seen articles claim that it was a bombshell study on how Labour constituencies voted that made the leadership change its mind on whether or not to oppose Brexit. Which puzzles me, as Corbyn is on record as demanding the immediate invocation of article 50 on 24th June 2016.

[SP]

All Labour's 'big guns' were (bafflingly) of the same mind on that one as I remember it.

Or toeing the party line. Corbyn closed off any the response with his initial comments.

[Alan_X]

All Labour's 'big guns' were (bafflingly) of the same mind on that one as I remember it.

Sixteen frontbenchers voted against including three whips.

[Dr. Beaker]

Sixteen frontbenchers voted against including three whips.

I'll raise you, Benn, Burnham, Cooper, Milliband, Eagle, Harman, Jarvis, Kendall, Kinnock, Starmer, Umunna, Watson, Rotherham, Beckett, Johnson, Field, Reeves.........

[zero zero]

I'll raise you, Benn, Burnham, Cooper, Milliband, Eagle, Harman, Jarvis, Kendall, Kinnock, Starmer, Umunna, Watson, Rotherham, Beckett, Johnson, Field, Reeves.........

Hang on, I've lost track. Is this the list of the Labour party we know don't follow the leader?

[Alan_X]

I'll raise you, Benn, Burnham, Cooper, Milliband, Eagle, Harman, Jarvis, Kendall, Kinnock, Starmer, Umunna, Watson, Rotherham, Beckett, Johnson, Field, Reeves.........

Sorry, we're through the looking glass now. Corbyn called a three-line-whip on Article 50 and you're accusing them of obeying it instead of kicking off? They didn't just troll through the lobby - they were under a three-line-whip. 16 front-benchers and 50 MPs in total ignored the whip and resigned and were reprimanded.

[oldfordie]

The Torys would crap themselves if Corbyn resigned and allowed another leader with a new cabinet to fight the GE, It should be obvious to Corbyns most ardent supporter by now, he's in for a humiliating campaign that will destroy his credibility and the chances of maintaining a center left Labour party.

[Libertine]

https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/856745755150766080

Those were the days.....

[Sangria]

https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/856745755150766080

Those were the days.....

The opposition frontbench from that time.

Leader of the Opposition: Tony Blair
Shadow chancellor: Gordon Brown
Shadow foreign secretary: Robin Cook
Shadow home secretary: Jack Straw

Current opposition frontbench

Leader of the Opposition: Jeremy Corbyn
Shadow chancellor: John McDonnell
Shadow foreign secretary: Emily Thornberry
Shadow home secretary: Diane Abbott

The current Labour membership probably far prefer the second set to the first.

[TepidT2O]

I could cry....  the difference..

[Dr. Beaker]

Sorry, we're through the looking glass now. Corbyn called a three-line-whip on Article 50 and you're accusing them of obeying it instead of kicking off? They didn't just troll through the lobby - they were under a three-line-whip. 16 front-benchers and 50 MPs in total ignored the whip and resigned and were reprimanded.

So all those big-hitters sold the country down the Swanny because if they didn't they would have got reprimanded - fair enough.

[Rhi]

Labour announced their Brexit policy today (which actually isn't all that bad, btw, though is pretty light on detail). Imagine if there wasn't a general election? If there wasn't one, we'd still not have any idea whether Labour had even had half a think about their approach to it, other than "OK Theresa, whatever you say". SO FUCKING FRUSTRATING.

[Zeb]

Simon Wren-Lewis has written in the past about Labour's economic accomplishments in power. A quick recap by him on how perception and reality have become divorced since Wilson's "Labour Government Works" campaign. If Corbyn's supporters are all-in with the idea that the media distorts perception of political figures, then tackling (even at this late stage) the myth that Labour can't be trusted with the economy should take centre stage. It would involve laying to rest some Blairite demons for many of them, I know, but hope springs eternal. And, as is likely, it's not them who'll do it then it once more will fall on a new leader to tackle this as Miliband failed and Corbyn is failing to do.

The political debate should really be about economic competence. Mediamacro assumes that the Conservatives are more competent at running the economy because that is what the polls say, and the polls say that in part because mediamacro assumes it. It is a self-reinforcing loop, where the last thing the media thinks of doing is asking academic economists. How would I, as an academic macroeconomist, assess competence when it comes to running the macroeconomy?

The obvious thing to do is to look at key macroeconomic decisions made by governments, and how they turned out. I would be particularly hard on governments when they chose to go against the prevailing academic consensus, and this choice did not turn out well. I have written about this before on a few occasions: see here and here for example. Let me summarise why I think, once again, it is the Conservatives rather than Labour who have a lot of explaining to do.

We can start with monetarism, which in its most basic form is setting policy according to movements in monetary aggregates (the ‘money supply’). It was a short lived failure. A particular failure was the 1981 budget, raising taxes in the middle of a recession, which was famously opposed by 364 economists. The economists were right: the recovery (properly defined) was delayed by 18 months. This is not the story told by mediamacro, but it is an account that fits the facts.

The next economic disaster was the Lawson boom of the late 1980s, which combined a monetary and fiscal stimulus that increased inflation. I was once told by someone close to decisions at the time that Lawson wanted to reduce the top tax rate to 40% in 1988, and it was thought to be politically expedient to combine this was a standard rate cut even though we were in the middle of a boom. Monetary policy involved shadowing the DM, so could not counteract the fiscal stimulus and other inflationary pressures.

By 1990, the Lawson boom was becoming a recession, and the Conservative government decided to formally fix the exchange rate. Their chosen rate was much too high, as the work I carried out with colleagues at NIESR clearly showed. Black Wednesday, when the UK was forced to abandon the fixed exchange rate regime, rightly lost the Conservatives their reputation for economic competence for some time to come.

Between 1992 and 1997 the management of the economy was better, but without any major decisions or events. Widening the definition of policy you can justifiably credit Thatcher with weakening trade union power, but her failure to emulate Norway and establish a sovereign wealth fund from North Sea Oil revenues was a clear mistake.

Under Labour there were three major macroeconomic decisions, and all three were successes. First most academics agree with central bank independence, and I think most would agree that the design of the Monetary Policy Committee in 1997 was particularly good. Second, the decision not to join the Euro in 2003 was clearly correct, which was taken after extensive economic analysis. Third, the decision to embark on fiscal stimulus after the Great Recession was correct, in much the same way as Obama’s slightly later stimulus was correct.

Should we count the financial crisis, and the failure to prevent it happening, as a clear negative against economic competence? I would argue not, as (a) the opposition argued for less financial regulation, and (b) the government did follow the consensus view at the time. If any institution is to blame, it is the Bank of England for ignoring the rise in bank leverage. As to a profligate fiscal policy, this is simply a myth.

The incoming coalition government set up the OBR, which deserves credit just as setting up the MPC under Labour does. However their decision to embark on austerity in 2010 was a huge mistake, which once again probably went against majority academic opinion, particularly as it involved cutting public investment sharply. And then we have Brexit. Although arguably mandated by a referendum, the decision to leave the Single Market and customs union are down to the Conservative government alone.

We will be able to compare the economic policies of the two parties this time when they publish their manifestos. This post is about track records. It shows clearly that Labour tend to get things right, while the Conservatives have created a number of major policy-induced disasters. As with the ‘strong economy’, mediamacro have got it completely wrong about macroeconomic competence. But I’m afraid, as was the case in 2015 and 2016, it will be mediamacro rather than reality that carries the day. That, alas, is how democracy currently works in the UK. 

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/economic-competence-revisited.html