Rolling Brexit Links/UK politics in the neo-Weimar era

At the heart of it is the PLP and Labour right's refusal to accept that the world has changed massively since 2006 and they haven't got the slightest fucking clue what to do about it.

does stephen kinnock know that the socialist workers party is already a thing. (and a thing that's thought to have a ludicrously low membership nowadays, probably under 2,000.)

call me a cybernat conspiracy theorist but I smell a trap there. would like to think may's conciliatory tone is genuine but fully expect she'll use this 'can't agree a uk wide approach due to jumped up scotland's stubbornness' as a lever to mobilise english nationalist votes

very likely, but Sturgeon's response to that is likely to be

http://31.media.tumblr.com/a11339e9507e90abfe586ea81bde2830/tumblr_n7id5wi4J71qebc9so2_400.jpg

https://medium.com/@matatatatat/the-terrifying-hubris-of-corbynism-6590054a9b57#.438y2hw4b

that seems mainly otm as a diagnosis of the problems facing Corbynism, I'm not sure about this concluding paragraph though:

Secondly, the idea that Corbyn retaining the leadership is worth a Labour split (before any implementation of PR) has to be rejected outright. In the light of Brexit, the collapse of Labour as an institution would be an utter disaster. Corbyn should have cut a deal in the weeks after the mass resignations, using his influence among a membership which has decisively turned left to ensure there was a left candidate on the ballot, and then walked. Given that he has not done so, the possibility remains open for another candidate on the left to use Corbyn’s perceived ‘radicalism’ as a means of presenting themselves as a ‘realistic’ moderate — and being recognised as such by the media, even if their actual policy programme was more or less identical to that of the current leadership (save, perhaps, for the simplistic Counterfire-style presentation of foreign policy). That is an unprecedented opportunity, and one which would be Corbyn’s greatest gift to the Labour left, if only they would grasp it.

I agree that Corbyn cutting a deal that he'd resign if a left candidate could be on the ballot and for his replacement would have been a better deal that what's happening now, but was that ever a realistic possibility? I don't see why his opponents would have agreed to that. And the idea that someone with basically the same policy program as Corbyn will be able to present themselves as a moderate and avoid a split seems deluded as well - I think the only way to avoid some kind of split at this point would be a defeat for the left, can't see any way around that (which tbf makes his other point about pushing for PR even more important)

except again, majority of the PLP don't seem interested in PR. and i think his idea that campaigning at a general election that isn't going to happen on a second referendum ticket would be a successful plan is as wildly optimistic as anything he's accusing Corbynistas of thinking

there's enough delusion to go round on all sides, basically. but until the "soft left" or whatever it wants to call itself comes to terms with the fact that a large swathe of the politically-inclined working class are no longer prepared to vote for an "at least we're not Tories" approach to policy then this rift can't be fixed. they may as well expel everybody they don't like now and get back to being the TV-focused modern nullity that they dream of

The problem is that the debate (if you can even call it that) has become extremely polarised, with-us-or-against us and if someone doesn't pull back soon then both sides will be destroyed.

Clearly this isn't a straight fight between Corbynism and Blairism (or maybe Harmanisn) but anything else has been flattened or erased. If someone from a non-Corbyn wing made a genuine and unambiguous commitment to oppose austerity then Corbyn might be in trouble. But as it is, he'll win. And I don't think he or anyone else has a plan for what happens when he does.

The single glaringly obvious problem with the whole "this is a 15-year ground up project" is that, from the perspective of other parts of the party, there just isn't time. People are suffering NOW. And unless you believe there's genuinely no difference at all between even the right of the Labour Party and the Tories, then there's an irresponsibility to just accepting a further decade of Tory rule and the catastrophic impact that will have on thousands of people's lives.

If course, Harriet Harman and everyone who voted with her have done their absolute best to ensure that thousands of people in the Labour Party genuinely do believe that those people wouldn't be any better off. And who can blame them? It still remains the single stupidest and most destructive political decision I can remember (apart from Iraq and the referendum).

I suppose a genuinely pragmatic, democratic, Parliamentary route to socialism would probably accept there's a limit to how much even if the most secure and best intentioned government can achieve in five years. That you'd use broad church vaguely Blairite tactics to get in and then move to the left in stages, taking the electorate and the Overton window with you. It's what the Tories have generally done in the opposite direction - even Thatcher didn't implement full neoliberalism from day one.

Trouble is, the conditions for that no longer exist within the Labour Party and it would take a once in a generation politician to achieve that.

(Obviously Blair wasn't remotely interested in moving to the left once he was in, even though the space was clearly there for the government to do so from 2001 onwards).

that's where the trust has gone more than Harman's "vote austerity eeeh it's the Blitz all over again" bullshit - best part of 10 years of the solidest mandate any government could wish for and no effort to roll back neoliberalism. there might be fatalists, fantasists and god knows what else on the left of the party but for everybody who feels betrayed it is going to take some effort from the right to convince them back - and that effort means explicitly articulating policies

do i srsly think right wing Labour is "as bad as the Tories"? well maybe not quite but the difference is negligible enough to make me wish that the party would fall apart rather than continue to offer false hope to people based on the language of trust

I mean fundamentally there will always be a level of demand for a social democratic party or at least some redistribution of wealth, if only because votes are more evenly distributed than money. Whether it needs to be the Labour Party I very much doubt.

High parties feel antiquated and incoherent in this day and age, the Tories will find new ways to tear themselves apart before long, but Labour feels like its reached the end of the road.

The "People are suffering NOW" is always what is in store for people. Opposing austerity is crumbs as a platform at this point and should only be a beginning. So what can you build so that people (and the most marginalised at that) don't suffer and aren't brutalised now or in future? Labour have been offering crumbs for a long time and that has to stop. One way or another.

Corbyn should have cut a deal in the weeks after the mass resignations, using his influence among a membership which has decisively turned left to ensure there was a left candidate on the ballot, and then walked.

Weak sauce. Only a left candidate? How about making sure a wide left program was on the ballot whoever in Labour won a leadership contest that did not involve Corbyn - whether from the right or left? How about wider democracy within the party so the shambles in Brighton doesn't happen?

I don't want to start coming across like an agitpoop/shouty lefty, but I can't even see a fucking slightly negligible difference between Tory/Right Labour these days. Sometimes I think the slight difference is in the Labour dialogue sounding even more habitually dishonest and slippery than the Tory version atm. Maybe this is irrational but I feel like I really do have a desire to see the party die sometimes, just to see these smug complacent arsewipes facing their own extinction. Probably not a good thing to admit as it plays up to a lot of their rhetoric about "Corbynistas", but there you go. I went 20 years without troubling a polling station and will happily go back to that if it is going to be the same stark choice of Tories vs Tories. I will stfu now because this is a good thread + this feels like message board rinse.

that's how i feel most of the time, i'm just trying hang on to a thread of hope

or rather, not just give up on the world

I think that an Ed Miliband led Labour government would have been a lot better than what we have now.

Well, no brexit for a start.

yup

what do you imagine that government would be doing to advance economic equality?

not much, but this is really akin to Clinton v Trump in many ways tbh. Shitty centrist technocrats vs right-wing crazies.

well as i say, if people want democracy to be "vote for the least horrible" for the rest of forever then i understand that and bon chance.

It seems like Labour Right are still repeating that "Ed failed because his austerity lite lacked electoral credibility line", despite since then The Tories doing complete u-turns and seeming to be pausing austerity atm. The fact you have to wait for them to react to Tory shifts highlights how useless and morally bankrupt they are as a party of opposition.

Normally I would be contributing to this thread but this whole business is depressing me too much.

"Vote for the least horrible" is grim as fuck but better than "endure the most horrible while you wait for something that doesn't currently exist to come along". Which is a shitty way of saying that I don't think we'll get a better Labour until they are put under some serious electoral pressure from the left. The Tories definitely responded to UKIP even if it was in the way very few of us wanted.

Basically we need a Momentum Party or similar.

I voted for Ed as an austerity lite option, because at the time Osborne seemed like a demonic force who was hellbent on wiping out the disabled, and tbf he did give it a good try, but his plans were so transparently evil that even some tories couldn't stomach them. Since then they don't even seem like a less horrible option, if anything they seem even more murky and untrustworthy than even Blair's lot did. At least they subsidised the working poor out of poverty with tax credits, which is a wank short-termist policy, but at least it had a positive effect on lots of people in that era. I don't see anything at all that is positive about this lot.

https://medium.com/@harrygiles/whats-going-on-in-the-labour-party-and-what-does-it-mean-fe0131744fac#.ez7a68q5x

Keeping Labour on a strong left-wing course isn’t just about staying involved with the Party (though it does mean that, if that’s what you enjoy), but continuing to build grassroots social strength. Protest movements, street movements, organisations to defend migrants and benefit claimants and women and LGBT people and people facing eviction — the stronger and more active these organisations are, the harder a time the Tory party will have, and the stronger a left-led Labour Party’s hand will be. Make yourselves ungovernable.

"Then Corbyn surprised this attempted coup by refusing to resign, and the coup surprised everyone by having no more good cards to play."

This was such a heartening event, my favourite moment in politics ever tbh.

" Stay classy. There are some utter arseholes in our ranks and they’re costing us. "
absolutely otm

Yeah, good piece and attenpts to deal with the "what if Corbyn is eventually thrown out" question

If only Corbyn would have recruited someone more savvy like that, rather than Milne.

Corbyn's natural affiliations were unlikely to play out that way sadly

good piece tho, yeah

Barbara Ntumy was excellent on Any Questions tonight

People are calling for May to fire Leadsom over comments she made about male nannies and paedophilia last week.
Did wonder if there was a specific purpose she was being saved to be fall guy for, so if she goes now would she serve that purpose?

that harry giles winner of the forward prize?

Is May deliberately putting her rivals in positions where she expects them to discredit themselves as quickly and as thoroughly as possible?

Like making Boris, whose grandfather was killed by a Turkish lynch mob, Foreign Secretary?

Raab is out. Another Gove ally.

not doing another Gove's mate's out: Raab dn

Anna Soubry, one of the more liberal One Nation Conservatives, has just resigned and has been making a great deal of use of the MoreInCommon hashtag since. She had backed May in the leadership election but it looks like another strong indicator that she's going to govern from the hard right, despite the centrist rhetoric of the initial speeches.

Ed Vaizey, another relative liberal, sacked overnight.

Good lolz:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/16/owen-smith-angela-eagle-labour-contest-anti-corbyn?CMP=twt_gu

"Politics is not about taking sides" should be the party's epitaph.

“Allowing an important and legitimate political actor, ie the leader of the main opposition party, to develop their own narrative and have a voice in the public space is paramount in a democracy. Denying such an important political actor a voice or distorting his views and ideas through the exercise of mediated power is highly problematic.”

Quelle surprise really, LSE study states the glaringly obvious.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html

As far as i can tell, Owen Smith appears to have just said that austerity is right and necessary and agreed with Angela Eagle that they were "both against austerity" within the space of ten minutes.

the visionary leadership this country needs

none of them seem to have drawn any conclusions from their belief that Corbyn is useless and what their own inability to convincingly challenge him must indicate

Oh so we're back to "we're going to give you another dose of austerity but we'll be really sad about it". That worked well last time.

Do you have a source for that, ShariVari?

They were both on the Marr show this morning.

His big policy message is £200bn in investment so there is more to it than a simple return to austerity but the inability to convey any kind of coherent message is amazing.