British Politics Thread

Interviewer: Do you think we should launch an air strike on the European Parliament in order to secure a good deal?

Raab: Well I wouldn't want to take it off the table...

Edited by singularityshot on Sep 22nd 2019 at 10:54:49 AM

Labour votes down a proposal to support Remain in a second referendum, backing the leader's stance to be neutral. It's official, the party has little strategy on Brexit. As for Corbyn and his support for the EU, actions or in this case motions, speak louder than words.

Shockingly, the party split on Brexit is still split on Brexit and does not want to push on people an opinion. For which both sides will claim that Labour really wants the other result because projection is easy.

The proposal itself honestly comes across as the most mature position that's possible on this subject. This is how the first second referendum should have been run. Except, as shown by the Sky article's lack of clarity about what the policy proposal actually is, a mature, nuanced discussion of this subject isn't possible.

Ironically for the Liberal Democrats and their quest to be seen as the centrist party, between them going full Revoke and the Tories going full No Deal, Labour's policy is actually as close to a centre-ground as we're capable of getting with Brexit.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 23rd 2019 at 8:50:29 PM

The party has a strategy, it’s not one I like but it very much is a strategy.

In the end a second referendum (especially a fair one) basically is a Remain stance, it’s why I’ve always kinda preferred Revoking to a People’s Vote, everyone knows that the point of another referendum is so we step back from this stupidity, so why pretend we are okay with either result.

In the end this isn’t Corbyn’s fault, this one is on the membership, god this has been a mess, the stupid vote to ban private schools combined with this has pissy me off.

At least Mc Donnell is being fun, he’s openly said there’s no such this as a better deal than Remain and had some fun with a gameshow wheel of nationalisation at one event.

Seconded.

Brexit should never have been allowed to get party political.

No one party should fall squarely in a Yes or No camp: this is too big for that.

And always has been.

I support the Labour Party's line. This is democratic procedure.

In a sane world, with no party being willing to circumvent parliamentary sovereignty and with a truly free press, sure: revoke and road map a real discourse over years to sort out this mess.

We're not in that world.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Sep 23rd 2019 at 8:52:31 PM

I'm happy enough with the Labour position. I just wish that Corbyn wouldn't insist on being such an enigma on the subject.

I mean it's fair enough that he doesn't want to tip his hand given that it seems like he wants to avoid the David Cameron scenario and have the second referendum be a pseudo confidence vote.

But into that vacuum we have all these rumours and suggestions, briefings and machinations from various courtiers and functionaries that just creates confusion and provides excellent fodder for the press to spin the whole thing as a party divided.

I suspect that the horrifying reality is that Corbyn doesn’t feel strongly either for or against Brexit.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 23rd 2019 at 8:33:11 AM

> the stupid vote to ban private schools

somewhere Boris just had idea

"What if we..abolished state run schools,it would mean only wealthy coudld afford an education!"

Ban every school but Eton.

Well, it's possible to think that this is an incredibly stupid move and still not like the EU. Which was more or less the position he took in the referendum.

Though now, if the party is neutral, then the leader adopting a position would be strange.

Edited by RainehDaze on Sep 23rd 2019 at 9:44:02 AM

Meh, the vote against private schools isn't that big a deal to me. The crying shame was that it overshadowed the big education announcements like the plan to abolish OFSTED and replace it with a much more reactive inspection regime that isn't obsessed with exam results and seemingly punishing wayward schools.

@Wyldchyld: Brexit has consequences much more critical than Labour's electoral success, that should be the least of worries. Besides, the country is as divided on the issue as possible already and revoking the referendum would still result in less harm than Brexit.

Plus, a party whose members largely backed Remain should fight harder, not stay neutral. The few who wanted to leave shouldn't have their wishes overcome the majority's opinion.

Edited by Grafite on Sep 23rd 2019 at 10:04:09 AM

... who do you think takes part in the party convention?

Since it was such a small room, I assumed it was only Labour parliament members voting. My bad. That's even more disappointing then what I thought, but at least democratic.

Nah it was the delegates sent by every Constituency Labour Party, thus why this really isn’t on Corbyn.

It’s bad politics, it makes no exception for alternative educational establishment (like ones that follow the “learning is more than exams” philosophy that we’re meant to be embracing), it’s a violation of the human rights act and it’s just not how you root out privileged system. What next, a legal bar on all private healthcare?

We should be making private education redundant and used only by people after strange alternative (but still valid and checked upon) approaches to education.

This plan would technically force the shut down of the oldest children’s democracy in the world, a beacon of anarchical education that has lead in democratic schooling. The Ofsted we’re planning to abolish, it tried so hard to shut my school down because of its non-test non-classroom based approach to education, now we’re going to do the dirty work of Ofsted for it?

We’re got dam socialists, but now we’re shutting down anarcho-communes by force? Fuck are we playing at?

The removal of charitable, status I’m fine with, hell chuck VAT on the school fees as well, that’s fair.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 23rd 2019 at 9:59:02 AM

Because when people chose to oppose private schooling that is every bit the opposite of what comes to mind? For most people that's obscure trivia as opposed to the overrepresentation of a single school amongst the benches of parliament.

Sure it’s a random edge case that nobody at conference expect possibly my CLP delegate will have heard off.

But edge cases happen, we should understand that and not make huge blanket idea that don’t account for edge cases.

Pass a broad call for private education to be rolled back and elite private schools to shut down, its the exact same thing without making a manifesto pledge that ignores edge cases.

I'm for banning pay to play (in politics and economics).

Private education certainly has uses, but not the ones we currently put it to.

I wouldn't mind seeing my old boarding school go the way of the dodo... as long as people who need to send kids to a place they don't currently live can have them schooled (forces, diplomatic and expat kids should have some stability when their parents bop about the map every three years... even if it's only at boarding school — with way more access to better therapists).

There are many uses and reasons for boarding, but being primarily "to extract cash from parents while not giving a toss about the long-term mental and societal health of their kids as long as they make it through Freshers' Week at uni" ain't one of them. And, turning them into Etonian, Ampleforthian or Cheltenham Ladies templated drones fit only to smarm through interviews or say the right things in Union Societies isn't really good for the kids (let alone society).

Edited by Euodiachloris on Sep 23rd 2019 at 11:31:04 AM

The simplest way to kill of pay for play is to make it redundant, make public schools so good that nobody is going to send their kid to a private school, but that will take decades, we can’t start with the end product.

I’m not actually afraid of this becoming a thing, it’s a violating of the human rights act and even if it was looking real I suspect that an exception for philosophically different schools could be added in with relative ease.

It’s just the broad brush blanketness of it that pisses me off, I don’t want us turning into the Green Party where the membership makes the manifesto into a collection of random thoughts without any serious planning put into them.

Heck, I'm all for revamping education root to tip... by asking the teachers from primary all the way to colleges, universities and the rare few occupational schemes still going what they think will actually work.

As in the teachers — not the administration.

It's not the job of politicians or parents to force their kids into being what they think they should be by throwing enough money at fix-kwik schemes that sound good in a sound bite or brochure, but cost people in long-term damage.

Though really, if any party is occasionally going to segue into putting something entirely in the public sector, we shouldn't be surprised when it's Labour.

It’s not surprising but it’s far from the only type of socialism out there, workers cooperatives exist and I don’t think the Labour Party should go round nationalising cooperatives.

That would be a fun mess to try and sort out given that 38 of the MPs in the Commons are part of the Co-Operative Party as well as being tied with Labour.

Supreme Court decision: the Prime Minister unlawfully advised The Queen to grant prorogation, and the prorogation is void and not in effect.

Edited by Ulysses21 on Sep 24th 2019 at 9:45:18 AM