Shopping at via this link helps to support NSC

[Politics] Labour reinstates Jeremy Corbyn after suspension over antisemitism remarks

Welcome to North Stand Chat - the biggest and best Brighton & Hove Albion fan site.

Go on - join - you know you want to! (Pssst: you'll get fewer ads too!)



Jolly Red Giant

Members
Jul 11, 2015
2,272
I think that you are too keen to write off people with whom you disagree
Hardly - I am a Marxist - very, very few people currently agree with me - writing off people who don't agree with me would be self-defeating. On the flip side - being a Marxist helps me to realise that political change is inevitable, that revolutionary upheavals are inevitable - we have no way of knowing what these upheavals will mean politically - but I have an absolute confidence that working class people will develop a revolutionary class consciousness and will draw the conclusions that the nature of society needs to be fundamentally changed.

and that comes from your lack of self doubt.
Not true - I constantly question my outlook - I constantly review new evidence - and I regularly change my mind on issue after issue.


You see betrayal and weakness everywhere
No I don't - what I see everywhere is working class people constantly working to help and support one another - offering solidarity and compassion - coming together to protect their interests. There is also clear historical evidence to demonstrate that the leaders of the labour movement, have and continue to conform to the interests of the ruling elites rather than the members who pay their wages. Again - this is not a personal failing on their part - the nature of capitalist society and the social and political superstructure built on the economic foundations of capitalism are all designed to force those in leadership positions of working class organisations to compromise.

which will ultimately prevent you from working with others to achieve the outcomes you wish for.
Again - not true - I have and continue to work with people from all shades of political opinion (with the exception of fascists) depending on the issue - including in Ireland with the likes of Sinn Fein, the Irish Blairites and the Irish equivalent of the Tories, Fine Gael. But doing this does not for one moment change the fact that they represent a different social class than I do and will revert to type when the need arises.

History tells us that this kind of dogma does not ever build a consensus so you will never get the opportunity to implement your ideas in a society bigger than a commune. This is the reason Starmer and not Corbyn is now Labour leader.
Going to deal with these in reverse order - Starmer is leader of the LP because the Blairites, with the assistance of the Tories, the media and international imperialism worked together to remove Corbyn. For the Blairites it was more important to defeat Corbyn than to defeat the Tories, just as it was more important for Biden and the DNC in America to defeat Sanders than to defeat Trump, just as it was more important for Kinnock and his cohorts in the 1980s to expel socialists and defeat the miners strike than it was to defeat Thatcher. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved - Starmer and Biden could be decent people on a personal level I don't know - Kinnock who unfortunately I had to spend an evening sitting beside at a fancy dinner is an arrogant, self-centered, condescending prick. Sanders and Corbyn may be assholes - again this is not relevant. It has to do with what they represent politically - Corbyn and Sanders mobilised hundreds of thousands of people with an alternative vision for society - a vision that poses a threat to the rule of capital and a vision that had to be cut off at the knees.

Consensus is the art of maintaining the status quo. Corbyn attempted to build consensus with the Blairites - it blew up in his face and maintained the status quo of the LP as a reserve team of British Toryism. Sanders attempted to build consensus and it led to him, after he was shafted by the DNC, to call for the support of corporate Democrats like Clinton and Biden. My ideas - Marxism - has done a lot more than build a 'commune' (another example of the art of compromise) - and it continues to have an unseen impact across the globe. During the recent US election the state of Florida voted for Trump - on the same day the people in the state of Florida voted by almost 70% to implement a state-wide minimum wage of $15 an hour. The campaign for $15/NOW was initiated by Marxists in 2014, launched by Marxist city councilwoman, Kshama Sawant in Seattle. This Marxist campaign has drawn in hundreds of thousands of workers to the point that by 1 Jan next year 21 states and 26 cities in the US will have a minimum wage of $15 an hour - more than double the federal minimum wage in the USA. Like the establishment attacks on Corbyn - Kshama Sawant has been subjected to the most vicious witch hunt since she was first elected in 2014. Last year a combination of the Republicans and the Democrats in Seattle with the open support of Jeff Bezos (Amazon) spent in excess of $5million attempting to unseat Sawant in the 2019 city council election - they failed - they are now resorting to a legal witch hunt (similar to what Trump is doing with the election) issuing writ after writ to try and stymie the work of Marxists in Seattle. The difference between the approach of Corbyn and Sanders with that of Sawant and the Marxists in Socialist Alternative is that the Marxists will work with anyone on an issue - but will not compromise on the politics.

Finally as regards the 'dogma' - Marxism isn't a dogma (a dogma is an unquestioning belief with undefended certainty) - it is a method of analysis and a guide to action. Marxists recognise that the world and society is in a constant state of change - that these changes need to be analysed and it is necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. It is a guide to action with the ultimate goal being the economic, political and social emancipation of the working class.

I will finish with this quote from an Irish Marxist of yesteryear - James Connolly, from Socialism Made Easy written in 1909 - Revolution is never practical – until the hour of the revolution strikes. THEN it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives, and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings.
 

AK74

Members
Jan 19, 2010
716
You went to the trouble of actually running a word count - that's dedication

It's not dedication, just a personal dislike of essay-length replies on a message board.

But you're clearly a passionate believer in your cause/s, and I genuinely wish you well.
 


Hastings gull

Members
Nov 23, 2013
4,447
Hardly - I am a Marxist - very, very few people currently agree with me - writing off people who don't agree with me would be self-defeating. On the flip side - being a Marxist helps me to realise that political change is inevitable, that revolutionary upheavals are inevitable - we have no way of knowing what these upheavals will mean politically - but I have an absolute confidence that working class people will develop a revolutionary class consciousness and will draw the conclusions that the nature of society needs to be fundamentally changed.


Not true - I constantly question my outlook - I constantly review new evidence - and I regularly change my mind on issue after issue.



No I don't - what I see everywhere is working class people constantly working to help and support one another - offering solidarity and compassion - coming together to protect their interests. There is also clear historical evidence to demonstrate that the leaders of the labour movement, have and continue to conform to the interests of the ruling elites rather than the members who pay their wages. Again - this is not a personal failing on their part - the nature of capitalist society and the social and political superstructure built on the economic foundations of capitalism are all designed to force those in leadership positions of working class organisations to compromise.


Again - not true - I have and continue to work with people from all shades of political opinion (with the exception of fascists) depending on the issue - including in Ireland with the likes of Sinn Fein, the Irish Blairites and the Irish equivalent of the Tories, Fine Gael. But doing this does not for one moment change the fact that they represent a different social class than I do and will revert to type when the need arises.


Going to deal with these in reverse order - Starmer is leader of the LP because the Blairites, with the assistance of the Tories, the media and international imperialism worked together to remove Corbyn. For the Blairites it was more important to defeat Corbyn than to defeat the Tories, just as it was more important for Biden and the DNC in America to defeat Sanders than to defeat Trump, just as it was more important for Kinnock and his cohorts in the 1980s to expel socialists and defeat the miners strike than it was to defeat Thatcher. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved - Starmer and Biden could be decent people on a personal level I don't know - Kinnock who unfortunately I had to spend an evening sitting beside at a fancy dinner is an arrogant, self-centered, condescending prick. Sanders and Corbyn may be assholes - again this is not relevant. It has to do with what they represent politically - Corbyn and Sanders mobilised hundreds of thousands of people with an alternative vision for society - a vision that poses a threat to the rule of capital and a vision that had to be cut off at the knees.

Consensus is the art of maintaining the status quo. Corbyn attempted to build consensus with the Blairites - it blew up in his face and maintained the status quo of the LP as a reserve team of British Toryism. Sanders attempted to build consensus and it led to him, after he was shafted by the DNC, to call for the support of corporate Democrats like Clinton and Biden. My ideas - Marxism - has done a lot more than build a 'commune' (another example of the art of compromise) - and it continues to have an unseen impact across the globe. During the recent US election the state of Florida voted for Trump - on the same day the people in the state of Florida voted by almost 70% to implement a state-wide minimum wage of $15 an hour. The campaign for $15/NOW was initiated by Marxists in 2014, launched by Marxist city councilwoman, Kshama Sawant in Seattle. This Marxist campaign has drawn in hundreds of thousands of workers to the point that by 1 Jan next year 21 states and 26 cities in the US will have a minimum wage of $15 an hour - more than double the federal minimum wage in the USA. Like the establishment attacks on Corbyn - Kshama Sawant has been subjected to the most vicious witch hunt since she was first elected in 2014. Last year a combination of the Republicans and the Democrats in Seattle with the open support of Jeff Bezos (Amazon) spent in excess of $5million attempting to unseat Sawant in the 2019 city council election - they failed - they are now resorting to a legal witch hunt (similar to what Trump is doing with the election) issuing writ after writ to try and stymie the work of Marxists in Seattle. The difference between the approach of Corbyn and Sanders with that of Sawant and the Marxists in Socialist Alternative is that the Marxists will work with anyone on an issue - but will not compromise on the politics.

Finally as regards the 'dogma' - Marxism isn't a dogma (a dogma is an unquestioning belief with undefended certainty) - it is a method of analysis and a guide to action. Marxists recognise that the world and society is in a constant state of change - that these changes need to be analysed and it is necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. It is a guide to action with the ultimate goal being the economic, political and social emancipation of the working class.

I will finish with this quote from an Irish Marxist of yesteryear - James Connolly, from Socialism Made Easy written in 1909 - Revolution is never practical – until the hour of the revolution strikes. THEN it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives, and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings.

It was cut off, as you put it, by millions exercising their right to vote, and they quite clearly decided that his vision was not for them, or indeed practical.
 

CheeseRolls

Members
Jan 27, 2009
5,409
Shoreham Beach
Hardly - I am a Marxist - very, very few people currently agree with me - writing off people who don't agree with me would be self-defeating. On the flip side - being a Marxist helps me to realise that political change is inevitable, that revolutionary upheavals are inevitable - we have no way of knowing what these upheavals will mean politically - but I have an absolute confidence that working class people will develop a revolutionary class consciousness and will draw the conclusions that the nature of society needs to be fundamentally changed.


Not true - I constantly question my outlook - I constantly review new evidence - and I regularly change my mind on issue after issue.



No I don't - what I see everywhere is working class people constantly working to help and support one another - offering solidarity and compassion - coming together to protect their interests. There is also clear historical evidence to demonstrate that the leaders of the labour movement, have and continue to conform to the interests of the ruling elites rather than the members who pay their wages. Again - this is not a personal failing on their part - the nature of capitalist society and the social and political superstructure built on the economic foundations of capitalism are all designed to force those in leadership positions of working class organisations to compromise.


Again - not true - I have and continue to work with people from all shades of political opinion (with the exception of fascists) depending on the issue - including in Ireland with the likes of Sinn Fein, the Irish Blairites and the Irish equivalent of the Tories, Fine Gael. But doing this does not for one moment change the fact that they represent a different social class than I do and will revert to type when the need arises.


Going to deal with these in reverse order - Starmer is leader of the LP because the Blairites, with the assistance of the Tories, the media and international imperialism worked together to remove Corbyn. For the Blairites it was more important to defeat Corbyn than to defeat the Tories, just as it was more important for Biden and the DNC in America to defeat Sanders than to defeat Trump, just as it was more important for Kinnock and his cohorts in the 1980s to expel socialists and defeat the miners strike than it was to defeat Thatcher. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved - Starmer and Biden could be decent people on a personal level I don't know - Kinnock who unfortunately I had to spend an evening sitting beside at a fancy dinner is an arrogant, self-centered, condescending prick. Sanders and Corbyn may be assholes - again this is not relevant. It has to do with what they represent politically - Corbyn and Sanders mobilised hundreds of thousands of people with an alternative vision for society - a vision that poses a threat to the rule of capital and a vision that had to be cut off at the knees.

Consensus is the art of maintaining the status quo. Corbyn attempted to build consensus with the Blairites - it blew up in his face and maintained the status quo of the LP as a reserve team of British Toryism. Sanders attempted to build consensus and it led to him, after he was shafted by the DNC, to call for the support of corporate Democrats like Clinton and Biden. My ideas - Marxism - has done a lot more than build a 'commune' (another example of the art of compromise) - and it continues to have an unseen impact across the globe. During the recent US election the state of Florida voted for Trump - on the same day the people in the state of Florida voted by almost 70% to implement a state-wide minimum wage of $15 an hour. The campaign for $15/NOW was initiated by Marxists in 2014, launched by Marxist city councilwoman, Kshama Sawant in Seattle. This Marxist campaign has drawn in hundreds of thousands of workers to the point that by 1 Jan next year 21 states and 26 cities in the US will have a minimum wage of $15 an hour - more than double the federal minimum wage in the USA. Like the establishment attacks on Corbyn - Kshama Sawant has been subjected to the most vicious witch hunt since she was first elected in 2014. Last year a combination of the Republicans and the Democrats in Seattle with the open support of Jeff Bezos (Amazon) spent in excess of $5million attempting to unseat Sawant in the 2019 city council election - they failed - they are now resorting to a legal witch hunt (similar to what Trump is doing with the election) issuing writ after writ to try and stymie the work of Marxists in Seattle. The difference between the approach of Corbyn and Sanders with that of Sawant and the Marxists in Socialist Alternative is that the Marxists will work with anyone on an issue - but will not compromise on the politics.

Finally as regards the 'dogma' - Marxism isn't a dogma (a dogma is an unquestioning belief with undefended certainty) - it is a method of analysis and a guide to action. Marxists recognise that the world and society is in a constant state of change - that these changes need to be analysed and it is necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. It is a guide to action with the ultimate goal being the economic, political and social emancipation of the working class.

I will finish with this quote from an Irish Marxist of yesteryear - James Connolly, from Socialism Made Easy written in 1909 - Revolution is never practical – until the hour of the revolution strikes. THEN it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives, and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings.

Yes, but is Connolly still fifth best Irish U21 striker?
 

Jolly Red Giant

Members
Jul 11, 2015
2,272
It was cut off, as you put it, by millions exercising their right to vote, and they quite clearly decided that his vision was not for them, or indeed practical.

Corbyn got more votes than any LP leader this century - including Blair - he lost the election because of Starmer's manoeuvre to force Labour to fudge the Brexit policy. Corbyn refusing to back a second independence referendum in Scotland certainly didn't help north of the border either.
 

Weststander

Members
Aug 25, 2011
53,782
Withdean area
Corbyn got more votes than any LP leader this century - including Blair - he lost the election because of Starmer's manoeuvre to force Labour to fudge the Brexit policy. Corbyn refusing to back a second independence referendum in Scotland certainly didn't help north of the border either.

Genuine question. Without Starmer, Thornberry and co trying one way or another to reverse Brexit, what do you think Corbyn would have chosen as Labour’s 2019 GE policy on the EU if given full authority to decide?
 

Jolly Red Giant

Members
Jul 11, 2015
2,272
Genuine question. Without Starmer, Thornberry and co trying one way or another to reverse Brexit, what do you think Corbyn would have chosen as Labour’s 2019 GE policy on the EU if given full authority to decide?

Corbyn should have stuck with his position in 2017 of accepting the referendum result - and campaigned for a left-Brexit rather than the Thatcherite Brexit of the Tories.

The EU is an anti-democratic, imperialist power-bloc established and structured as a counter-weight in competition with US Imperialism to represent the interests of European capital (particularly financial capital) - and now Russian and Chinese imperialism. Socialists should always support any measure that undermines the power and rule of capital - but it is vital to do so on a class basis arguing for the protection of working class interests rather than the interests of the British propertied classes. Starmer's approach of supporting a second referendum was foisted on Corbyn (which he accepted without any real fight in an effort to foster compromise with the Blairites) was designed to undermine Corbyn - not to undermine Brexit - it gave Johnson and the Tories free-reign to attack Corbyn as someone who couldn't be trusted and was willing to flip-flop on a crucial issue for the mass of the British public. It also facilitated handing over the pro-Brexit platform to a bunch of racist (and anti-Semitic) xenophobes.

If you have any doubt about the nature of the EU then you should read some of this stuff - much of it from the EU itself -

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/2015/global/competition

https://hcss.nl/sites/default/files/files/reports/Strategy_Change_PAPER_03_web.pdf

https://www.courthousenews.com/europe-talks-of-an-eu-army-and-dreams-of-sovereignty/

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/us-generals-planning-for-resource-wars-1.940207

And if you want I can also post links with a Marxist analysis on the nature of the EU and on Brexit
 


Chicken Run

Member Since Jul 2003
Jul 17, 2003
16,727
Valley of Hangleton
Corbyn got more votes than any LP leader this century - including Blair - he lost the election because of Starmer's manoeuvre to force Labour to fudge the Brexit policy. Corbyn refusing to back a second independence referendum in Scotland certainly didn't help north of the border either.

Trump iirc got more votes than any Republican Candidate ever, he lost the election because, well he’s a ****, see any similarities?

I know, you don’t.
 

Weststander

Members
Aug 25, 2011
53,782
Withdean area
Corbyn should have stuck with his position in 2017 of accepting the referendum result - and campaigned for a left-Brexit rather than the Thatcherite Brexit of the Tories.

The EU is an anti-democratic, imperialist power-bloc established and structured as a counter-weight in competition with US Imperialism to represent the interests of European capital (particularly financial capital) - and now Russian and Chinese imperialism. Socialists should always support any measure that undermines the power and rule of capital - but it is vital to do so on a class basis arguing for the protection of working class interests rather than the interests of the British propertied classes. Starmer's approach of supporting a second referendum was foisted on Corbyn (which he accepted without any real fight in an effort to foster compromise with the Blairites) was designed to undermine Corbyn - not to undermine Brexit - it gave Johnson and the Tories free-reign to attack Corbyn as someone who couldn't be trusted and was willing to flip-flop on a crucial issue for the mass of the British public. It also facilitated handing over the pro-Brexit platform to a bunch of racist (and anti-Semitic) xenophobes.

If you have any doubt about the nature of the EU then you should read some of this stuff - much of it from the EU itself -

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/2015/global/competition

https://hcss.nl/sites/default/files/files/reports/Strategy_Change_PAPER_03_web.pdf

https://www.courthousenews.com/europe-talks-of-an-eu-army-and-dreams-of-sovereignty/

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/us-generals-planning-for-resource-wars-1.940207

And if you want I can also post links with a Marxist analysis on the nature of the EU and on Brexit

It’s interesting that as a non-right winger you outline this.

I was fully aware of 40 years of strong anti EEC/EC/EU feelings from many in the left in the UK. You know the reasons .... (allegedly) a club for the rich and industrialists eg Krups, VW, EON, Alstom, Volvo and the service sector, a race to the bottom on wages, all cards in the hands of large employers with an endless pool of labour.

Other than @HWT, no other Remainer in this parish seems aware of this and/or ever discusses it. Any talk of being anti EU (even before the lead up the referendum) is seen as solely a far right thing. I get the impression that Remainers warmed to Corbyn and his union friends as being fundamentally pro EU.
 

Jolly Red Giant

Members
Jul 11, 2015
2,272
I get the impression that Remainers warmed to Corbyn and his union friends as being fundamentally pro EU.
Corbyn was never pro-EU. He was boxed into a corner by the Blairites and refused to fight his way out of it.

The main issue around Brexit was the failure of the Left - including Corbyn - to actively mobilise around a left-Brexit. This allowed the right-wing Tories and the likes of Farage, with the support of the reactionary media outlets to frame the issue as a right-wing platform. Many working class people voted for Brexit because they were alienated from the type of society that is at the heart of the EU, particularly the white working class in the former industrial heartlands who blamed the EU for the demise of industry. This is only partially true - the reason for the decline of the traditional industries is the result of a terminal decline in global capitalism - but it was accelerated by the neo-liberal programme of the EU. Following the Brexit referendum the issue was framed as the referendum being passed because of racism and xenophobia - driven by the Remainers, particularly the Blairites. And while there are elements of racism and xenophobia in the vote - it is also a false narrative. Unfortunately, some on the left bought into this narrative and others on the left, like Corbyn failed to give a lead to undermine this narrative.

The Remainers - i.e. the Blairites and the LibDems - never warmed to Corbyn - they didn't trust him because of his history with the EU - and also they were determined to undermine and ultimately remove him because of the potential that those supporting Corbyn to build a mass left movement. As with the objective of ensuring Corbyn's defeat being more important than beating the Tories - similarly, for the Blairites, defeating Corbyn was more important than defeating Brexit - they view the possibility of another EU referendum at some point in the medium term future.
 

Weststander

Members
Aug 25, 2011
53,782
Withdean area
Corbyn was never pro-EU. He was boxed into a corner by the Blairites and refused to fight his way out of it.

The main issue around Brexit was the failure of the Left - including Corbyn - to actively mobilise around a left-Brexit. This allowed the right-wing Tories and the likes of Farage, with the support of the reactionary media outlets to frame the issue as a right-wing platform. Many working class people voted for Brexit because they were alienated from the type of society that is at the heart of the EU, particularly the white working class in the former industrial heartlands who blamed the EU for the demise of industry. This is only partially true - the reason for the decline of the traditional industries is the result of a terminal decline in global capitalism - but it was accelerated by the neo-liberal programme of the EU. Following the Brexit referendum the issue was framed as the referendum being passed because of racism and xenophobia - driven by the Remainers, particularly the Blairites. And while there are elements of racism and xenophobia in the vote - it is also a false narrative. Unfortunately, some on the left bought into this narrative and others on the left, like Corbyn failed to give a lead to undermine this narrative.

The Remainers - i.e. the Blairites and the LibDems - never warmed to Corbyn - they didn't trust him because of his history with the EU - and also they were determined to undermine and ultimately remove him because of the potential that those supporting Corbyn to build a mass left movement. As with the objective of ensuring Corbyn's defeat being more important than beating the Tories - similarly, for the Blairites, defeating Corbyn was more important than defeating Brexit - they view the possibility of another EU referendum at some point in the medium term future.

Thank you for your reply.
 

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
Oct 8, 2003
40,554
Faversham
It’s interesting that as a non-right winger you outline this.

I was fully aware of 40 years of strong anti EEC/EC/EU feelings from many in the left in the UK. You know the reasons .... (allegedly) a club for the rich and industrialists eg Krups, VW, EON, Alstom, Volvo and the service sector, a race to the bottom on wages, all cards in the hands of large employers with an endless pool of labour.

Other than @HWT, no other Remainer in this parish seems aware of this and/or ever discusses it. Any talk of being anti EU (even before the lead up the referendum) is seen as solely a far right thing. I get the impression that Remainers warmed to Corbyn and his union friends as being fundamentally pro EU.

Just had a peek at your conversation with JRG. I have a slightly different take wrt labour and the EU. I'd start by saying that industrial relations, in the nation that matters - Germany, has little in common with ours, so workers' right are generally better favoured inside the EU than out. That, of course, is one of the reasons that the likes of Farrage wanted us to leave. But let's go back in time a bit....

Until Thatcher went for Delors and the Sun decided this had a a nice populist twist that the tories could exploit, nobody was really interested in the common market. We joined but then didn't engage. We were notorious for not even bothering to send people to fisheries etc meetings, let alone put people up for chair. As a consequence decisions were made without our input. Then Thatcher woke up and realised what was happening and, again, instead of making an effort to engage, started waving her handbag about to applause from the plebs in the gallery, and some of her more peculiar back benchers realised she was on to a winner.

At the time, there was no populist working class clamour against the EU (or whatever it was called at the time). But some of the 'types' we all know and deride today found that mocking the frogs and eyeties resonated with their general racist attitudes towards our own british blacks, and the anti EU trope was born. I don't include in this critique the people, like a pal of mine, a businessman who found EU paperwork absurd, who voted leave for rational reasons (even so, my pal has since recanted after seeing the mess that has resulted).

But what about labour? I became a member when Mr Tony binned clause 4 (apologies to JRG - we differ in our views on this and have discussed it all previously - not again please). Europe wasn't really an issue. Labour managed to get little Roberston made a commissioner, but we didn't strongly engage. That was a huge error. We should either have full-steam engaged or full-steam backed off. Obviously I would have preferred the former because, as we see now, the efforts to disengage were bound to cause a bloody mess, and we haven't even properly left yet. However by doing not a lot, especially invoking our own laws about non EU migration, Mr Tony allowed his tory opponents to latch onto an anti EU (and foreigner) sentiment to exploit to Mr Tony's disadvantage. He didn't even appear to know how many non EU migrants were coming into the country. Own goal city.

As an aside, of course the massive irony is that after ten years of tory governments, they too have done almost nothing about non EU migration. Migration from the EU fell off after the tories made it clear there was no guarantee that Polish plumber etc would be allowed to stay here after Brexit. But they allowed the status quo to continue so that the fruit could be picked, the pipes mended, the hospitals staffed (!) etc. Cameron knew this and hoped the nation would understand this too if it came to a vote. Perhaps he should have made the point more clearly....

So back to the main issue, what about labour and, especially, what about Corbyn labour, left wing labour, former militant labour? Corbyn summed it up during the Brexit referendum run up. He said he was 70% in favour of remain. FFS. He may as well have said he was 70% in favour of his wife not leaving him. She would have been off the next day!

So why did left labour have a lukewarm attitude to the EU? Because they are stupid. They don't compromise with the electorate. Every decision in politics is a compromise, based on general and specific objectives and best guess estimates of how to achieve them. If your agenda is to create a word wide socialist Utopia then this is clearly not going to be obtained via the EU, so to all intents and purposes the EU is irrelevant. Moreover any power held off our shores (even if the power is shared by our elected and appointed representatives in the EU) is power outside the control of Corbyn labour. So Corbyn labour don't mind the EU but don't see it as a tool to help the cause. And as noted, in a sitiation like this, if you don't offer wholesale whole-hearted support, folk will be encouraged to consider the alternative.

When I'd had a few in the evening, I often felt like voting leave just to stick two fingers up to everything. All rather nebulous. In the morning, however, just like Churchill said in a different context, 'I'll be sober' and was.

I could have supported leave if there was a justifiable cause and an achievable plan. I was never a great EU fan, but it seemed to me that the best plan was to remain, get properly involved, and change the EU from within. Stop being arrogant Brits, not bothering to engage with JF and then wondering why JF was making plans for Nigel without getting Nigel's explicit approval. In other words, it was time for we Brits to grow up. Instead....

The other irony is this. Having decided that having no arrangements with the EU would be a great wheeze, we are now having to cook up last minute arrangements with the EU to secure some sort of continuity. So a decision based on 'we don't want to negociate with you anymore, we want to take back control' has resulted in a government who, until recently, was being managed by someone who properly understood this and deduced, correctly, that the only way to leave te EU is with no deal and no arrangements. Only when fatty panicked at the last minute did the leader, Cummings, wash his hands of it.

Oh, what folly. A shame Mr Tony took his eye of this ball and allowed Murdock and, heaven forfend, the spiv Farrage to steal the agenda. His second big mistake after imagining there was a need for actual evidence of WMD to justify removal of Saddam. A shame. Hopefully Starmer who has a much finer mind and, as we saw recently, the courage and resolve to act decisevely, won't make similar mistakes. Luckily, also, he doesn't appear to have his equivalent of the querulous Brown to placate.
 
Last edited:

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Top