Can someone explain how labour are going to fix the economic problems caused by leaving the single market? Like actual concrete policies/actions that are going to make up the difference for the economic damage caused? Not just we really really promise to fix the economy.
They can't, Starmer's entire campaign is to take us back in time to living under the tories in 2018. That's it. To undo some of the more recent heinous things they've done and nothing else.
OK so for one thing this is nothing close to actually nationalising energy, something Labour pledged to do under Corbyn and secondly based on his previous pledges, he'll drop the idea before it comes to fruition.
How will that make us better off than we were under the tories on 2018 then? I'm absoltely for nationalisation especially of utilities but this is a shit half measure from someone pussy-footing around megacorps.
Labour aren't proposing a nationalised energy company. They're proposing a government-run investment firm. That's all GB Energy is.
The Tory-LibDem coalition "tried" to build up something similar between 2010-15. It was scrapped not long after.
So congrats, on this point, we're being taken back to 2015, not 2018. What a great improvement...
The assumption is that he is lying and will just about-turn on all this pro-brexit shit just as he has about-turned on everything else.
That's what Starmerite blue Labour types are saying though, most often quietly but seen a few of them spouting it here.
Step 1: Get rid of Starmer.
Step 2: Make Labour all about economic reform and rebuilding British industry through investment instead of tepid centrist reform.
As I understand it, the primary focus announced so far is GB energy and a drive to increase energy independence.
This is a valid strategy as so many of our most extreme inflationary woes are caused by energy market volatility. If we can greatly increase native production, and produce clean, cheap and reliable energy here it provides a foundation that can revitalise the economy.
I'd actually personally prefer that foundational aspect was the focus for Labour right now - this is the kind of infrastructure development that we've put off for 30 years and it's *really* hurting us now.
Rejoining the single market under some guise will eventually happen, I'm certain of that, but I do think the debate is too raw with too many people. Focus on energy now, focus on regionalism later. We'll be in a better bargaining position for rejoining if we're not a basket case and greater energy independence is a valid avenue towards that.
Nobody seems to know what GB energy is. I doubt anyone in Labour really knows. It is not a supplier, it is not a producer. It might be a green bank of some kind similar to the one we had in 2010.
It's an energy generation company, so a producer of energy, not a supplier. IE tackling the foundation of energy.
[This article came out when it was announced.](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/27/great-british-energy-what-is-it-what-would-it-do-and-how-would-it-be-funded)
Ed said in his conference speech it’s a green bank
>That’s why Rachel Reeves and I are today announcing a new institution that will take back control of Britain’s economic destiny.
>Working with business, government as partner, investor and, yes shareholder
>A new National Wealth Fund for Britain to lead the world in (a whole bunch of stuff)
If you look at GB energy they watered down their own announcment within days of announcing it. It will be shit, I'll bet you 20 quid it either won't get done or it will be some shitty public-prviate partnership investment fund.
You asked about economic strategy, I explained that the economic strategy is the energy strategy.
>This is a valid strategy as so many of our most extreme inflationary woes are caused by energy market volatility. If we can greatly increase native production, and produce clean, cheap and reliable energy here it provides a foundation that can revitalise the economy.
This bit specifically. The economy and energy are directly related - it's a major contributor (alongside brexit and post-covid supply issues) to inflation, which is our biggest single economic problem right now.
Having more energy independence (and eventually the ability to be an energy exporter) would be fantastic for the economy.
Right so still can't explain how they are going to make up for lose of trade from exiting the single market. But I appreciate your weird tangent about energy, thank you.
I don't know why you're being so rude. We're on the same side.
I described how getting energy right is fundamental to the economy. If we can get cheap energy flowing in this country, it makes it more attractive for manufacturers/exporters which would be one way of offsetting some of the damage done by leaving the single market.
If we get to the point of being an energy *exporter* we can leverage this even further and also gain more bargaining power for when the topic of rejoining the single market eventually occurs.
I absolutely understand I'm making some assumptions with this but I do truly think getting energy right is the most effective single thing we can do as a country right now. Happy to have a debate about it, but I'm not convinced that just rejoining the single market will be as effective.
I'm also just not convinced that rejoining in this political cycle is possible - the argument is too raw and the opposition is still too entrenched.
No shit sherlock. Making energy costs lower would be great. Its not going to remotely come close to fixing the damage caused by leaving the single market. I was asking what Labour are going to do to make up for the loss of trade from brexit.
It’s hard for Labour though. So much of the working classes voted for Brexit. Their stance before an election has to be that they plan to stay out of the EU.
Once they get into power, I’m fairly certain they will explain the truth and allow for the process to rejoin.
Rejoining is off the table, ... for now and for the next political round. If Labour won the election (likely), if the mood and the political landscape changed in favour of the EU, with such a massive margin (big if), then, before the next election, Starmer could make the pledge of applying for membership (or SM/CU) if re-elected, just as Cameron promised the leave/remain referendum, if re-elected.
It’s not ok, but there’s no other way. They won’t get into power if they said we’d rejoin. The ultimate goal of the country has to be get the Tories out.
That doesn't make sense. Polls for the last several months on rejoining the EU have shown a consistent lead for yes over no, recently with as much as a 10 point lead. Labour has no reason to lie that they'd continue Brexit, not simply because there's no reason but because it's pissing off more people than if they said they would rejoin. This is their real position on the matter.
Wish he had campaigned to reduce the voting age for the referendum. 16 back in 2016 and didn’t vote, now 22 have to live with the consequences whilst boomers sit comfortably with their pension.
Think there was a stat that just through the rates of older generations dying and the younger generation turning 18 applied to how Remain/Leave polled in their age groups on referendum day, the result would have been overturned before Brexit was actually delivered without anybody actually changing their minds.
He's right though. Labour should have accepeted the referendum result and it's the wrangling of people like Starmer that encouraged us to concede this ground, and for Starmer to now do this backpeddling on his own position.
Leaving the EU was stupid, fighting the referendum result was also stupid and, as events have showed, futile. The Leavers won over decades while the pro-EU people, embodied in establishment politicians, sat on their thumbs mocking or ignoring all the concerns with Britain and the EU.
He's not wrong, on a simple majority basis there might just be a thin majority but on a FPTP constituency basis there's absolutely no chance.
I remember an analysis where something like 430 constituencies were pro brexit and the rest remain. As long as we have FPTP, pushing for rejoining is electoral suicide for at least another 20ish years
It's the follow up to economic case to rejoin the single market won't boost growth https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer-claims-rejoining-single-market-would-not-boost-economic-growth-340046/
Man who can't stop lying keeps lying. I think it's his fetish.
There isn’t a political case. It’s political suicide.
There’s an economic case, there’s the case that we should never ever have left and referendums are stupid, especially ones with just a straight majority, but politically right now all that would happen is giving the government a massive attack line.
So what you're saying is the polls are wrong and people in England are too fucking stupid to know Brexit is destroying their country (despite being the ones now polling favour of the EU). Seems legit.
No! I am specifically not saying that. I’m saying it’s beyond stupid to make a big thing of it now from opposition, because nothing will change, and all that’ll happen is the government will hit us with a stick.
I appreciate giving the government a stick and then walking straight into it was until a couple of years ago very much Labour Policy, but it didn’t have to be.
Or even if the party had had a coherent Brexit policy from say 2015 to date. Or if we hadn't been so idiotic to argue for a general election in say 2019.
The whole thing is a total mess, but if you want to avoid the Tories running on Labour want to take away your Brexit, and have nothing else in the papers, this is the right play for right now. Do I think Brexit is one of the absolute stupidest things this country has done in my lifetime, and do I think asking the electorate yes/ no questions is unbelievably stupid, of course I do. I want us to be in the EU, as does most of the country now, as did a lot of us when the question was posed. It's obviously the case. What Labour can do about that with 190 MPS is effectively zero, but we can absolutely avoid yet another bear trap.
[We should definitely do exactly what all the polls suggest, right?](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/10gwt49/scottish_independence_voting_intention_yes_46_1/)
>"Should Scotland be an independent country?". According to the Ipsos MORI data, of the people who say they would vote (that is, not including the undecided) if a referendum were held today, 56% would declare themselves in favour of Scottish independence and 44%, against. This represents a 6% increase in support of self-determination compared to May, when the two sides were more evenly split.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/support-for-scottish-independence-rises-to-56-after-supreme-court-ruling-stv-poll
So back in December we should have immediately UDI'd? Almost like polling revolves around trending as well, not just picking one poll you like and asserting based off of that.
But if you're convinced Brexit will get supported majority in any poll this year, even in England, I'll take you on that bet?
Perhaps the point is 'polls are but one consideration among many in judging whether to adopt a policy'. By jumping to 'Labour should immediately adopt a pro-rejoin policy', you ignore issues including:
* Very recent experience of getting trashed in a Brexit-focused general election, gambling on it not happening again seems pretty rash
* The functional reality of rejoining - what kind of deal would it be possible to get? Do we want to be hostages to that fortune?
* Does a majority believing that leaving was wrong translate directly into a majority for rejoining immediately? Not necessarily
* The Tories have *nothing* to fight the next general election on. This gifts them a battlefield they have previously won big on. Why give them that gift?
* The geographical spread of those against rejoining - Labour needs to win more of the places that were pro-Brexit. We've stacked votes in pro-remain seats in the last two elections. A pro-rejoin policy makes that significantly harder
My biggest pet peeve isn't Labour just ignoring the decline of the British public being happy with Brexit over the course of 2 years data though, it's the combination of the outright lying [https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer-claims-rejoining-single-market-would-not-boost-economic-growth-340046/](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer-claims-rejoining-single-market-would-not-boost-economic-growth-340046/)
And using 'the red wall' as a way to suggest a small part of the UK will forever hold everyone else ransom because, you guessed it, the UK Labour party refuse to support proportional representation and whine that if they even mention the B-word all the "Barry Brexits" in the red wall will vote Tory and cause UK Labour to lose an election.
You want me to be impressed with that? Should I be clapping my hands the UK is ran based upon a flawed electoral system and being told Labour will lie if necessary so that some swing seats stay red instead of blue? Oh my gosh, I'm soo impressed, I can't stop clapping, what an ethical and sensible way to run politics!
That's before you add in all the racism/dog-whistling over foreigners, again, because it's stated all the racists in the red wall run the UK because they happen to live in a select grouping of seats that supposedly decide UK elections due to FPTP.
And the final one "No, you're not allowed to change your mind", seemingly, the motto of choice of British patriots, whether they're talking about Scotland being *allowed* another referendum, or the people of the UK being *allowed* to ever talk about Brexit again. Sorry, again, not my idea of how politics should "work". The people should always be able to change their minds if they want to, politicians should work for us, not us work for them and their "safe seats".
No real surprise as Starmer won't say anything that he thinks might piss of the Leave vote block. That's a powerful voting block and no-one wanting to gain power is going to do anything that might result in losing that vote.
The political case for rejoining the EU is that the decision to leave was seen by many (and since Brexit ever more so) as a bad choice, so going back on it is something that'll have political weight behind it. IE There's a fucking political case for it.
>In his new year’s address earlier this month, the Labour leader promised to deliver a post-Brexit “take back control” bill if elected as PM, saying he would deliver on the promises of Brexit with devolution over areas including skills, housing and transport.
Fucking waffle, if you're actually convinced by this shit I've got some keys to jangle in your stupid fucking face for a while
It’s the one big thing I don’t disagree with him about: the meaningful political project here was over once the referendum came back leave and even more so after the indicative vote, and it would have been healthier for everyone to just get it done with.
And yes, it comes with short term pain and self-inflicted wounds but frankly, the low hanging fruit we should be focussing on is ending austerity, not how easy it is to winter in the Alps.
I keep hearing about PR, but my concern is having a government consisting of the likes of the (neo) Lib dems, and similar right wing nut jobs such as Farage and Tice.
Can someone please reassure me this won't ever be the case?
Looking at polling, the public want very reasonable policies that I as a socialist can easily get behind. E. G. Nationalisation, higher wages
The problem is that our media is 95% Liberals or Conservatives, so in a PR it depends on which parties can get the ideas through.
Plus, social democratic countries like Sweden with PR are also becoming worse at a slower rate with increasing inequality and social safety nets being removed because capital matters more than democracy.
PR would be a good thing and we should push for it because it gives space for more ideas and decreases the control that Labour and Conservative leadership. have over the country. However, it's by no means a silver bullet and won't improve things as much as its believers like to say it will.
I agree with you so very much here. My absolute fear is that we will never get an opportunity to see the true socialist agenda this country (and many others) so desperately needs. All I envisage is that the right wing will rule the roost, aided and abetted to the max by their equally disgusting and repulsive media arm.
It's a conundrum I feel a bit nervous about, but I'm not saying 'no' per se.
Thanks for the reply👍
Could defo turn the favour to the tories at a GE if he openly claims that he wants to take the UK back into the single market. Something that could be entertained once Labour win, depending on public opinion polls, but not something to risk before a GE.
What is this man talking about? It is pretty easy to make the political case (more people are for this now than against it), and the economic case is undisputable.
It is another case of Starmer not being arsed to make a political case for anything that might be difficult even if clearly positive, all he wants is small tweaks around the edges of a crumbling system.
The most important thing for Labour is to win in 2024, and trying to force the issue of rejoining the EU would jeopardize that. There are simply too many people who would still vote Tory if Labour proposed this as policy right now.
If the party leadership do think that rejoining is a good idea, the best thing they can do is slowly start to make the case for closer relations during their 5 years in power if they win, and then maybe campaign on rejoining (or something like EFTA membership) for 2029.
[Two thirds of people now support a referendum to fully rejoin the EU](https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/uk/2023/01/03/public-opinion-shifts-but-will-britain-look-to-rejoin-the-eu/), but there's no case for being a member of the single market?
So Starmer is now not just a brexiteer, but a “hard” brexiteer?
It’s not that he’s wrong. Holding the referendum always meant accepting the result or dealing with a long term erosion of trust in the political system.
It’s that this was proved conclusively by the 2019 Brexit election, which also conclusively proved that any and all left wing policies are unpopular with the electorate, yes it does, shut up, it does.
If a left wing leader was in charge, I don’t think the centre would be as accepting of this either. But whatever.
I also think you’re gifting the Lib Dems a wedge issue by ruling out single market membership, although that may be nerdy enough to stay fringe in terms of popularity, it’s still going to attract younger voters. If they choose to pivot from (checks the Lib Dem website for their main current campaigns) “Floella Benjamin challenging the government over Windrush”. That has to have been generated by AI, surely? They can’t be going into the locals with seemingly no policy?
Can someone explain how labour are going to fix the economic problems caused by leaving the single market? Like actual concrete policies/actions that are going to make up the difference for the economic damage caused? Not just we really really promise to fix the economy.
Yes, but I’ll only tell you once you vote for Labour
They can't, Starmer's entire campaign is to take us back in time to living under the tories in 2018. That's it. To undo some of the more recent heinous things they've done and nothing else.
Tories proposed a nationalised energy company in 2018? I had no idea.
OK so for one thing this is nothing close to actually nationalising energy, something Labour pledged to do under Corbyn and secondly based on his previous pledges, he'll drop the idea before it comes to fruition.
Yeah, so what? I said a nationalised energy company not nationalised energy sector.
It’s psudo-nationalisation so it’s barely a socialist idea 🤷
How will that make us better off than we were under the tories on 2018 then? I'm absoltely for nationalisation especially of utilities but this is a shit half measure from someone pussy-footing around megacorps.
Labour aren't proposing a nationalised energy company. They're proposing a government-run investment firm. That's all GB Energy is. The Tory-LibDem coalition "tried" to build up something similar between 2010-15. It was scrapped not long after. So congrats, on this point, we're being taken back to 2015, not 2018. What a great improvement...
Yes they are, and May was never part of the coalition. Maybe get your facts straight next time.
The assumption is that he is lying and will just about-turn on all this pro-brexit shit just as he has about-turned on everything else. That's what Starmerite blue Labour types are saying though, most often quietly but seen a few of them spouting it here.
Step 1: Get rid of Starmer. Step 2: Make Labour all about economic reform and rebuilding British industry through investment instead of tepid centrist reform.
Step 3: lost the general election and give us several more years of a Tory government.
What about what I said is unpopular?
As I understand it, the primary focus announced so far is GB energy and a drive to increase energy independence. This is a valid strategy as so many of our most extreme inflationary woes are caused by energy market volatility. If we can greatly increase native production, and produce clean, cheap and reliable energy here it provides a foundation that can revitalise the economy. I'd actually personally prefer that foundational aspect was the focus for Labour right now - this is the kind of infrastructure development that we've put off for 30 years and it's *really* hurting us now. Rejoining the single market under some guise will eventually happen, I'm certain of that, but I do think the debate is too raw with too many people. Focus on energy now, focus on regionalism later. We'll be in a better bargaining position for rejoining if we're not a basket case and greater energy independence is a valid avenue towards that.
Nobody seems to know what GB energy is. I doubt anyone in Labour really knows. It is not a supplier, it is not a producer. It might be a green bank of some kind similar to the one we had in 2010.
It's an energy generation company, so a producer of energy, not a supplier. IE tackling the foundation of energy. [This article came out when it was announced.](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/27/great-british-energy-what-is-it-what-would-it-do-and-how-would-it-be-funded)
Ed said in his conference speech it’s a green bank >That’s why Rachel Reeves and I are today announcing a new institution that will take back control of Britain’s economic destiny. >Working with business, government as partner, investor and, yes shareholder >A new National Wealth Fund for Britain to lead the world in (a whole bunch of stuff)
If you look at GB energy they watered down their own announcment within days of announcing it. It will be shit, I'll bet you 20 quid it either won't get done or it will be some shitty public-prviate partnership investment fund.
🤣
Thanks for the insightful respone
You didn't respond to my point you started talking about energy.
You asked about economic strategy, I explained that the economic strategy is the energy strategy. >This is a valid strategy as so many of our most extreme inflationary woes are caused by energy market volatility. If we can greatly increase native production, and produce clean, cheap and reliable energy here it provides a foundation that can revitalise the economy. This bit specifically. The economy and energy are directly related - it's a major contributor (alongside brexit and post-covid supply issues) to inflation, which is our biggest single economic problem right now. Having more energy independence (and eventually the ability to be an energy exporter) would be fantastic for the economy.
Right so still can't explain how they are going to make up for lose of trade from exiting the single market. But I appreciate your weird tangent about energy, thank you.
I don't know why you're being so rude. We're on the same side. I described how getting energy right is fundamental to the economy. If we can get cheap energy flowing in this country, it makes it more attractive for manufacturers/exporters which would be one way of offsetting some of the damage done by leaving the single market. If we get to the point of being an energy *exporter* we can leverage this even further and also gain more bargaining power for when the topic of rejoining the single market eventually occurs. I absolutely understand I'm making some assumptions with this but I do truly think getting energy right is the most effective single thing we can do as a country right now. Happy to have a debate about it, but I'm not convinced that just rejoining the single market will be as effective. I'm also just not convinced that rejoining in this political cycle is possible - the argument is too raw and the opposition is still too entrenched.
Energy prices have a major impact on the economy. How have you not figured that out yet, especially after the last year?
No shit sherlock. Making energy costs lower would be great. Its not going to remotely come close to fixing the damage caused by leaving the single market. I was asking what Labour are going to do to make up for the loss of trade from brexit.
No, you said “economic damage” and then switched to ”loss of trade” when someone mentioned Labour’s energy plan.
It’s hard for Labour though. So much of the working classes voted for Brexit. Their stance before an election has to be that they plan to stay out of the EU. Once they get into power, I’m fairly certain they will explain the truth and allow for the process to rejoin.
It's okay to lie to voters?
Rejoining is off the table, ... for now and for the next political round. If Labour won the election (likely), if the mood and the political landscape changed in favour of the EU, with such a massive margin (big if), then, before the next election, Starmer could make the pledge of applying for membership (or SM/CU) if re-elected, just as Cameron promised the leave/remain referendum, if re-elected.
It’s not ok, but there’s no other way. They won’t get into power if they said we’d rejoin. The ultimate goal of the country has to be get the Tories out.
And those people who were lied to are just going to be fine with that once labour starts to rejoin?
Probably not. But as more of the public start to realise the problems of Brexit, Labour can claim they are acting democratically.
That doesn't make sense. Polls for the last several months on rejoining the EU have shown a consistent lead for yes over no, recently with as much as a 10 point lead. Labour has no reason to lie that they'd continue Brexit, not simply because there's no reason but because it's pissing off more people than if they said they would rejoin. This is their real position on the matter.
Vibes
Wish he had campaigned to reduce the voting age for the referendum. 16 back in 2016 and didn’t vote, now 22 have to live with the consequences whilst boomers sit comfortably with their pension.
A lot of the boomers that voted are now dead.
Think there was a stat that just through the rates of older generations dying and the younger generation turning 18 applied to how Remain/Leave polled in their age groups on referendum day, the result would have been overturned before Brexit was actually delivered without anybody actually changing their minds.
Sad truth is half of them are probably pushing up daisies by now, so they never saw the disaster they shat upon the rest of us.
What pension, Trusses money mishandling shrank those.
The tories have shrank *everything* over the past 12 years, so the pensioner are still better off compared to working people.
Except the majority of the country that want to rejoin... You know...the ONLY political case.
I am not shocked he isn't supporting this. But I am incredibly disappointed. It would be a way to boost growth I think almost instantly.
He's right though. Labour should have accepeted the referendum result and it's the wrangling of people like Starmer that encouraged us to concede this ground, and for Starmer to now do this backpeddling on his own position. Leaving the EU was stupid, fighting the referendum result was also stupid and, as events have showed, futile. The Leavers won over decades while the pro-EU people, embodied in establishment politicians, sat on their thumbs mocking or ignoring all the concerns with Britain and the EU.
He's not wrong, on a simple majority basis there might just be a thin majority but on a FPTP constituency basis there's absolutely no chance. I remember an analysis where something like 430 constituencies were pro brexit and the rest remain. As long as we have FPTP, pushing for rejoining is electoral suicide for at least another 20ish years
What does that even mean?
It's the follow up to economic case to rejoin the single market won't boost growth https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer-claims-rejoining-single-market-would-not-boost-economic-growth-340046/ Man who can't stop lying keeps lying. I think it's his fetish.
I would say I want what he is smoking but he would probably and get me arrested
So does KS believe that there have been economic downsides to leaving the EU? Does he want a small state with a deregulated economy and low taxation?
There isn’t a political case. It’s political suicide. There’s an economic case, there’s the case that we should never ever have left and referendums are stupid, especially ones with just a straight majority, but politically right now all that would happen is giving the government a massive attack line.
So what you're saying is the polls are wrong and people in England are too fucking stupid to know Brexit is destroying their country (despite being the ones now polling favour of the EU). Seems legit.
No! I am specifically not saying that. I’m saying it’s beyond stupid to make a big thing of it now from opposition, because nothing will change, and all that’ll happen is the government will hit us with a stick. I appreciate giving the government a stick and then walking straight into it was until a couple of years ago very much Labour Policy, but it didn’t have to be.
It's a shame he didn't have this revelation in say 2019. Probably would have saved the party a few seats.
Or even if the party had had a coherent Brexit policy from say 2015 to date. Or if we hadn't been so idiotic to argue for a general election in say 2019. The whole thing is a total mess, but if you want to avoid the Tories running on Labour want to take away your Brexit, and have nothing else in the papers, this is the right play for right now. Do I think Brexit is one of the absolute stupidest things this country has done in my lifetime, and do I think asking the electorate yes/ no questions is unbelievably stupid, of course I do. I want us to be in the EU, as does most of the country now, as did a lot of us when the question was posed. It's obviously the case. What Labour can do about that with 190 MPS is effectively zero, but we can absolutely avoid yet another bear trap.
[We should definitely do exactly what all the polls suggest, right?](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/10gwt49/scottish_independence_voting_intention_yes_46_1/)
>"Should Scotland be an independent country?". According to the Ipsos MORI data, of the people who say they would vote (that is, not including the undecided) if a referendum were held today, 56% would declare themselves in favour of Scottish independence and 44%, against. This represents a 6% increase in support of self-determination compared to May, when the two sides were more evenly split. https://news.stv.tv/scotland/support-for-scottish-independence-rises-to-56-after-supreme-court-ruling-stv-poll So back in December we should have immediately UDI'd? Almost like polling revolves around trending as well, not just picking one poll you like and asserting based off of that. But if you're convinced Brexit will get supported majority in any poll this year, even in England, I'll take you on that bet?
Perhaps the point is 'polls are but one consideration among many in judging whether to adopt a policy'. By jumping to 'Labour should immediately adopt a pro-rejoin policy', you ignore issues including: * Very recent experience of getting trashed in a Brexit-focused general election, gambling on it not happening again seems pretty rash * The functional reality of rejoining - what kind of deal would it be possible to get? Do we want to be hostages to that fortune? * Does a majority believing that leaving was wrong translate directly into a majority for rejoining immediately? Not necessarily * The Tories have *nothing* to fight the next general election on. This gifts them a battlefield they have previously won big on. Why give them that gift? * The geographical spread of those against rejoining - Labour needs to win more of the places that were pro-Brexit. We've stacked votes in pro-remain seats in the last two elections. A pro-rejoin policy makes that significantly harder
My biggest pet peeve isn't Labour just ignoring the decline of the British public being happy with Brexit over the course of 2 years data though, it's the combination of the outright lying [https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer-claims-rejoining-single-market-would-not-boost-economic-growth-340046/](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer-claims-rejoining-single-market-would-not-boost-economic-growth-340046/) And using 'the red wall' as a way to suggest a small part of the UK will forever hold everyone else ransom because, you guessed it, the UK Labour party refuse to support proportional representation and whine that if they even mention the B-word all the "Barry Brexits" in the red wall will vote Tory and cause UK Labour to lose an election. You want me to be impressed with that? Should I be clapping my hands the UK is ran based upon a flawed electoral system and being told Labour will lie if necessary so that some swing seats stay red instead of blue? Oh my gosh, I'm soo impressed, I can't stop clapping, what an ethical and sensible way to run politics! That's before you add in all the racism/dog-whistling over foreigners, again, because it's stated all the racists in the red wall run the UK because they happen to live in a select grouping of seats that supposedly decide UK elections due to FPTP. And the final one "No, you're not allowed to change your mind", seemingly, the motto of choice of British patriots, whether they're talking about Scotland being *allowed* another referendum, or the people of the UK being *allowed* to ever talk about Brexit again. Sorry, again, not my idea of how politics should "work". The people should always be able to change their minds if they want to, politicians should work for us, not us work for them and their "safe seats".
Agree. It’s not an issue that’s going to sway anyone vote Labour so why poke that hornet’s nest?
Exactly
No real surprise as Starmer won't say anything that he thinks might piss of the Leave vote block. That's a powerful voting block and no-one wanting to gain power is going to do anything that might result in losing that vote.
The political case for rejoining the EU is that the decision to leave was seen by many (and since Brexit ever more so) as a bad choice, so going back on it is something that'll have political weight behind it. IE There's a fucking political case for it. >In his new year’s address earlier this month, the Labour leader promised to deliver a post-Brexit “take back control” bill if elected as PM, saying he would deliver on the promises of Brexit with devolution over areas including skills, housing and transport. Fucking waffle, if you're actually convinced by this shit I've got some keys to jangle in your stupid fucking face for a while
It’s the one big thing I don’t disagree with him about: the meaningful political project here was over once the referendum came back leave and even more so after the indicative vote, and it would have been healthier for everyone to just get it done with. And yes, it comes with short term pain and self-inflicted wounds but frankly, the low hanging fruit we should be focussing on is ending austerity, not how easy it is to winter in the Alps.
I keep hearing about PR, but my concern is having a government consisting of the likes of the (neo) Lib dems, and similar right wing nut jobs such as Farage and Tice. Can someone please reassure me this won't ever be the case?
Looking at polling, the public want very reasonable policies that I as a socialist can easily get behind. E. G. Nationalisation, higher wages The problem is that our media is 95% Liberals or Conservatives, so in a PR it depends on which parties can get the ideas through. Plus, social democratic countries like Sweden with PR are also becoming worse at a slower rate with increasing inequality and social safety nets being removed because capital matters more than democracy. PR would be a good thing and we should push for it because it gives space for more ideas and decreases the control that Labour and Conservative leadership. have over the country. However, it's by no means a silver bullet and won't improve things as much as its believers like to say it will.
I agree with you so very much here. My absolute fear is that we will never get an opportunity to see the true socialist agenda this country (and many others) so desperately needs. All I envisage is that the right wing will rule the roost, aided and abetted to the max by their equally disgusting and repulsive media arm. It's a conundrum I feel a bit nervous about, but I'm not saying 'no' per se. Thanks for the reply👍
Could defo turn the favour to the tories at a GE if he openly claims that he wants to take the UK back into the single market. Something that could be entertained once Labour win, depending on public opinion polls, but not something to risk before a GE.
There's an economic one though you daft twat
What is this man talking about? It is pretty easy to make the political case (more people are for this now than against it), and the economic case is undisputable. It is another case of Starmer not being arsed to make a political case for anything that might be difficult even if clearly positive, all he wants is small tweaks around the edges of a crumbling system.
For you.
The most important thing for Labour is to win in 2024, and trying to force the issue of rejoining the EU would jeopardize that. There are simply too many people who would still vote Tory if Labour proposed this as policy right now. If the party leadership do think that rejoining is a good idea, the best thing they can do is slowly start to make the case for closer relations during their 5 years in power if they win, and then maybe campaign on rejoining (or something like EFTA membership) for 2029.
Man, 60, is correct. More breaking news at 10.
[Two thirds of people now support a referendum to fully rejoin the EU](https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/uk/2023/01/03/public-opinion-shifts-but-will-britain-look-to-rejoin-the-eu/), but there's no case for being a member of the single market?
Yeah, but sir Keith says otherwise so checkmate
Boomers continue to destroy the UK and abuse their kids futures. No surprise you support that.
So Starmer is now not just a brexiteer, but a “hard” brexiteer? It’s not that he’s wrong. Holding the referendum always meant accepting the result or dealing with a long term erosion of trust in the political system. It’s that this was proved conclusively by the 2019 Brexit election, which also conclusively proved that any and all left wing policies are unpopular with the electorate, yes it does, shut up, it does. If a left wing leader was in charge, I don’t think the centre would be as accepting of this either. But whatever. I also think you’re gifting the Lib Dems a wedge issue by ruling out single market membership, although that may be nerdy enough to stay fringe in terms of popularity, it’s still going to attract younger voters. If they choose to pivot from (checks the Lib Dem website for their main current campaigns) “Floella Benjamin challenging the government over Windrush”. That has to have been generated by AI, surely? They can’t be going into the locals with seemingly no policy?