New Labour Leader

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

On 22/12/2020 at 19:04, PurpleCanary said:

Labour won't win the next election, but there is a good chance of an anti-Tory coalition government, one of whose first actions will be to apply to rejoin the EU or at least ask for Norway-style status.

Agree that Labour won't win an outright majority at the next election (nor will the Tories) so the main hope for a good while now has been an anti-Tory coalition, which clearly could.

However, it seems to me that after an excellent start, Starmer now seems to be making a complete pig's ear of things - if he insists on Labour voting for Johnson's terrible deal then that looks likely to kill off any chance of the anti-Tory coalition including Labour. Add in him p*ssing off the SNP with the notion that all that is required north of the border is a little more devolution and the whole idea of anti-Tory coalition including Labour looks like a complete non-starter.

That doesn't negate the fact that an SNP\Lib Dem\Green & Plaid alliance could inflict quite a bit of damage on both the Tories and Labour but clearly not enough to form a government at Westminister.

So it still seems to me that the easiet approach to regaining those rights as an EU citizen which Johnson is going to strip me of in a weeks time is to move a bit north into Scotland which is likely to be independent in a few years and then rapidly re-admitted to the EU.

[Herman 9,765]

My feeling is that Labour should simply abstain on the vote and let it get through on tory votes. Let them own the thing completely. Even with a few of the dribbling headbangers voting against it should get through. With our venal press and gullible audience if they vote for it they will get blamed when it goes belly up and if they vote against they will be blamed for being anti British. Abstaining gets them the least blowback imo.

Could be wrong and will have to look at the numbers but I feel this will the least worst option.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If Labour abstain we will have a better chance of highlighting the Tories who wanted no deal and who might cause problems enough for Johnson by voting against.

[Daz Sparks 1,154]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

If Labour abstain we will have a better chance of highlighting the Tories who wanted no deal and who might cause problems enough for Johnson by voting against.

I can see why Starmer is voting for, but yes, it would better if Tories the could wholly own this deal.

[BigFish 1,986]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

If Labour abstain we will have a better chance of highlighting the Tories who wanted no deal and who might cause problems enough for Johnson by voting against.

The deal enshrines minimum standards in employment rights, environment etc into international law, Labour should in all conscious vote for this, because it is right rather than it is tactical. It ties the Tories to the EU for years ahead.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

The deal enshrines minimum standards in employment rights, environment etc into international law, Labour should in all conscious vote for this, because it is right rather than it is tactical. It ties the Tories to the EU for years ahead.

Those rights exist anyway. To take them away would have resulted in a no deal.

[KiwiScot 1,443]

Abstaining would be the wrong move. Everyone knows Brexit is the result of the Tories, Farange and most importantly of all. The voters. Labour suffered in the election due to their weak brexit stance and Corbyn not being liked. By voting yes for the deal they are showing the public that Starmer supports the best form of brexit possible, that Brexit is done with and that Labour have the decision making skills to lead the country. Abstaining is Corbyn.

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

Abstaining would be the wrong move. Everyone knows Brexit is the result of the Tories, Farange and most importantly of all. The voters. Labour suffered in the election due to their weak brexit stance and Corbyn not being liked. By voting yes for the deal they are showing the public that Starmer supports the best form of brexit possible, that Brexit is done with and that Labour have the decision making skills to lead the country. Abstaining is Corbyn.

Brexit is not done with, as the document shows - and further study will also show,

No one with an ounce of principle or common sense should vote for this vague deal.

Trade agreements take a considerable time because every area has to be clarified and water tight. This isn't. There are umpteen things that have yet to be sorted, and we have no certainty how and when  these matters will be fully sorted.

One of the failures of the Versailles Treaty (1919) wascountries wanting it over quickly and not really having much interest in the long term implications.

Too much of this 'deal' is yet to be defined, or even agreed upon. It needs strong leadership to stand up to this, not some populist playing to the gallery.

Many of the flaws in this nonsense will be shown over the next few days. No opposition leader should write Johnson a 'blank cheque'.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

No one with an ounce of principle or common sense should vote for this vague deal.

This ^.

Starmer is clearly in quite a tricky spot but he couldn't have had a clearer view of the shambolic 'opposition' that Corbyn mounted so I find it astonishing that he is proposing to repeat the mistakes that he tried so hard to talk Corbyn out of.

But then its all academic really, the Tory muppets on the back benches will moan and groan, and say how dreadful it it - and then vote for it anyway. Apart of course from some of the real thicko Tories who will vote for it because they won't have read it but actually 'think' it is a great deal which delivers all the unicorns they promised - they're certainly not going to have a Happy New Year 😃

[KiwiScot 1,443]

35 minutes ago, Bill said:

No one with an ounce of principle or common sense should vote for this vague deal.

They are politicans what do principles have to do with it and this is about ending a chapter as the public perceive it on the book of Brexit, but as is true in what you point out the story goes on.

[Jools 584]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

No one with an ounce of principle or common sense should vote for this vague deal.

I agree 100% with you and KiwiScot, Billock --- You should definitely encourage all the Remainiacs you know to put pressure on the Remainiacs in parliament to vote against the current deal...

That way we get 'No Deal' 🤣 👍 

[Bill 1,788]

It will be passed, the sht storm will follow later,

Supporting this removes Starmer from being able to put forward any valid criticism in the future.

MPs are representatives, they are not mandated, and this should be a time when they vote with their conscience not with an eye on the polls. This is not a deal, but a face saver for Johnson that does nothing but push the problems further down the line.

It suited neither side to suffer the huge costs of a 'no deal. But it does not suit the UK having this failure portrayed as some acceptable solution to those problems. You don't cure a sick patient by throwing a sheet over him and pretending he is not there.

If this was a resolution then there would not be so much hanging in the air. So much we already know has yet to be sorted - and so much that will have to be sorted against a backdrop of a failing economy, and no trump card of threats of self annihilation

Act two begins in the New Year. "Bertie the buffoon runs out of people to blame"

Edited December 27, 2020 by Bill

[Jools 584]

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

It will be passed, the sht storm will follow later,

Supporting this removes Starmer from being able to put forward any valid criticism in the future.

MPs are representatives, they are not mandated, and this should be a time when they vote with their conscience not with an eye on the polls. This is not a deal, but a face saver for Johnson that does nothing but push the problems further down the line.

It suited neither side to suffer the huge costs of a 'no deal. But it does not suit the UK having this failure portrayed as some acceptable solution to those problems. You don't cure a sick patient by throwing a sheet over him and pretending he is not there.

If this was a resolution then there would not be so much hanging in the air. So much we already know has yet to be sorted - and so much that will have to be sorted against a backdrop of a failing economy, and no trump card of threats of self annihilation

Act two begins in the New Year. "Bertie the buffoon runs out of people to blame"

You doth protest too much...

Especially for a comedienne 🤣 

[Herman 9,765]

Jools wants no deal again. It's hard to keep up. 🤣

[Daz Sparks 1,154]

15 minutes ago, Herman said:

Jools wants no deal again. It's hard to keep up. 🤣

I guess a war declaration should be in pipeline soon enough!

Truth is though, Herman, all they really wanted was get dem furriners out of their country. It's mission accomplished as far they concerned. (Reality may well be different).

[Herman 9,765]

22 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

I guess a war declaration should be in pipeline soon enough!

Truth is though, Herman, all they really wanted was get dem furriners out of their country. It's mission accomplished as far they concerned. (Reality may well be different).

They've made it harder for others to come here but just as hard for us to get out. I'll guess people will realise what they have signed up for when international travel restarts next year. The trouble will start when the bills and extra costs appear.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

They've made it harder for others to come here but just as hard for us to get out. I'll guess people will realise what they have signed up for when international travel restarts next year. The trouble will start when the bills and extra costs appear.

In actual fact they've only made it more costly (the old Visa fee rip-off that the Home Office is so fond of, even after they were told they were breaking the law!). Immigration to the UK has increased substantially in the last five years, even as the numbers of EU citizens coming in and which the Brexiteers were so desperate to stop has fallen significantly of it own accord.

So the non-EU immigration which has been the majority for many years and which we've always had control of has increased hugely - despite the repeated promises\lies of both May and Johnson that they would control immigration they have both handed an ever rising number of visas.

If you were a cynic (which of course neither of us are 😃) then you might draw a parallel with the utter Brexiteer stupidity of taking back 'control of our borders' which has resulted in us having exactly the same level of control as we had before and in the case of our only land border with the EU, no control at all.

But as part of the deal we have forfeited 'control' of a border within our own country and had to introduce border checks between two parts of the UK. I'm struggling to think whether there is any other country in the world that has an internal customs border between two regions of the same country. I dare say there is one (or more) somewhere but offhand I can't think of one 🙄

[BigFish 1,986]

18 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Those rights exist anyway. To take them away would have resulted in a no deal.

True, in part @keelansgrandad, my point is rather that the neo-liberal Brexwits economic plan was to turn the UK into an Atlantic Singapore gaining, as they saw it, economic advantage by scrapping environmental, economic and social protections. Signing up to this deal prevents that, ot a least makes it very, very difficult. Labour should support this.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

True, in part @keelansgrandad, my point is rather that the neo-liberal Brexwits economic plan was to turn the UK into an Atlantic Singapore gaining, as they saw it, economic advantage by scrapping environmental, economic and social protections. Signing up to this deal prevents that, ot a least makes it very, very difficult. Labour should support this.

Yes, much of that is correct. But they are the opposition and as such must believe that this deal doesn't do enough to stop those things you mention being appealed.

[Jools 584]

13 hours ago, Herman said:

It's hard to keep up. 🤣

You should pick better girlfriend material:

 

🙃

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

23 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

This ^.

Starmer is clearly in quite a tricky spot but he couldn't have had a clearer view of the shambolic 'opposition' that Corbyn mounted so I find it astonishing that he is proposing to repeat the mistakes that he tried so hard to talk Corbyn out of.

But then its all academic really, the Tory muppets on the back benches will moan and groan, and say how dreadful it it - and then vote for it anyway. Apart of course from some of the real thicko Tories who will vote for it because they won't have read it but actually 'think' it is a great deal which delivers all the unicorns they promised - they're certainly not going to have a Happy New Year 😃

True, but not only for that reason. Wallonia will do what it always does and vote against, and my sources within the Berlaymont Building tell me Ruritania and Freedonia almost certainly will as well.🤓

[Jools 584]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

True, but not only for that reason. Wallonia will do what it always does and vote against, and my sources within the Berlaymont Building tell me Ruritania and Freedonia almost certainly will as well.🤓

Who cares? 😉

[Bill 1,788]

17 hours ago, Herman said:

Jools wants no deal again. It's hard to keep up. 🤣

not really

odd days he wants a no deal, even days he wants a surrender deal

before 6pm he is mad moy, and after he is Jools

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

Starmer votes for the deal - he loses his party

Starmer abstains or votes against. - he loses the people

He is stuffed any way. 

In any case, with Remainders planning to reorganise as Rejoiners and Starmer committing to change the deal he is making the next election about Brexit. The country will skin him alive if he does this and Labour will disappear as a political force. 

 

 

 

 

 

[sonyc 5,518]

7 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Starmer votes for the deal - he loses his party

Starmer abstains or votes against. - he loses the people

He is stuffed any way. 

In any case, with Remainders planning to reorganise as Rejoiners and Starmer committing to change the deal he is making the next election about Brexit. The country will skin him alive if he does this and Labour will disappear as a political force. 

 

 

 

 

 

I half agree with this. He is in an awkward spot, like the Labour party is (and has been for a long while). He ought to do the principled thing and have nothing to do with it. Forget red wall votes but do the right thing according to your conscience.

Politics is all about mediating though. Often you have to hold your nose. I do know though if I was an MP and told to vote for this and I disagreed I would be ought of a job.

Labour won't disappear though. That's far-fetched.

[Van wink 2,994]

Labour should vote for the the deal and move on. The sort of thinking that demands a vote against is in the same vein as the thinking that got the party destroyed in the last election. Anyone that has the slightest idea of how Labour can succeed in regaining power would recognise how important it is for them to support this deal.

[sonyc 5,518]

27 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Labour should vote for the the deal and move on. The sort of thinking that demands a vote against is in the same vein as the thinking that got the party destroyed in the last election. Anyone that has the slightest idea of how Labour can succeed in regaining power would recognise how important it is for them to support this deal.

I believe they should take a position VW and stay by it. 68% of labour supporters were against Brexit weren't they? Corbyn started it all by was he / wasn't he in favour. 

I understand Starmer's position but don't agree with it. Lewis got it right on R4 tonight imo.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I believe they should take a position VW and stay by it. 68% of labour supporters were against Brexit weren't they? Corbyn started it all by was he / wasn't he in favour. 

I understand Starmer's position but don't agree with it. Lewis got it right on R4 tonight imo.

Was it 68% of labour supporters or labour members sonyc?

As for taking a position imo they should now get behind the deal and try to make Brexit work, why wouldn’t they?

I didn’t hear Clive Lewis tonight but will try to catch up later.👍

[sonyc 5,518]

7 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Was it 68% of labour supporters or labour members sonyc?

As for taking a position imo they should now get behind the deal and try to make Brexit work, why wouldn’t they?

I didn’t hear Clive Lewis tonight but will try to catch up later.👍

I've read 65% and 68% VW.

And that 30% of them voted  for Brexit. 

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I've read 65% and 68% VW.

And that 30% of them voted  for Brexit. 

Fair enough