British Politics Thread

So, to paraphrase: "Waste your time making sure you don't get elected next time, get half the shadow cabinet resigning, and fail to stop Brexit."

Political genius.

It's counterproductive because all it would do is shore up May's position in her own party. Suddenly the backstop won't be a problem at all if the ERG are faced with the prospect of no Brexit at all.

The people's vote in its current format will only pass the house if the alternative is no deal. It needs the conservatives to be split, with ERG angling for a no deal and the Tory remainers finally jumping ship.

Labour leadership did set impossible goals, because it was clear from the start that May had no intention of working with them. If she had stared down the ERG and pushed for a cross party solution from the get go we wouldn't of been in this mess. Instead she tried to do it with Tory votes alone, even when she lost her majority. Against that backdrop why should Labour have lent a helping hand when even now it is being smacked away.

And besides, Labour have dropped the "exact same benefits" test. The EU is being receptive to the customs union plan. It's something.

I don't know whether it's your intention to claim that you understand British politics better than the British posters in this thread do, but that is exactly what you're doing. In the past, Russian and US posters have called you out for doing the same thing on their threads, along with the same observations that you don't understand their countries as well you think.

I'm quite sure it is so I will say something I don't very often say:

I am not a Corbyn supporter.

I normally don't even vote Labour (I do sometimes, for tactical reasons only).

The reason I keep correcting posts is because the British media is exceptionally agenda-driven when it comes to news reporting. The following two facts are true:

• Media circulation is 82% pro-Brexit (Loughborough University)
• Media circulation is 75% anti-Corbyn (London School of Economics)

He has been taking actions. They just aren't actions you like.

The problem is that, in a normal situation, the historic defeat of that deal means that it would have been history. May has refused to let go of it and insisted she'd be bringing it back for another vote — that killed any option for PV to be called before the new vote because the PV needs Tory rebels for it to pass and they won't rebel in the required numbers until Parliament is left with only an either/or option. As a result, Parliament has been left without the ability to obtain a majority for anything — even the 'take No Deal off the table' option only obtains a majority in the symbolic votes (in the votes with real legislative power, even that vote fails).

A People's Vote will only obtain a majority when Parliament is left with an either/or decision to make. May has been trying to make sure that doesn't happen because her goal is to force her deal through Parliament in any way she can, and she can only do that by using the threat of No Deal to pressurise MPs into caving — it's an attempt to force Labour MPs to change their minds about the deal in enough numbers to negate the ERG refusal to support it. It's also the reason why the Labour Conference agreed that they'd follow a step-by-step process — it's the only way to exhaust all the options and force Parliament into an either/or moment.

A People's Vote held too early will not only fail, but it will delegitimise the option and ensure it can never again be brought before the House as a serious option. The PV option only gets one good moment to succeed. If the timing is wrong, there will be no second chance.

Also, remember this: some MPs who support a PV want the referendum question to be between No Deal and May's Deal, with absolutely no Remain option at all. So, for those who want a PV to overturn Brexit, not only do they need the numbers to pass a PV, they need the numbers to get Remain onto the referendum as an option — those are two different fights.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Feb 18th 2019 at 1:07:57 PM

No, I am saying that I reserve the right to base my opinion on what people which can be called experts in one way or another say instead of on posts from more or less random people on the internet. Works on the flipside too, btw. You don't need to believe me, especially not regarding British politics, since I am clearly not an expert, nor do I claim to be one. I am just sharing opinions and read other people opinions in the hope of finding arguments which are worth exploring. I would post more links, but since there have been first complains about the things I was posting being "too long" and then, when I went for shorter sound bites them being "too random", I have mostly given up on it.

Not that it truly matters anymore. They have waited so long for the "right moment", it is too late now.

Edited by Swanpride on Feb 18th 2019 at 4:45:34 AM

No, the right moment has never existed.

There is a growing hope among the PV MPs that the 27th February will finally create the opportunity for the either/or moment to be created. It will depend on how the vote goes and whether Cooper can get her planned amendment passed, but it's the first time — genuinely the first time — that an opportunity for the PV has finally become a possibility.

Personally, I'm not so sure, but we have to wait for the 27th and see what happens on that day.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Feb 18th 2019 at 12:57:32 PM

That part also confuses me. How do you know people aren't Labour members?

Wait yeah I missed that, I’m a current (and lifelong) Labour member and someone who studied politics at degree level (though I admit to both focusing on IR and failing my degree due to not submitting assignments), yet I’m pretty sure you never grant my opinions any weight.

Like that’s fine and all, but your claim doesn’t make much sense considering that context.

Or do you mean labour members who don’t support Corbyn?

Well, some people actually say what party they elect/used to elect. Apparently the group of the "political homeless" to use a phrase from James O Brien is growing in the UK.

But this aside, considering the mess the Tories are currently creating, Labour should smash them. And yet, they don't.

They don't because they can't. The numbers are not there. The opportunity is not there. The only way that will change will be if Labour becomes the majority somehow or if Tory Remainers grow spines.

Labour should smash them in a fair political environment with an unbiased media and a proper voting system yes, but we don’t live in that environment.

Also I’m not convinced on the idea of the “politically homeless” being on the rise, seeing as the Labour Party has seen huge membership growth under Corbyn. I’d love a source on your claim there. Unless you’re only counting upper-middle-class, neoliberal pundits, they’re finding themselves without much in the way of a political home right now.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 18th 2019 at 5:08:17 PM

FWIW, I'm also a Labour member

Well, I didn't claim that all Labour members are frustrated and ready to leave the party, I claim that enough of them are that this might lead to Labour actually losing in the next election despite the absolute shambles the Tories have created.

According to polling done by the Queen Mary University and You Gov (and those are organisation Labour themselves points to in their own publications), the overwhelming majority of Labour members wants Britain to stay into the single market after Brexit (something Corby doesn't want, so he ignoring, what, 87 percent of his party members), nearly the same number were pro customs union and, I think it was 78 percent, wanted a second referendum on any Brexit deal.

So of the three things Labour members want out of a Brexit Corbyn is only supporting one of them.

And I think that shows were clearly that Labour members are overwhelming pro-remain (the voters are too, in case you didn't notice, while there are some Labour strongholds which went for leave, a lot of them didn't - plus, it is naive to assume that Labour voters who voted for Brexit would automatically start to vote for the Tories).

I also think that Labour missed an opportunity during the last election. I think they would have gotten more, not less votes, with a clearer stance on Brexit. Instead of promising one thing in one place and something else in the next, they should have told the Brexit voting areas: You are right to complain, there is a lot we need to address, but the EU was never the problem. We will help your area by doing X. And regarding Brexit, this is what the Tories promised, and if they can't deliver on the promise, we will fight to protect your rights in any way possible.

Instead they wrote "we will support Brexit" into their manifesto, hence creating this myth that everyone who voted for them was also supporting Brexit, instead of people picking the least worst between two bad options they were offered.

To be very clear here: I am NOT critical of Corbyn because the stupid Anti-Semitism discussion (mostly because the coverage is extremely confusing, I have given up to have any opinion about this), or the notion that he is "too leftist" (I said it before that I would actually support a lot of his policies). I am critical of him because of his outdated view on the EU, the various outright wrong statements he made about the EU (and I am talking about things I heard him saying or which were quoted by reputable sources), and because I don't think that Labour should have LOST the last election.

I mean, Brexit was already quite a mess at this point, May was a terrible campaigner and then the Greenfelt fire happened which demonstrated perfectly why the "let's get rid of red tape" philosophy is such a BS. It was basically an empty goal. And yet Labour missed it. And listening to the swing voters back then, one of the reasons why was because they didn't think that Corbyn was honest, mostly due to him not having a clear stance on Brexit.

And yes, I am very aware that having a Brexit into which everyone could imagine whatever he wanted was part of the reason why it got over the line. It was smart of the Brexit campaigners to not define it before the referendum. But the lack of clarity after it, it would have been a perfect point of attack for Corbyn. But instead of insisting that the Tories define the kind of Brexit they intend to go for BEFORE triggering article 50, and using the lack of a clear goal and a preparation plan for Brexit itself as a reason to NOT vote for this act of self-harm, Corbyn convinced his party to vote for it, hence ensuring that no matter what, Labour will be blamed for the outcome of Brexit.

To be perfectly clear here: I am not blaming Labour for not being in a position to stop the Tories. I am blaming Labour for not speaking up for the 48%, as they should have. It is really sad that when I think about the most prolific Anti-Brexit voices in politics, the first name which comes into my mind is f... Anna Soubry. this might be partly due to a preference of the British media to book specific Labour members for their shows, but there are a lot of people who aren't even politicians who have managed to make their voices heard and have become pretty visible campaigners. Hell, every time I see Anna Soubry and a Labour member in the same interview/talk show/whatever, I tend to agree with her over the Labour member. AND SHE IS A F... TORIE!!!! There is something wrong with you when a Torie comes off as having more integrity than you.

Thus said, David Lammy is another one I really like - too bad he isn't heard more often.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1097530350987821063

Edited by Swanpride on Feb 19th 2019 at 12:35:09 PM

After the Labour split, I have to ask, is there a single competent politician to be found anywhere in the UK?

Err, many?

Yeh this split isn’t a big thing from the perspective of what it takes away from the party, these are minor M Ps without serious experience, this isn’t like if say Cooper, Burnham and others left the party.

It’s a big thing from a PR perspective and a big thing for parliamentary math (the Tories have a very thin majority and now have seven seats guaranteed to them at the next election), but what it costs the Labour Party in experience and competence isn’t much.

Any word on other big figures by the way, I’m curious as to if Blair has made a statement.

> Err, many?

So who is likely to be considered a competent politician? I'm struggling to name even one

Tom Watson. There's one.

Keir Starmer?

David Lammy. My MP, Jonathan Edwards (much as I cringe at Plaid's heckling of Labour). Keir Starmer. I'd honestly include Dianne Abbott.

If I was more knowledgable about the ins and outs of MPs I'm sure I'd be able to name more. Bit of a sweeping statement to claim there aren't any competent MPs out there.

Edited by GoldenKaos on Feb 19th 2019 at 5:54:48 PM

yeah, I have to agree, there are competent M Ps...the problem is, that they keep getting outvoted by the stupid ones.

Shamima Begum has UK citizenship revoked by British government

Hasn't everyone been saying this is basically illegal (assuming she doesn't have dual citizenship).

Is this just a big F-You to international law?

Yeah. That's what I thought. Her family's lawyers are on the case, apparently.

To be clear here, this is not the discussion between "experts" in the common sense, but since I am always told that I "don't get" labour voters, here a group of potential labour voters (and former labour members) airing their grievance - one of them actually saying that Corbyn isn't left enough for him.

They also address the Anti-Semitism discussion and make the very good point that while criticising the State of Israel is not anti-Semitic, bringing it up out of the blue just because you are talking to someone who happens to be Jewish is. I can completely get behind that thought.

But I also wanted to know if they are right about Labours role in the decline of Liverpool....has anyone additional information and/or another perspective on this?

Fuck the Tories.

Apparently, international cooperation and law are completely meaningless.

And, they expect the world to want to trade with us post-Brexit? Pulling this kind of exeptionalist idiocy?

How mad are they?

<despair>

Maybe another time, mate. We've got a different fire to worry about, for now. -_-'

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 19th 2019 at 7:45:18 PM