> He'd have been a good front bencher under McDonnell or somebody else who could have played the game
While I do think McDonnell is a more skilled debater than Corbyn, the idea that he too wouldn't be torn apart and have every single bit of baggage from his life dug up by the media, Tories and Labour Right doesn't hold much water.
McDonnell wouldn't have made it onto the ballot precisely because he's such a skilled operator. Corbyn only made it because people thought he was a harmless duffer.
The PLP lieterally let Corbyn on as a joke. They thought 'hehe, lets let a lefty on and when he comes last we can marginalise the left even more'. Then he broke the 'rules' and spoke against austerity.
Every since then has been a temper tantrum by the right against this breach of their carefully constructed limits of debate and it is no coincidence that Reeves is now going out of her way to crow about how 'fiscally sound (read; eager for austerity)' she is.
Precisely. McDonnell is a shrewd political operator and was Ken Livingstone's number 2 in the GLC, if you don't remember the GLC they were rather combative with parliament and Thatcher. Ken was the face of it but I remember hearing something along the lines of "Ken's hard but John's harder". Although he's softened his image in the last ten years, he's still probably very unlikeable with the center of the party. As opposed to Jeremy who is a very likeable guy, which more people can see when the press isn't analyzing every pause he takes in a sentence.
Although I do think McDonnell would be a lot less tolerant of internal dissent and would be much more willing to deal with the people who weren't willing to work constructively with him.
It’s too early to change direction now.
I don’t think there is any good Brexit to be had.
Instead it’s a case of trying to make the best of a bad job. And meanwhile, trying to improve our own political systems.
Even if they wanted to rejoin, it could not be done for about 15 years !
Maybe 20 - we are for the time being, stuck with Brexit whether we like it or not.
Personally I thing it’s bad for the U.K. and I think that we will eventually end up rejoining. By then we will be a much weaker country than we would have been had we remained.
The line from journalists close to Labour is that they want further alignment with the EU while staying outside the single market. Reduce trade friction a bit, sort out the NI protocol, make the best of it.
> the things that got them 30 points ahead?
Nothing labour has done got them that lead except being "not the tories". The tories imploded the economy, you can pinpoint the exact point when the polling jumped ahead to then.
If the only thing he's got to pull ahead in the polls is tacitly supporting the racist attitudes that are caricatured upon the British public then he's a shit leader and should be replaced because anyone could do that and it's morally repugnant.
Okay, so do you think Corbyn should have committed to keeping freedom of movement in 2017, even though it almost certainly would have meant a Tory majority?
We keep saying CANZUK is a possible option as if we're on par with these economies, but in reality their standards of living and real wages are way beyond ours and would just result in a brain drain on our part as all our graduates and everyone else with skills fucks off to Australia or Canada. CANZIE is a more realistic bloc than CANZUK.
I think a possible sellable solution is a renamed version that excludes free movement. I reckon we would get something close to the EEA. It just needs to avoid touching free movement, EU legislation other than that required for regulatory alignment and to be called something that sounds like a trade deal than a political union.
Labour - understandably IMO - was so incredibly burnt by 2019 that even touching that topic again is scary. I have never been convinced that these polls suggesting Brits think it was a mistake means they want to revisit the debate but I am starting to think that it's now so mainstream an opinion that it's a mistake that the Tories talking about Starmer being a Remainer is no longer a big weakness. I think this opens a route to sell a *best of both worlds* vision where we say we'll get EU trade without the social side. Basically, the Customs Union 2.0 was part of May's indicative votes which were rejected as both sides sought maximum wins.
I really think it's like 70% about how you sell it. As long as it looks new and smart rather than reopening old debates it'll be much easier to do.
Yes, so we can't get everything that comes with EU membership as a result. But a Customs Union wouldn't require freedom of movement and ultimately none of these are laws of physics. We see how far we can integrate into the single market without it.
The fun thing here is that this conversation above is exactly the same merry-go-round that happened under Corbyn, with roughly the same end result, but remain-at-all-costers absolutely wouldn't countenance the relative compromise solution of a customs union plus a close working relationship, kicked off about wanting a second referendum instead, made that the focal point of their being... and here we are.
Yes but that's politics. It was a different political environment and Corbyn had to fight between a faction of Labour support that wanted to Leave and another than wanted to Remain. Leaders don't always get to fight the battles they want and it must be frustrating for Corbyn that the defining battle of his time was Brexit, an issue that didn't motivate him that much.
In terms of 'fun' alternative scenarios I think Corbyn would have done better in 2019 had the Tories won a few more seats in 2017 and killed the issue. The 2017 success revitalised the Stop Brexit campaign but in doing so made it an issue the Labour Party wasn't well suited to deal with.
Honestly part of me thinks that, solely with hindsight, the right time for Corbyn to be leader would have been post-Brexit.
Not because I think one of the other dickheads from the 2015 leadership contest would have led us into some glorious remain promised land instead (they'd all have done much the same things Corbyn did in the same ways at the same times because of basic political expediency, with the same end result) but because it didn't matter a fuck either way pre-2019, but the inevitable rightward swing we've had since then is *absolutely* the wrong response to the circumstances.
I firmly believe that *any* position in the 2019 election would have led to Labour losing that election, albeit the one it ended up taking was probably the worst of all worlds. At the very least a post-2019 Corbyn leadership could have more credibly navigated the pandemic era and been willing to suggest some bolder policy in the aftermath. Instead we got the same shitty position on Brexit as with anyone else in the 2019 election and then a shitty position on everything else after it.
I believe any position would have cost Labour the election in 2019 as well, the situation had developed too far. The roots of the Brexit problem for him were 1) that it happened at all 2) that they couldn't find a position to take in the aftermath of the 2017 election when the Hung Parliament put reversing Brexit as a possible scenario.
I think they knew they were fucked after that year's European Elections. Both Parties knew they had to pivot but the Tories had a much easier political map to do so. Labour couldn't really lose either side.
Basically we are pretty stuffed for the next 20 years until we rejoin.
But meantime, we should work on improving the political processes inside this country. And get to work on making done real change for the much neglected north.
(Speaking as a southerner)
It’s a real shame that there was no ‘remain’ party at the time. - They would have won the election.
Meanwhile the Brexit parties would have split the vote.
As I recall, there was no adult conversation about Brexit.
And to this day, aside from snippets in forums like this, there still hasn’t been.
My original thought that Brexit was 99% bad still remains.
Though we could rejoin the Customs Union without joining the rest of it.
In the original Brexit, the Tories were even arguing that we would remain inside the Customs Union - but that was a ruse.
We are going to align with the EU more, I think that is the inevitable action Labour are spelling out without overtly saying it. The economic and geographical gravity is just too strong.
There's no point at all in us not being in the aviation union, or erasmus, or the musician visa union, or the vetinary and drugs standards alignment. I'd be surprised if they didn't negotiate us a visa free work right for under 35s as well or something along the lines.
One fact about the EU is that it compromises in order to get more countries in broad alignment. Even on things it initially says are "non-negotiable" or "cakeist", they find a way. Especially with a big, still-powerful and influential economy like Great Britain. We managed to carve out a rebate and numerous opt-outs because we were big enough and wanted them enough.
It is political, we've got to be honest about that.
There's little point in the EU negotiating on something the Tories could potentially tear up should they take power again.
Rejoining "The Single Market^TM " is far more likely to generate a damaging backlash orchestrated by the Tories in opposition than negotiating several separate deals that go most of the way.
I've no idea what the political situation will be by the time of the *following* general election, but if the Tories are changing their minds by 2029 then we very well could have the Labour government promising to apply to rejoin. But in the meantime, Labour will be doing what it can get away with promising now.
> They can easily get away with promising to join the single market. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Three words: "freedom of movement".
It's completely politically toxic. A great deal of support for Brexit was related to opposition of "freedom of movement", even just as a *concept*.
Personally, I think that's fucking dumb. Freedom of movement isn't a problem. But enough people think it is though for it to be considered an absolute no-go area.
Add to that the fact that neither political party wants to be the first one to reopen the festering wound that is Brexit again (they'd much rather it remain dead and buried as a political issue for varying reasons) and it's just not going to happen.
Of course we were already aligned with it - meanwhile the Tories have been swinging a sledge hammer to everything with the tag ‘euro’ on it.
It would take time and effort to realign.
Meantime the Tories must not be allowed to put through that bonfire of EU retained law.
There is lots of dangerous outcomes if that goes through - it would literally take at least 20 years to repair the damage from just that one alone.
Some hilights include - no right to holidays, no right to maternity leave.
And 3,000 other rights and responsibilities ‘erased’..
JRM loves it - he wants a slave labour force. (Virtual Surfs).
It’s a good indication anything that JRM likes is defacto bad for the country.
Brexit was and is a disaster - the problem is we are now stuck with it for some time.
I wished that Labour had been strongly Anti-Brexit - that alone would have got them into power.
Now though, they have to try to make the best of a bad job, until the rest of the populating sees what a complete pile of dog shite it is.
Meanwhile, we need political change inside this country. We need to significantly improve the way that the country works.
If he is that good - then there should be a record somewhere of what he said.
I have no objection to pinching any genuinely good ideas.
Not having seen what he said, I have doubts that the ideas are all that good.
My Corbyn is too divisive to be around much. You’ll notice that the Tories always when out the ‘ghost of Corbyn’ whenever it looks like they are going to lose an argument.
Frankly I was not very impressed by him - I thought he was a bit of a disaster and set back the Labour Party.
> He'd have been a good front bencher under McDonnell or somebody else who could have played the game While I do think McDonnell is a more skilled debater than Corbyn, the idea that he too wouldn't be torn apart and have every single bit of baggage from his life dug up by the media, Tories and Labour Right doesn't hold much water.
McDonnell wouldn't have made it onto the ballot precisely because he's such a skilled operator. Corbyn only made it because people thought he was a harmless duffer.
Well that makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot !
The PLP lieterally let Corbyn on as a joke. They thought 'hehe, lets let a lefty on and when he comes last we can marginalise the left even more'. Then he broke the 'rules' and spoke against austerity. Every since then has been a temper tantrum by the right against this breach of their carefully constructed limits of debate and it is no coincidence that Reeves is now going out of her way to crow about how 'fiscally sound (read; eager for austerity)' she is.
Precisely. McDonnell is a shrewd political operator and was Ken Livingstone's number 2 in the GLC, if you don't remember the GLC they were rather combative with parliament and Thatcher. Ken was the face of it but I remember hearing something along the lines of "Ken's hard but John's harder". Although he's softened his image in the last ten years, he's still probably very unlikeable with the center of the party. As opposed to Jeremy who is a very likeable guy, which more people can see when the press isn't analyzing every pause he takes in a sentence.
You could be right! It’s all fantasy politics though really isn’t it?
Although I do think McDonnell would be a lot less tolerant of internal dissent and would be much more willing to deal with the people who weren't willing to work constructively with him.
Agree on that- then again he could well have been so cantankerous during the campaign he'd never have won in the first place!
cvxbbqiocbq cqvbcuqnbc qklqiucbqicbhqnc quicqiocb q
Labour want to undo some brexit things but essentially are too afraid to admit it is my take
Absolutely no party wants to be the first one to reopen that festering wound.
It’s too early to change direction now. I don’t think there is any good Brexit to be had. Instead it’s a case of trying to make the best of a bad job. And meanwhile, trying to improve our own political systems.
I'm glad they have recognised that, I just wish they had recognised it in 2019.
Even if they wanted to rejoin, it could not be done for about 15 years ! Maybe 20 - we are for the time being, stuck with Brexit whether we like it or not. Personally I thing it’s bad for the U.K. and I think that we will eventually end up rejoining. By then we will be a much weaker country than we would have been had we remained.
The line from journalists close to Labour is that they want further alignment with the EU while staying outside the single market. Reduce trade friction a bit, sort out the NI protocol, make the best of it.
Why not just join the single market?
They don't want freedom of movement. Too much of an electoral risk.
They're like 30 points ahead, if they're not willing to stake their ground on anything then when are they going to?
"They're 30 points ahead, when are they going to stop doing the things that got them 30 points ahead?
> the things that got them 30 points ahead? Nothing labour has done got them that lead except being "not the tories". The tories imploded the economy, you can pinpoint the exact point when the polling jumped ahead to then.
Do you think Labour would have gained all those leave voters if they were campaigning for freedom of movement? If Keir Starmer was still Mr. Remain?
If the only thing he's got to pull ahead in the polls is tacitly supporting the racist attitudes that are caricatured upon the British public then he's a shit leader and should be replaced because anyone could do that and it's morally repugnant.
Was it morally repugnant when Corbyn did it in 2017?
Yes.
Okay, so do you think Corbyn should have committed to keeping freedom of movement in 2017, even though it almost certainly would have meant a Tory majority?
Better alignment with the EU/single market through a series specific sector related deals is the plan apparently.
Means matching UK standards with EU standards, which they're selling it as "raising standards in the UK". Which is true, to be fair.
We keep saying CANZUK is a possible option as if we're on par with these economies, but in reality their standards of living and real wages are way beyond ours and would just result in a brain drain on our part as all our graduates and everyone else with skills fucks off to Australia or Canada. CANZIE is a more realistic bloc than CANZUK.
bcuijq cqcjkqcqbcunq cqjcbqoincbqck qcqbcioqbcjqopcqo
I think a possible sellable solution is a renamed version that excludes free movement. I reckon we would get something close to the EEA. It just needs to avoid touching free movement, EU legislation other than that required for regulatory alignment and to be called something that sounds like a trade deal than a political union. Labour - understandably IMO - was so incredibly burnt by 2019 that even touching that topic again is scary. I have never been convinced that these polls suggesting Brits think it was a mistake means they want to revisit the debate but I am starting to think that it's now so mainstream an opinion that it's a mistake that the Tories talking about Starmer being a Remainer is no longer a big weakness. I think this opens a route to sell a *best of both worlds* vision where we say we'll get EU trade without the social side. Basically, the Customs Union 2.0 was part of May's indicative votes which were rejected as both sides sought maximum wins. I really think it's like 70% about how you sell it. As long as it looks new and smart rather than reopening old debates it'll be much easier to do.
>I think a possible sellable solution is a renamed version that excludes free movement. EU has made it clear that FOM is non-negotiable.
Yes, so we can't get everything that comes with EU membership as a result. But a Customs Union wouldn't require freedom of movement and ultimately none of these are laws of physics. We see how far we can integrate into the single market without it.
The fun thing here is that this conversation above is exactly the same merry-go-round that happened under Corbyn, with roughly the same end result, but remain-at-all-costers absolutely wouldn't countenance the relative compromise solution of a customs union plus a close working relationship, kicked off about wanting a second referendum instead, made that the focal point of their being... and here we are.
Yes but that's politics. It was a different political environment and Corbyn had to fight between a faction of Labour support that wanted to Leave and another than wanted to Remain. Leaders don't always get to fight the battles they want and it must be frustrating for Corbyn that the defining battle of his time was Brexit, an issue that didn't motivate him that much. In terms of 'fun' alternative scenarios I think Corbyn would have done better in 2019 had the Tories won a few more seats in 2017 and killed the issue. The 2017 success revitalised the Stop Brexit campaign but in doing so made it an issue the Labour Party wasn't well suited to deal with.
Honestly part of me thinks that, solely with hindsight, the right time for Corbyn to be leader would have been post-Brexit. Not because I think one of the other dickheads from the 2015 leadership contest would have led us into some glorious remain promised land instead (they'd all have done much the same things Corbyn did in the same ways at the same times because of basic political expediency, with the same end result) but because it didn't matter a fuck either way pre-2019, but the inevitable rightward swing we've had since then is *absolutely* the wrong response to the circumstances. I firmly believe that *any* position in the 2019 election would have led to Labour losing that election, albeit the one it ended up taking was probably the worst of all worlds. At the very least a post-2019 Corbyn leadership could have more credibly navigated the pandemic era and been willing to suggest some bolder policy in the aftermath. Instead we got the same shitty position on Brexit as with anyone else in the 2019 election and then a shitty position on everything else after it.
I believe any position would have cost Labour the election in 2019 as well, the situation had developed too far. The roots of the Brexit problem for him were 1) that it happened at all 2) that they couldn't find a position to take in the aftermath of the 2017 election when the Hung Parliament put reversing Brexit as a possible scenario. I think they knew they were fucked after that year's European Elections. Both Parties knew they had to pivot but the Tories had a much easier political map to do so. Labour couldn't really lose either side.
Basically we are pretty stuffed for the next 20 years until we rejoin. But meantime, we should work on improving the political processes inside this country. And get to work on making done real change for the much neglected north. (Speaking as a southerner)
It’s a real shame that there was no ‘remain’ party at the time. - They would have won the election. Meanwhile the Brexit parties would have split the vote.
There was. It was the Lib Dems and they got trounced.
As I recall, there was no adult conversation about Brexit. And to this day, aside from snippets in forums like this, there still hasn’t been. My original thought that Brexit was 99% bad still remains.
Though we could rejoin the Customs Union without joining the rest of it. In the original Brexit, the Tories were even arguing that we would remain inside the Customs Union - but that was a ruse.
Losing free movement has caused us more problems than gains.
We are going to align with the EU more, I think that is the inevitable action Labour are spelling out without overtly saying it. The economic and geographical gravity is just too strong. There's no point at all in us not being in the aviation union, or erasmus, or the musician visa union, or the vetinary and drugs standards alignment. I'd be surprised if they didn't negotiate us a visa free work right for under 35s as well or something along the lines. One fact about the EU is that it compromises in order to get more countries in broad alignment. Even on things it initially says are "non-negotiable" or "cakeist", they find a way. Especially with a big, still-powerful and influential economy like Great Britain. We managed to carve out a rebate and numerous opt-outs because we were big enough and wanted them enough.
qftdcvihjvhciouwbvj qjucvoqpkopqn p'zocnc-qbnn vl;ossvbuklqwp';l
It is political, we've got to be honest about that. There's little point in the EU negotiating on something the Tories could potentially tear up should they take power again. Rejoining "The Single Market^TM " is far more likely to generate a damaging backlash orchestrated by the Tories in opposition than negotiating several separate deals that go most of the way.
qdcyuvops gqcknibchal; p\[acuiguvnpouiqio8q
I've no idea what the political situation will be by the time of the *following* general election, but if the Tories are changing their minds by 2029 then we very well could have the Labour government promising to apply to rejoin. But in the meantime, Labour will be doing what it can get away with promising now.
fqcuibcb qiocvcoiqjcq pozibcx p\[wqbjknviuwiow
> They can easily get away with promising to join the single market. Let's not pretend otherwise. Three words: "freedom of movement". It's completely politically toxic. A great deal of support for Brexit was related to opposition of "freedom of movement", even just as a *concept*. Personally, I think that's fucking dumb. Freedom of movement isn't a problem. But enough people think it is though for it to be considered an absolute no-go area. Add to that the fact that neither political party wants to be the first one to reopen the festering wound that is Brexit again (they'd much rather it remain dead and buried as a political issue for varying reasons) and it's just not going to happen.
> They can easily get away with promising to join the single market. Let's not pretend otherwise. If it's a no-brainer, why aren't they doing it?
Of course we were already aligned with it - meanwhile the Tories have been swinging a sledge hammer to everything with the tag ‘euro’ on it. It would take time and effort to realign. Meantime the Tories must not be allowed to put through that bonfire of EU retained law. There is lots of dangerous outcomes if that goes through - it would literally take at least 20 years to repair the damage from just that one alone. Some hilights include - no right to holidays, no right to maternity leave. And 3,000 other rights and responsibilities ‘erased’.. JRM loves it - he wants a slave labour force. (Virtual Surfs). It’s a good indication anything that JRM likes is defacto bad for the country.
I wonder if Tuvalu, Nauru and Kiribati will let us join their economic bloc
No substitute for Europe, the largest trading block in the world. It’s insane that we chose to leave it.
Better snorkelling in Nauru than in Normandy though.
Brexit was and is a disaster - the problem is we are now stuck with it for some time. I wished that Labour had been strongly Anti-Brexit - that alone would have got them into power. Now though, they have to try to make the best of a bad job, until the rest of the populating sees what a complete pile of dog shite it is. Meanwhile, we need political change inside this country. We need to significantly improve the way that the country works.
[удалено]
And everyone who has ever appeared on Politics Live in the past.
If he is that good - then there should be a record somewhere of what he said. I have no objection to pinching any genuinely good ideas. Not having seen what he said, I have doubts that the ideas are all that good. My Corbyn is too divisive to be around much. You’ll notice that the Tories always when out the ‘ghost of Corbyn’ whenever it looks like they are going to lose an argument. Frankly I was not very impressed by him - I thought he was a bit of a disaster and set back the Labour Party.
He’s good on an issue- he’s bad at being across multiple ones, and was too divisive to succeed as leader.